My Vote could have been counted or thrown in the trash...

Super stoked that Mitt Romney is pronounced the winner of the Florida primary before my mail in absentee ballot has probably even been cracked open. I can really sense democratic processes in the country and for once I feel like MY vote made a difference. AMERICA! --- Beth

Hold your horses Mr. Romney

Mr. Romney Waits only 35 min after being proclaimed the projected winner of the florida primary debates from cnn to proclaim the end of an "Obama era" and the begining of his era. This seems like a very 'cocky' presidential apponent. Its his time he says and "...and now its time for you to get out of the way" Mr. Obama. President Obama won 66,882,230(1) votes in the 2008 presidential campaign he as the experience of winnig every single one of those votes. Mitt Ronmey has currently only won 984223 votes throughout these primaries.(2) The message I have for you Mr. Romney is its a long way till Tuesday November 6 2012, and because the media has announced you the projected winner of Florida it doesnt mean that you have won the General election.    
(1) http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
(2) source AP

Does waiting to project the winner really matter? (UPDATED)

As I sit, listening to the "best election coverage on television," I'm irritated by Wolf Blitzer's announcement. I paraphrase:

To protect the integrity of the process, we will be waiting until all polls close at 8 to project the winner. Stay tuned!

This is said, of course, as the live numbers from the polls are being displayed at the bottom of the screen (as of 7:48, 48% Romney, 31% Gingrich, 13% Santorum, 7% Paul, with 50% reporting.) Nobody needs a team of professionals to figure out what's going to happen.

Rant continues after the jump.

Taking Back the House

CNN’s Deirdre Walsh reports that the Democrats are priming recruits to take back control of the House in 2012 election.  Focusing on the "Red to Blue program" that is targeting Republican seats won in the 2010 midterm election.

The title of the article makes it seem as though there is some big Democratic battle about to begin.  When really they are relying on one event that was held for 18 Democratic recruits and quoting sources that would seem to have some knowledge of what is to come. Quoting Vice President Joe Biden as saying "I really do think we're going to win back the House."   

While it’s nice that they state the facts that give the Democrats hope going into November, if the American public new the truth they might be less inclined to support these new recruits.  Because the truth is that, studies done by political scientist tells us that new candidates are at the greatest disadvantage to the incumbents they are running against.  With the majority of these recruits having little experience and less financial support than their opponents, their chances have already decreased.   

While the reports are hopeful for Democrats now, how will media reports change once predictions start to be made?  Will the hopefulness die down or will we see stories of Democrats looming defeat?  Just as the article states many of the candidates will be campaigning towards the middle, CNN does a good job at reporting both sides of this issue. The Democratic supporters want to hear that they have a chance to control the House. While the readers are also being informed about the Republicans plans to fight to keep control.  But what it really comes down to, is if American’s are unhappy with the job that Congress is doing than the Democrats taking back over the House would seem like the wise choice.  All in all this is the beginning of many attempts to raise the Democratic spirit for November.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/29/politics/democrats-house-election/index.html

Are the poles melting?

This blog by Ezra Klein is especially interesting to me, because I love Bill Clinton. I am an Obama fan (shocker, I know), but Bill Clinton is one of my favorite presidents. I also love Hillary, which may contribute a wee bit to my borderline obsession...who knows?

The post's argument is that, in retrospect, Bill Clinton has proven to be a non-polarizing president.  Many of Clinton's policies, though, were definitely more polarizing than Obama's.  Clinton's healthcare initiatives would currently be heavily criticized (and were upon their passage), as many are even more controversial than certain elements of Obamacare.  Additionally, Clinton's tax rates were higher than anything Obama's administration has even proposed thus far, and he passed the legislation for those tax rates very early on in his first term.  It's obvious that during the times he was passing these policies through, the polarization was very high.  Since Clinton is no longer a "threat to the Republican Party", he is no longer polarizing.  Oh, and the economy was awesome during his presidency, too.

What Ezra Klein is arguing here is that this example could very well also be the case for a not-so-polarizing judgement of Obama's policies later in time.  Once he is no longer a threat to the Republican Party, he will not be viewed as controversial or liberal as he is being perceived as now.  This is only true if the economy recovers, mind you.

I love this post, because it gives us an opportunity to attempt to evaluate exactly how much of an impact the media is having on shaping/influencing public opinion.  The fact that the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate and Presidency are Democratic obviously also contribute to the polarization of the electorate and public opinion as well, but have Bill O'Reilly and Rachel Maddow gotten to us? Has the availability of the new media through social outlets affected our amount of polarization?

What contributes most in my opinion to polarization is how relevant the issues are which are being evaluated.  Obama's policies are more relevant than Clinton's right now, giving them a higher opportunity to be polarizing.  However, why is the polarization so intense? Is the electorate moving to the extremes, while our policies remain within the normal spectrum? I think this may be so. And I have a hunch the media is contributing to it.

When There is an Election, Really Important and Even Fascinating Stories Get Put on the Back Burner

It’s not surprising that in the heat of an election, the mainstream media tends to put many important stories on the back burner. It can be, however, very disappointing. Recently, I was shocked to learn of a story that had developed over the last week that the media seems to have largely ignored. My boyfriend reads Rolling Stone magazine religiously and had read an article by their sharp Wall Street correspondent, Matt Taibbi, which reported on a settlement that would soon be reached between some of America’s largest banks and state attorneys general concerning allegations of massive foreclosure fraud.

