This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
If you answered option one respond to someone who did the other topic. And vice versa. If you answered option two respond to someone who did option one.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 12:53 PM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
25 Comments:
Dear Anthony, it is Tuesday evening and I am the FIRST TO RESPOND!!! Not procrastinating.
In response to Kristin who did option #2
While I agree with Britta’s comment that “President Obama will most likely find that his tie in office won’t be as easy as was when Congress was controlled by the Democrats”, I also agree with Kristin in that President Obama could actually benefit from divided government (2). The Republicans are now responsible for legislation and it could really go two ways. Either the American public is going to love what the Republicans are doing and give them more seats, and potentially the Senate and the Presidency in 2012 or they are going to disagree with the Republican’s policies and go Democrat in 2012. While divided government may not be the most efficient form of government, I think that it will do a good job of making moderate policies, and could be very beneficial to the public. I also agree with Kristin’s point that the president will face major opposition to any legislation pertaining to taxes and government spending.
The Republican’s made big promises to the public in this election and unfortunately I think it will be difficult for them to pull through. With the Democrats controlling the Senate and Presidency I would recommend that the Republican’s focus on more central ideas so that legislation gets passed instead of worrying about passing only super conservative legislation that does not have a chance in the Senate. The Republicans have the opportunity to control what type of bills the Senate and President Obama see and I hope they will compromise to make things happen. I disagree with Kristin’s comment that “It would be nice if the House and Senate could set aside their strong partisan ideals and compromise, but the chances of that are low.” In order for things to pass they will have to compromise and I think this will occur more than what the general population expects just because of the current state of the economy (1).
As for issues I think that the government should first focus on the economy and how to improve it, whether by increasing taxes (not going to happen), cutting spending (not likely), or any other way something needs to get done (3). Personally, I would like to see more “green” legislation in this session because it is a less controversial issue and I think that there is a lot of potential growth for our government in that sector. I would also like to see more legislation on trade and restrictions specifically applying to China. Issues that should be avoided....as of now complex social issues, I feel like while they are important there are other pressing issues that need to be addressed first.
As for the Tea Party, I think once in Congress they will realize that there super conservative ideas will not fly. It will also be important for them to not create divides in the party, as this could lead to big problems for the Republicans in Congress. While there are only 37 of them, there voices could be heard loud and clear (1).
(1)http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022891-503544.html
(2)http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/13/what-obama-needs-to-do.html
(3)http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2015481,00.html
Adding on to Katie's statement... Anthony, it makes minimal sense for you to continue to be upset about how I always post before you if you procrastinate to the point of not doing the blog yet! :)
In response to Rachel B:
While reading Rachel’s blog post, I found something she said to be very interesting: “I think that many people voted Republican just to “spite” Obama and the Democrats.” If this is true, isn’t this what people did in the 2006 midterm election just to “spite” Bush and the Republicans? Considering myself a moderate on the political spectrum, I’m not trying to point fingers at anyone, I just think it’s interesting that she mentioned this when the America saw essentially the same thing happen in 2006, only with the defeat of the Republicans. I point this out because to me, her statement seems as if it was wrong to vote Republicans simply because people are unsatisfied with President Obama. Arguably, this could be said to be the case in the 2006 election as well.
I disagree with Rachel on her quote above because I think if people are unsatisfied with the president and/or the majority party, they should vote to put the minority party into the majority. That, to me, is one of the most important aspects of democracy: having the ability to boot a party out of office if they are unsatisfying to the public. Maybe it isn’t necessarily the most sensible thing to do, but then again who can say what is sensible? The sensibility of an issue is really determined by an individual’s opinion, not everybody is going to agree on what is sensible and what is not.
I also think it is worth noting that despite the results of the midterm election, President Obama’s approval rating went up from 43% to 47% in the days after the election according to an article from November 9 (1). The approval ratings of Presidents Bush and Clinton both went down after they lost their majorities in Congress and the fact that the Obama administrations didn’t just maintain its approval rating, but that it actually went up, isn’t something to put by the wayside. Aside from this, The Democrats only lost one House of Congress this election. Whereas Clinton in 1994 and Bush in 2006 lost both houses to the minority party, after the recent election, the Democrats still control one house. Although the Republicans gained a whole lot of seats in the House, the Senate is still, barely, controlled by the Democrats, which is definitely an optimistic point for them.
