Santorum Drops Out

Rick Santorum dropped out of his presidential campaign today. He did not give specifics as to why he decided to drop out, but it is most likely due to Romeny's dominance in across the nation. Santorum stated that he will still give any aid to the Republican Party that he can, of course that mean backing Romney when he wins the candidacy.

The issue of money is brought up in this article, which suggests that Santorum has far less money than Romney. Money has become a huge player in presidential elections, maybe too much of a player. The Super PAC, Restore our Future, has backed Romney by putting millions and millions of dollars toward campaign adds that targeted Santorum. The amount of money that is being put into these campaigns is unbelievable. This leads to the question; is the best candidate being chosen by the country or are the supporting factors behind the candidate putting millions behind that candidate in order for that person to win? Most likely the candidate with the most money or the most financial backing will win the elections or campaigns. But if there are two candidates with about the same amount of financial backing, I think that the country would pick the best candidate because they are seeing more of both sides instead of seeing a majority a single sides propaganda.

The question of financial backing is a tricky question, because the more money behind a candidate, the more good publicity they will get, and the more bad publicity their opponents will be get. But if a candidate has a major financial backing from several sources, does that mean that they are the best candidate? Is it fair to say the people and companies supporting the candidate have a lot of money for a reason; they are successful and educated. But, of course, this brings up another issue of the elites running the country. Is that such a bad thing? Maybe the educated and elites should run the country because they are the most educated and knowledgeable. I don't know, it seems to be a issue that will never be completely answered.


http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/10/santorum-to-suspend-presidential-campaign/?hp

Is Fox News too liberal?

If you're having the same reaction I am right now, namely, "whaaaa?," hang in there.

Rick Santorum complained recently that Fox News is constantly "shilling" for the "liberal" Mitt Romney on their daytime programming, leaving poor ol' Rick out in the cold. Somewhat surprisingly (to myself at least), Fox jumped up to defend their coverage of the candidates.

Video and commentary continue after the jump.

Titles Matter, but Material Matters More...

Sifting through the news on CNN's homepage I came across this story, which reads "Obama responds to Santorum's 'snob' jab?" http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/27/obama-responds-to-santorums-snob-jab/

First off a few things really confuse me about why this is important.  Name-calling happens all the time in politics and it is one of those things that when it happens people really aren't surprised by.  When Rick Santorum called President Obama a snob I'm sure he wasn't expecting people to still be talking about that comment.  Let's face it CNN candidates trade verbal jabs all the time so this isn't "news" to us.  It's just repetitive and it really doesn’t give anything to the audience.  Even though I really don’t like this article I can deal with it because at least if the President is retorting that maybe adds something new to this debate also, the underlying topic is about something important-higher education.  From the media perspective the true story should be about President Obama’s commitment to higher education and desire to see people educated in the best way for them.  If you strip away the rhetoric and focus on the issue you’ll see that is hidden underneath is a very important topic.  Maybe starting out focusing on education will show that the media is above the typical partisan rhetoric and will actually focus on issues at hand.