I read the New York Times rather religiously and obsessive compulsively listen to National Public Radio and had not heard a thing about this.

After doing some research, I found that this story has not been covered by many other journalists. A website called “Business Insider” had a short article about it, as did Zach Carter and Sam Stein over at the Huffington Post. Taibbi did a short interview on Current about it as well. Unfortunately, these reports left me with little information about the issue at hand. To learn more about foreclosure fraud I had to peruse some pretty boring attorney websites. (Come on journalists, this is where you come in to do the leg work?)

So remember when the economy collapsed and no one went to jail? There are some major Wall Street Banking tycoons who could now potentially face jail time for the fraudulent practice of “robo-signing”. In 2010 a lot of banks like JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo suspended foreclosures in 23 states because the paperwork these banks had submitted to the courts for foreclosure had not in fact been filed properly. And by that, I mean they had been forging signatures of those homeowners whose houses they were foreclosing. This is where “robo-signing” comes in – it is a “robotic” process of mass producing false and forged mortgage assignments and any legal documents related to mortgage foreclosures created by people who have not verified any of the information they are signing off on. Back in July of 2011 (when the media was, you know, actually reporting on this) the associated press explained that robo-signing could mean anything from “a qualified executive in the mortgage industry signs a mortgage affidavit document without verifying the information” or “someone forges an executive's signature, or a lower-level employee signs his or her own name with a fake title. It can mean failing to comply with notary procedures. In all of these cases, robo-signing involves people signing documents and swearing to their accuracy without verifying any of the information."

The consequences of this were obviously dire. Millions of people lost their homes before the banks halted foreclosure actions. As if that isn’t scandalous enough, in Novemer of 2011, the whistleblower who caused the first major robo-signing indictments was found dead in her home in Nevada during the court proceedings.

A story this filled with intrigue and corruption would be too good for the media to pass on, right?

I also find it peculiar that the press has ignored the fact that a settlement has been reached that includes $25 billion dollars to be distributed amongst homeowners who experienced premature foreclosure. (A classic story of justice being served!) Or that instead of a “back room bailout”, President Obama is leaving these banks high and dry to be responsible for a laundry list of other liabilities. (Bankers in rolodexes cowering under their ikea desks!) Or even how state attorney generals Eric Schneiderman (from New York) and Kamala Harris (from California) played hard ball and refused to sign deals with the banks for months, holding out for better offers. (Politicians we can believe in!) Can no one see the headlines?

Perhaps media outlets haven’t considered this: In his State of the Union Speech, Barack Obama noted the creation of a Mortgage Investigation Committee that would be chaired by Schiederrman. If President Obama and his super bank-busting dream team can take down these banks, make them responsible to the American people, and put money back in the hands of the millions of wronged Americans, don’t you think that’s make for a strong bullet point in the campaign trail? Isn’t that something worth chewing the fat over and analyzing during the 24 hour news circuit?

Most importantly, when the media ignores stories like this, they let banks get away with their behavior. This, more than anything, is unacceptable.

Tax Credits for Illegals

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/01/30/end-refundable-tax-credits-for-illegals/

Two things jumped out at me in this article.  And yes, I decided to read from RedState, as I was inspired by Beth Lukas to channel my inner conservative.  Let's discuss the tax situation in the United States right now, in light of the fact that Obama talked much about fairness in his State of the Union speech last week.  Two statistics jump out at the very beginning of the article: 51% of tax filers paid NO federal income taxes in 2009. None.  Second, 30% of tax filers had a negative tax liability, in other words, they MADE money off of the system.  As a conservative, if you can't read into the unfairness of these statistics, you need to look again.  How can we say that our system is fair when half of the people who benefit from our government that we are all supposed to support, pay no federal income taxes.  I am sure that they pay taxes in other areas, but federal income tax is the big revenue generator.  I see a problem with this.  In addition, 30% of filers MADE money off of the system because of tax credits.  Beyond the fact that this is largely unfair, it simply is not sustainable, espcially considering the path that we are on now in terms of federal income tax.

Thanks to research by Arthur Brooks, we know that in 1986, the top 10% of income earners paid 55% of the federal income taxes in the United States, while the bottom 90% paid 45%.  By 2006, the top 10% were paying 71% and the bottom 90% were paying 29%.  Clearly, we are heading towards a system where the tax progression is increasing and the top earners are being asked to pay more, while the bottom, 51% of people pay NOTHING into the system.  In fact, 31% are almost making money off of the system.  It's even exacerbated by the fact that those pulling money out of the system aren't even legal citizens of this country.

  I don't want to blame either party for this because we get ourselves into these situations as a whole, but I think something should be said about the "fairness" of the system.  I'm not saying that those less fortunate shouldn't be given their fair shot or perhaps even a hand up in the system.  In fact, conservatives are markedly higher charitable givers, "Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household." (Brooks.)   But let's not lie to ourselves and say that the taxation system and policies of the government are the best route or the most effective either.  Were in a financial mess, and we should be careful how we handle ourselves.

Be sure to get statistics from both sides of the story.  I am always more educated when I hear arguments from multiple news sources with various "biases".  Clearly, RedState has a conservative bias, so I promise to make my next post from a more openly liberal leaning source.  It's good to listen to both sides of the story and then really decide.  Cheers to RedState for providing some good statistics.

