The Evil Dick Cheney

Click here for the article

Mr. Dick Cheney believes that the executive branch’s expanded powers are absolutely necessary to protect the nation from terrorists. During wartime, he thinks that the president “doesn’t have to check with anybody.” He uses the role of Commander-in-Chief to justify President Bush’s actions. Guantanamo Bay and The Patriot Act, in his eyes, may violate our rights to a fair trial and our rights to privacy, but they are needed to protect the American citizens from evil terrorists.

A CNN poll suggests that 23% of Americans believe that Dick Cheney is the worst vice president ever in U.S. history. That’s a heavy blow for him, but it’s understandable. The other night, the CNN anchors received emails from citizens who believed that Cheney is an evil, malicious man who deserves to be punished for all the terrible things he did during his time in office. Obviously, the American public doesn’t agree that the executive branch should ignore the system of checks and balances.



Mr. Joe Biden states, “[Cheney’s] notion of a unitary executive, meaning that, in time of war, essentially all power…goes to the executive, I think is dead wrong.”

Mr. Cheney strongly disapproves of a smaller vice presidential role. He criticizes Biden for suggesting that there needs to be a stronger balance between the president and the vice president. No one can deny that Mr. Cheney is one of the most powerful vice presidents in history, but does his power ultimately help or hurt America? I agree with Joe Biden when he said that Cheney was “the most dangerous vice president we’ve had in American history.” The vice president’s role should be to help the president—not to take control and supervise unwarranted wiretapping. I hope Mr. Biden brings sanity [and a legit interpretation of the Constitution] back to the office.

Why we should bail out automakers.

With the fate of the big three being left in the hands of the Bush administration, Scot Lehigh of The Boston Globe asks why more people haven't heeded the words of Dick Cheney. Last week Dick Cheney urged the Senate Republicans to support a bridge loan for the big three. It has become more important to support this bailout with the crisis causing the loss of jobs across the country. Lehigh believes that the problems the big three are facing are not of their own doing, but are caused by the financial crisis on Wall Street. Automakers took a huge hit with the financial crisis and their sales have plunged. Although it is not the American automakers alone who are suffering. While Chrysler, GM and Ford have suffered declines of 47%,41%, and 31%; Nissan,Toyota, and Honda have suffered declines of 42%,34% and 32%.
The fact that the big three need to do more to refocus, restructure and reduce costs is obvious, but they are in need of a bailout. Much of the arguments against the bailout are the big three's inability to compete in modern times. The reputation of American cars has lowered significantly recently and new innovations are a necessity to compete. Not only will domestic industry take a hit if these companies go under, but millions of jobs will be lost and the amount of those who become unemployed will skyrocket. The higher employment alone will end up costing the government $240 billion.
In the end it is a question of whether or not taking a risk in bailing out the big three. Yes it is a gamble, but one worth taking. The effects of these companies going under can potentially cause more problems than the bailout is worth. There is no doubt that with this bailout, a complete reform of their companies is needed. These companies need to adapt to the times and create new cars to satisfy the changing wants of the consumers. With increasing competition from foreign companies and their hybrid cars, the big three are going to need to build a fuel efficient car that will last as long as their competition's cars (Toyota and Honda for example).

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/12/17/why_we_should_bail_out_automakers/

Our Federal Reserve System at Work.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/business/economy/17fed.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
Our Federal Reserve Board (Chaired by Ben Bernanke) has entered a new era. The "Fed" as of today cut the benchmark rate to anywhere between 0 and .25%. This rate is a record low for the United States and it is the same as when Japan was trying to decrease deflation. The Fed will start to purchase securities from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac later this month.
"The central bank acknowledged that recession is more severe than officials had thought at their last meeting in October. “The committee anticipates that weak economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for some time,” it said."
As was reported today, our Consumer Price Index has fallen 1.7%, which is the steepest drop since the government began tracking the consumer price index. The issues with this low index is evident in many of the large brand stores, many such as DKNY, Banana Republic and Saks are dropping their prices dramatically and offering many different discounts to try and encourage consumers to shop at their store and purchase their clothing.
"“At some point, and without knowing the timing, the Fed is going to have to destroy all that money it is creating,” said Alan Blinder, a professor of economics at Princeton and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, said the central bank. “Right now, the crisis is created by the huge demand by banks for hoarding cash. The Fed is providing cash, and the banks want to hoard it. When things start returning to normal, the banks will want to start lending it out. If that much money is left in the monetary base, it would be extremely inflationary.”"

