Cigarette, anyone????

I was watching the Letterman Show the other night with my dad, and Letterman brought to Herman Cain’s most recently advertisement. I may have never been more dumbfounded in my life. For those who have not seen it, it features Mark Block – Cain’s chief of staff- stars in the leading role. He discusses the campaign himself, and offers that Cain’s promises will bring a unity to the country and other wonderful things. The best piece of action is by the last 10 seconds of the 1 minute clip, Mark Block takes a drag from his cigarette, while looking directly at the camera. That image then transitions to Herman Cain smiling. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5lfsENdYzU

As expected, people have gone crazy over the image of Block smoking on screen in such a big advertisement. It may just be part of the ideological trend Americans are on right now. What I mean is this- 40 years ago, majority of people smoked cigarettes and cigars on screen. Now today, with new information on the effects and image of smoking, very little is seen of it. It is almost kept as a personal secret. However, thousands have lashed out at the Cain campaign and criticized their strategy. I found a clip of Cain defending the ad, saying that they believe in “let Block be Block”, and capture the image of the true person that they are. He admits they didn’t expect such attention from the 1 minute advertisement.  Check his response out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_L9CiWsxoo&feature=related

The image of Block smoking in the end of the video has done no good for the campaign. If anything, it’s hurt it and brought to light just how little his team considers before advertizing Herman Cain. What’s funny is, I’ve already forgotten what Block said in the beginning of the commercial. All I remember is his cigarette. No, it doesn’t mean that they endorse smoking. But by presenting it in such a fashion, it gives the impression that the campaign does.

When it comes to ads, you don’t want your ad to cause someone’s mind to wander against what you are selling. For example, everything in the commercial needs to reflect what you are selling. Let’s face it; a “SLAPCHOP” is really exciting! And so is their spokesman. It’s a clear image of what you are selling and makes me believe that it is an exciting product. The Cain ad has caused people’s minds to wander about why that image is so inconsistent with anything Cain represents.

The first thing that came to my mind was that a tobacco company has given the campaign money and they need to represent their brand. My second impression was that they’re all incredibly inexperienced commercial managers.

Having an ad that starts with a testimonial on Cain’s strengths, and ending with cigarette smoking is like mixing Apples and Oranges.... and that just doesn’t work.

Bachmann's Borders

I’ve been looking up a lot of information on Bachmann right now, specifically on her views on Immigration. It’s funny that we consider Immigration an issue, despite our nation’s history with immigration. Let’s face it, majority of our families cannot be traced back prior to the 1800s. And if yours can, then that’s awesome! My family came from Puglia, Italy. I also had some family come from Austria.

But historically speaking, our country grew out of immigrants. For New York specifically, New York City comprised of Dutch, German, Irish, English, and African American in the early 1700s! Only until recently in the last couple decades has Immigration been a serious problem in the American eye.

Though we’ve progressed and found dignified ways to discuss the issue, the first thing that comes to mind when someone mentions “immigration” is building a fence. How primal. In fact, Michele Bachmann has outspokenly committed to building a fence along the entire southern border of the country. In doing so, she believes this will prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country from Mexico via land. The sense is this action would be done on a national level, or making it a nation action of sovereignty and control. However, she also begs for the government to support State’s action in the fight against illegal immigration, to such degrees as Arizona’s state immigration enforcement.

But yes she knows that stopping illegal immigration takes more than a fence. She has taken a stance on denying benefits that attract aliens to America in the first place. In a GOP debate, she mentions student discounts and commercial job opportunities as a main attraction, or magnetism, is a main drive for people to come to this country illegally. As far as pathway to citizenship, she opposes the process of granting citizenship to those who’ve worked and lived in here illegally and rewarding them with citizenship.

