Response Post
You have lots of choices for your response post. You need to respond to one post from either hour from either post 1 (Supreme Court decision on campaign finance) or post 2 (State of the Union). Your response post should include sources to back up your opinion and should refer to specific things you are responding to.
Last quarter it was sometimes difficult for me to understand what you were responding to so I recommend you quote the person you are responding to make it easier for a reader, like me, to understand. Additionally, it is important to interact with their ideas - not just use them for a spring board for a tangent.
I look forward to reading what you have to say. Thanks for making this term fun and interesting! M
DUE TUESDAY 2/16
posted by M. Aby @ 11:17 AM
37 Comments:
I am agreeing with Allie on her State of the Union post-
Obama’s State of the Union was very motivational and gave the citizens as a whole a morale-boost. According to Gallup Poll, “presidents support is usually unaffected by State of Union”. In the past, only Bill Clinton has achieved an increase in support from his State of Union (1). Obama can now be added to that list as well. Before giving the address, only 27% of people approved of the President, whereas after the speech, 32% approved. Also, 50% of voters said they somewhat approve of Obama and his performance after the address (2). Not only do I agree with the fact that this speech was motivational, but it can be seen that it indeed was. Americans found some sort of relief in the fact that Obama is taking responsibility for his actions. People are frustrated with the fact that nothing huge is being accomplished, and like Allie says, Obama did a good job at not trying to sugar-coat that. Allie says that “I think it needs to be said that it will take time, and lots of it, to make these policies be put into action” and Obama does so in his statement “I never suggested that change would be easy or that I could do it alone” (3). It’s motivational to know that our leader is not ignoring the facts, and is confronting, or trying to confront the problems at hand.
Obama’s proposals of “new small-business tax credit” as well as to export more goods, I agree, are proposals that would prove extremely beneficial to our economy and nation as a whole. 99% of all employers are small businesses (4) and seeing that the proposal would provide a $5000 tax credit for every new worker hired in 2010 (5), this such credit would greatly help workers and the economy. Increasing exports as well, like Allie says, will “truly help create jobs as well as boost the economy by fueling more money into our nation in a way that has not been publicly approached in years”. These two proposals together would no doubt help to get the economy back on its feet.
Allie and I both think that the lack of faith in the government will continue to be a major hurdle for Mr. Obama. Like previously stated, right now only 50% of Americans somewhat approve of Obama’s performance. This is not exceptionally bad, but it isn’t where Obama would like for it to be either. Congress, even Mr. Obama would agree, is a huge hurdle for him. In his address, Obama talks about how Congress has recently been all about themselves and that needs to change. He says: “But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.”(3). I could not be in more agreement with that statement. Allie and I both think that Mr. Obama has a challeneg in front of him, but that he just needs to stick to his beliefs and keep trying; don’t give up. Allie says that shes “excited to see whats ahead for our country because we’re in good, capable hands”. I couldn’t have said it better myeslf.
(1) http://www.gallup.com/poll/125396/President-Support-Usually-Unaffected-State-Union.aspx
(2) http://www.examiner.com/x-24255-San-Diego-City-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m2d1-President-Obamas-approval-rating-rises-following-State-of-the-Union-address
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-2010-full-text-transcript_n_439459.html
(4) http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL.pdf
(5) http://www.startribune.com/business/84257017.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUss
In response to Jackie . Jackie, I think your post is really good and in depth about the affects of the new campaign finance ruling, however I disagree with some parts of it. I think the major problem with the arguments that you have is that nowhere in the constitution are corporations protected to have free speech. People have speech but not corporations. You say that you “agree with the courts ruling n the basis of the First Amendment.” This logic is totally flawed. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (2)” You are first taking a strict constructionist view of the constitution by saying, we need to listen to exactly what the constitution says and not restrict people’s freedoms, and then adopting a loose constructionist view to exactly what you want and saying, we are just going to say that corporations count as people (1).
Next, I think you are right to follow historical evidence of if this system could work or not. Unfortunately Bradley Smith doesn’t realize the distinction in what kind of advertising this ruling really opens up. The Economist article you cite when you say “As Bradley Smith of the Centre for Competitive Politics points out "Half the states already allow corporations to buy political ads and their elections work just fine'” goes on to make the distinction between what happens now in the present: interest groups making statements about things that are important to them: “a pro-choice group to run an ad attacking a pro-life politician, or for a gun club to buy a local radio spot supporting a congressman who shoots things.” The article cites Stuart Taylor, a legal writer and probably a better source on legal theory than Bradley Smith who incidentally works for an interest group, who says that these types of speeches are what the first amendment is talking about. Unfortunately the 5 justices went on to protect the rights of businesses like “a wine merchant who wants to advocate the defeat of a politician who jacks up booze taxes.” This, then, I believe crosses over into treating corporations like people, not part of the constitution (3).
However, I do think you are right that both parties really are fearing this new ruling. Because it opens the floodgates for interest groups to have their say on issues, political parties are going to start to have a smaller piece of the pie. This is especially true because ” Experts point to other potential consequences of yesterday's ruling. Parties may be weakened because they are still limited by law in the money they can raise, while corporations and unions can now spend with abandon.(4)” I think this is why, as you say, congress is looking for ways to get around the ruling so they can still have political power.
1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
2 http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights
3 http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15394247
4 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
I’m going to respond to Carissa, not to disagree with her but to back her up. I think that she makes a very valid point when she notes that Obama has not done a good job of leading in the sense that he hasn’t even been able to unite his own party and it goes without saying he hasn’t brought significant bipartisan action yet. No president is going to have an easy time getting isle-crossing activity going but he promised change and hope; as of now I don’t see any more of an effective leader in Obama than in Bush when it comes to uniting our nation’s government. I never thought I’d say that because I believed his charisma, articulation, and political capital would have been enough to draw in people from the Republicans but it seems as if his policies (healthcare in particular) are too leftist for Congress. America is a moderate nation and no matter how much both sides like to argue about how their policies are better, the more middle-of-the-road a politician is the more they line up with the majority of Americans.
I also think it is fair of Carissa to criticize his lack of experience as a factor of not being able to unite our government. No president has gone without scrutiny and Obama should not be an exception. Edward R. Murrow, a relentless American broadcast journalist who left his audience every night with the now famous line “good night, and good luck”, once said, “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”(1) I interpret this as we, the people, need to be free to not just follow the leaders who govern us, but to hold the power to criticize and have our voices heard. Once we simply follow like sheep, the government has too much power.
It may be premature to say he won’t get anything done or he is not an effective leader, but I think it is safe to say *so far* he has not done an effective job of uniting our government because it’s true. Seeing as he is only about 1/4th of the way through his first term and he inherited quite a mess we need to wait and see what he really can do with more time, although I am starting to become skeptical. I acknowledge he is making an effort, which is great, but at the same time he is simply asking (begging) the Republicans to support his policies instead of compromising/negotiating on them. If his policies go against a Congressperson’s political views, one cannot expect them to simply give in. Just like one cannot expect Obama to give in. There needs to be some compromise by both parties.
Another quote I came across by Murrow that I really liked was, “We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.” I think that what Carissa said about how Obama’s biggest hurdle is going to be getting meaningful legislation passed is true and it ties into this quote. We need to focus on boosting our economy, creating jobs, and building our nation domestically before we can go out and save the world.
1-http://www.finestquotes.com/author_quotes-author-Edward%20R.%20Murrow-page-0.htm
I chose to respond to Jackie’s post about the State of the Union Address.
Jackie –
I think your response was very well done because although you do not agree with President Obama, you were able to present criticisms as well as some agreements with his policies.
In specific response to your post, I agree with you in some cases and disagree in others. Right off the bat, yes – President Obama is a fantastic orator. However, I’m not sure that the President necessarily wanted the State of the Union to be a rally. I perceived the president to be expressing disappointment with both parties of Congress. As the president said, “What frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day…Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can” [1]. Sarah Palin was quoted in an interview with Fox News on the night of the speech as saying: “I think there was a lot of lecturing going on tonight versus inspiring the American people…” [2]. I believe this lecture is exactly what we need. When President Obama said, “…it’s precisely such [shark-tank] politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet…it’s sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government. So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics,” I felt that the president was addressing the Congress as a whole rather than just those on “the right” [1].