No Hope for Newt

Isn’t it amazing to see what can happen in a week?  Last week Newt Gingrich was on top of the world after taking South Carolina and he all you could hear from everyone was about the rise of Newt.  He was hailed as the next contender to face off against Obama and it really got people talking.  Next up was Florida and as quickly as Newt had gained momentum he seemed to be losing it.  With advantages in money and organizational stability Mitt Romney was and remains in control.  So everything Newt took away from winning South Carolina seems to be wasted.  Most news outlets aren’t giving Newt any chance against Romney tomorrow.  Polls seem to also be trending heavily against Newt which makes you really wonder if Newt ever really had all the supposed momentum the media put behind him you would think he would be set up for a better run in Florida.  With Florida being much less radically conservative Gingrich who has set himself as the total conservative is struggling against Romney with less overall support.  That being said it doesn’t appear anyone is giving Newt a chance tomorrow and the media seems to be pushing that message.  It’s interesting to think about how large of a role the media has on how people vote and the outcome of the primary.

Poppy Harlow @ Davos World Economic Forum. Is there really not enough news to cover as the world’s economic decision makers come together that CNN ‘personality’ Poppy Harlow has nothing better to do? She introduces us to her media ‘handler’ James, who prefers to be a called a television ‘manager’ (that stirs up an array or negative connotations).  Harlow is also thoughtful enough to point out that, “We have a printer over here…”

 While the behind the scenes POV is interesting and entertaining – she never touches on any meaty issues. She never even says what is really going on at the summit. The first policy related issue isn’t even mentioned by Harlow but through her run-in with ‘very famous journalist’ Maria Bartiromo when she says that the biggest issue is the Uri-zone and that the US looks good in terms of policy and out improvement of the economy.

Other media coverage of Davos is significantly more substantial. There are real issues being covered here. However as a consumer of information you have to dig a little further than some personality puff piece to find it. The  Huffington Post touches on how income inequality has become a hot topic thanks to uprisings like Arab Spring and Occupy movements around the world.

Harlows piece is called ‘Media Madness’ – so… where is the madness? Talk about sensationalizing the issue – the most exciting thing that she does is run into Maria Bartiromo and explain why she can’t where high heels. Even Fareed Zakaria’s producer is chilling in the background.

-Helen Halverson

Facebook, the Political Media and Networking Site

We are all well aware of Facebook’s absurd popularity, success, and wealth through its ability to allow devotees to post their every thought, expression, and movement on the public internet for anyone and all to view. Facebook shockingly became the world’s premier social media site, with your basic every day users acting as the company’s unpaid “reporters.” Recently, the company that encourages its popular cult to publicize their every move announced its upcoming application called “2012 Matters: What Matters Most.”

This application will allow Facebook members to interact in political affairs by answering poll questions and statuses on the issues that matter most this election. Most interesting, is Facebook’s new method of posting user data and thoughts- the very public and very large Nasdaq digital billboard in Times Square, New York.

Facebook’s direct newfound interest in politics is quite peculiar. With this new application, it will be the only major social media and networking site to inspire its users to become political activist. So why would a social media site be so concerned with giving its dedicated users this opportunity of public political activism?

Tanzina Vega, writer for the “Media Decoder” of the New York Times, cites in her discovery and coverage of Facebook’s new application that “Facts don’t spread. Emotions do spread.” This statement by Adams, a brand experience manager for Facebook, indicates the newest general trends of the media- rallying the audience towards one pole or the other by appealing to personal emotions in hopes of providing enough media coverage to influence voters towards a particular candidate. Ultimately, if that media outlet has the most influence on voter opinion, then their desired candidate will win and major profits will be had- a major win for the “winning” company’s finances and policies.

Is political activism for profit Facebook’s goal for this new application? Will this application perhaps uncover a bias in Facebook’s corporate structure? Only time will tell what the impact of the political polling application will be. One thing is certain however…users will jump at the chance to publicize their mediocre political opinions on a massive Times Square billboard.

Original Blog: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/facebook-users-to-put-political-views-up-in-lights-on-times-square/?ref=politics

"Romneycare" versus "Obamacare"... and a little bit about healthcare?

"Romneycare" versus "Obamacare"... and a little bit about healthcare?

(Article: http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2012/01/29/why-mitt-romneys-electability-is-not-inevitable/)

Well true to the political bias that most display when selecting news sources...I decided to look at our handy dandy recommended blogging guide, ultimately choosing "Redstate." Might as well embrace my inner conservative. I mean, as Jill can attest, I am the one to say "No we cant sit on the blue metro seat, lets sit on the red one...RED...power color." It was a joke at the time but it is an example of how conservatives really respond to elephants, the color red, and states rights.

This growing partisanship in the United States electorate is just baffling, I mean its not like our culture embraces hanging out with like minded people and perpetuating "fads", however that is besides the point. Reading Redstate today, well it was refreshing to not read another blog about how Romney is the savior to our political party or how Democrats do not know anything. It actually attack the heart of a potential debate in American politics and pointing out the hypocrisy in partisanship when we are all moderate at heart. In this case blogger Ben Howe confronts Governor Mitt Romney on his major weakness: The Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Law.  The bill, known by most as Romneycare, is the basis for the much "maligned Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", otherwise affectionately known as Obamacare.

