Since this week's topic was the 2008 election, I tried to find an article that had something to do with one of the candidates.
This article is about Sarah Palin and her family's travel expenses. About $7000 of Alaska's state funds were spent for her family to travel with her and the article states there is no wrong in that. However, an investigator "interpreted the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act to require that the state only pay if the first family serves an important state interest," which he claims they did not. The article goes on to list what the expenses were for, such as her daughter attending a play and air fair to the Iron Dog snow machine race.
Palin suggests that this claim was "an obvious political weapon" since it was filed right before the election. Either way, she agrees to reimburse the state funds she used.
Enjoy!! :)
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Candidate vs Party Centered Elections
No doubt, 2008 was a historical election. Besides electing the first African American president, I think campaigning changed a lot too.
Although the presidential candidates do have responsibility to their parties, I think this election was more candidate-centered. Rudy Giuliani for example, definitely ran a candidate centered campaign while he was in the race. Although he was running for the Republican nomination, his policies were not in line with those ideals most important to Republicans: gun control, abortion and gay marriage. John McCain’s campaign was also more candidate-centered than party centered. Although he was the most conservative of the candidates, he was also most hated among the party faithful for some choices he had made previous to running, (Cohen, Page 18.) So although he held up the ideals of the Republican Party, there was still tension within. Because of this, I do not think the 2008 candidates were constrained by their net roots. However, I think candidates are always somewhat constrained by the electorate. They are the ones you’re trying to convince and if you do not resonate with them, you will not win the nomination or the presidency.
Like I said, the 2008 election was more candidate-centered and I believe that most of this is due to the internet and other technologies. In the present time, candidates seem more accessible. They market themselves using MySpace and Face book, and when their funds are running low, you get an e-mail asking to donate $5 from the candidate, not from the party, which shows that both candidates made good use of the internet in their campaign to raise money and reach potential voters, which teachout talked about. You get to know the candidate better by watching Oprah, or The View, or other soft media and you see what they are like and how they live. Soft media, which is how most people get their news, focus on the person and not the party, which has caused a shift in campaigns.
With all the good things about media though, comes the bad. Because of media, politicians and congressional candidates are much more vulnerable. With every cell phone having a video camera now, any mistake any politician makes can be recorded and put on you tube for people to view forever. If a candidate accidentally falls (Dole) or lets out an enthusiastic scream (Dean) it can haunt them forever and really harm their campaign. And congressional candidates are no exception. Since not as many people follow their campaigns, every little thing they do is important.
Image is of growing importance in all political elections, and media has created more candidate-centered elections, which can help and harm at the same time.
Although the presidential candidates do have responsibility to their parties, I think this election was more candidate-centered. Rudy Giuliani for example, definitely ran a candidate centered campaign while he was in the race. Although he was running for the Republican nomination, his policies were not in line with those ideals most important to Republicans: gun control, abortion and gay marriage. John McCain’s campaign was also more candidate-centered than party centered. Although he was the most conservative of the candidates, he was also most hated among the party faithful for some choices he had made previous to running, (Cohen, Page 18.) So although he held up the ideals of the Republican Party, there was still tension within. Because of this, I do not think the 2008 candidates were constrained by their net roots. However, I think candidates are always somewhat constrained by the electorate. They are the ones you’re trying to convince and if you do not resonate with them, you will not win the nomination or the presidency.
Like I said, the 2008 election was more candidate-centered and I believe that most of this is due to the internet and other technologies. In the present time, candidates seem more accessible. They market themselves using MySpace and Face book, and when their funds are running low, you get an e-mail asking to donate $5 from the candidate, not from the party, which shows that both candidates made good use of the internet in their campaign to raise money and reach potential voters, which teachout talked about. You get to know the candidate better by watching Oprah, or The View, or other soft media and you see what they are like and how they live. Soft media, which is how most people get their news, focus on the person and not the party, which has caused a shift in campaigns.
With all the good things about media though, comes the bad. Because of media, politicians and congressional candidates are much more vulnerable. With every cell phone having a video camera now, any mistake any politician makes can be recorded and put on you tube for people to view forever. If a candidate accidentally falls (Dole) or lets out an enthusiastic scream (Dean) it can haunt them forever and really harm their campaign. And congressional candidates are no exception. Since not as many people follow their campaigns, every little thing they do is important.