As to the health care issue, I disagree with your claim that “Clearly the American people understand the policies being put forth, and they don't want them” [3]. According to a CBS News poll on September 1, 2009, “Two in three Americans call the health care reforms being debated by lawmakers confusing…” [4]. However, I do not deny that it is disappointing that the Democrats could not pass a health care bill with the supermajority that they had.
In reference to the economy, yes, the economy could be much better. The president also recognizes it that the economy needs help – President Obama said in his speech that: “That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010…” [1]. However, I disagree with you that now is not the time to take action. There is always room for improvement in the economy – when is it the right time to take a chance? The economy is always a gamble. According to The New York Times on December 9 of 2009: “Mr. Obama’s promise to ‘save or create’ about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track…” [5].
When speaking about “…attacking the right…,” I have to disagree [3]. It is impossible to have a government with as many participants as we do without having conflicting ideas about how things should be done. On top of that, it is impossible to compare ideas to come to a hybrid conclusion without saying, “I dislike this about so-and-so’s idea.” President Obama, more than once, drew strong attention to the fact that “Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership” [1]. President Obama also addressed Congress as a whole, saying: “…I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill…” [1]. I don’t see where President Obama singled out Republicans and ostracized them as the bad guys in the political situation. However, as to your conclusion that “Both sides need to stop playing the blame game and need to get down to fixing our economy,” I couldn’t agree more [3].
Finally, I find your statement “I believe the President needs to focus on the issues that are affecting Americans now” confusing – what else is he focusing on? [3]. Yes: President Obama’s goal should be to unite Democrats and Republicans in order to get legislation passed. Most importantly, the president recognizes it. “I campaigned on the promise of change,” Obama said, “…And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change, or that I can deliver it. But remember this: I never suggested that change would be easy or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is" [1]. I believe that the American people need to remember that Mr. Obama is our president and we are united as a nation behind him. No president enters the presidency with the goal to ruin the nation; every president wants to better this country. As for motivation to do so, President Obama summed it up as he ended his speech: “Let’s seize this moment, to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more” [1].
1: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6149215.shtml
2: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/jan/28/reaction-obama-stateoftheunion
3: Jackie’s post
4: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/01/opinion/polls/main5278663.shtml
5: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html
I am responding to Kelsey Derby's post on the State of the Union. I agree that Obama did do a good job of staying calm, cool and collected and that he made it easy to understand. He is a very good speaker and really captures viewers. I also agree that he did a good job of trying to motivate United States citizens and giving them the "yes we can" attitude. He always seems optimistic and makes viewers really believe that change is coming and they are safe with him as his leader. "Obama sought to reassure Americans angry and nervous about the pace of economic recovery that his government understands the challenges and would act boldly to meet them" (1). I also agree with Kelsey when she said that she liked how he recognized his faults. I think this was a good thing for President Obama to do. It makes the people of the United States see him as more of a person and that everyone makes mistakes. It makes one almost feel bad for him, that he comes off like he is trying so hard and he just wants to get results. I also agree with Kelsey when she said she liked the plans Obama gave that he wanted to accomplish "he mentioned how he wasn’t pursuing healthcare because he knew it was “good politics” (3). He mentioned a lot of plans the United States has for the future such as providing more exports, making more jobs for Americans, eliminating the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy, and increasing child care credit" (Kelsey's Blog). But I agree with her when she says that he didn't give any way of how this was going to get accomplished. He gives this great plans for things that could be done to change things but he didn't give a clear way of how this was going to get accomplished. I like that Obama is putting "health care on the back burner, and the pain of a lingering economic recession is front and center" (2). I'm glad he is doing this and that he is taking accountability for where Congress should be focusing it's time in making bills. In his State of the Union speech he said "That is why jobs must be our No. 1 focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight" (3). He said this after talking about how he realizes that there are many men and women who don't know where their next pay check is going to come from. It was good to know he is aware and he is going to be putting this issue front and center for 2010. Also that he knows it isn't "good politics" if he continues to focus on health care with an economy in need. I agree with Kelsey when she said that "I think some of the largest hurdles facing Obama in the coming year are getting both parties to work together, and fixing the economy" (Kelsey's Blog). Getting the two different political parties to come together is going to be tough. Both want to be stubborn and get there way. "Obama challenged Republicans to meet him halfway, suggesting that just saying no to Democrats isn't enough-- Republicans should offer alternatives" (2). I agree with that statement he made. Republicans should offer alternatives so that the Democratic party can see from their point of view how to fix the economy. It needs to be a decision met halfway by both parties for how things should be fixed. President Obama does have some solid ideas for this upcoming year and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
1-"State of the Union: Highlights, reactions, analyses" www.cnn.com
2-"After Pleading his Case, Where Does Obama go now" www.cnn.com
3-President Obama's State of the Union Address, January 2010
I would like to respond to Addison's post specifically about the main argument she makes about businesses having the same rights as people. First point, the Constitution doesn't explicitly give the free market certain rights, but rather they are promised under the individual citizens of the United States. With that framing issue being established, I believe that the argument that they should have the same rights is invalid because the Bill of Rights and the interpretation of the law is based around the individual, not the cooperation. This leads to an extreme shift in Court precedent, which can be bad because other rights issues can be overturned by a new activist Court. Second, the other main issue is that the act overturned any sort of limitation to giving money, which obviously becomes problematic for the individual vs. the cooperate business. The law was specifically designed to keep the businesses intact from taking over politics and turning it into another free market lodge to gain capital, but since the Court's ruling of this being an act of speech, this justifies almost any sort of free market action for their own personal gain, not the American citizen, which is not how the framers of the Constitution as we have interpreted for over 200 years wanted their government to run. This weakens democratic action and favors powerful factions over any sort of government interaction with individual citizens, meaning that instead of citizens believing they have the ability to connect on a personal level in support for his or her candidate, they have align themselves with a cooperation in order to create change. Something about that just seems wrong to me, seeing as people currently keep talking about the lack of bipartisanship preventing any change, yet rulings that isolate the citizen and pin citizens against business are legitimized.
I am responding to the general argument that President Obama’s biggest hurdle in passing legislation and carrying through on his State of the Union goals is the Republican Party. Specifically, I am commenting on Alyssa’s statement, “Obama’s biggest hurdles are definitely going to be getting Republicans to work with Democrats towards policies that will help the country and enforcing all of the proposals that he said during the address.” Before President Obama can blatantly accuse the Republican Party of causing gridlock as he did, he needs to unify his own party. I believe that it was not the Republicans who prevented the passage of legislation last year but rather the Democrats’ political disunity. Prior to the Massachusetts Senate election, President Obama had a 60 vote, filibuster proof Democratic majority in Senate and a majority in the House yet little of his major, promised campaign legislation was passed. For example, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama both touted that the healthcare reform bill would be passed before Christmas. Was this accomplished? No. Is this any fault of the Senate Republicans? No. While the GOP did filibuster, there was not even a large-scale attempt at a vote for cloture (1). The Democrats were too occupied with arguing over small provisions of the bill, primarily insurance coverage for abortions, rather than passing the bill at large (2). The party’s frustration was especially palpable during the State of the Union when members of the Democratic Party were not even united in their clapping for the President. As Derek pointed out, many of the Democrats neglected to clap for some of the President’s statements, and, with many shots of the crowd, this stood out poignantly to viewers. If Obama had a cohesive Democratic Party to work with, I think that his first year in office would have been extremely different.
Furthermore, the minority party cannot be expected to lend their full support to the majority party. A crucial part of the Madisonian Model of Government is the concept of majority rule with minority rights. Our government was created with a separation of powers and system of checks and balances to prevent “tyranny of the majority” (3). Hence, it is the constitutional right of the minority party to filibuster and to carry out the watchdog function. While they should be open to compromise to prevent policy gridlock, it can, in no means, be expected by the majority party.