Howe, comments how Romey supporters claim that Romneycare vs Obamacare isn’t about socialized medicine vs the free market. They say it’s actually the core of the Federalist struggle and that "Romney will channel Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and march onto the capital steps, fulfilling the dreams and desires of tea partiers nationwide by finally standing up and saying, “Enough is enough! Let the state’s make their decisions Obama! Your days of tyranny are at an end!” And they all rejoiced." WHERE THIS ARTICLE REALLY GETS INTERESTING....Howe offers up some main points that the Romney campaign will use to battle in the general election...and it’s all right out of the Obama playbook and talking points. How about that for some added center left/center right equality.  Their plan actually seems to be to take the fight to the capital by saying:

• "Public health insurance didn’t crowd out employer sponsored insurance in Massachusetts
• That any mandate, be it for public schools or for car insurance, is evidence that a mandate is perfectly acceptable even when it’s a mandate related to your right to exist.
• That costs are being contained and kept down as a result of the bill and that the uninsured are now insured and the free rides are over.
• That the mandate is only a technicality because anyone can choose not to be a part of it by simply paying a fee every year.
• That the people of Massachusetts wanted healthcare reform and that a duly elected legislature passed the bill and thus it’s perfectly acceptable and reasonable."

If these defenses sound familiar it’s because they are virtually identical to the defenses we heard for a year and a half leading up to the passage of Obamacare. So get ready for Elections 2012, a battle to identify center right from center left, because lets face it there is truly no difference in the 21st century. Ultimately, despite the attacks that this article does make from time to time, the blog post does demonstrate how both political parties are in reality identical books, however option B used a theasaurus for every eighth word. This is a case where the media covers something of significance  and what I would in fact consider modern day muck-racking...journalists and bloggers going out to identify the lack of continuity in political speech by politicians. Healthcare was an issue that bloggers and media analysts alike converged on in the past few years, debating the mandate, and the constitutionality of it all. It became an issue that was fought on partisan lines when in reality there wasn't much difference in what everyone was seeking when you looked at the moderates and avoided the fringes. I commend Howe for stepping up against his political party and partisan blogging and highlighting the issues at hand, if more bloggers took on their own party and helped to identify their weaknesses and strengths then the debates in the coming Presidential election could be quite substantive.

I guess we will just have to see how this whole healthcare deal works out come September...

Rock the Vote?

Over the past few years America's youth has become a leading force in the nation's political stage. Teens not only looked forward to turning eighteen for bragging rights but also looked forward to being able to vote, and boy did they vote. Since Occupy wall street, college students orchestrated their own occupy movements, gathering hundreds or thousands of students who allow themselves to be well informed on current affairs and a host of other things. The fact of the matter is, college students are getting out and trying to make a difference in any way shape or form. They are trying to let their voices be heard, and trying to make sure their vote counts.
I remember as a kid, not able to vote, watching MTV or VH1 and catching all of the celebrities showing off their fashionable "rock the vote" t-shirts, what a perfect form of spreading the word, truly embedding in the minds of all the children watching television that the celebrities vote and when it comes time for them to vote, they should vote too. That campaign stuck with me for life, and I make sure that I "rock the vote" when it comes time to do so. It has come to my attention that new laws are making it harder for the younger set to be able to vote. The new laws in Florida are consist of having to send their registration back in 48 hours after receiving them, compared to the old 10 days. The problem I have with this is that the younger set are actually making the effort to get out and vote, and as a good democratic country, we should be making it easier for every single person in this nation, rather than making it harder.
If we make it harder for someone to register to vote, we are changing the outcome of the future election. We watched how close the election was between president Bush and the previous president elect, Al Gore. What if a large number of people were not able to vote because they could not get their registration in on time, and those people were going to be voting for Al Gore? The out come of the election may have been very different. Also, Florida is considered a battle ground state, perhaps Florida should make sure it is as easy as possible for residents to get out and vote, for the sole purpose that Florida always has a real possibility of being the swing vote. Lets move forward, lets make voting easier and not harder.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1678162/florida-laws-primary-young-voters.jhtml

Romney Back On His Feet

While reading the Wall Street Journal this morning I ran across this article about the Florida primary race (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577190824119921462.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond). I found it interesting that a journalist had finally come to certain realizations that Romney, despite Gingrich's recent rises in the polls, has what it takes to win a national race. After his not so surprising win in South Carolina many TV pundits and other talking heads were all for Newt. He's going to be the nominee and the next president; however those same people are now having to eat their own words. As the more moderate and mainstream purple voters in Florida take to the polls Romney has seen a pick up in his numbers and Newt has seen a drop in his. The article took a look at many leading polls and said that they all gave Romney an eight to sixteen point lead in Florida. after a win in Florida the press will quickly swing back to focusing on the Romney camp as the lack of debates, and multi-state primaries weed out the candidates with less money and weaker organization than the Romney juggernaut.

The author also rightly noted that the harsh note of this campaign has caused the Gingrich campaign to fall into defense. Whenever this happens not only does it help the candidate doing the attacking, but those attack ads give our 24-hour news machine sound bites to throw around and analyze. When a not particularly strong candidate like Newt is attacked by a more established candidate it hurts, but thanks to the media those ads are magnified and hashed out over national television for several hours a day and can cause insurmountable damage. If I'm right Romney will win Florida with at least a twelve point margin. After this we will see many candidates start to drop out of the race, probably helping Romney even further.