This article, while it is really scary to think of our economy in such a state, was really interesting because I felt it really demonstrates how our monetary policy works. The Federal Reserve Board is stepping in as necessary and they are using all of their powers to try and stimulate our economy the best that they can.

Open Senate seat in New York.

After Hillary Clinton's leave, the new opening for New York's Senate seat has been pursued by Caroline Kennedy. Her decision was made after long debating with herself about whether she could handle both the pressure and the attention. Kennedy made calls to other political figures and Governor Paterson on NY confirmed her definite interest in pursuing the position.

She would like to talk about her interests and goals if she were chosen for the position to Gov. Paterson and Senator Charles Schumer.

Many Democrats have already questioned whether she is qualified enough for the job. Gov. Paterson declared that his conversation with Ms. Kennedy was simply informational. Since the conversation, Kennedy has reached out to other political figures.

Hillary Clinton stated that she will not leave her seat until she is definitely confirmed to be President-Elect Obama's Secretary of State. This won't be determined until January or February. Others to be considered for the position are Kirsten Gillibrand, the upstate district, Thomas R. Suozzi, the Nassau County chief executive, and Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York State attorney general.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/us/politics/16caroline.html?_r=1

Taking Blago Out

Source:
nytimes.com
cnn.com

Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested a few days ago based on a (dirty) laundry list of corruption charges such as conspiracy, soliciting bribes and even an attempt to "auction off" President-elect Obama's former Senate seat. (And we thought Spitzer was bad...)

However, Blagojevich can still theoretically appoint someone to that seat at this point in time. To some people that is a frightening notion. That may be why Illinois State Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, is petitioning the Illinois state Supreme Court to remove Blagojevich from power temporarily on the basis that he is unfit for office. This would allow Lieutenant Governor, Pat Quinn, to step in as acting governor.

Madigan is also urging the State Legislature to hold impeachment proceedings when they meet on Monday to discuss a possible special election for the former Obama seat. Illinois Democrats in the State Legislature seem to be on board with Madigan's actions and have begun to circulate a letter that calls for an impeachment process by the Illinois House and Senate. President-elect Obama, who has remained relatively low key during this process has called for Blagojevich to step down, voluntarily.

I think most would agree that whichever method of taking Blagojevich from power is irrelevant. If he is allowed to appoint an unqualified person to the vacant Senate seat out of spite, Springfield's troubles could become Washington's troubles. There are too many important things for Congress to be worrying about right now for the Senate to be distracted by a bad Blagojevich pick. Although, Congress doesn't seem to be making much progress anyway with things like the bailout for Detroit.

I think the best possible course of action would be the fastest. The state Supreme Court should strip Blagojevich's powers immediately, giving the State Legislature time to prepare an impeachment process. Hopefully this process will result in Blagojevich being removed from office. Then Illinois should hold a special election allowing the people to decide who will be Obama's successor. I do not think many people in Illinois have faith in their leaders to make this decision for them. I know I wouldn't.

The strangest aspect of this entire scandal to me is the fact that it does not look like anyone went out of their way to keep this hidden. That makes me wonder if the people behind this scheme were really that arrogant in thinking they would not be caught or whether they simply did not believe their actions were illegal. Either way this scandal will probably not affect the incoming administration all that much, but it will give the pundits and late night talk hosts something to chew on until the Inauguration.

North-South Divide Over Auto Aid

The big three auto industries are relying on the bailout plan to help their current economic crisis. Meanwhile there are many arguments over who should receive bailout money and how much money a company should receive. Many larger auto plants are in the south, such as Nissan, Honda, and Toyota. These are foreign auto companies, yet the workers are Americans, so how do they receive aid? Auto plant jobs in the South often hold prestige, many people gave up their jobs to work in the auto plant where they would make more money than many other jobs offered. Recently though, Americas economic downfall has affected many other nations as well. The foreign auto industries are being affected because new cars are not being sold, therefore they have to cut hours and jobs. many people are losing jobs and life careers, but there is nothing the US government can do to help these individuals. In the south many workers never joined unions because they felt that only people from the north had unions and they did not want to waste their money to pay someone to voice their opinions. Now that the economy is failing many southerners still oppose forming unions, but they hope that the government will pass a bailout plan that will help other auto industries, and that in turn will end the economic crisis. 