Image is of growing importance in all political elections, and media has created more candidate-centered elections, which can help and harm at the same time.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Campaign Finance and Nominations
Finance reform has definitely had an impact on nomination and campaigning. For one, our nomination process has changed dramatically. We started out nominating our Presidential candidates through a caucus system, which was basically a bunch of male political leaders getting together and deciding who the candidate was going to be. From there, we moved on to party conventions, which failed to represent parties as a whole, which is why we moved onto primaries, giving more voice to the people and allowing them action in nominating the Presidential candidates.
Moving to primaries, however, has influenced campaign finance. In order to run a substantial campaign, a tremendous amount of money must be raised or given. Because early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire are so important, it is critical to have that money raised right off the bat. And those who have a competitive candidate in their party must spend even more money in the first two primaries to ensure the nomination.
How this money is received though, is regulated by the FECA, and these campaign finance rules and election rules do sometimes work together. For example, in order for a candidate to receive matching funds from the government, they must receive at least 10% of the vote in two executive primaries. Also, since the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries are held so early, more money is spent on advertising in those two states, so primaries do affect campaign finance. However, the regulation of money in campaigns seems kind of unrealistic, since such copious amounts are necessary in order to run a successful campaign.
That being said, where this money comes from is well regulated. There are limits on all kinds of contributions, individual, self-finance, and PACs. The only kind of money that was not really regulated was soft money, which the McCain-Feingold Bill banned National Party Committees from raising.
I really do not think the influence of factions can be purged from American elections. Although soft money is not allowed to be raised by National Party Committees, the majority of advertising comes from soft money, which would not exist if we did not have factions. Although supporters of a candidate may not mention his/her name in an ad, it’s obvious which party they support, and they use this soft money to provide advertising for their party’s candidate. No matter what, parties are always going to influence elections.
Moving to primaries, however, has influenced campaign finance. In order to run a substantial campaign, a tremendous amount of money must be raised or given. Because early primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire are so important, it is critical to have that money raised right off the bat. And those who have a competitive candidate in their party must spend even more money in the first two primaries to ensure the nomination.
How this money is received though, is regulated by the FECA, and these campaign finance rules and election rules do sometimes work together. For example, in order for a candidate to receive matching funds from the government, they must receive at least 10% of the vote in two executive primaries. Also, since the New Hampshire and Iowa primaries are held so early, more money is spent on advertising in those two states, so primaries do affect campaign finance. However, the regulation of money in campaigns seems kind of unrealistic, since such copious amounts are necessary in order to run a successful campaign.
That being said, where this money comes from is well regulated. There are limits on all kinds of contributions, individual, self-finance, and PACs. The only kind of money that was not really regulated was soft money, which the McCain-Feingold Bill banned National Party Committees from raising.
I really do not think the influence of factions can be purged from American elections. Although soft money is not allowed to be raised by National Party Committees, the majority of advertising comes from soft money, which would not exist if we did not have factions. Although supporters of a candidate may not mention his/her name in an ad, it’s obvious which party they support, and they use this soft money to provide advertising for their party’s candidate. No matter what, parties are always going to influence elections.
Monday, February 16, 2009
TV's growing importance
Back when Washington was President, portraits of him were rare. It tooks hours of sitting in order to get a painting that represented the commander in chief. However, "he understood that the public wanted to see what manner of man served as chief executive, so he subjected himself repeatedly to more than a dozen artists,". Although image was always somewhat important, back when the Presidency was created, not many actually knew what their president looked like.
Now, however, the invention of television and photography has increased the importance of the presidential image. It's a popular opinion that the candidate who looks more "presidential" could have a better chance of winning. This article talks about the difference of presidential image and how it has eveolved through technology and art.
Now, however, the invention of television and photography has increased the importance of the presidential image. It's a popular opinion that the candidate who looks more "presidential" could have a better chance of winning. This article talks about the difference of presidential image and how it has eveolved through technology and art.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Decentralization
For one, decentralizing a party give more people voices. Those who may not completely agree with the majority have a chance to get their voice heard. Because of this, parties are able to cover a larger spectrum of issues. Although I believe parties come together to reach a common goal based on their values and beliefs, those values and beliefs may sway a bit within their party, allowing the party to reach a more diverse group of people. However, decentralization makes party discipline harder. It does compel one common idea, but opens the door to variations of that idea, forcing the party to be more tolerant of those who may not completely agree with the central beliefs.
I think that decentralization is a logical response to American political heterogeneity. Since the United States is so rich in diversity, it is necessary for there to be some flexibility. Not all party members agree 100% of the time. Parties are heterogeneous and decentralization allows them to work together. This can hinder effective partisan action, though. When people of the same party, along with those of another party, are arguing over some piece of legislature, it can be a lot harder to get things done. Although decentralization can open lines of communication and encourages the flow of ideas, it can also close lines of communication when no one can agree.