Horton Hears a Newt

Republican candidate, Newt GingriNch, is employing his usual political tactics of mudslinging and bad-mouthing competition, Mitt Romney, with a flurry of criticism. Newt isn't the only one using this approach but what's interesting is how ineffective he efforts may be in comparison. Mama said if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. She also said that if you're bogged down with a bad reputation, it's probably best to not point out the shortcomings of others. I guess Newt didn't get that memo. In comparison to the accusations he's making about Romney being too liberal and calling him everything but the son of God, the baggage that trails behind Newt is considerably more damaging to his candidacy in the public eye. The media, of course, is not reluctant to hone in on these character flaws.

Americans want a President who is trustworthy, dedicated, has a plan, and who remains cool and collected in their demeanor. There is no doubt that many of those factors weighed heavily in the election of President Barack Obama. Newt, on the other hand, is criticized by the media (quite rightfully) for his economic scandal and his personal life where he has demonstrated that he falls below the mark for the typical family-oriented candidate. According to:

A new telephone survey released Saturday night of 800 registered Florida voters, conducted by MasonDixon Polling & Research from Jan. 24 to 26, the impact of Gingrich's past on his political fortunes was hurting him severely.

While those polling results conclude that Romney and Newt are neck-in-neck with "the male vote," they attribute the 19 point gap to Newt lacking the approval of females. While the validity of these conclusions leaves a little to question, it will be very interesting to sit back and observe how this trend of "missing the female vote" will manifest itself substantively in the polls in the future.

Gingrich's cocky persona, combined with his three marriages and record of infidelity, help account for that gender gap," the Tampa Bay Times wrote.

As the article suggests, it seems that personal character will be a more significant determinant for women when it comes to Gingrich because of issues in his family life.

When asked Sunday morning by a reporter why he thought he trailed so badly among women voters in Florida, Gingrich brushed off the question.

"I have no idea because I haven't seen those numbers before," Gingrich said.

What's also interesting is to note whether this is the main reason Gingrich is lacking the female vote, or is the media just taking a dramatic causation speculation and applying it prematurely.

Lashing out publicly and flying off of the handle across from commentators like John King doesn't help his case or present him as a calm and collected individual either. Reminds me a little of a hot-headed McCain who showed the world his volatile side in debates against Obama, often losing his temper. Whether these outbursts are far and few between or frequent, the media has made sure to be there for every instance of it with a magnifying glass. If Dr. Seuss had his doctorate in political studies rather than children's books, I'm sure he'd say that Horton Hears a Newt, and he's the GreenGrinch of the primaries.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/newt-gingrich-florida_n_1240392.html

News

I usually don’t watch the news because it just makes me infuriated, but I chose to watch MSNBC and Fox news so I could compare their stories and how they portrayed them differently. As I was watching Fox and MSNBC, their big topics were the Report cards of the Republican debate. Well since we have already established that the reason for a debate is not to win but to relay messages to the public, it seems like both news broadcasters were reporting on the wrong topics. The entire time I was watching they continued to explain how each candidate was brutally beating the other ones or how they were failing miserably in a certain areas. It made me irritated because the people who were grading the debate were constantly yelling at each other and not explaining why they gave that candidate that grade. On Fox, there were three people who were grading the candidates on how they performed and all three could not agree on one grade, in fact they usually thought the complete opposite. MSNBC and Fox talked more about how Wolf Blitzer annihilated Gingrich on not explaining why he thinks Romney is a liar. I thought that after they stopped praising Blitzer for doing his job they would get to the issue that Gingrich is pointing out, but they completely bypassed that important fact that people should know since they are voters!

            As I was watching these two news channels, it made me glad that I stopped relying on them for my facts on politics because it is completely absurd some of the things that comes out of those people’s mouths. Fox news is constantly bashing the President and people who are supporters of him and MSNBC is constantly bashing Republicans; this is scary knowing that people actually watch the news and vote according to what the news says. There have been numerous studies showing that people who watch Fox are already conservatives and people who watch MSNBC are already Democrats, but this is frightening too; because people don’t need to look at issues as simple as conservative or liberal because many issues in the world are very complex and blue or red is not going to solve the problems. The media should do their jobs in bringing people the facts, not providing us with bias opinions that we don’t care about.

Gingrich All Talk and No Game

I was stumbling across msnbc and noticed how much Newt Gingrich vexes me. You might be sitting there and thinking to yourself why, but its for the mere reason that he is certain about himself winning the votes. He specifically states that Santorum is the only reason that Romney is currently beating him at the polls. Even though the author thinks that when Santorum falls out of the race the votes for him will be split among Romney and Gingrich evenly. That would still leave Romney in the lead. The author continues to vow for Romney and says that his onslaught of advertising an television coverage will be the reason he stays ahead of the competition that is Newt Gingrich. I just cant comprehend why anyone would even think about bragging how they think they will win, when in retrospect they are losing. Pull it together here.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/29/10260572-nbcmarist-poll-romney-up-15-over-gingrich-in-florida

Negative Campaigning

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/29/newt-gingrich-mitt-romney-florida-primary_n_1240148.html

The constant mudslinging and badmouthing of ones opposing candidate needs to become less of the campaign focus. Too much time is wasted in digging up dirt on the candidates and too little is spent on actually figuring out who is truly the best candidate. Negative campaigning does, of course, have its positives. It can reveal some unknown things about a candidate which may be important, but for the most part it is wasted time and resources spent on trying to down talk the ones opponent in order to gain votes for oneself. The focus of a campaign should be on proving to the public that one is the best person for the job. I'm not saying that the public needs to hear any more empty promises, but we do need more facts and hard evidence that the candidate will do whats best for our country and not whats best for himself or those  he is affiliated with. Accusing an opponent of things that he may or may not have done does not help the public understand what you will for our country. People would probably gain more respect for a candidate if he would answer his opponents mudslinging by simply campaigning positive things about himself rather than playing into the attacks of his opponent.