Sources:
1: http://www.seiu.org/2009/10/understanding-the-senate-cloture-process.php
2: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/71921-doubts-grow-over-senates-christmas-deadline-for-healthcare-reform
3: cstl-cla.semo.edu/sexton/pdfs/MadisonianModel.pdf
In response to Katie’s post:
Nice job, Katie! You basically voiced everything that was running through my head as I watched President’s Obama’s State of the Union Address myself. Though I might be tackled by Secret Service agents by attempting this, I too would like to hug him. I also “literally thanked the TV at different instances when the President spoke the semi-harsh reality and honest truth”. President Obama used his oratory skills to express exactly what he had learned over the last year, and his plans for 2010 (1). I like how you mentioned, that the “President addressed the touchy and not-so-nice issues that face the government and took some personal responsibility for them”. I also think that it helped to restore my faith in the government, because having a president who admits his mistakes is important because it shows that they are trying to learn from them. (1)
Like you, I also listened in close when Obama talked about college. I like what Obama is saying, but I wonder how he’s going to do it. He proposed a $10,000 tax credit to families paying for four years of college, and proposed increasing Pell grants (they provide financial assistance to lower income college students) (2). On top of all of that, he proposed requiring graduating students to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, forgiving their debt after 20 years --- 10 years if they choose a career in public service! (2). Though this all sounds great, I don’t think this would completely solve the problem. No one should go broke when they go to college. Overall, I think that college costs have become too inflated, along with health care costs. A better way would be to reduce costs overall. It would help to get more assistance to pay for college, but I think that education in this country has become much too expensive period. How we would do this? I have no idea, I’m not an economic expert. But I think Obama should also explore that route when it comes to education.
I like how you mentioned how proud you were of Obama when he told Congress, “…what frustrates the American people is where every day is Election Day.” I tend to get irritated with politics easily because I find politics hamper the action of the government. When political parties can agree on issues or there is a strong majority, things get accomplished. But right now with the Democratic party split and the Republicans showing strong opposition, nothing seems to be getting done. Americans get sick and tired of all the arguing (3). The negative campaign ads, endless promises that don’t get met, and constant bickering make people lose faith in government, and then stop voting in elections all together (3). Obama knows this, and his State of the Union address called on Congress to stop being so partisan. I really hope it works!!!
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTMrs9vpoqg
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/28/explainer.keythemes.sotu/index.html
(3) http://hnn.us/articles/1127.html
In response to Lauren's Supreme Court Post:
The statement made by Lauren that "campaigns should be about choosing the candidate that best reflects their wishes and not about which candidate can get the most support from big business" is definitely something that I agree with as does probably the rest of the country. It would be an ideal situation if the president of the United States was chosen by well educated voters who are informed of the issues and vote based on the candidate that matches them best ideologically. However, this is not the case. We live in a society where people make decisions based on stupid things such as how good a candidate looks and where big business inevitably controls a lot. But hey, our current economic system allows this. Its true that this ruling will give more power to big business in allowing them to spend more on elections and will give them more of a voice (1). And speaking of voice, what about the First Amendment? The Supreme Court has been afraid to touch the issue of campaign finance which has resulted in our previous, somewhat confusing, campaign finance laws. If we are associating donating money to political campaigns with the First Amendment then, given the Fourteenth Amendment, this right should be extended to all. The Court pointed out that the campaign spending is constitutional because it is a First Amendment right (1). I wholeheartedly agree with them. Proponents of this argue that corporations and big businesses have the same rights as individuals when it comes to the freedom of speech (2). I think its about time that they get to express their rights. Should we discriminate against them just because they're large, powerful, have a lot of money? No. Lauren said it was "a large stretch to count money spent on campaigns as a First Amendment right." The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."(3). While donations to campaigns by businesses isn't a form of direct speech, I would argue it is a form of indirect speech. Businesses express their preference for a particular candidate by giving them money. If flag burning is an allowed form of speech, where people are able to show their discontentment with them government, then campaign donations should be too. I do agree with Lauren's thought that this decision may have a negative impact on democracy (4). This ruling will give big businesses more of a say in elections due to the large correlation between a candidates success and the amount they spent on their campaign (2). However, I think the fact that depriving businesses of a First Amendment right is more damaging to our nation.
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104866_pf.html
3. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmentxiv
4.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?scp=5&sq=Supreme%20Court&st=cse
I am responding in reference to Carissa’s blog about the State of the Union address. Although I agree with a few points she mentions, such as not tackling every issue all at once, I found that I disagreed with many of her arguments and the way she believes Obama presented them.
First of all, I would like to object to referring to the State of the Union as simply trying to say “he screwed up, while keeping his pride in check.” I feel that if the President had not admitted some level of defeat in certain areas, that he would be not listened to, and people would assume he is being arrogant and pompous. Not to mention he would then be in denial. While I agree with every other human on earth that not everyone is perfect, this fact should not be taken as a measure of every President. Yes, Obama admitted some troubles within Congress and pressures from various areas. However, this does not mean he is a worse human being or even a worse President for it. Next, I disagree with Carissa’s statement that Obama has lead America in the wrong direction. She does not list any policies that have been harmful to our nation, while stating that there were many in vague terms. The President has changed many things for the better in America, including shutting down Guantanamo Bay (1). He has also overturned President Bush’s stem cell policy (2) as well as turning our overburdened and irresponsible economy and banking system and holding them accountable for things that they never anticipated, whilst making the entire banking system more “transparent” (3). This is hardly grounds for saying that we are better off with Bush than with Obama’s more progressive policies.
Carissa claims that Obama blames Congress and Republicans in Congress too much for the lacking of action in certain areas. However, in the State of the Union, I, as well as many others, felt that this accusation was more of a cry for help than an indictment of Congress. He simply wished to make it clear that he is facing opposition and wished for a more bipartisan accountability for action. Nothing gets accomplished when the 2 parties simply battle each other. It takes uniting, which is exactly what Mr. Obama intended from his speech.
Also, I disagree with Carissa’s claim that Obama lacks experience. Despite his age, he shows great maturity and leadership, and throughout his political career, he has done more than most past Presidents can claim, especially our previous president, George Bush. Obama had to fight hard to win his elections in places such as Illinois for Senator, as well as having to play hardball in some circumstances and doing things that he knew were good, not just easy (4). I’m not trying to give the impression that Mr. Obama is a perfect individual or completely honorable in every aspect. I’m simply defending his “lack of experience.” With a background such as his, and with a political history such as his, there is no real basis in fact to support any claims that he is not a valid leader.
Despite these differences, Carissa and my opinions share one major thing in common. Obama must truly continue to work with both parties to accomplish anything that he plans. I have hope that he will.
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html
2) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/09/obama.stem.cells/index.html
3) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100128/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_state_of_the_union_text
4) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/us/politics/05chicago.html
In response to Alyssa’s post on the State of the Union Address:
I thoroughly agree with what you had to say in your blog post addressing President Obama’s most recent speech. I agree that he was trying to boost the morale of the people in this speech, and I also think that it is necessary to do this after his previous speech on sending more troops overseas. I thought it was very cool how he included the examples you cited such as the “woman who decided she wanted to become her own boss” and “the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who increased his workforce.” I feel as though Obama really does have a way of getting people to listen, while still informing them of what is going on in the world, and I agree that this method was very persuasive to people in the United States and Congress (1). I liked what President Obama had to say about small businesses. I agree that we need to work on small businesses first, and then move up to larger corporations.(2) Obama mentioned Congress overturning the McCain-Feingold Supreme Court ruling as well. I thought it was interesting that you said it was “completely necessary,” because although I do somewhat agree, I also think that it may not be the best step for Obama to want to overturn a Supreme Court decision (1). To me, it just seems as though this is something that was put in place to give balance to the three branches of government, and although I may not agree with the Supreme Court, I think it is bound to get messy if Congress decides to mess with this decision. I liked how you mentioned the cap on interest in education loans. I think this is a very smart idea, and something that will hopefully be implemented in the future.
