Monday, September 15, 2008
Welcome
Hello and welcome to our class blog. Here, you will find numerous examples of insightful and critical commentary on the news of the day from students in Bentley College's Honors section of Introduction to American Government (GO100H). I look forward to reading all of your posts and comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I chose to read an article from The New York Times, called "Facebook Politics?" It discussed mainly how McCain has a facebook page and it is very popular. People are posting on it about all different topics related to the campaign. John McCain himself has even responded on a few topics, including calling someone who questioned his age "a little jerk." It is just interesting to see how both candidates have Facebooks, Myspaces, etc. in order to reach to the younger voting demographic. It is also important to note that if this is the only source that voters are going to base their choice on, this information tends to be very innacurate and opinionated. On the other hand, these web blogs allow the younger generations to become passionate about politics, so these posting sites can also be positive. I'm not really sure if I think they are beneficial or not, but they probably start a lot of conversation amongst teens, so they must help a little. I only wonder if the people posting on these sites are doing research on legitimate news sources, or if they are simply basing their opinions off of hear-say. Here is the site for my article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/magazine/14wwln-medium-t.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Hey Mr. Gulati,
Obama is calling for a $5 billion trust fund to clean up the Great Lakes. At this point in the election I don’t understand why Obama would be advertising for the nation to pay more money in taxes. The money for this drastic cleanup is going to come from a raise in taxes on the people. The oil prices are finally starting to come down and the people are not going to want to start paying more taxes at this point. I understand that he is trying to get votes from states who are concerned with this and that cleaning up the Great Lakes will provide a lot of fresh water, but it doesn’t seem logical to propose it at this time. If McCain just eliminates the 16% cut in the funding of the Great Lakes cleanup, I think it will be fine.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-16-obama-great-lakes_N.htm
I read an article from FoxNews that somewhat relates to Ryan’s post. The article focuses on the dwindling online gap between McCain and Obama. The McCain-Palin tandem, especially Palin, has generated a considerable amount of interest from web users. Palin is currently number one on the list of political search terms and her counterpart on the Democratic side, Joe Biden, is not even in the top 10, showing the lack of web interest he generates. In addition, statistics in the article show evidence that McCain and Palin have closed the gap to a reasonable margin, given Obama’s tremendous lead during primary season. Hopefully some of this online enthusiasm comes from younger crowd looking to discover more information about the candidates. Of course Obama is popular amongst the younger demographic but does the lack of interest in Biden show that Palin is luring online interest from the Obama campaign to McCain and herself Or will this online buzz fade as the election draws nearer?
Link: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/17/palin-tops-list-of-online-political-search-terms-but-no-joe/
I chose an article from the New York Times titled, The Candidates on the A.I.G. Bailout". The article highlighted how each candidate felt about the recent 85 billion dollar, AIG bailout by the Federal government. Both canidates talked about how it was so absurd that we have reached this point in our economy, but offered little in terms of a solution the problem though both did say they opposed the bailout, because of the precedent it sets for Wall Street. John McCain even went as far as to call the "basis" of our economy strong. I wasn't really sure how to take that statement considering the market plunge, but I guess we can still say we have a relatively more stable dollar then in the past few months. These comments McCain made about a more reform stance also surprised me because McCain has been one of the people who put these regulations in place and allowed them to go on in his past 2 decades in office. Yet though all the turmoil and recent collapses in the market, oil closed yesterday below 92 dollars a barrel. So while the insurance segment of our market is in turmoil we are finally getting some relief on the oil end. A little economic irony I guess.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/the-candidates-on-the-aig-bailout/
The article I chose to write about is related to the recent buyout of AIG. The government maintains a massive fund solely for incidents as the one that occurred with AIG, as well as the bailouts for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because of this recent activity, the fund's level has dipped below the minimum as set by Congress. Concern has mounted because of the possibility that Morgan Stanley may be on the verge of collapse, as well. In the event that Morgan Stanley collapses, or another, larger company fails and the government feels the need to bail them out, it will most likely be up to the tax payers to cover the cost. In the event this happens, the FDIC will take a short-term loan out from the Treasury, effectively placing the burden of the cost on us. My concern over this issue is whether or not the government should be so involved with the bailing out of these lending houses who acted recklessly.