The writer shows some clear bias in several of his statements, showing the reader he thinks that Gingrich has no chance in winning and is merely trying to stay afloat. He states that Gingrich was "mischaracterizing" some of his accusations towards Romney. The writers bias portrays how the media spreads their propaganda and bias to the public. This article was written with the belief that Romney has basically already won Florida over, which could be far from the truth.

TL;DR

     There’s quite a menagerie to American politics. At one end of our zoo, there are the donkeys and at the far right, the elephants. Neither are very cleanly creatures, and both of them—like monkeys—have a tendency to fling feces. Candidacy itself is described as a horse race, and candidate debates have turned into a dog and pony show. For their part, the media are parrots, repeating what is told to them and squawking every time they want ratings. (If you care for a reference, see Nancy Grace to the left and Bill O’Reilly to the right.) The publics are like sheep and everyone involved has a tendency, like ostriches were once said to do, to bury their heads in the sand when real issues are raised.

No, Noah. They're not worthy.

     But, please, don’t take my word for it. The January 26 CNN debate will speak for itself. Or not—sure, there was a lot of talking, but even the media do not seem to be quite sure of how much was actually said (viz Proverbs 29:20*).

     I’ll be the first to admit that I didn’t watch it. The pomp was just too much, and we’re in an age of technology, after all. It was just too easy to close the youtube window. It was then I was forced to wonder if this represented a problem with the American publics’ attention span or the usefulness of political reporting. Maybe we should check the polls.

     I’d have watched it in real time, but—like many young Americans—I have a real job. Instead, I went to the transcripts, where the audience isn’t subjected to the fake smiles and peacock feather fluffing.

     There were plenty of cockfights that the media gobbled up like hungry swine, but the overall quality was sloppy. With pretty, overarching phrases like, “secure the border,” “free trade,” and “immigrant grandmother,” we didn’t get much more than those 8-second sound bites for the media to play until we’re sick of hearing them.

     In the first question (“Can you tell me what specific actions you'll take to address the costly consequences of illegal immigration while preserving the rights of those who seek to immigrate legally?”), only Ron Paul gave a real response. Santorum spouted a lot of crap about securing the border, following laws, and sanctions against employers. Gingrich basically agreed, adding that legal immigration should be easier to acquire and gave an endorsement to his consorts in big business—American Express, Visa and Master Card. (Someone got laid for that… proverbially, of course.) Romney stood by self-deportation. None of them gave details or answered how they would accomplish these goals or with what resources. Save for Paul, who clearly and succinctly said that we should stop focusing on other countries, and place the resources there back home. (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/push-it-somewhere-else-patrick)

     If you know anything about history, you’d remember that that was Rome’s version of self-preservation. Something about not overextending oneself with conquest and performing baseline defense. Good strategy. A classic.

     Shortly thereafter, we get to the prettiest cockfight of the debate, one that no one watching or reading the news can seem to escape. Like a freshman repeating the first incident wherein a professor cursed in class, the media can’t seem to get enough of Romney’s overuse of the phrase “inexcusable.” It wasn’t even as good as the Sicilian’s equally abused, “inconceivable” of the Princess Bride. Nevertheless, Gingrich and Romney fought bitterly over the former’s use of the superlative (“most anti-immigrant candidate”) in describing the latter.

     Not to say there was any real political consequence to this clash. In the end, people won’t—read: shouldn’t—be swayed to vote in their primaries either way based on the few-minutes clip of their posturing.

     And the real problem with the American media is that they focus on events outside of real consequence. Not just events.

     At this point a question is asked concerning relations with Latin American countries. There is some tension here between Paul and Santorum, wherein Paul suggests free trade as an answer and Santorum suggests “closer ties.” Paul responds cattily (the animal puns keep coming!) that Santorum doesn’t define his idea of closer ties and accuses that closer ties involve “that we impose ourselves, go and pick the dictators, undermine certain governments, also sending them a lot of money.”

     Santorum responds that Paul “obviously wasn’t listening to” his closer ties argument.

     Let’s pause for a moment and go back to history. Iraq is close enough that you don’t have to do any real research. We took out a dictator that was, by Santorum’s terms, “a threat” to democracy. We have tried to mold them into “friends who want to engage and support America, who want to be great trading partners and great allies for our country.” And to do so, we imposed ourselves, picked the dictators, forced democracy (read: undermined certain governments), and threw a lot of money at it to “accomplish” these noble goals.

     Who, Mr. Santorum, was listening?

     Now, we get to another catfight. Romney accuses Gingrich of having another consort (he does get around, doesn’t he?) in American big business—Freddie Mac, who reportedly hired him to maintain the marriage and strength of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the only marriage he’s been able to save). Gingrich responds like any upset 2^nd grader—with an ad hominem attack.

      “Well you have stock in these companies. Who you calling cootie queen, you lint licker?” Okay, I might have paraphrased.