I also agreed with you when you talked about a big hurdle being the ability to cross party lines. I feel this is a problem that is becoming prevalent in current times, and it essentially a detriment in the progress of politics. When you say it will be “no easy task” to get Republican support for Democratic policies, I totally agree. It seems as though almost everything these days has two clear sides and people are expected to choose, whether it be PC or Mac, Burger King or McDonalds, or Republicans or Democrats. I hope that both sides will be able to overcome this, and Obama will be able to make changes for America. You are completely right when you say, “The issues that the nation is facing involve every person no matter what party they belong to, so it is up to Obama to make that clear and influence Congress to put partisan ideas aside for the time being.”
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-2010-full-text-transcript_n_439459.html
2. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/SmallBusinessFINAL
In response to Solveig’s post on the Supreme Court ruling.
I agree, this is very ironic that an issue like this would come up right when we are learning about McCain-Feingold. Had this decision been handed down two months ago I would have no idea what to make of it. Thankfully, we have a wonderful teacher who can explain the odd restrictions on McCain-Feingold. You nailed it right on the head with your short-term predictions. The next election is going to become an arena with groups trying to outspend each other. It may give an advantage to large groups with large purses. Election experts expect small groups to have little chance of being heard (1). Long-term, restrictions could be expected to be even looser on campaign spending. There could be some positives from this decision, however. Ads produced by interest groups now have the ability to be more direct in their speech. They don’t have to sidestep restrictions and can just say what they want to say.
You question if democracy really succeeds with interest groups holding power over parties or vice-versa. Personally, I think democracy works best when two groups compete over resources. This is the case with the party system. It is natural that parties and interest groups should have conflict. They both need each other to survive. By giving more power to interest groups through elections, parties will find a way to counteract that power in some other way. You also disagree with the court’s decision. From the court’s standpoint, I think they made the right decision. Their job is to interpret the constitution. I don’t believe they need to take in consideration what they think might happen in the future. The court ruled that restricting contributions was a violation of free speech (2). It is up to the courts to decide what is speech or not, but I think they made the right decision in terms of the constitution. Time will tell if their decision will have positive or negative effects.
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843898
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104482_pf.html
~In response to Kayla,
I am going to try my best to “interact” with your post on the State of the Union, with you’ll be pleased to note I largely agree with. According to dictionary.com to interact means “to act on each other”, so I’m going to take that as to build off of your post and try my best not to go off on a “tangent”. With fingers-crossed (metaphorically of course because physically crossing my fingers would make it impossible to type) I embark on my task to respond to your blog.
I agree that it was smart of President Obama to focus his speech largely on jobs. With a large percentage unemployed (in terms of where Americans would like to have the unemployment rate), it was pretty clear that Americans would want the President to talk about the future of jobs. I also agree that it was good that the President point out how he wants to continue to fix the economy but also explain things that he has already done. When President Obama talked about the successfulness of the Recovery Act (aka the stimulus package), I thought it really explained to the American people how he knew what he was doing (1). And as for how he plans to continue to fix the economy, President Obama made a vague reference to the fact that the US was “on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year” (1). And then later in the speech talked about vague plans to add jobs through a green sector and better nuclear energy (1). On this point I also agree with Kayla, the President should have spent more time talking about the future and not so much talking about the past. While it was good to explain to the American’s how his plans had worked and that they should continue to trust his good judgement, I think that (much like Kayla) there should be more talk about the future and where he plans to go with the country. 75% of Americans believe that the President inherited a pretty big economy responsibly (2), so I don’t want to hear him talk about how bad an economy we’re in, I want to hear him talk about all the plans he has (and is working on) to make the economy better.
Now onto Obama’s biggest hurdle. While I do agree that Obama’s has a pretty big hurdle fast approaching (midterm elections), I wanted to piggy back off of something Kayla said in her blog, “Currently Democrats in Congress have not even been able to get healthcare passed even with majority in both houses, I think that if they cannot agree now, with their majorities, they will not get a healthcare bill passed after elections.” First off, I completely agree but I want to draw attention to the fact that Democrats haven’t gotten anything passed. The fact that neither party is helping Obama is definitely been a huge hurdle that Obama has yet to clear (3). With Republicans like Rep. Nathan Deal questioning Obama’s citizenship and Democrats like Sen. Ben Nelson turning the healthcare bill into a giant loophole to send money to his state (3), Obama has had a tough time of getting things done. I think that because both parties have their members that are stopping healthcare reform from being passed (3), and healthcare reform will be a major issue come midterm elections, Obama’s democrat majority is going to take a major thumping, and in turn, so will Obama. I agree with Kayla that midterm elections is going to be a huge hurdle for Obama, but leading up to elections Obama is going to have to fight his way through a tough Congress, and I can only wish him the best of luck.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-2010-full-text-transcript_n_439459.html
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/obamas-biggest-hurdle/
http://www.theleafchronicle.com/article/20100201/OPINION/2010332/Obama%5C-s-biggest-hurdle
dictionary.com
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jacob is right. The past court rulings of campaign finance have never included a corporation as an individual covered by the first amendment. I agree with this because, although the corporation is made up of many individuals, there is much more power within a vast number of corporation controlling individuals. Like Jacob was talking about, there can also be much said about the fact that it was another 5-4 vote. This displays the instability of the Court ruling. If it was that close I feel like it shows there still needs to be more discussion about it and I think that more will come out of the decision. President Obama is pushing for decisive action on this which I am in favor for. (1) I hope that the Congress and the executive can work together as a team because recently they have not been functioning well together.
I think that Jacob’s second paragraph also makes sense because Justice Kennedy’s quote does seem incorrect. Jacob says, “The paradoxical thing about this ruling is the hypocritical use of the idea of judicial restraint. Justice Kennedy made the statement that the government should not be allowed to put restraint on certain disfavored speakers. That does not make any sense.” (4) The PAC’s have the most voice in an election in my opinion and the actual voters are the disfavored speakers. (4) This can clearly be seen by the amount of money that the PACs spend on during the elections. In 2008 the total expenditures of PACs towards both parties was an estimated 21 million dollars- this is from SourceWatch. (2) His point goes along with the one I made in my actual blog. Ben Ginsberg, a former Republican leader says that the Supreme Court has "put in a really bad system, candidates are small voices special interests groups are running supreme.” (3) The problem with the system is that not anyone will be able to voice their opinion; the opinion that will be heard will be supported by dollars towards a candidate. Another point Jacob makes I agree with that I have mentioned above. The Supreme Court majority opinion states that corporations are covered under the first amendment, but in reality they are not individuals. This seems incredibly unorthodox to me and I do not understand how the majority came to this conclusion.
Jacob’s final paragraph talks about the fairness of the new playing field. He says, “Allow this ruling seems to “open up the playing field” to anyone who wants to be involved in putting money into campaigns (including unions), this clearly is not the case. Big corporations are going to be way ahead when it comes to money.” (4) The new playing field is flawed and unfair. The fact that large and extremely wealthy corporations are not restricted is not fair. The FEC was established to make sure that the people had, not a completely equal share, but a better chance at being heard instead of being made irrelevant by the spending power of corporations. Jacob’s last sentence is also very true and meaningful. (4) I strongly agree with that metaphor because the corporations do get to yell now while the common individual gets only a dull whisper in the background. The fact that the Constitution was made to allow the people of the United States with the opportunity to voice their opinion knowing that it will be heard is now much more difficult.
1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666&ps=rs
2) http://uspolitics.about.com/od/finance/tp/leadership_pac_data.htm
3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122843894
4) Jacob’s blog post
Katie J., on the campaign finance decision:
I liked that you elaborated on the issue of whether corporations equate to individuals or not. This is one of the leading issues in the debate over campaign finance reform. As you mentioned in your blog, the constitution does not specifically extend the right of free speech to corporations, since they are not the same thing as individuals, they are “fictional” (1). I agree with this statement, as I am strongly opposed to the Supreme Court decision to overturn McGain-Feingold. I am concerned, however, that this argument may not be strong enough to persuade Congress to pass legislation balancing out the decision. Free speech is still a very touchy topic, and to restrict it in any way, shape, or form is not exactly what the court or Congress want on their records (2).