The article can be found here : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080916/ap_on_bi_ge/bank_deposits_safety
I read an article about McCain's response to the current economy. McCain got a lot of grief for saying the fundamentals of the economy are still strong and he is trying to do a total turn around on that and claim that the economy is a mess. Also he has admitted in the past that the economy was not one of his strongest areas and now is trying to say that he is experienced enough to lead because of his time served on the Senate Commerce Committee. I do not really think McCain knows what he is talking about since he started out saying Americans are better off now than they were eight years ago and now has completely gone back on that. I think he is only responding to what people say in response to him, I do not think he is really coming up with any original ideas or drastically changing his mind in anyway, only trying to please everyone. The article can be found at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/us/politics/17mccain.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=politics
I read an article from politico.com titled “Can Obama Really Pull It Off?” The presidential race is basically tied, even in Electoral College projections and some Democrats are beginning to get very concerned. In a time where our current president is so disliked, a war is deeply questioned, and the same party has been in office for the last three terms, how isn’t Obama leading in every single poll? That’s the most surprising part, Obama is not running away with the election, but the race is neck and neck. Democrats are beginning to get the “case of the wobblies” and Obama supporters are becoming anxious. One significant factor in who will take the presidency are the upcoming presidential debates, the first scheduled for September 26 in Mississippi. The candidate who can communicate with the public and act “very much in charge” during these debates will really increase their chance in winning in November. What is intriguing to me is that neither Obama nor McCain’s strong points are in debating. In a race that is so close, the debates will be a serious factor when people consider who to vote for. It will be interesting to view how each candidate is able to articulate themselves when battling regarding the most important political issues like the economy and the Iraq War. One question that I do have is can Democrats trust Obama as our next president even though he has such little experience on the national level? Especially recently, as the race has drawn significantly closer, Democrats are beginning to worry about their party nominee.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13524.html
In the Politics Nation article "Iraq Becomes a Non-Issue in '08 Campaign", the author argues that the war in Iraq is no longer a relevant hot-topic issue in the upcoming congressional elections. It is quite interesting that in just one year, the Iraq war went from being the most controversial and divisive issue in the election to simply being largely ignored by the American public. Although the article puts much of the blame for this on the economic crisis,I believe that the reason for this is almost entirely due to the successes of the surge in Iraq. Mainstream news networks tend to shun stories of success and happy endings, believing that the masses are not interested in such news. The media seemingly has an obsession with sad stories, as evidenced by the networks' obsession with Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy and the Dow Jones' point plunge. When Wall Street witnesses an unprecedented rise, there is hardly any fanfare. The fact that the troop surge worked apparently isn't attention-grabbing news to the public, which says something sad about the state of this nation.
link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/why_the_war_in_iraq_doesnt_mat.html
The article “Ringing Untrue, Again and Again” from the New York Times was interesting to me. I knew that if something is repeated over and over again, people will think it is true. However, I did not think political candidates would persist in saying things that others have disproven. If people do not check the facts, they could vote on the basis of incorrect information. Correct and updated knowledge is essential to making decisions so this article showed me that people need to be more aware of finding accuracy. I was surprised that Obama has a noticeably lower amount of incorrect statements and yet people view McCain as more honest. This article is also interesting because it agrees with the Republic.com 2.0 when it says that “media fragmentation” lets people see only what they want and therefore enforce their own ideas.
I want to know why people do not seem to care when a candidate lies. Do they state things incorrectly because they know that the majority of citizens will never know?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/politics/18web-seelye.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
I read an article from Real Clear Politics, called "McCain's Fundamentals Problem." The story talked about McCain's false statement that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Also, it talked about the idea that McCain was in a bad situation before he made that quote. McCain has the "privledge" of following George Bush's economy and therefore is handicapped by his presidency. The economy has jumped to the major issue over the War in Iraq and this is the Republican parties worst issue. The stock market is dropping and the unemployment rate has dropped a percentage point since March. The article brings up a great point that if Gore didn't get elected after Clinton's great economic presidency, then why would McCain get elected after Bush's terrible acceptance rate. I'm not sure if the recent jump of the major issue to economy will hurt McCain. I think it might because even though McCain endorses change, the American people might feel unsatisfied unless they have a major change, by switching the presendential party to the Democratic Barack Obama.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/mccains_fundamentals_problem.html?hpid=topnews
As a side note, I'd like to add that last night I watched a sportscenter episode that interviewed John McCain. The reporter said they aired an interview with Obama earlier this year, but it was interesting to see John McCain's endorsement with the sports lovers in the nation.
On Wednesday, September 17 there appeared an article in the Wall Street Journal titled, "Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight." This article was particularly interesting to me because last week I reported on a news story which drew light upon the media's exaggeration of the poor state of the economy. In fact, last week's article plainly stated America's current economy is often unfairly compared to the Great Depression, though it gave very convincing statistics that it is not even in a recession. However, this was before one of Wall Street‘s greatest single-day drops in history (about 450 points). Although the very title of this article in the Wall Street Journal conveys a very negative image (something which the media has perfected to grab the attention of the curios public) one cannot wonder what the real state of America's economy is. Surely we have the "policy mechanisms" in the market today to fight back a depression, but one must ask, is another Depression possible? The author of this article proposes three things that must be done to end this "slumping" economy. "Financial institutions and others need to fess up to their mistakes by selling or writing down the value of distressed assets they bought with borrowed money. They need to pay off debt. Finally, they need to rebuild their capital cushions, which have been eroded by losses on those distressed assets." If it were as easy done than it was said, would we still be in the predicament we see ourselves today?