What boggles my mind over the whole question of immigration is that they AUTOMATICALLY think of Mexico as the problem. Though there are more illegal people coming from there, don’t you think it’s unfair to put up a border on ONE land border, and not the other one? I think there’s something really messed up about that. Think of our northern border, is there a problem up there with illegal immigration? There are roughly 70,000 illegal Canadian immigrants here, working jobs and not paying taxes. Am I sickened to say think that no one thinks of this as part of the problem because Canadian immigrants white? ….

That statement may seem horrible to assume or even publish here, but I find it to be an interesting topic of discussion. What if millions of people were coming from Canada? What if Canada was transporting illegal drugs through their border too? Would we build a wall up there? Would Bachmann grant them citizenship? I’m not entirely sure myself.

Media Network Bias

VERY good clip about the media and bias opinions in major networks in terms of the national coverage of presidential elections. He states that there are very little conclusions made on news converage simply because each network upholds their own ideological opinion. Check it out!

Local Media vs. National Media

Robert Woodward of Drake University discusses how the media impacts Iowa on caucus night in 1988. He shares that the LOCAL press actually has a lot of outreach in this part of the race over national news. He also shares that the press impact will only increase, globally, as the candidates move onto New Hampshire shortly after.

The Press on Primary Cities

This is a quick clip about the media and how they portray the locations in which they cover stories. This is from the 1984 election. There is mention on how the Republicans have a better grip on manipulating the television press, and how the stereotype of primary cities and how it helps the press identify with the events that are actually happening.

I'm Mad as Hell!

It’s amazing how the Oct 18 Republican debate features some of America’s best CHILDREN. Yes, I said it. I’m incredibly sick of the sparring match between politicians that has become almost as popular as “The Jersey Shore” reality TV that ALSO features some of America’s best CHILDREN. Rick Perry, you are a child. Mitt Romney, you are a child. Perhaps my anger (which is revealed through my caps lock method of typing) is coming from my recent lack of sleep and constant state of delirium, but maybe I’m actually definitively right on this one. Our politicians are children.

I say children because of how children operate- pointing fingers, no attention span, blaming the other person just to win, and begging for attention. I think Perry and Romney have the “Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!” syndrome. And for what purpose? Support? It’s a complete distraction from the ACTUAL issues that seriously need to be respected and heard by the American public.

Imagine if we actually lived in a world where candidates spoke, and regardless on their feelings for another’s opinion, they state their own with dignity and let the public decide for themselves.

I was seriously disappointed when Herman Cain wasn’t drilled for his 9-9-9 plan, which now is taking up more steam, and of course re-developing it to gain more ground, and was completely overshadowed by the bickering and finger pointing tactics of two seemingly qualified politicians that prevent them from being taken as such men of intellect and capability.

George Carlin has a stand up routine that is revolved around voting. In his hilarious criticism, he explains that he doesn’t vote because he doesn’t want responsibility for picking an idiot to run the country. I find it funny when he goes against the common phrase and says that those who voted don’t have the right to complain, because they actually made the choice to trust who they chose.

I’m very wary about this election coming up as far as candidates go. Sometimes, I’m impressed. Sometimes, I’m appalled by childish game play that floods our TVs…and we accept that as normal?  I’m done with thinking that, folks.

“I’m mad as hell, and I’m not gonna take it anymore!”

1988 Democratic Platform draft.

Congressman Gray discusses the status of the first draft of the Democratic Platform in 1988. He also says which issues were still in development for the party. He also shares the process the platform goes through before it is finalized.

Democratic Platform in '92

The Democratic strategy in creating a Platform that could battle the years of Republican policy that they were up against in the 1992 election. Two representatives from the Clinton campaign talk about how they will change what Republicans have done and a quick statement on how the Platform document is to be drafted and served.

1992 Republican Platform discussion

An interesting perspective on Corporate American in the 1992 Election from the Republican Platform perspective. Discusses the ideas of a corporate, free American and why it is vital to the platform and views of the Republicans in that race.

Obama War

It seems like longer than 3 years that the United States was deciding over Obama or John McCain. I will always remember that election specifically since it was my first election in college. Seeing things from another angle, and meeting people who have different perspectives gives you a sense of what everyone else sees. It was really a cool treat to see my family discuss the candidates differences and what they wanted in the next president, and my new friends discuss the same issues and wants but from a million different points of view.