Even if somehow America manages to recover from the recession what makes Southern auto workers think that they will receive more jobs and higher pay? America is better off trying to rebuild its infrastructure, or work on technological advances. If the bailout plan is not passed soon, the big three will fail anyway. Just because the government is willing to pour millions of dollars into the auto industries how can we be sure this money will not go to waste? the government should try to aid the auto industry like they tried to help the banks, but we should also begin to focus our attention on widening the spectrum of output goods in America or all our money will continue to go to foreign countries.  

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121302207_2.html?hpid=topnews

Switching Bailout Votes

^^these are the two doofuses who don't think that bailing out the automotive industry is a good idea. boohoo cry about it while your wiping your tears off on your Armani suits.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28162008/

Oh the lovely bailout system, it's so great to see the way the government handles crisis'. So it seems like the automotive industry screwed up so now were gonna give them a bunch of money again to not file bankruptcy so we don't go more down the toilet than we already are. Makes you feel really safe to live in the stable America doesn't it. Although i don't like the idea of a bailout very much, I know it is needed. Even though automotive industries aren't as important as say the banks were, if they fail it will be very disastrous for us.

As if we weren't playing with the American economy like it was a game of monopoly already, we have the Repubs and Dems not being able to decide which way they want to vote. Great. Republicans think that its completely ok to give a shitload of money to the banks to save them but when it comes to workers of a business its just a disguised cash subsidy. Give me a break, seriously the Republicans are complaining about there being no chance the money will be paid back, what makes them think that the 700 gajillion trillion dollars we gave to the banks will ever be paid back. Hence the term, bailout. It is not a called a bailoanout..your bailing someone out, nothing returned just helping someone else. It doesn't seem like the republicans are too used to the idea of helping people out.

The CEO's of these industries did claim that they would lower there salary if the bailout was given. Workers also said they would eliminate certain things out of their union's budget to help towards the bailout. Hmm..i wonder what the banks did to get the bailout? Absolutely nothing at all.

Were just scared of setting a precedent that if you screw up we'll give you money. What they do not realize is that, that precedent was already set with the first bailout and now you have to finish what you started. You give one bailout be prepared for another industry to file bankruptcy. LOVE our systems stability right now.

Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy

(click picture for link to article)
I was very happy to see this cover while working my 2-6 shift at MCPL today and knowing I had to blog was excited to race home to see what this article was about. It did not disappoint.
First off, how can you NOT love an argument that uses the evidence of the other side against them.
Example: "Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister...'The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition.'"
Newsweek says: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.
Other intriguing points brought up by Newsweek. Technically there are two kinds of marriages that can occur, civil and religious. Since our government is suppose to be separate from the church so there's no logical reason why homosexual couples should not be able to get married civilly and obtain the rights of a straight couple. Also, Newsweek mentions that over-zealous religion-oides (yes i just made that up) use the argument that God says "Be fruitful and multiply", which homosexuals couples don't do, however you don't see these religion-oides petition for a referendum to stop 65 year olds from getting married!

Another logical reasoning, there are things in the Bible that we condem today, so why is this issue of gay marriage still hanging on?
"The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric... The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."

Overall, I just don't understand the argument. What happened to miniority rights? Why do people care if a man and another man love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Sure it's against their beliefs, but turn your head. Homosexuals aren't forcing you to join the club. Continue on your day and mind your own business.

Montana: Assisted Suicide Ruled Legal

In the United States, the idea of physician assisted suicide is almost as controversial, if not just as controversial as abortion. Some people will argue that it is murder, while others will say that it allows a person to die with dignity, on their own terms. Doctors might argue that it violates the hypocratic oath, which is a pledge to do everything and anything possible to keep a patient alive.

In Montana a judge declared that physician assisted suicide is legal within the state. However, this decision is probably going to get appealed on the basis that the Legislature should decide whether or not terminally ill patients have to right to end their life, or suffer through a miserable death.

After a man with terminal cancer sued the state with four physicians and a non-profit organization for patients' rights, Judge Dorothy McCarter issued the ruling yesterday. McCarter justified her ruling on the ground that the constitutional rights of Montana guarantees individual privacy and human dignity, thus, a competent terminally ill patient can choose to end their life. This allowed physicians to prescribe medications that will yield death without suffering, free from prosecution of the law. Attorney General Mike McGrath, who will be sworn into the Montana Supreme Court in January, said that the Supreme Court should rule on it, and this issue will be appealed next week.

The man who sued the state, Robert Baxter, felt comforted by the ruling, knowing that if his condition worsens, he will be able to end his life on his terms. The government should not decide whether or not a person can end their life, it should be a personal decision left between the patient and their family and friends. However, Assisent Attorney General Jennifer Anders argued that the state has no evaluation process to see if the patient truly is terminal, and no guidelines set in stone that decipher if the patient is "competent".