     In the end, Romney plays dumb. He did this just before the Fannie and Freddie fight, concerning an ad about Gingrich, wherein he accuses Gingrich of calling Spanish, “the language of the ghetto.” He claimed he didn’t recall the ad, and CNN researchers quickly hunted it down, proudly endorsed by Romney at the end. In this case, he claimed that his finances were “managed by a trustee”—must be nice, huh? So, it didn’t matter that he made millions of dollars in the housing bubble. It wasn’t his fault, right?

     In the end, they both looked like asses—with or without the animal puns.

     Now, in the animal world, we get to see a prime example of the fight or flight response. Observe:

     Returning from commercial break, Blitzer confronts Gingrich about his response to Romney’s finances. Here, we see flight. Gingrich calls it a nonsense question, and with sweet-talk unrivaled by lyrebirds in courtship, implores the moderator to skip the question.

     Now, we see fight! Like a proper predator, Mr. Wolf sticks to his guns and quotes Gingrich in saying Romney, “lives in a world of Swiss bank and Cayman Island bank accounts.” Shrewdly as a snake and with the innocence of a dove, the moderator pointedly adds, “I didn’t say that. You did.”

     I’d paraphrase here, but I can display Gingrich’s horror no better than he, himself. “I did,” he admits. “And I'm perfectly happy to say that on an interview on some TV show. But this is a national debate, where you have a chance to get the four of us to talk about a whole range of issues.”

     Romney skips the dove part and strikes like a cobra. “Wouldn't it be nice if people didn't make accusations somewhere else that they weren't willing to defend here?”

    Well, sir, wouldn’t it be nice if you didn’t say that to exploit over quoting in the media for face time?

_________________________________________________________

*(NIV) "There is more hope for a fool than someone who speaks without thinking.

Hope For The Latino Vote

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/01/29/romney-on-immigration-four-takeaways-and-secretary-gutierrez-reaction/

In an article by Pablo Schneider  on the Fox News Latino website the author attempts to present Republican candidate Mitt Romney's stance on immigration in a way that would appeal to the Latino portion of the electorate, by reviving a positive feedback on Romney's stance from former Florida secretary of commerce and prominent figure in the Latino community Carlos Gutierrez. After finishing his discussion on Romney Schneider concludes his article by attacking President Barrack Obama's image in the Latino community. Schneider does so by presenting the current administrations record number of deportations and adding a comment from Gutierrez which expresses the dissatisfaction of the Latino community with the false promises of immigration reform of the Obama administration.

My concerns with this article is the interpretation on what the data means to a specific portion of the electorate. By this I mean how the record number of 1.2 million deported illegal immigrants was use in a way that would further upset the Latino community with the Obama administration.

Although I had first thought to go on a rant explaining how if the current administration was Republican that this data would have never been intentionally mentioned to this specific portion of the electorate and instead used as political ammunition to boast an extremely good run for a Republican administration. However my goal here is for those who we consider to hold the Latino vote in our electorate to reconsider some of the facts that have been presented by the Republican bias media (Fox News Latino). Those who hold the Latino vote and are concerned with matters of immigration should know that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security division of U.S. Immigration and Customs 

"focuses limited resources on three high priority areas—the identification and removal of criminals and national security threats, fugitives, and recent border entrants and others who game the system. Last year, ICE removed substantially more criminal aliens than ever before."(1)

 

I believe that this information is critical to removing a quite unappealing fact from the republican critics of the Obama administration and gives political ammunition to Obama in his future quest for the Latino vote; for the will find comfort knowing that there have not been 1.2 million grandmas deported since the Obama administration and knowing that those 1.2 million deported illegal immigrants have many fugitives among them.  

http://www.ice.gov/news/fact-fiction/ (1)

Polls 'n' stuff

While looking through our class list of suggested news sites and blogs, I found myself becoming immersed in the beauty of the blogosphere.  I started to click away onto new and different sites recommended by the previous blogs I was reading.  It was all a bit overwhelming, and I might have blacked out for a while.  When I regained consciousness, I found myself on Kai Arzheimer's blog on American/German politics.   (Considering that we have the same name, I HAD to post something of his.)  While the details of one of his latest posts deals with a German news story, I felt that the central theme was relevant to our class.

Arzeheimer, a political scientist himself, was commenting on a news story from the German newspaper ZEIT.  The article shed light on a recent poll, claiming that Germans were now more afraid of right-wing neo-Nazi terrorism than of Islamist extremist terrorism.  More info can be found on the blog post itself.  Rather than accepting the results as a sign of a shift in the political and social atmosphere of the country, Arzheimer looked to find out whether the results of the poll actually mean anything.  He used several formulas to analyze the data; none of which I can fully understand, so hopefully I am not being duped by some pseudo-intellectual explanation by some random guy that has the same name as me.  Instead, I think it was a good example of what it means to be a responsible and accountable blogger.

My point here is not to criticize journalists or praise political scientists.  Instead, I think it's important to note the role of blogging in our society today.  When a main news story comes out, bloggers take it upon themselves to critically analyze the information in the news story.  (Good) bloggers are able to dissect the story and pinpoint what's really important.  Undoubtedly, many bloggers have different biases and points of view.  But if their arguments are intellectually honest (as I hope Mr. Arzheimer's was) then their work is valuable in evaluating and being a watchdog of the mainstream media.

They're Called Tracking Polls for a Reason

I have a confession to make: I love cartoons. Who doesn't, really? They were like friendlier, much younger versions of real role models when we were kids. In a way, they still are.