The Fair Elections Now Act would be a great solution to limiting corporations from influencing the entire campaign game. Its goals are to “expand free speech by assisting credible candidates without deep pockets to have the means to run,” decrease the effect that money from corporations and interest groups have on elections, and increase candidate effort in campaigns (3). I believe that all these goals are excellent for election campaigns. First, all candidates, no matter how well off or not they are, should be able to run a fair campaign free from excessive corporation donations. Second, money from big businesses acting in their own self-interest is going to have way too large of an effect on campaigns. Its almost like allowing a single person who is a bazillionaire donate as much money as he wants for a candidate because he wants that particular candidate to win. That is NOT freedom of speech, that’s just cheating and “buying out” elections for one’s own interest. Lastly, candidates under this new campaign finance decision may begin to slack off in campaign since they will get so much money from large corporations. This, again, is limiting the fairness and equal opportunities of American elections. Candidates who have everything handed to them in their campaign are not bound to do well in office, in my opinion, and will certainly not represent the interests of the everyday American.
1. http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/opinion/story/1019069.html
2. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/24/ftn/main6136386.shtml
3. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/feb/15/public-funding-answer-courts-recent-ruling/
Julia Gross-
Response 2 (State of the Union)
I enjoyed reading your response. I thought that it was going to have a very different viewpoint than that I had expected it to. It was very much in accordance with my opinion of the State of the Union address. I thought it was important how you included President Obama creating “new clean energy” jobs in the near future. I mentioned this briefly in my response blog. I agree with your statement, “I'm glad he is taking this into consideration as new plans to create jobs are being made.” Creating new clean environmentally friendly jobs will be a significant factor for our nation’s economy. According to Greenbiz.com, “Two recently released reports show that the nation and states such as California can improve economic growth by employing clean energy strategies.” (1) Moreover, “For at least the last year and a half, "Green Collar Jobs" has been the buzz term among those in business and policy circles as the answer to rising unemployment and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” (1) Following your clean energy jobs opinion, you followed up with reiterating a valid point in President Obama’s speech. You mention how Obama plans to export more goods internationally to reassure jobs here in America. Again, this will make a positive impact on our nation’s economy. In addition, I agree with your viewpoint that Obama’s speech will appeal to Independent voters. Like you stated, “A CNN/opinion Research Corp. survey indicated that 48% of speech watchers had a very positive reaction,” Obama’s speech probably greatly appealed to Independent voters and could even significantly help him the 2010 midterm elections. Although I could not find any information improving Independent voters’ approval of Obama, I found that “President Barack Obama received a one-point bump in his approval ratings after his State of the Union address, according to a new Gallup poll. (2) To contradict, “Gallup analysts said that the boost was not due to a State of the Union "bounce," which they argue does exist.” (3) It is hard to say whether Obama’s State of the Union address will greatly impact him positively in the near future. In addition, I thought it was ironic how you mentioned the Republicans need to meet him halfway. Lastly, I like how you stated at the end of your blog post,” He acknowledges he knows he campaigned on change, but change doesn't happen overnight and he knows that. He should keep pushing for his plans and trying to get everyone to come together. There isn't much else he can do at this point without getting people to agree on a plan of action to take.” I thought this statement was significant.
I disagree that President Obama was asking for pity. You mention this at the start of your blog. You state, “I felt as though he was almost asking for some pity because he (is) trying to fix things but he can only do so much at a time.” I think he knows the situation he is in and is not looking for others to “lift him up.” In addition, I was confused about this statement,” Also “A CNN/opinion Research Corp. survey indicated that 48% of speech watchers had a very positive reaction, with 3 in 10 saying they had a somewhat positive response and a 21% with a negative response”. I fall in with that 21% with a somewhat positive response.” Did you have a positive or negative response to the speech? From the tone of your blog post, I believe you had a positive response. Anyways, I agreed with your statements you made throughout your blog. I think you presented you viewpoints in a respectful manner.
Citations:
1. http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2009/06/11/clean-energy-creates-jobs-improves-economic-growth
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/31/obamas-state-of-the-union_n_440850.html
3. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/79075-obama-approval-rating-returns-to-50-percent
Matthew:
Brevity, as we all know, is the soul of wit. You said quite a bit about the ramifications of Citizens United v. FEC using just a few characters, and I agree with most of what you said. What’s more, legend has it you wrote your post in less than twenty minutes on someone’s phone at Crucible practice. But enough small talk, let’s go for some content.
You agreed with the ruling (“the court upheld free speech”), but didn’t like its prospects for what it means for the future (“the court…compromise[d] the financial integrity of campaigns”). I’m with you on both counts.
I thought it was interesting when you remarked that you’d like to see a campaign with modest spending, basically a “middle-class” campaign, if you will. While I agree that this would be interesting, there is about as great a chance of a “middle-class” partisan presidential campaign occurring as there is a chance that zombies will walk the streets of Bloomington next week (which is to say, not very likely). In this day and age, money talks and bullshit walks.
I also thought it was interesting that you mentioned that the rich have money, but the poor have numbers. To the extent that Rich = Conservative, and Poor = Liberal (which is a very, very loose statement on my part), we can somewhat see how that works. When African Americans vote in large numbers, the Democrats win, because they are backed up by their numbers. When relatively few people vote, it tends to be the better educated (and often richer) Americans who do so, putting the advantage in the hands of the Republicans. It will be interesting to see if the results of the court’s decision swing that balance in favor of the rich. And yes, that I’ve said “interesting” four (five) times now, but oh, well. I think it to be a small fault.
In response to Jackie’s post about the State of the Union address:
First of all I consider myself somewhat conservative but I didn’t mind Obama’s jabs at the previous administration. I don’t think that the comments were particularly harsh or inaccurate and I thought they provided some acknowledgement that the current administration is trying to differentiate themselves from the past. Although on that same note I do agree that Obama shouldn’t be so quick to point the finger. He may be in a very different position in three years depending on how current endeavors like healthcare and the economy play out. As for your response to Obama’s comments on healthcare research early on has shown that Americans do not fully understand the bill still, and hearing facts like the one you just quoted that some states will receive more aid make them less in favor of the bill without really knowing the reasoning behind it [1]. I think that this was one of the challenges Obama should take on as 2010 begins.
Going off your comments about the future tax hikes on small businesses, I agree with you that these hikes could have adverse effects on small businesses. I spoke with my dad who is the CFO for a small candle company and I asked him how much the increase in taxes would affect the company. He reiterated what I had learned in econ: even with the small percentage increase it lessens the capital that is able to converted into investment. And we all know that in the current economic state every little bit counts. This would result in less hiring, which would lead to fewer jobs for average Americans. However these tax hikes are essential for our future America. For future generations and America’s overall financial health we need to start to cut our federal deficit and chip away at the national debt [2]. This means that everyone is going to eventually have to deal with handing more over to the government in someway, somehow in the future. It’s a reality we’ll all have to deal with if we ever get the national debt under control.
Lastly, commenting on the cap n’ trade system that would allow companies to trade pollution permits [3], I disagree that it wouldn’t be harmful to small businesses and the economy in the long run. The cap and trade system promotes innovation and new technology although it may cause a few bumps in the short-run. It is also the most effective way for businesses to battle climate change by allowing them to trade to each other, so the businesses who can keep their pollution below their permit levels can benefit by selling them. At some point, businesses who pollute need to be pushed to a higher energy standard. I think that time has come whether the economy is in a slump or not.