I agree with Rachel that Congress will see a lot of gridlock in the near future and that it will be hard to accomplish much in the next Congressional term with two parties that are so head to head in many issues. Despite this, I don’t think it is right to treat this as the Republicans fault. The voters spoke for the Republicans and that is that. The Democrats are at fault here as well. If neither party can learn to compromise, not much will get done in Congress in the next two years. I also thought it was interesting that she referred to the Democrats legislation in Congress as “progress” because although what they’ve done is most definitely progress to some people, to others it is the complete opposite. How I see it is that if enough people didn’t think Congress’ actions were the opposite of progress, Republicans wouldn’t have got the majority in the House. I think it is extremely important to recognize all aspects and opinions of an issue, even if one doesn’t agree with some of the opinions. In the issue of the midterm election, it is important to realize that not everyone believes that what the Democrats have done in Congress has been good for the country. I believe that if people can’t recognize difference in opinions such as this, our country can’t survive democratically as it does.
Sources:
(1) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/11/09/2010-11-09_president_obamas_approval_rating_climbs_to_47_despite_midterm_massacre_of_democr.html?r=news/politics
In response to Bridget (option 2):
I agree that Obama will have to make a lot more compromises. As I noted in my post, Obama has said that he is ready to work with the Republicans and make those compromises (1). I agree with Bridget's view that education should be discussed, but I'm not as optimistic that it can be compromised upon that easily. I also don't think that Bridget's source about the education issues needing discussion takes the stance that such a collaboration is possible. It takes a pretty liberal stance, stating that the schools that are doing the worst need the most funding (the opposite of No Child Left Behind)and that teachers need to be supported, not thwarted (2).
I agree with Bridget that the subject of gay marriage will be nearly impossible to discuss at all. Many GLBT groups have expressed dissatisfaction with Obama's lack of progress on legalizing gay marriage. He has been fairly wishy-washy on the subject, frequently saying that his stance may "evolve" or change (3). As much as this frustrates me as a straight ally, I understand that it is impossible for Obama to take a concrete stance or make any solid accomplishments in this area with the Republican opposition in Congress. I think that it will just be a waste of time and cause too much gridlock to try to make any headway on legalizing gay marriage.
I also agree with Bridget that the Republicans need to work on the Tea Party's image. The Tea Party's extreme views will almost certainly make some people go back to favoring the Democrats. Unless the Republicans manage to make the Tea Party mellow out a little bit and be more centrist, the Tea Party will definitely end up hurting the Republicans eventually.
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/03/barack-obama-midterms-compromise
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/may/04/education-big-issues-new-government
In response to Kristin:
I thought that it was interesting that Kristin found out that President Obama’s approval rating has actually increased to 47% (1). Considering that the midterm elections was a major win for the Republican party, so I thought that that would mean that people would approve of the President even less. I also thought it was interesting how Kristin brought up the fact that because the Republicans had the majority of the House it would actually soften some of the public’s criticisms of President Obama. I had never thought of it that way, but now that Kristin pointed it out, I can definitely see now it could somewhat help the public’s view of him.
I would also have to agree with Kristin on how the Republicans would most likely repeal the healthcare and financial aid regulatory reform laws and that there would be many debates about the spending bills for healthcare. I can see how it will be very difficult for any of the parties to get anything done, since the Democrats rule the Senate and the Republicans the House. But perhaps the parties will listen to the fact that 72% of Americans in the CBS Poll want the parties to find a compromise, even if that requires them to loosen their stance on the issues (3).
1. http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_
2. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4f7aec6a-3c28-4551-b32d-6ea3f1d54d0b
3. http://www.wctv.tv/APNews/headlines/CBS_Poll_After_the_Midterm_Election_107241613.html
In response to Erika who did option #2!!
I agree with Erika’s statement “Though it is difficult even now for Congress and the President to get things done, it will be even harder with the divided government” (1.) There is evidence that suggests when divided government exists policy gridlock is to follow. In her post, Erika also says “The gridlock that this will cause will make it nearly impossible for our government to pass anything” (1). I disagree with this statement. It will be difficult, but not nearly impossible. There have been several successful laws and policy that have been passed under the rule of divided government. The Marshall Plan, the Federal Highway Act, Welfare Reform, Reagan’s tax cuts, and turning deficit into surplus are all essential legislation that was passed under divided government (2). Erika also said that President Obama’s second term would be even more unproductive (1). Only time can tell, but the divided Congress could potentially be more beneficial for President Obama especially with re-election. The state of the economy is one of the biggest reasons why Americans are disfavoring President Obama. If the economy doesn’t changed by 2012, the division of Congress will show people that Republicans share some of the blame, and it’s not all President Obama’s fault (3).