But the reason we all love cartoons (or pretend not to and hide it secretly) is because we can understand them. For the most part, they make sense. That's because they're designed frame by frame, with at least some attention to detail, put in logical order with a storyboard, then sped up and eventually turned into a final show with an engaging and logical plot.

So why can't the media do the same thing with tracking polls? What is so inherently difficult about ordering polling data in a logical sequence and repoting on it as a trend? Even in the 21st century, where media even at its most informative is little better than a cartoon for grownups, I think society demands better.

If anyone outside of the academic world or smoke-filled rooms of political strategists can understand public (and internal) polling data, it's the media. Over the last ten years, news desks have overflowed with (otherwise unemployed) political analysts and operatives, film noir private eyes of the new glossy screen journalism, supposedly tasked with digesting political news into easy, single-serving and relatively low-calorie treats for the viewing public. I would think reporting on trends in public opinion, instead of annoyingly shallow snapshots, would be part of that.

There is literally no way to understand elections, public opinion, or any change in anyone's opinion over any period of time without understanding it as a trend. By giving us a single frame from the current political cartoon we get nothing; hell, we don't even get useful talking points. We literally get no information about our own collective opinions, and hence are disconnected from collective society.

But for now, all I know is that the poll that came out in state x yesterday is different than the one in state y from last week. why are they different, how are they different, why am I wasting my morning watching people screw up polling data when I could be making eggs?

Because, I love cartoons.

Save The Drama For Your Mama

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/29/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html
    CNN reports that Gringrich claims that Romney is not as honest as he appears. The question this brings to my mind is who cares, what does this have to do with the elections and their policies. The media strikes again in exposing meaningless social issues between candidates. Who cares what Newt Gringrich thinks about Mitt Romney, they are running against each other its not surprising that they dont have the best things to say about each other. CNN added credability to the story by interviewing Ron Paul and Herman Cain. First of all Ron Paul isnt even involved in the dispute, and Herman Cain dosent even matter in the race any more.
    Once again the media adds emphasis to something that dosent  need to be noticed by the generel public.  The network media is just trying to add intensity and drama in order to increase ratings and readership. This isnt a soap opera lets keep the drama out of it, the media is playing the part of the annoying neighbor who spreads the word around town when the married couple next door have an arguement. Lets get it together CNN and start reporting the actual news leave the drama to Entertainment tonight.  

How Newt lost the conservative media

Newt Gingrich has made it a campaign policy to rail against the liberal media, the most famous recent example being during the recent CNN South Carolina Primary debate. Newt charged in response to John King's question about the allegations made by Mr. Gingrich's second wife, Marianne Gingrich, that the "[…] elite media [is] protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans," but really, how much sense does that make at this point in the campaign?

Its Time to Unoccupy

Great. The Occupy movement is at it again.  As if protesting for four months without any direction wasn't enough, now they've decided to start taking over buildings in Oakland.  A recent MSNBC article discusses, in way too much depth, the latest escapades of the "occupiers."  It seems now that they've decided that it is a good idea to tear down fences and take over public convention centers because they "need a headquarters."  Call me crazy, but maybe they could each find a headquarters wherever it is that they live.  But alas, not.  Instead, they are clogging up the streets that the rest of us productive members of society need to use to accomplish things.  Oh, and did I mention that they also broke into city hall and burned an American flag.  Yeah, they're real patriots.  So, the police have had to arrest hundreds of protestors for, and I emphasize this, breaking the law.  Of course, this has become a major news story because the evil police are brutalizing the humble, well-intentioned "occupiers." Well, at least that is what MSNBC would have you believe.  But, I'd like to point out one thing, they're not occupying, they're burglarizing.  You know, burglarizing, as in breaking the law, as in something that gets you arrested.  I guess this is what happens when a mass of people enter the street with no leader or defined goal.  They say they are going to bring change.  Right, sure they are.  I guess they're just not sure what that change is.

Oh, and another thing.  I have a bone to pick with MSNBC.  As usual with the media, they're obsessing over the events.  For goodness sake this article was updated almost every hour over the course of the night.  At 3 am, who in the world really cares what is happening with these "occupiers."  Like honestly, its over the top.  And, furthermore, the article took a negative tone towards the police and the government.  I think my favorite line was this one: "Several protesters at the YMCA appeared to be put hard to the ground as police moved in and at least one protester had blood on his face."  Let me interpret what that line really says: A couple people at the YMCA may have possibly been arrested for being violent towards police and one guy had some blood on his face, but we don't really know from what.  That line is filled with words that are designed to evoke anger and support for the protestors.  The author of this article has no facts to back this ambiguous statement up.  The sole purpose of this statement is to make the reader feel sympathetic towards the protestors and make the police look like evil monsters.  I think it would be prudent for the media to at least try to be objective and not say things meant to evoke support for people who are breaking the law.  The "occupiers" in Oakland say they are going to stand up and disobey police orders.  NEWS FLASH, that is a crime.  Just because they're protestors doesn't give them a right to break the law, even if they are "saving the world every day."

Its time for the "occupiers" to unoccupy.  Maybe they could go search for a job instead of just complaining about how they don't have one.  Something tells me that would be more productive.  They aren't the 99%, they are the 1%.  That is, they are 1% of people who thoroughly annoy the other 99% of society.  Come on people, enough is enough.  Get out of the streets, get out of our way, and go become functioning members of society.

Hattington Post

Dr. David Hill and his students at Stetson University take on not only America's mass media, but also its blogosphere of experts and punditry.