[1]. http://www.gallup.com/poll/123989/Americans-Healthcare-Reform-Five-Key-Realities.aspx
[2]. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/economy/14view.html?scp=1&sq=federal%20debt&st=cse
[3]. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6115V820100202
This is in response to Derek’s post-
I would have to agree with your stance on the recent Supreme Court ruling. One part that I really liked was when you spoke about companies being able to spend inordinate amounts of money on candidates. I can’t honestly believe that the Supreme Court would go so far as to overrule almost a century of precedent. The FECA act, as well as the McCain-Feingold act were meant to level the playing field (1). With these corporations having no limits on their expenditures, their massive amounts of wealth will dominate and corrupt an election process that is already too expensive and lengthy (1). The Court is still forcing the corporations and interest groups to funnel their money through individuals or P.A.C’s but that is a laughable restriction that poses no problem for a company trying to get a candidate elected (1).
Another part of Derek’s post that I agreed with was that Obama and Congress must address this ruling. If they fail to respond in a meaningful way, they will find it much more difficult to keep the Democratic majority as well as Obama himself in the White House. The only problem is that Congress is still weighed down by the Health Care Bill that has yet to pass, and Congress is not known for their speed on reacting to the major issues.
The last part of Derek’s post that I would like to respond to is his stance. I agree that this ruling is the wrong decision and needs revision. It makes the division between the White House and the interest groups much thinner (2), and will make spending on past campaigns seem like a joke. Regulations that had been fought for during the last four decades have now essentially been erased, and the campaign process as we know it has been radically altered.
(1) http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0202/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-finance-ruling-just-the-facts/(page)/2
(2) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666&ps=rs
I disagree with Grant and the Supreme Court’s precedent. I do not believe that corporations should have the same rights as individuals.
My first reason emerges from framers intent. We do have a living Constitution, and I am a great supporter of keeping our Constitution applicable to modern times. However, there comes a point when we have to draw a line. Few people will doubt that people do not have a constitutional right to automatic machine guns even though the Second Amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms. I agree that campaign funding is a form of political speech and individuals should be able to donate without restriction. I believe that the framers never intended for businesses to have the same rights as individuals. The Bill of Rights was established so that individuals were protected from government power, not so huge corporations could influence campaigns.
Grant makes the argument that because corporations are made of individuals they should have the same rights as individuals. I disagree. The individuals that comprise of the board of directors have the same individual liberties that any individual have. Why then do they get an additional voice as the voice of the corporation? It is the individuals that should comprise American politics not the places they work at.
In response to Katie-
Though there is a few things I agree with you on, there are more things i disagree with. First off, I agree that the banks should not be handing out big bonuses. For those who just regained their health, this is a irresponsible. I disagree with the fee on the banks in general though. Most of the banks who were given money (whether they needed it or not) have paid back the money they own. The companies that cost TARP the most (AIG, the auto companies, and mortgage refinancers) made the biggest hit to the taxpayers. Out of these four only AIG would be required to pay the tax. The fee itself would make it even harder to pay back the money they already owe [1]. The banks who are going to be taxed weren't the only ones "bailed out" and it seems unfair to point fingers at them for this situation when most of them are coming through on the money they owe.
One thing I don't agree with you on is how he addressed the deficit. His administration criticized the Bush administration for running a $3.3 trillion deficit over his three years. Obama's budget would run a $7.6 trillion deficit in what would be his eight years in office [2]. The "job's bill" proposed by Congress would spend money on things that do nothing to create jobs. Some things include: the HIghway Trust Fund, patching up Medicare, reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act, and national flood insurance programs [3]. Also by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire he is hurting his own job creation. Small business account for 7 out of 10 jobs. Because most of these businesses do not pay corporate taxes they are shouldered with a higher income tax. Plus with two of the current bills would raise the cost of doing business. The Cap-andTrade bill would increase the cost of energy for businesses, money that could have been used to hire a new employee. And with the health care overhaul, the cost of even taking on more employees would increase. [4]. He has not addressed how drastically he increased the deficit. He just tells the American people it's up to Congress to come up with a solution.
Also I believe Obama did have pressure to do something about the deficit. His announcement came just as signs pointed to Scott Brown winning the election in Massachusetts. I believe he knows he needs that populist support.
[1] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm2770.cfm
[2] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm2787.cfm
[3] http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=520983&Ntt=stimulus
[4] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm2790.cfm
I am responding to Carissa on her State of the Union post. I agree with her statement when she said the speech was basically him trying to say he screwed up, while still keeping his pride in check (1). Obama talked of the two wars, the economy rocked by recession, the financial system on the verge of collapse, and the government being in deep dept when he entered the presidency (2). To me he is trying to evade responsibility for not creating as much change as he promised. Also in Carissa’s post she talked of
Obama’s blaming Congress for lack of progress is lame (1). I completely agree with her statement, again I don’t think the State of the Union address should of focused so much on the past year, especially since it wasn’t very successful. I don’t think Obama should be able to push the blame on lack of progress onto to Congress because Obama could have pushed them more to get things done.
Of her entire post, the only thing I don’t completely agree with Carissa on is when she said Obama is taking on smaller projects instead of all at once (1). To me it sounded the same as before, with Obama making a lot of promises again. Obama’s expansive domestic goals are largely the same, but his message is changing, now constructed around a concession that the public is disillusioned and wanting results (3). It seems that Obama is still unable to specify how he is going to get the goals he has promised fulfilled.
As for Obama’s biggest hurdle, I agree with Carissa that getting things done and making a positive impact on our country will be his biggest hurdles (1). Seeing as he was unable to get Congress to pass much of anything last year, I don’t know how he will do it this year. Also in the days after the address, Obama’s approval ratings stayed the same, around 48% (4). Although Obama is a great speaker, I don’t think that will be enough to inspire Americans, I think in order to get higher approval ratings, Obama needs to keep his promises and make things happen. Lastly in Carissa’s post she said that the speech was trying to ease the regret of the people who voted for him and wished they hadn’t (1). I think this is shown in the polls, because although Obama has many goals for the next year, he never really said how he would do it, and because he did the same thing last year many doubt his ability to complete those goals.
1. Carissa’s Post
2. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/State_of_the_Union/state-of-the-union-2010-president-obama-speech-transcript/story?id=9678572
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/15/AR2010021501369.html
4. http://www.gallup.com/poll/125462/Obama-Approval-Hits-50-After-Stretch-Sub-50-Ratings.aspx
In Response to Laura’s post about the State of the Union Speech:
There are parts of Laura’s post that I agree with and other facets of her post that I have different views on however, throughout all of her statements I understood where she was coming from and believe that she made her points well. For the most part I agree with Obama and his policies which makes my viewpoint of his speech different from Laura’s. I agree with the first part of her post when she said, “I think one thing we can all agree on is that President Obama is a great speaker. He commands attention, relates his speeches to the everyday lives of the American people, makes jokes to keep people interested, and he is overall effective and captivating.” This is something that Obama is well known for just like President John F. Kennedy. There is something about his speeches that make it so you can tell that he is not just reading off what his speechwriter wrote but making it more personal and putting himself on the same level as the American public. I did not agree so much with the statement by Laura, “It seemed to me that the speech was more pleading for help and explaining what more needs to be done throughout his presidency than being persuasive.” I appreciate that she acknowledges that political views come into play to this however because if you disagree with someone in general it is hard to give them credit when needed but I think Laura does a good job of giving President Obama credit. Back to the quote, I think that part of his job is to make sure the public knows what is going on since he was voted into office by the people and the people have an interest and a right to know the decisions the government is making that is affecting their lives. I do think that Obama persuaded Congress and the public that the steps he is taking is worthwhile by offering information about the progress it has made in the United States such as, “Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders.” (1)
As for Laura’s viewpoint on Obama’s priorities, I understand what Laura means when she says, “I don't agree with what Obama was saying about our pressing need to save the environment…I think our first concern should be the economy.” I do agree that his priorities may seem a bit out of crazy considering his is putting the pressing needs of the people behind the pressing needs of nonhuman things. I think that we could kill two birds with one stone when it comes to this though. In order to save the environment, there are many things that people need to do to create a better place and with the money the government would spend on the environment, they could pay for people to help. There many are things that need to be done such as research, the cleaning of parks and rivers, people to create more efficient products and the marketing and cost containment of these items as well as many other acts. The government could hire many people and put money back into the economy by paying people to accomplish things that are actually on the government’s agenda. There are probably many other things that the government wants to spend money on and try out and if they were to pay more Americans to do these jobs in general, the economy may finally get back to where it was 10 or even 15 years ago.