I definitely agree with the advice Erika has for Congress. Working together is the only way that the government will run efficiently. An example of something they should work together on is keeping the tea party away from radical issues will also help the government (1). I agree that candidates need to stick to their initial promises, and find common ground to solve more of the urgent issues. I liked how Erika used polling results to back up her statements. It was interesting to see how Americans are reacting to the divided government. Overall I think Erika had an excellent post that helped me understand more about what the midterm election results meant.
1. Erika’s Post https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1594687385816014274&postID=2720464085339544671
2. CNN: http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-17/opinion/avlon.divided.government_1_immigration-reform-empty-political-rhetoric-candidate-obama?_s=PM:OPINION
3. The New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/78773/divided-government-no-boon-obama
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with Patrick that President Obama will need patience and bipartisanship in the coming months (1). The Democrats will be facing a very difficult time, as the current Democrats finish out their term, they will struggle to pass any last minute policies. And as Patrick said, with “the House if divided 239-R and 188-D, and the Senate divided 46-R, 51-D, and 2-I,” I cannot see any possibilities of The House or the Senate having any new ideas (2).
The Republicans will now have a chance to slow down the Democrats from continuing their. Also the Republicans will be able start to pursue more republican policies (3). Now with “The new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, says that the Republican party can now push for better fiscal responsibility within Washington and put an end to the deficit spending” (1). I agree that the Republicans will not be able to stop all the Democratic policies, especially since the Democrats retained a majority in the Senate. The Tea Party should be extremely happy with their victories’ with the new speaker of the House, John Boehner, is going to support smaller government policies, which should encourage Tea Party supporter as they see their ideas brought into congress.
(1)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8109466/Midterm-elections-2010-Angry-voters-have-left-America-at-a-crossroads.html
(2)http://www.cbsnews.com/election2010/
(3)http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/11/house-under-new-management-we-wont-get-fooled-again
(4)http://www.mlive.com/michigan-job-search/index.ssf/2010/09/americans_have_dismal_view
In response to Abby:
I agree with Abby that the Republicans are feeling very confident after the midterm elections, and that they are will try to use their majority in the House to block many of Obama’s proposals. Republicans believe that their new majority means that they are likely to win the 2012 election and that the midterm results mean that Americans want them to oppose every piece of legislation from the Democrats’ agenda (1). The Republicans should not be overly confident that they will sweep the 2012 election. Historically, presidents have been successful when running for reelection even when dealing with a divided government (2) and the Republicans should be careful about how they interpret public opinion and so they do more than just oppose everything the Democrats try to pass and end up losing support in the long run.
The Democrats view these losses as a sign that their public support is dwindling, however they plan on trying to compromise with the Republicans to pass legislation to try and stimulate the economy and job market and gain them more support. President Obama still has time to implement the “change” that he promised in his campaign. The Democrats know this will be very difficult because the Republicans seem unwilling to compromise and with President Obama most likely trying to focus on the economy and taxes, he should ready himself for strong opposition (3).
The Republicans should not misinterpret the results of the midterm results. The Republicans believe that the voters want to oppose everything Democrat, and they plan on turning down proposals from the Democrats. President Obama still has a chance to win reelection in 2012, his approval rating after the midterm elections was up slightly than what is was before the election (4) and presidents who seek reelection during divided governments usually tend to be successful (2). It would be nice if the Democrats and Republicans could compromise on key issues to such as the economy, job market, and social services, instead of just sitting through the next two years with nothing being done in Congress to turn America around.
1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131023838
2) http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/11/11/131247051/obama-s-a-one-termer-not-necessarily-political-scientists
3) http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\11\12\story_12-11-2010_pg3_2
4) http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272635866.shtml
In Response to Savannah! :)
She did post #2.
I think that Savannah brings up some really valid points. I do agree with Savannah that the Democrats want to believe that it is not their policies, but the economy which is making their positions in office unpopular. However, I think where Savannah and I differ in opinions is when she states that Republicans want to solely blame the nations problems on the President. I feel that this may be only one of the people that they want to put blame on. I also feel that they wish to blame the economy and the previously Democratic controlled Congress (1). I feel that the Republicans realize that they know that policies have to be enacted fast, and that they haven’t been lately. When decisions aren’t being made, legislation is slower and less is getting done. I feel that this leads to situation we are in now. I feel that both Republicans and Democrats may not want to admit it, but they have the whole governmental system and all its externalities to blame. An example of this is when in an article, Obama states “the economy is moving in the right direction.” (2) I feel that this is said just so that hope is there for many people I think that people will soon find that government falls short. I feel that government says this because it does not want to be caught up in a mess they have caused, and parties certainly do not want to lose more seats. I think it is hard for the Democrats to keep positive, and that they are asserting that they are getting much done so they can get seats back. In one article, they state that they have just been slower in their economic progress, but the progress they have made has been good. This is one example of how parties like to have a bit of support (3).