Here is the link to my article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122169431617549947.html
I read the article "In Rush to White House, 'No Child' Is Left Behind" from the Washington Post. Basically it described how neither candidate has really addressed the issue involving the No Child Left Behind Act. With so many other issues taking the main stage, such as the economy and gas prices, education has taken a back step. But I believe it is actually a huge domestic issue that needs to be talked about much more than the candidates are already. Polls have shown that almost 3 quarters of Americans are dissatisfied with the No Child Left Behind Act and think it should be changed. With that kind of a majority in existence, it explicitly shows the problem that exists with the current plan. I think this article is interesting because it brings up the idea that the candidates don't. I am hoping that in the upcoming presidential debates the education topic gets brought up because it's an important issue that needs to be discussed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402461.html?nav%3Dhcmoduletmv&sub=new
The article that I read is from RealClearPolitics and is titled, "Iraq Becomes a Non-Issue in '08 Campaign." This article causes me to wonder what effect this lack of war interest is going have on the election. My belief is that this is helpful to the Republican Party because the war is an issue that the general public was against. Prior to this being a non-voter issue, democrats could leverage the war and attribute it to the republicans. With this attribution out of the way, it gives the republicans a better chance to win the election. How is Obama going to respond to this lack of interest? Is he going to be able to hold as strong a campaign now?
People’s minds are on the economy. With the recent dips in the market, people are looking for the government to do something to fix the bad times. The issues that the candidates are going to be compared on are how they are going to fix the problem. I predict that much of the debates will be focused on the economy.
Source: Click Here For Article
I read an article posted in the USA Today titled "McCain divided over $85B AIG Bailout". The article talks about how McCain has spoken a number of times about the AIG bailout and yet seems to have different answers each time. Senator McCain first thought that not bailout should have been done, but then after some thinking realized that a large number of Americans have insurance policies, and a retirements within AIG; therefore he changed his mind and decided the bailout should be done. He has also stated that corruption is the cause of the AIG problem, but when asked to give examples the Senator had no exact examples.
The article did not forget about the democratic opponent, who stated that by creating a committee to investigate AIG it would only come to the obviously conclusion that the economic policies are what have failed us. Which Obama said were something McCain had supported for decades.
My question is really whether these recent bank closes will be linked to the republican party, and if so, how hard will it be for McCain to separate himself. The other question is whether Obama can capitalize on the economic problems, and how much will the voters trust Obama’s knowledge of the Economy.
Matt Nadeau
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-17-McCain-AIG_N.htm
The article I read is called "The Early Word: Economics on the Trail." It talks about how the issue of economics is resurfacing on the campaign trail as the election gets closer. The article mostly highlights certain weaknesses of McCain on the topic of economics. Both candidates take on the position that the economy needs to undergo a big turn-around, however, McCain seems to have contradicted himself on several occasions, unable to decide if he supports a low or high level of government regulation of the economy. First of all, it is interesting to see how this article is clearly against McCain, as it points out only his flaws. Second, it is interesting to see how the focus of campaigns can swing and favor one candidate over the other. This new economic focus will be an opportunity for the Obama campaign to bring the attention away from Sarah Palin and cultural politics and back to McCain and the issues where he is weaker.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/the-early-word-whos-winning-on-the-economy/
The article that I chose to read is titled, "Amid turmoil, McCain turns to regulation ; Market intervention critic rapidly recasts stance". It talks about McCain's response to what has been going on with the economy recently. He says that there needs to be more regulation on Wall St. I thought this was interesting because McCain refers to himself as a "fundamental deregulator". Saying that more regulation is needed shows that he is changing his views to adapt to the new circumstances. This is not necessarily a good think because McCain is prone to changing his views based upon different situations.
This is the link to the article:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/18/amid_turmoil_mccain_turns_to_regulation/
"Pact on Debates Will Let McCain and Obama Spar"
The article talks about the agreements made between both the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign about the structure of both the presidential and vice presidential debates. The Vice Presidential debate is what really interested me within the article. Palin advisors wanted less open discussion and more direct questions which will limit the interaction between the candidates themselves. After watching her RNC speech, I see no problem with letting her and Biden spar. From previous readings on Palin it seems intimidation is her strongest trait. It seems that the McCain camp will only talk about the “Executive” experience of Palin when it benefits his choice for picking Palin; then when the Debate commission wants to set up a fair and informative debate, the McCain campaign states that Palin is a rookie debater. Let her attack Biden, see if she can keep up with the senior members of Washington. We saw other governor’s debate throughout the primaries; there were no special privileges for them.
Will foreign leaders ask only direct questions? Negotiates and communication are a key parts of diplomacy, and the debate is a long standing part of the political process. Should debates be modified because particular candidates don’t feel comfortable in them? Does good debating represent good negotiations and leadership, or does it simply mean you can memorize prepared answers to be rattled off?
It seems to me that the role of President or even Vice President might be filled with new uncomfortable situations. Will Joe Biden really be the most intimidating force the Vice President will face?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Post a Comment