I remember that John McCain’s image was centered on security, homeland security. It was almost as if he was the old Uncle Sam that if you voted for him, he’d protect you from harm. For, at that time, we were engaged in 2 wars- one in Iraq, and the other in Afghanistan.

A few days ago I was in class, and a conversation came up about the upcoming election. A friend of mine in that class took a strong stance against the action to re-elect President Obama because of how he handled and carried the wars that he inherited from the Bush years. It was a very confusing conversation. This friend has been dating, and is now engaged to a man in the military who is currently serving in Afghanistan. She became very vocal about voting for the opposite party, not because she felt Obama is a bad president over all, but because he prolonged the pull out of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite his words in 2008. What’s overall confusing with the conversation is that she voted for Obama in the 2008 election.

How long is too long? How much time does a soldier need to spend overseas before it becomes a concern? When there is a pull out of troops, she felt, why did her loved one’s company have to stay for an extra tour when they should be out of there to begin with?

These kind of questions are circling around, not only my friend’s head, but millions of other relatives and loved one’s of US Soldiers. Now, I’m not downplaying or ignoring that in Obama’s time in office, he did succeed in securing the life of Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and officially call an end to the Iraq War. I personally feel that the events happened in a way that time allowed them to, securely.

What I’ve been struggling with this week is trying to determine whether or not my friend fell victim to the “Obama Syndrome” that spurred from the 2008 campaign. I define “Obama Syndrome” as “if I vote for him, he will do something for me.” I mean, it’s a key component of the Democratic Party for over 100 years. Certain people felt they’d get tax cuts, welfare, jobs, college tuition regulation, etc. You name it and someone probably voted for him so they could get that out of Obama like he said he would give out. For my friend, and millions like her, they felt their loved ones would be home much sooner than later with Obama in office, and since his failure to deliver in a large capacity, how much will his campaign suffer for people looking for the security of their nation, and their loved one’s back home?

Republican Chances in 2008

A look prior to the official nominations of candidates. Amanda Carpenter discusses how Republicans would feel if McCain was to run agains Hilary Clinton, or Obama. She discusses the repercussions of each senerio, and where votes would go to depending on the outcome of the Democratic Nomination.

2008 Democratic Convention

A peak into the preparations of the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver. 

Planning the Convention for the Public

This is a brief segment featured on CSPAN after Obama announced he would accept the Democratic Ticket as candidate in 2008. This clip discusses the PLANNING of a Convention, and how organizers need to consider venue, people, amounts, ticket sales, and the political context which changes around this one event. I found it pretty interesting.

Occupy Voters

I was thinking today about Occupy Wall Street. I suppose it was inevitable to think of them since I live 5 minutes from their home base in the Financial District in New York City. I understand their purpose. I understand their problems full-heartedly. I understand their desire and want for their voices to be heard on a large and small scale.

I also suppose I haven’t given them the time of day- for me they are the occasional blockaders of the Brooklyn Bridge and the every so often traffic jammers on Broadway marching up Chamber’s street.

But clearly, the movement and their message are reaching other cities in the country after a month of protesting in New York. Mark Landler of the New York Times wrote an article on their message in front of the White House in Washington D.C. about a week ago.

His article got me to see their protestors not as angry middle class, but as a completely ignored ‘demographic’ for the presidential candidates. Specifically for President Obama, this is a huge opportunity to win a great number of votes and backing from people who are disappointed in his policy. I believe he recognizes that speaking to the Occupy Wall Street marchers is a way to steal votes from the Republicans, and gain back people who may have originally supported him in the 2008 election.

The article mentions that Obama has been known to be the “defender of the middle class”.  What also can bring a great support of voters to the Democratic Party this coming election lays in the labor unions that had marched with the Anti- Wall Street protesters.