I’m very happy that Savannah took the time to point out how parties did not want to recognize their shortcomings. I think this is very important. I feel that we should stop playing the blame game and start getting things done. Although I am a Republican at heart, I feel that if we focused on either parties ways to solve economic problems we would get a lot done. I think the key to having a strong nation is unity. For example, on the issue of deficit, If the government cut taxes and lessened government spending I feel we would be able to increase governmental revenue and decrease the deficit. At the same time I believe that some times it is essential to pump money into the economy and stimulate it and to heighten taxes, just so that government can get adequate revenue. This is more consistent with a Democratic economic view. (I do not assert the same for social viewpoints, however. Please do not assume I have either Republican or Democratic social views, either.) Generally though, I agreed with Savannah and thought she had a very good post. The only thing I had wanted to touch on was the idea of the blame game.
1.)http://www.gop.com/index.php/debunking/comments/elections_have_consequences/
2.)http://www.gop.com/index.php/comms/comments/democrats_gross_domestic_problems
3.)http://www.democrats.org/news/press/1068
Sorry Kathy “Long-Term” Carr, but I am procrastinating.
In response to Bridget!
I really enjoyed the way you wrote your argument. The information that you stated was clearly written and was accurate with the sources that you used. I strongly agree with you in that the Republican Party should use some of their Tea Party members to their advantage. You said that the Republican Party should use them to try and get more conservative legislation passed. I totally agree with you on this stance because I really believe that this is what the Republican Party is going to do.
I also agree with you when you said that President Obama is going to have to compromise. I feel that ever since he was elected he turned from a liberal to a moderate because in my opinion he hasn’t done that much. Although he was surprised in office by a few things, the oil leak, I feel that he hasn’t done that much in his efforts (1). I feel like he is a very hesitant president because he is lacking experience. It will be very interesting as to how he deals with the divided government because this has happened to past presidents (1). It happened when Bill Clinton was the president. He sort of re-invented himself, and I believe that Obama can either re-invent himself or he can fail and be stuck with a ton of political gridlock.
I believe that it will be very interesting to see what happens in the future because with all of the possible gridlock, we could end up getting nowhere. I also agree with you when you say that the Republican will lose their votes if the Tea Party “crazes” up. I feel that the Republicans somehow need to stop the movement and take the people in the movement and convert them to conservatives. I feel that the Republicans should try and strip the Tea Party’s name away from them because nobody ever wants to hear about this extremely radical party.
Sources
(1) http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per
In response to RJ:
I agree with RJ that one of the biggest reasons why the Democrats lost so many seats in this election is because moderate Americans generally tend to vote with the opposite party in the midterm elections [1]. It is estimated that the Democrats will lose 60 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate, which is the largest number of seats lost by the president’s party in mid-term elections since 1938, when the country was experiencing its worst depression [1]. Because we are in the worst recession since that time, I think it is safe to say that the economy also played a huge factor in the elections.
I also agree that gridlock is sure to ensue, and that the Republicans are going to thwart a lot of policymaking. Although the Republicans were very successful in the elections, they are being very assertive and intransigent on nearly every issue, which will not be beneficial for the nation because we still have a Democratic Senate and presidency that will prevent the passage of legislation introduced by the Republican House. The Republicans know that they have a lot of support right now and they will definitely use that to their advantage: They think that now is the best time to introduce their most conservative legislation because the American public will be more supportive of it now than any other time in the next two years. They have “promised congressional investigations, an all-out effort to repeal health care reform, and steadfast opposition to any form of higher taxes. [2]” None of these are issues that many Democrats support, so it is unlikely they will get through the Senate, if they even get through the House.
I agree with RJ that the Democrats still have most of the pressure over issues with the economy. With a Democratic Senate and president, Americans will blame the Democrats for the shape of the economy because the legislation to combat the recession will have to go through the Senate and president to be passed, so if they don’t work, the Democrats will be blamed for passing it even if the Republicans supported the legislation too. I have also read that it is a difficult decision as to what the Democrats should do because they want to be productive, but they don’t want to compromise too much because that will lose them a lot of support [3]. I feel that in some ways it is better for the Republicans that they didn’t win both Houses in this election because even if their policies fail, everyone will blame the Democrats for the economy. This could lead to Republicans being the more favorable party just as the economy gets back up on its feet, which would lead to them staying in power longer because of the more successful economy.
