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.