In the past election, decentralization was definitely a strategy. Although Obama and Hilary were both running for the Democratic nomination, they had to decentralize themselves and take different standpoints in order to set themselves part. And once it was clear that Obama and McCain were going to be the Presidential candidates, they had to decentralize themselves in order to appeal to a broader group of voters. As said in our lecture, “parties must act it if it were all the people, and not just some of them.”
I think that Obama is basically leading the Democratic Party right now. Since he has taken office he has moved full speed ahead, making a lot of decisions and trying to straighten things up. I think the Republican leader is still kind of up in the air though.
I think that decentralization is a logical response to American political heterogeneity. Since the United States is so rich in diversity, it is necessary for there to be some flexibility. Not all party members agree 100% of the time. Parties are heterogeneous and decentralization allows them to work together. This can hinder effective partisan action, though. When people of the same party, along with those of another party, are arguing over some piece of legislature, it can be a lot harder to get things done. Although decentralization can open lines of communication and encourages the flow of ideas, it can also close lines of communication when no one can agree.
In the past election, decentralization was definitely a strategy. Although Obama and Hilary were both running for the Democratic nomination, they had to decentralize themselves and take different standpoints in order to set themselves part. And once it was clear that Obama and McCain were going to be the Presidential candidates, they had to decentralize themselves in order to appeal to a broader group of voters. As said in our lecture, “parties must act it if it were all the people, and not just some of them.”
I think that Obama is basically leading the Democratic Party right now. Since he has taken office he has moved full speed ahead, making a lot of decisions and trying to straighten things up. I think the Republican leader is still kind of up in the air though.
Obama presses case for stimulus plan
With all the "hoopla" over the stimulus plan, I decided to choose this article to post about it. This article is about Obama really pressing a stimulus plan to either "save or create 4 million jobs." Also, he defends the bill against critics who do not agree with the spending.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Party Definition
I believe that political parties are governmental organizations that have the power to vote and influence legislation; coming together based on a common set of morals, beliefs and values. This is one reason why interest groups are not political parties. Although they come together based on a common set of morals, beliefs and values, they do not have any designated governmental power and do not have the power to vote on governmental issues.
When the framers first created the Constitution, parties were seen as a bad thing. They wanted to unite the country and they saw the development of political parties another way to separate people and divide the country. They were even scared of giving the President too much power, for fear or tyranny. I think they were scared that if the people were divided into parties, one party could become stronger than the other, which could lead to a revolution and eventually, a state of domination.
However, as our government progressed and our national problems become more complicated, it was inevitable that people would divide. Although complete unity is a great concept, it became evident over time and things would not stay that way. So people started to develop different ideas and opinions about the same issues. And eventually, political parties were born.
Now, political parties are no longer since as a bad thing. Personally, I think it would be boring if everyone believed in the same thing. Sure it would make things easier, but there would be no room for growth and new ideas. Political parties, I think, definitely contribute to a checks and balances system. As Tom Delay stated in his farewell address, “for all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refresh our politics with new ideas and new leaders.” The different political parties absolutely keep each other in check and on their toes.
When the framers first created the Constitution, parties were seen as a bad thing. They wanted to unite the country and they saw the development of political parties another way to separate people and divide the country. They were even scared of giving the President too much power, for fear or tyranny. I think they were scared that if the people were divided into parties, one party could become stronger than the other, which could lead to a revolution and eventually, a state of domination.
However, as our government progressed and our national problems become more complicated, it was inevitable that people would divide. Although complete unity is a great concept, it became evident over time and things would not stay that way. So people started to develop different ideas and opinions about the same issues. And eventually, political parties were born.
Now, political parties are no longer since as a bad thing. Personally, I think it would be boring if everyone believed in the same thing. Sure it would make things easier, but there would be no room for growth and new ideas. Political parties, I think, definitely contribute to a checks and balances system. As Tom Delay stated in his farewell address, “for all its faults, it is partisanship, based on core principles, that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream, and that constantly refresh our politics with new ideas and new leaders.” The different political parties absolutely keep each other in check and on their toes.
Experts term Obama "roadrunner" president for his pace of action
Since the biggest political news lately has been all about Obama and his taking office, I decided to post a link about him and what he has been doing thus far. It is about how fast he is moving and the fallbacks and advantages of doing so!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)