 Landler writes that “the decision by organized labor to join the demonstrations has given them an extra jolt of numbers and credibility, since unions have historically played an important, but waning role, in mobilizing voters on the left. ‘There’s been a lot of talk about how the progressive base is demobilized,’ said Robert Creamer, a longtime organizer for progressive causes. “Not only do I believe this will inspire the progressive base, the same way that Tunisia inspired Egypt, but President Obama has framed up the issues perfectly.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/07/us/politics/occupy-wall-street-protests-offer-obama-opportunity-and-threats.html)

Despite sparking a flame in potential supports, Obama has yet to keep the flame lit and completely gain the movement’s trust. Based off of his current term, many of the protesters claim that Obama hasn’t done enough to correct the problems they are fighting, which have been in the American economic system for quite some time. They criticize his bail out plan for banks, and leaving the people in the dark. Though the movement party was not looking to be associated with a political party, analysts say that if Obama takes a new perspective for this outlook on the 2012 presidency, he can gain a good support of passionate, and justice hungry supporters.

Cain's Hope in the Three 9's

If you asked anyone a couple weeks ago, I’d be surprised if they considered the election appeal and value of Herman Cain to be significant. Recently, Cain’s popularity boosted with the proposal and support of his 9-9-9 economic plan. The 9-9-9 plan has become his starting pitcher and long ball hitter for his campaign. However, the argument hovering around the plan is if the proposed plan actually holds water. Economic specialists have been toying with the plan and are trying to determine and outcome for whether or not the plan will work as Cain suggests that it will.

Cain is promoting this plan on the belief that the 9-9-9 will directly put more money into Americans’ pockets with a flat tax system. For some Americans, that may be true- but for others it is a continuation of unfair tax harassment. An article written by Jackie Kucinich of USA TODAY quotes Mike Franc’s speculation that the 9-9-9 seems amazing now, but is inevitably subject to inflation. As inflation rises, the 9-9-9 plan can easily rise too, becoming 18-18-18 or even higher. I’ve put the link to this article at the bottom of this posting.

Another side effect of the 9-9-9 plan is around who is benefitting the most from it. With Cain’s plan, the rich would receive tax breaks, and heavy burdens would be placed on the lower class- people who are looking to receive a little relief from the confusing and overbearing tax system as it is.

In a separate article by McClatchy- Tribune News Service (link below), Bruce Bartlett, of George Bush (senior) era, says that with the 9-9-9 plan "the poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut, with no guarantee that economic growth will increase and a good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase.” The article goes on to explain that “That's because two of Cain's three 9s -- the income tax and the national sales tax -- would disproportionately affect the 47 percent of tax filers who don't pay any federal income tax under the current system -- many of whom are elderly or poor. The extra money paid by these people would in effect subsidize the huge tax break for wealthier Americans who currently pay as much as 35 percent in federal income tax.” (http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/10/will_herman_cains_9-9-9_tax_pl.html)

With this hazy future of the 9-9-9 plan, is this something that Herman Cain should be using as his forefront issue and his most popular campaign mission? If the American public continues to support this candidate only on this issue, who is responsible if the plan is not executed or delivered the results it hoped for? This brings me back to “belief”. The plan seems to offer little facts, but how can it be supported and boost his ratings in the race for the presidency if there are no clear cut facts yet? Is this the same as the Obama “HOPE” message? With Obama’s low approval rating now, doesn’t that say that what people voted for was never seen? I’ve been confused and questioning this in terms of politics myself this whole week. I suggest the way to avoid this confusion is directly from the candidates themselves, not with ideas, but clear execution and fact.

Cited from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-10-10/herman-cain-9-9-9-tax-plan/50723976/1

Obama's Chances

Ask anyone regardless of political party, in 2008 current president ran a hell of a campaign to gain his seat in the White House. No one can take away the power he generated, the money he raised, and one of the most influential campaign wins in United States history. Most recently, however, the hope for Obama has shifted. He is currently in deep water.