Finally I think that Laura is right in that “Another problem Obama will probably face will be trying to get cooperation form Congress.” There is obviously not the cooperation going on their that needs to be done in order to accomplish anything and while Laura says that President Obama may need to compromise more (which is true), I do not think that it is fully his responsibility and that Congress as well needs to learn to work with the President. They both have been very stubborn this year and I hope for the wellbeing of the American public that they are able to compromise with each other in the next three years. Obama is very set on his plans which hopefully he will learn that at times he will need to stray from those plans to eventually succeed in his agenda. Congress also needs to stop caring so much about being careful and their reelections. While it is important to listen to the people you are representing, they are not typically as informed on the issues and throughout history the greater viewpoint of the American people has not always been right. Politicians have made decisions that may not have been popular at the times (civil rights issues) however these actions are well appreciated and acknowledged today.
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-2010-full-text-transcript_n_439459.html
I'd like to respond to Sarah Marti's post. One major point of Sarah's post is that Obama has "inherited a mess that the American people are blaming on him." Frustrated, she writes, "[Americans] support only what they see and what benefits them." I have to point out, though, that the point of government is to serve the people. Politics is designed to win over the approval of the people. How do you do that? By giving them obvious benefits. Thus, Obama needs to tack on some major accomplishments to live up to his "Change we can believe in" campaign mantra. However, things seem to be going downhill for Mr. Obama. As his approval ratings drop, less and less people believe he is the "bipatisan breath of fresh air" they hoped he'd be (1). I'm not sure if this is the case, though. If anything, it seems to me that Obama is too bipartisan. Although admirable, his efforts to engage both parties is a hindrance to making radical change. In fact, the compromises made in Congress have achieved more ill feelings than good ones (1). Sarah, you touch on this issue when you write that Obama is a "President who cares more about his country's welfare than his own political gain." I agree with this statement. After watching teh State of the Union, there's no doubt in my mind that Obama genuinely desires to improve the country regardless of the ramifications to his own career. But if Obama really wants to make change, he should probably take a step back from that stance, as his career and status seems to be slipping. His election relied on Republican converts and Independents, but his approval ratings in both of those categories have plunged. About 31 percent of independents now say that they would re-elect him and there are precious few Republicans that now support him (2). Even members of his own party, like Rep. Chriss Van Hollen, are distancing themselves from Obama for the upcoming midterm elections (3). This suggests to me that a major power change is likely. Now, the big question you (Sarah) seem to raise is whether or not the current situation is Obama's fault? Or more specifically, if it's fault that it hasn't changed faster? I'd say yes. Consider Presidents like FDR, who passed tons of measures to change the economy. Was he overly conscious of bipatisanship? Probably not. Obama had a Democrat majority, but has thus far failed to make quick, effective change. Obama needs to act quick to make the change he's promised. If he doesn't, we'll probably see a shift in power in midterms and we'll see Obama being written up as one of the most over-hyped Presidents in history.
1.) http://www.npr.org/watchingwashington/2010/02/presidents_day_why_things_aren.html
2.) http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/15/obama-approval-ratings-drop/
3.) http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/15/dems-to-obama-please-dont-stand-so-close-to-me/
I have chosen to respond to Smarba Tnarg's post about the Citizens United Vs. Federal Election. Grant's assertion that "Candidates will likely try to make their policies more clear, so that they aren’t perverted by independent expenditures" is on the nose. With the presumably increased presence of third party political advertising, candidates will have to control their images much more carefully. Grant's prediction that interest groups and corporations will be fairly silent about their support for the decision also makes sense, for the decision is indeed portrayed quite negatively in the media. I also agree with his statement that "Congress, made up of party members and periodic candidates, will not be willing to let the decision create the new status quo." For decades, Congress has been pushing to limit the political spending increased by this court decision, and we can expect Congress to not take this effrontery lightly. Grant also summarized exactly why I think the Supreme Court made the correct decision: "if spending is political speech, I don’t see how it can be limited with a number. That would produce limited free speech, which is obviously an oxymoron" and "the First Amendment rights granted in the Bill of Rights apply to interest groups and corporations, as well as individuals." I am inclined to disagree with Grant that the decision will have a negative outcome, however. I expect corporation and interest group political spending to increase noticeably but not excessively, for if such an increase did occur the advertising would be less effective on an ad-weary public. I think corporations and interest groups will realize this, but we must wait and see the actual outcome.
I chose to respond to Kelsey's blog post on Obama's State of the Union address.
I agree with what Kelsey says about Obama always being a calm and collected public speaker. He always seems to have a very calm, relaxed, and comfortable tone of voice. He seems like a born public speaker, so it didn't surprise me that he did well in this speech. He is very good at showing a positive attitude about almost anything that is going on, and that rubs off on the people. He is a natural at motivating people, and keeping them optimistic. He wanted to make people understand that he was doing everything he could to fix the many problems currently facing America. He wanted to calm those people who believe that the economy is going to get worse, and that the war is never going to end, and that the deficit was going to continue growing (1). I also agreed with what Kelsey said about Obama recognizing his faults. People are beginning to doubt that Obama is going to be able to accomplish the many things he wants to accomplish. He promised healthcare reform, which hasn't happened yet. He promised that the troops would be out of Iraq immediately. That never happened. He also promised that he would fight for equal rights for gays. He hasn't done anything on that front. However, he did recognize that he has not done these things, and he laid out a plan to solve them (1). It seems to me that he was taking some responsibility for things that he could not control. He put the lack of a healthcare bill on himself, when congress is the group that has not let the bill pass. I think that Obama is going to struggle reaching his goals again this year, but he will make more progress then he did in the past year.
(1) President Obama's State of the Union Address.
In response to Ben Levine’s campaign finance post:
I agree that I would much rather hear more from the actual candidates running for office, instead of interest groups that simply have the fund to voice their opinion through television ads. I also think you make a solid point about the sound bites. The general public already hears very little from the candidate themselves, and since with this change in campaigning, the public will hear more and more from the interest groups and even less from the candidate. You also talk about the intent of the writers of the Constitution. They wanted the rich and prestigious people to be elected as president and did not want to allow the commoner to have a ton of influence, however they still wanted a democratic society. While some could argue this interferes with the fundamental rights of a human being, I do not believe the founders would have like to see the interest groups have so much influence on who gets elected. I agree that limiting the amount of money a group can spend is not unconstitutional because corporations do not have the same rights as the general public.
I also do not understand why companies and candidates need to spend so much money on campaigns. European countries have similar ways of electing officials, but it is not nearly as glorified and I would favor their way of campaigning much more. I think the campaigns here in America are way more excessive than they need to be, and the voters that truly care about who gets elected will do research on their own to find the beliefs of each candidate. Many people will agree that you can not believe everything you see in advertisements because the other party will often spin details to make themselves look better, or their opponent look worse. Voters who only rely on these ads to make their decision do not need millions of ads to influence them. Interest groups do not need to make ad after ad to get their point across, as most people will pick up on the hint the first time. I think campaign financing by corporations should be restricted to keep our society from becoming even more elitist like you said.
I would like to disagree overall with Carissa’s post on the State of the Union address. There were many things that I felt were incorrect and quite judgmental.
First off, Carissa says that “its safe to say in some aspects our country is worse off than when Bush left office.” I completely disagree with this statement and believe it is an opinion based on very little fact. By the time President Obama took office, credit markets were frozen, the financial industry was in chaos, housing values were plummeting, and the economy was in its worst contraction (that’s an economic term for a period of general economic decline) since the Great Depression (1). Besides this huge list of problems, Obama also inherited the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea (1). No American president has faced as bleak of a situation as President Obama did when coming into office. Not only did Obama inherit a mess, it was a mess the president before him made. At the end of Bush’s presidency, only 31% of Americans said he had been a success (2). I feel that this common misconception by some Americans that Obama is to blame for the state of the country is pure ignorance.