1)http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/mid-term_elections.php
2)http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/07/election.post.mortem/index.html
3)http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131240237
In Response to AnthoNOVA...oh wait, I didn't see a post by Anthony on Post #5, and that's either because I scrolled by too quickly, or (tsk tsk) Anthony didn't do his homework! Since I like to think highly of my reading skills, I'll assume the latter and instead out-crazy anyone in this class and seal the hat trick for having three people refute their own points in one class. You, Jesse, and I will go down in the history books as some of the great flip-floppers of all time, and I need to practice writing about myself in the third person for that Awakening Essay in English, but that's beside the point.
Eric, after reading your post, the only logical conclusion one can make is that you are a complete nincompoop. First, I have to strongly disagree with your entire first paragraph, which mocked and derided the high expectations Amurrica had for President Obama. Obama is such a powerful presence, for instance, that some people like to wonder aloud to themselves and the rest of the Internet if he is The Savior! (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/). Also, given Obama's radical, hopey-changey, platform of "reform," (1) it is very reasonable to expect a massive turnaround in the direction of our nation in two years, is that not the objective of change?
Moving on, I do strongly agree with you that Obama is an abject failure who ought to be impeached. His Administration is a leftist, socialist, communist Propaganda Machine trying to establish a Savior-based Economy by rewarding bad business and bailing out banks on Wall Street (2)! Keep your Change, Obama!
I want a free market, complete with minimum wage, high tariffs on imported goods, and consumer-subsidized government purchases of surplus farm goods to keep the prices of agricultural goods artificially high (3)!
Also, given my laissez-faire ideals for the American economy, it is absolutely President Obama’s fault that the economy is tanking. The whole point of trickle-down economics is to give tax breaks to the rich, which will therefore, somehow improve the standard of living for the middle class (4), just like how President Reagan did! But since President Obama isn’t doing it, this is clear proof that he:
-Hates America, is a Marxist, is a Muslim, is defiling the Constitution, and he is an America-hating illegal immigrant.
However, when you say the Republicans are irresponsible and reckless, you are just plain wrong. It was not President Bush who started the witch h….err, War on Terror, nor did the deadliest attack on American soil in our history take place under the watch of a Republican President. It’s not like Bush was given warning in advance that Osama Bin Laden may have been planning a terrorist attack on 9/11/2001 either (5). Furthermore, it is good that McConnell and Boehner want to get Obama voted out of office in 2012, Obama is an Anti-American, Socialist, Marxist, Communist, Fascist, Constitution-hating dictator who wants to kill America! Any True American Patriot would want to do exactly what the Republicans are doing, getting Obama thrown into the unemployment line!
Sources
(1) http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
(2) http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/18/more-scenes-from-mesa-i-need-a-beachfront-condo-mr-president/
(3)http://books.google.com/books?id=JpuDoMDX4tsC&pg=PA357&lpg=PA357&dq=government+buying+surplus+farm+products&source=bl&ots=82IKYpDZFw&sig=lsvUqj-oX_wHz3CJu_1C6d951j4&hl=en&ei=z-XlTIDkC8XEngfhto2qDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=government%20buying%20surplus%20farm%20products&f=false
(4) http://www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html
(5) http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/us/bush-was-warned-bin-laden-wanted-to-hijack-planes.html
Response to Savannah,
Savannah did a good job explaining the results of the election. Her response to the question: What does it mean for Obama, was different from what I expected. Savannah’s source said that Republican’s blamed it almost entirely on the President and didn’t want to admit that the economy and public dissatisfaction played a role(1). The article also said that Democrats didn’t want to acknowledge voter dissatisfaction(1). In an article I used, it said exactly the opposite. Republican leaders credited the win to public dissatisfaction with the Democratic policies, and Obama said he was out of touch and his policies weren’t working fast enough(2). I thought it was interesting that two articles about the same topic could say such different things. I agree with Savannah that it will be very difficult for the president to get anything done with Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives, unless they compromise, which is very unlikely. I think that she brought up any interesting fact when she said, “72% of Americans want Republicans to compromise to get things done.” This clearly shows that Americans are more moderate than they appear.
I somewhat agree with Savannah’s advice for Republicans. She said that Republicans should stick to their policies and ideas even if they don’t get that much done. I think that elected officials should keep their promises to the public otherwise there is no point in them representing the people. In general, Americans vote for candidates that have the same stance on most policies, so these opinions should be represented in government. I do think, however, that Republicans should be willing to compromise in some instances so that Congress can accomplish something.
I agree with Savannah’s advice for the Democrats. They should try to recover by listening to what citizens want and trying to change accordingly. They should not back down from their stance on polices because they are representing people too.