I recently had a conversation with a friend about the Obama term since 2008. I suppose our conversation turned into debate after a few minutes, but a friendly debate nonetheless. We started discussing how each of us felt on Obama’s current situation. It’s interesting to see how my friend felt about Obama and why his approval ratings have sank. She expressed how she felt he couldn’t get as much done because of situations in which he inherited, or problems that he couldn’t anticipate that changed the way his presidency was unfold.

I was recently reading an article on whether or not Obama is truly an ‘underdog’ in the 2012 election.  Most Republican candidates and other Republican party supporters see Obama as the underdog in this election. Looking at the general numbers- unemployment is hovering just over 9%, Obama’s approval rating is in the 40% range, and 77% of the nation says that the country is headed in the wrong direction.

But looking at the numbers is a very naïve thing to do if you’re a Republican. Remember, Obama raised millions of dollars for the campaign in an impressive amount of time. Not only was Obama able to raise money, he was able to gain votes in very interesting places- North Carolina and Virginia voting for Obama, along with New Mexico and Ohio.  

A great point the article from www.telegraph.co.uk mentions that Obama also significantly won the election last year with 365 Electoral Votes. He holds major ground in Electoral Vote worth in very influential states.

I bring up my friend’s comment in this blog because I think it makes a valid statement on how people perceive Obama through his tough run as president.  For some, Obama has shown an effort to correct the problems of the country in ways that he feels he can- Jobs Plan, Health Care, and even global terrorism have all been addressed in the last 3 years.  Perhaps if the economic plummet hadn’t happened he would be able to do more, and like he planned in his 2008 campaign.

Personally, I do think Obama is an underdog in this upcoming election.  I think there is enough discontentment that may or may not be his personal fault that can plague his chances of being re-elected by a majority of the public who only see the issues that have held his presidency back, rather than the efforts he has made to progress it. If he relies only on his popularity, he’s in trouble.  But to say that his approval rating alone will keep him from the White House is certainly incorrect.

Consider not only what anyone says on the campaign trail, but their ability to execute in any given situation.

Mentioned Article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8779504/US-Election-2012-Is-Barack-Obama-an-underdog.html

On Third Party Politics

Professor Pitney lays out the role of Third Party politics in contemporary politics and in the general history of American Politics. He states what the essence of what a Third Party has and what can excel, or stiffle their chance in an Election.

The National Green Party

A look at something that isn't Republican or Democrat. The National Green Party members Lo Camberlain and Mike Feinstein discuss the views and political moral of the Green Party. They discuss how Republican and Democrats have seemingly merged into it's own machine, leaving millions of voices left unheard and unrepresented.

Social Conservatives in 2012

Tom McClusky speaks about the role of Social Conservatives in the 2012 election. He describes what kinds of issues these conservatives want concentration on. Moral and marriage values are issues that have often been overseen with all the Economic concerns.

Palin and Christie are "outsie".

This week, two major political Republican figures have announced that they will not be running for the presidency. One of which is New Jersey governor Chris Christie, who has received a fair amount of pressure to run in the 2012 election. I posted a seemingly joking video on him saying “No” to the offer. But as I got over the humor of his responses, I have a fair amount of respect for him giving the answer that he did. He states that in order to run for president, the candidate must know that they are ready in their heart and soul to take on such a powerful position of office. Whether or not I personally want him to run or not, I can respect a Politian who knows that the job would be too much at his current state of mind and personal place. He never bashed being the governor of NJ while he declined the pressure to run for President. I think it also shows a realization that Christie is well aware that the presidency is no joke, and the responsibilities in which it holds are something that he is not capable of at this moment. I’m not sure how many people are upset that he’s not running, but I feel people certainly can respect his decision to not fool the American people into thinking he is something that he isn’t.