It is also stated that "hardly any of the policies implemented have had beneficial effects in our country." However, examining statistics says otherwise. Obama's stimulus package has created or saved 2 million jobs across the nation so far (2). I'd say this is a huge improvement. Tackling a recession and economically bringing a country out of one is not easy. It requires, as we learned in economics, a vast amount of government spending that doesn't necessarily reduce the unemployment rate right away. Obama has put forth a series of initiatives to stabilize the housing market, proposed long-term programs to create sustained growth, adjusted military priorities, and reached out to change the negative world image America gained from the Bush years (1).
I also disagree with Carissa's statement "he needs to quit worrying about the battle between Democrats and Republicans." Obama needs cooperation on the sides of both parties to get any of his policies passed, and I think it's extremely unfair to criticize him for his lack of change when the parties are not coming together.
Americans expect results, and they expect results right away. If this does not happen, they get angry and blame those in power for not doing their job. I think Obama has worked hard to make good on his promises, especially considering the large amount of problems he inherited coming into office. It seems extremely unfair and biased to say that he is a bad leader with a "lack of experience." Obama's approval rating still rests at a comfortable 53%, much higher than Bush's ratings when he left office (3). The most recent polls say the majority of Americans hold the GOP responsible for legislative gridlock, and they see Obama as understanding their problems and concerns (3). Overall, contrary to Carissa's opinion, I believe Obama has been and will be successful in office.
(1) http://www.newsweek.com/id/195079
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/18/poll.bush.presidency/index.html
(3) http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2010/02/16/why-oh-why-is-it-so-difficult-to-understand-this/
In response to Leah's State of the Union post-
There were both arguments I agreed with and those I didn’t made in Leah’s post. I don’t think the speech was “honest and relatable” because as I stated in my blog, I thought it was a clear indicator of Obama trying to skirt around the issues and make himself appear in a more favorable light (1). However, I agree with Leah’s point that the fee on large banks to recover bailout money is a reasonable idea, since they are the companies that received much of the money and put it to poor use. Also, the statement “the proposed new jobs bill is a good idea in theory” is very accurate, as the unemployment rate is one of the largest obstacles facing Obama that he has not executed an effective plan of action on (1). He claims to have created an astounding number of 2 million jobs with the stimulus package, although the Congressional budget office endorses much different numbers and does not support his claim with as much vigor as he says they do (2). This is an example of where I think Obama is being dishonest and stretching facts to his advantage. However, despite him being less than crystal clear, it is a good thing he mentioned jobs as one of the main priorities, which is a opinion shared by the GOP (3).
I compliment Leah on critical analysis of the President’s promises and her doubt they will be carried through, because that is the pattern that has been observed throughout the entire year with him in office. The idea of reducing the tuition burden also greatly appeals to me (I am in the same predicament as Leah), but I have to question where all of the money would come from. I would not be surprised if the President announced significant increases in federal aid to families, but then made up the difference through another loophole such as taxes or fees.
Although I heavily disagree with Leah’s statement that Obama has the potential to be one of the most successful Presidents, I do agree one of his largest obstacles is the cooperation of the two parties. A bipartisan effort from both parties (not just Republicans giving in to Democrats or vice versa) would enable significant gains in pieces of legislation and consequent policies for our country. We advertise ourselves as being a country with a “melting pot” of people, ideas, and cultures, and yet our government fights among itself almost like two disputing nations.
1.
Leah's post
2.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ci.Obama%27s+Sorry+State+of+the+Union+Speech.opinionPrint
3.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/27/sotu.gop.response/index.html
This is in response to Jackie’s post on Obama’s recent state of the union address.
Shockingly, I am going to disagree with Jackie’s opinions on the changes that President Obama needs to make in his leadership style. Jackie says, “ [the speech] could have been motivational if he had chosen not to take shots are the past administration or the right.” I don’t believe that this is necessarily true, because a warm and fuzzy speech about a bipartisan future will come across as idealistic bullshit, and not as a true effort to work towards more efficient government. While I do support most efforts for a bipartisan cooperation in the United States government, I don’t believe that talking about it sends the right message- actions in this sense will accomplish much more, and be much more “motivational”. I like Obama’s style, because he is not afraid to be frank and critical. Clearly the last administration made serious mistakes in policy, judgment, and philosophy; or our country would not have been in such a state of shambles when Obama took over the presidency. Regardless of the party in power, (although it was, of course, the Republicans), it would be a disastrous error for the next administration to not closely examine the past in an attempt to create a better future.
I also disagree with Jackie’s opinion about Obama’s small business position, concluding with a statement that, “ [you can’t] expect a business person to expand or open their own business when all their money for capital is being taken.” No, if Obama and the Democrats were imposing such a tax, small businesses would fail. But instead, Obama’s policy would collect greater revenue from already prosperous and growing businesses, and redistribute it towards jumpstarting and expanding opportunities for more small business. The success of our economy will depend on new, ingenuous companies that can create innovative products and services to shape our future in a positive direction.
In response to Dan’s post –
He made several arguments in his paper, most of which are fair statements but may not shed illuminate the whole scenario. Obama did make a plea to the American people in his speech but he also made a plea to congress to get legislation passed. If we are to be disappointed in Obama’s first year, we must also be disappointed in the democratic super majority who couldn’t make some of Obama’s positions into reality and legislation. Dan said, “It is clear the Republicans are just trying to hold off until midterm elections. Obama needs to show the Democrats that it is okay to compromise, and hopefully Republicans will see their example.” While it may be true that the republicans are trying to hold out, they are also the minority and the dems need to get legislation passed because the can, because they will inevitably lose the majority in the congress.
I am in agreement with Dan on his analysis on the education goals of Obama. I agree that more money has to be placed into the education sector to attract teachers and improve the overall education of the country. However, I’m not sure that this goal will be actualized either especially until spending gets under control or until the economy recovers. I felt that a lot of what Dan said was good on this point.
Dan’s last argument was on the economy that it’s Obama’s priority. I agree that that is the priority right now and many congressmen won’t do anything until it starts to turn around so that they can show something to their constituents. Overall Dan hit all the key points and has a pretty good interpretation of the State of the Union.
1. State of the Union Address
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTMrs9vpoqg
2. Full text: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-2010-full-text-transcript_n_439459.html
In Response To Jacob Sandry’s Post #2
Jacob-
I fully agree with your description of Mr. Obama’s speaking skills. As you said, he is “very motivational and eloquent” and is able to speak with confidence in the way that he delivers information to the public (1). I also agree with your statement of partisanship within politics. Voters expect Democrats and Republicans to work together to solve the difficult problems facing the United States (2). Exit polls are even pushing for bipartisanship. When Scott Brown ran on the Republican mantra, polls showed that voters wanted Brown to work with Obama and other Congressional Democrats to get thing done in Washington (2). I do not understand why party lines are drawn so thick. When pertinent information is being discussed, why can’t Congress learn to compromise and find a solution that benefits America as a whole and have substantial positive long-term effects and not worry about which party profits more from the results. When things need to get accomplished, and the public is pushing for compromise, Congress members should be able to take a hint and work to get things done.
I also agree that freezing government spending is the best way to go when attempting to reverse the U.S. deficit and reform the budget. Within the address, Obama directly stated “We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can’t afford and don’t work” (3). Through these attempts, I believe that there is “light at the end of the tunnel”, that the U.S. may see the day where the national deficit may be below a few million dollars. The deficit is something that has been a pressing issue that needs to be dealt with, and I am pleased to see that something is being done, so that we don’t continue to fall deeper down into debt.
Work Cited
1. Jacob’s post: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1594687385816014274&postID=280000581502458909
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/obamas-state-of-the-union_b_450711.html
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/27/state-of-the-union-2010-full-text-transcript_n_439459.html
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home