Overall, this blog post was very good!
1. http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/09/lcg-monitor-midterm-election-result-was-more-than-a-wave/
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110207506.htm
In response to Justin
I disagree with your view that the Democrats in Congress along with President Obama understand what Americans are going through right now. If Democrats had understood the will of the people on Election Day they would not have re-elected Rep .Pelosi and Sen. Reid to minority whip and minority speaker for the Democrats. (1) One of the reasons why people voted as conservatively was they did were the actions of these two lawmakers. Their actions were out of step with the average citizen, so the rest of their party suffered. I think the Democrats should have brought in new leadership to show that they are listening to voters. I also think removing them from leadership positions would have made them the scapegoats for the Democrats instead of President Obama.
I disagree when you say that both parties are upset with the results of the election. I think Republicans should be very proud of their showing in the election. The 2008 elections were thought to bring a new era of Democrat power to Washington, and put Republicans in disarray (2). 2 years later the Republicans have come back from the dead to dominate this year’s election. They should be very pleased that they have the numbers in Congress. They are also happy because they now have control of the House of Representatives which gives them the power to strike down bills using only Republican support. The drawback on this is if they become the party of no, they could just as easily loose the power that they have gained.
(1) Shuler loses Minority Leader bid against Pelosi
http://www.mountainx.com/news/2010/shuler_losses_minority_leader_bid_against_pelosi
(2) A Once-United G.O.P. Emerges, in Identity Crisis
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06repubs.html?hp
I am responding to Erika
I definitely agree with Erika, this election is very bad news for President Obama and the Democrats. The Republicans aren’t going to let them get anything they want passed (1). Also, they’re going to use their new dominance to try and win back the presidency in 2012 (1). The next two years are probably going to be pretty useless policy-wise. The general population is definitely going to be unhappy with government the next couple of years, so we’ll see in what way it affects the 2012 election. I agree with Erika’s suggestion for dealing with the Tea Party, they definitely need to be shown that they are not really helping matters right now. They are simply making the divided government even worse. I agree with Erika that the parties need to work together if anything is to get done the next couple of years, but everyone knows that that is not a strong suit of politicians. It will be an interesting couple of years.
1. http://www.npr.org/2010/11/09/131167214/-house-rules-give-republicans-big-advantage
This comment has been removed by the author.
In Response to Eric
I agree with you that this election is going to cause a lot of trouble for the Democrats as the Republicans controlling the house Democrats won't be able to get anything done and issues will be considered by both parties. The Republicans have been campaigning on lowering taxes and boost the economy and increase employment but they won't be able to get it done with out increasing government spending or in the next two years in office. I have to disagree with your statement that Obama is a socialist dictator. Obama hasn't been able to get things done in the past two years i think because when he came to office the country was at war and the economy was done the drain and resolving it is not an easy thing in two years. The republicans are just going to try to block Obama's plan on health care and Democrat's agenda i think this is going to cause lot of problems, resulting in nothing being accomplished. I agree with you that due to decrease in party loyalty the power of the parties are going to be going back and fourth in coming years. Both parties should focus on getting things done and this is a chance for the republicans to prove that their agenda works best in the current condition.
I thought Eric did a good job on his post
Response to your response post Obama not being reelected in 2012 wouldn't make him unemployed because he wouldn't be looking for anymore jobs and it would make him not part of the labor force and he would not be unemployed if he didn't get reelected(in term of economics)
Sources
http://staugustine.com/opinions/2010-11-09/obamas-midterm-challenge-revealed
http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/09/lcg-monitor-midterm-election-result-was-more-than-a-wave/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110207506.html
In Response to Monica!!
Hi. I really liked how you wrote this blog post. It was very detailed with specific quotes that helped me get a greater understanding of the issues you were writing about!
I agreed with your view on how the Democrats responded to the election outcomes. You wrote that Democrats said the results were in favor of Republicans because the public was unhappy about the economic situation(1). I definitely think that too. People blamed the problems on the Democratic Party, because that was the party in power at the time. I fully agree with your statement, “if his (President Obama’s) policies had been more successful voters would have supported Democrats more”(2). Now the public wants a change and hopes it will steer America in the right direction.
I also agreed with what you said on how the Republicans viewed the election. Republicans believed that the results showed a clear opposition to the Democrats, and that this meant the public wants a more limited government. The Republicans seem very confident in their goals. This is shown in your statement where Republicans believe “if the Democrats don’t change and work with them, Democrats will face even tougher consequences in 2012(3).