The second of the Republican “No Shows” for this upcoming election is Sarah Palin. I’ve gotten my Sarah Palin jokes out of the way… And that is exactly my point for why I, surprising, respect her decision in a positive way. Most see her as a cartoon character. But I wouldn’t say that she’s dumb. She’s is an amazing self promoter and, really, has boomed in the last 3 years because of that self promotion.  I don’t look at her decision to sit out this round as a “doing this nation  a favor”. Some people would want her to run because of the publicity, and sheer entertainment she’d bring to the election. Perhaps she’s better than that. Perhaps we are fools for buying into the “Palin joke” mentality that is easy to fall into. From CNN.com, she states : "As always, my family comes first and obviously Todd and I put great consideration into family life before making this decision," Palin said in a written statement. "When we serve, we devote ourselves to God, family and country. My decision maintains this order."

Take her comments the way you will. But like Christie, I respect her decision. If she went against her morals and simply ran just for the publicity, she wouldn’t be serving the country as dedicatedly as she says she does, and frankly has been aiming to do since the 2008 election.

Sure , they might seem funny to us- these giant political cartoons- but they’re decisions are worth of a little respect from us, the American public. Leave the jokes at home, folks, because they thought this through.

Cited: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-05/politics/politics_palin-presidency_1_palin-family-sarah-palin-gop-presidential-hopefuls?_s=PM:POLITICS

How many ways can Christie say NO in under 2 Minutes??

The Youth Vote in 2008

Alexander Heffner discusses what happened in the 2008 election with the youth vote turnout. He says that the youth were appealed from the get go with Obama because they saw the immediate chance for change with his campaign in regards to the younger generation.

Perry and Palin with the Youth vote

Howell and Blue discuss Perry and Palin and their roles in the Primarys. Who is to favor who, and do their policies and image represent what younger voters are looking for.

Main concern for Young Voters

Zach Howel ( National Chairman of College Republican National Committee ) and Ian Blue (College Democrats of America) discuss what issues mean the most to the young voters as we creep towards the 2012 election.

Mystery Money

Politics is something that most people feel disconnected from. It is an entity of itself that sometimes feels untouchable and even unchangeable. Though our political system was designed, in theory, for the people to serve and communicate with its government, it has not always played out in such a way in practicum. This reality is one of the causes of a separation between the common people, the class system, and whom a president actually serves. Yes, I’m poetically beating around the bush: politicians serve those who have money.

Though this theory may not be completely true, it certainly feels like it. And it seems we always come down to the question “does money influence politics?”.  If we look in terms of presidential campaign fundraising, there are arguments that it could quite possibly be true. In a featured segment on the power of PAC’s,  The Dylan Ration Show discussed how politicians who run for presidency can gain control of their money, and create power and a voice through the amount of money they have to campaign with.  The segment lists figures on how much money presidential candidates spent for office. In 1976, candidates spent 67 million dollars. In 2008, the number skyrocketed to 1.3 Billion dollars.

You would think that with so much money being spent, the government would be able to cap off how much money a candidate can receive. Well, they can. In fact, in a case called “ Buckley vs. Valeo”, Congress determined that money equals voice, and they would only be able to limit contributions and not spending itself. The development of PAC (Political Action Committee) has changed the front of campaign finances. The individual group can give money to the candidate and party they chose, which will increase the money they have, which increases the volume of their voice on the campaign tour.

Allow me to clarify myself in terms of how I see Money = Speech. I think we can look at this formula as The amount of money= the volume of speech. In my perspective, the more money someone has on a campaign trail, the more resources they can unlimitedly spent on, allowing their image, message, and voice be heard in a much larger and more accessible way. For example- if a candidate A has 5 million, and candidate B has 20 million, candidate A has only 25% of the financial opportunities that B has. In this sense, money does equal speech.

This opens up problems on the campaign trail between candidates and the PAC, and other groups, that give them the ability (money) to eventually win an election. With money creating power, politicians may feel obligated to go against their morals and stances, and support issues that they don’t believe in, but will give them money to get into office. With government not being able to regulate mystery sourced money in the campaign financial system, politicians will continue to stay, seemingly, far away from an honest cause and service of the American people.