I totally agreed with your views of the election! I would definitely say the Republican’s spin was a little off. They seemed to over exaggerate the thoughts of the American people. Just because they voted them into office doesn’t mean they want to totally bash all of Obama’s ideas. I agreed with you when you said that the election was a result of the economy and not ideologies. People just wanted a change, and to send a message to government that the tactics they are using now aren’t working.
Good job Monica! ☺
(1)http://obama.net/2010-midterm-election-results-in-republicans-top-democrats-obama-reacts/
(2)Monica’s blog post
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110207506.htm
^Twins^
In response to Erika, who answered question number two wonderfully!
It was really interesting to read your answer for question 2 since I answered number one! I appreciated how straightforward you were with the facts in your first paragraph. I would have to disagree with when you stated that “President Obama’s second term will be even more unproductive” though. I definitely agree/have learned to face the facts about the way the House is going to be run, but I feel like Obama will need to learn how to become moderate (which he’s been doing lately) in order to get his wishes granted. I think he cannot risk his public opinion polls dropping any lower by not being productive, IF he even gets reelected in 2012.
I agree that in an ideal world, the two parties would learn to cooperate in the House, however, that will never happen. I think both parties need to accept the fact that gridlock is inevitable; therefore they need to pick & choose their battles before they dive in to get their hands dirty. I agree with your Tea Party stance, with the exception that their voice is barely being heard, to the fact that even popular (among conservatives) Christine O’Donnell didn’t even get elected (1).
(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/election2010/
Response to caitlinF:
I agree with the idea that the Democrats got hit so hard in the election because they have not brought about a recovery from the recession in the past two years (2), but I disagree that the cap-and-trade bill and the health care bill (well, at least by itself) were substantial factors. The average person most likely does not know much at all about the cap-and-trade system nor the bill involved, and a large amount of the backlash about so called “Obamacare” comes from the demonization of it by Republican politicians and pundits; there’s little reason for the average person to care about it otherwise.
I strongly disagree with the notion that the Tea Party has increased the Republican base, as well as the idea that Tea Party candidates are notably popular. In exit polls, 55% of those polled said they either don’t care about the Tea Party or they oppose it (1). I also think it’s telling that, in one of the most ridiculously conservative election results in recent memory, several Tea Party candidates, ostensibly far-right Republicans, failed to get elected, such as Christine O’Donnel and Sharron Angle (1). Regarding the idea that the Tea Party increased the Republican base, it’s crazy to think this, in my opinion. If there was any party Tea Party members identified with before the advent of the Tea Party, it’s absolutely the Republican party.
It’s with great reluctance that I must admit that, by pure majority, it would seem that a majority of people, according to exit polls, do indeed oppose the health care bill (again, I would argue because of how the right portrayed it rather than the content) (2).
To the idea that Republicans will face a tough America if they don’t follow through with what they said they’d do before getting elected, I disagree. As I stated in my post, any lack of progress in either direction in the upcoming years will be scapegoated directly onto Obama. Really, Republicans not doing what they promised would probably lead to stronger election results come 2012. The most effective way to do this would be to stop everything. Especially job creation. Every bad thing that will happen in these next to years will be blamed on Obama.
1. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010_Elections/vote-2010-elections-tea-party-winners-losers/story?id=12023076
2. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/importance_of_issues
Response to Brian (Option One)
It was interesting to read Brian's views, I thought many things he said were interesting, I just found a few that I disagreed with. I disagree with Brian on two things, the first being his statement about how both parties won, the other about his idea that Americans turn to Republicans, during times of economic hardship.
I don't believe that both parties had victories. I see the elections as a battle (pardon the harsh metaphor, just work with me here), the Republicans are the besieging army, the Democrats the defenders. In this battle of votes, the Republicans gained serious ground and captured a major Fort, the House of Representatives. Although the Republicans fought hard and they seemed to have power in numbers, the Democrats were able to hold down their prime citadel, the Senate. It wasn't a victory for the Democrats, just less of a loss than it could have been.
I also disagree with his statement, among others, "usually when people are in [hard] economic times people tend to vote Republican because Republicans tend to try to stimulate the economy." In times of economic trouble, EVERY party works to try to stimulate the economy, not just the Republicans. In addition to that, not a single Republican voted in favor of the most recent stimulus package (1).
Ignoring current affairs, Republicans have a history with economic recessions. It wasn't long after Herbert Hoover was elected that the Great Depression struck not only the United States, but the world. While the President himself cannot be totally to blame for the Depression, he certainly didn't help us get out of it. It wasn't until Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected and his New Deal was put into effect that the country started its rise (2).
Back to recent events. President George W. Bush and his administration dragged the US into an economic recession that has not been equaled since the Great Depression itself (2).
Despite my critique, I truly thought that Brian did a good job. I though that his blog was well supported and truly shows his views. Good job Brian!
(1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/28/obama-im-confident-stimul_n_161654.html
(2)http://cards6.wordpress.com/2008/09/11/republican-president-have-a-history-of-overseeing-economic-disaster/
In Response to Emma Gerch:
Overall, I found your post to the point and sound. I found it very interesting how the Republicans have received the results of the elections. With an energized voting base and new representation (with a fair serving of Tea Party members), Republicans have rebounded from the 2008 General Elections well. I thought your point on how much Democrats will have to compromise was fair and will be a key to President Obama's next two years. Considering how each party spun the election, I found a telling poll done by CBS News. The poll found that when voters were asked how they felt about the midterm election results, 27% of voters said they don't care and 28% were disappointed by the results, while 40% were pleased. The 40% is startling in comparison to the 2006 midterm election results where 58% of voters said they were pleased [1]. This poll is interesting because it points out how even if party's see their election results as a success, the public may not necessarily agree.
I laughed to myself when you said you will lose faith in this country if a Tea Party president is elected in 2012. Personally, I would as well but I believe it is incredibly unlikely. Moreso, I feel more apathetic and disappointed simply by the basics of political trends. Parties come in and out of power for temporary reasons while voters are swayed back and forth by talking heads and politicians personalities. Real-life issues are cast aside in favor of profiteering and when they are rightfully considered, bureaucracy rears its ugly head. Perhaps, politics just isn't my thing, but these midterms have left me simply uninterested in the whole game of government.
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20022599-503544.html
I agree with Caitlin that the Democrats were hit the hardest in Midwestern states, but I disagree that it was specifically because of de-industrialization in those areas. I believe that the answer as to why that happened is more of a general one about job loss, and that it has to do with the country as a whole and not just the Midwest. Speaker Pelosi said “Nine and a half percent unemployment is a very eclipsing event,” she said. “If people don’t have a job, they’re not too interested in how you intend for them to have a job. They want to see results.” (1). I have to agree with this whole-heartedly. Though the de-industrialization did contribute to job loss, it is not the only thing that caused it. I also agree with Caitlin when she says that the health care bill further exacerbated the problems that the Democrats were having, it definitely made moderates and conservatives cringe and did not help them win any votes in November’s election, but I believe that that is more because of the way that it was implemented, and not so much about the concept of universal health care itself, since Americans prefer universal health care over the employer-based insurance by a 2 to 1 margin (2).
I really don’t think that these results would encourage the Tea Party, because they won very few seats, with Christine O’Donnell losing her race, as did Sharron Angle of Nevada. Another reason that the Tea Partiers shouldn’t be encouraged by this is the fact that only 18% of Americans are Tea Party supporters (3). I also disagree that Tea Party and Republicans are working together to grow a larger support base, because giving to one means taking from the other in this case. Also, generally speaking, when a group has separate candidates from another group that they are similar to, that means they aren’t working together.
I do , however completely agree with Cate’s advice to the GOP, saying that the Republicans better do what they promised or they will be out of jobs just as many Democrats are now. When the people sense weakness, they quickly run to someone else to fix the problem.
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/us/politics/04elect.html?scp=2&sq=midterm%20election%20results&st=cse
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?scp=1&sq=percentage%20of%20americans%20that%20support%20tea%20party&st=cse
2. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/us/healthcare031020_poll.html
In RJ's post I agreed with some of what he said but other parts seemed odd. When He advises the republican’s to do nothing then blame President Obama for everything, I thought that was funny, however, I don’t think it’s a good plan. The Public might be quick to blame Obama. But I think they would notice If Republican’s weren’t doing anything. Also there are records kept on what Congress members vote on, so if congress members want to be reelected they do have to do something. I do agree that democrats are in a difficult position, because of the divvied government it will be difficult to get anything accomplished. They can’t compromise with the republicans too much or their supporters will be angry, but without compromise nothing will get done.
1 http://www.electionprojection.com/index.php
2. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39990920/ns/politics-decision_2010
In response to Boom Boom Pau's post, I totally agree with what he has said. The division between democrats and republicans in congress will make it very difficult for anything to be happen(1). Although very little will happen now, the republicans should take this as a positive change because at least they are hindering the actions that the democrats wanted to make. I also agree with the statement that even though there is talk of compromise, there will be very little of that. The two parties' goals differ too much and they both are too motivated to have more power than the other.
(1)http://www.cbsnews.com/election2010/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home