After Oregon and Washington, Montana is now the third state to legalize physician assisted suicide. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court said that physician assisted suicide was illegal, but never prevented states from legalizing it. I think that too many people view physician assisted as right or wrong, just as people do with abortion. But what is overlooked is that fact that both of these issues are privacy issues. Whether or not you support or oppose either issue is based on your personal beliefs, but you must also respect the privacy of others. People try to justify being opposed to physician assisted suicide by calling it murder, but they are just trying to coerse others into thinking the way they do. The bottom line is that this is a privacy issue, and what other people decide to do will have no impact on anyone but themselves.

I think that the slant of this article is slightly liberal. It provided quotes from both sides of the argument, but the undertone of the article suggests that the writer was liberal. I feel that the article provided a stronger argument for supporting physician assisted suicide.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/06/montana-assisted-suicide_n_148994.html

Where is the equality for all?

America is known as the country who represents equality for all. although it took us eons to get there we still have a long way to go. the biggest controversy to hit this county is gay marriage /rights also know as as gay unions. this issue blown way out of proportion is now shreading this country apart and what is stands for. Gays have been discriminated against and it is now a war,( rather a culture war.) Who are we to tell someone they can not marry because of WHO they marry? This matter conflicts mainly with religion(despite the fact we attempt to keep religion separate from state.) society has run a mock twisting the words of the bible to suit their own needs. California was one of the few states who legalized gay marriage or unions. However after its been voted against in several states it has been banned . what is to come of those who are already married? As i said before who are we to judge people from marrying who they want to? In the words of Thomas Jefferson (the inalienable rights) " man is entitled to the pursuit of happiness" meaning a man has the right in my opinion to do what ever it is that makes him happy. who are we to take that away ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06marriage.html?scp=10&sq=gay%20rights&st=cse

Our Other Option

Within the next few weeks Americans may witness the demise of two of the three prolific American auto manufacturers, General Motors and Chrysler. Our market may be based on free market principles, where the dying are left to die and the strong go on to survive, but if this country were two lose either, or in an armegeddon like prophecy both, a true downward spiral would be upon us. More than just a name and a legacy will be lost, and in another place and time that alone would bring with it grief, but in these abysmal times it will be the job losses and loss in gross domestic product that would bring with it not only grief but a fatal dose of hunger and extreme poverty. And so, with the respective clocks ticking on both companies the government has come to a crossroades, to write a check or let them declare bankruptcy.

The first option is the better short term fix, but it faces a host of questions. For instance, this would be the second major bailout in a span of months, not only would this set a precident it would be an entirely new principle. Only once has the government ever gone so far into the unknown in all of U.S. history and the boat they were in was the Tennesse Valley Authority.
However that boat was slightly different than the bail out currently proposed. The T.V.A. was owned and controled only by the government, not to mention that it was successfully solf off into the free market. By granting this bailout the government would set the country down a long road, where bailouts would be granted to all those who could make a sufficient case, or get legislatures elected. If we the people were to buy stock in a company, who would represent the government in the stock holder's meetings and what if the government was unable to gets its way in these meetings? If matters couldn't be controlled civilly, a trait uncommon for humans when in such economic distress, would the government roll tanks into the streets to force the other stock holder's hands? It is the fact that we have no answers, and no historical refernce to seek the answers to these questions that makes this choice so dangerous.

In response to the previous solution, and imminent possibility, fiscal conservative Larry Kudlow has proposed an alternate plan: cut taxes, and allow the companies to file bankruptcy and rebuild themselves. The second proposal has both pros, bankruptcy can be studied throughout history, which means there is surely an archetype of a successful bankruptcy claim, and cons, such as minimal short term improvements and little to no guarauntee that after the bankruptcies either company will be as strong or even still there. But, beware the supply side policies of the first provision. The tax cuts coupled with the extremely low interest rates being imposed by the Federal Reserve Board will add money to the economy, effectively increasing demand by increasing American income. This will increase the value of goods, which is at the moment good, but if the extra money were left in the economy too long we would see pricing bubbles, reminicent of those witnessed before the current debacle, and run the risk of the those bubbles bursting again.

Through weighing both of these options I believe that Kudlow has proposed a better plan. This plan is historically based, solid economic theory, that will encourage long term growth and stabilization of the economy. However, the last statement will only be true if upon stabilization of the market, monetary policy be changed to take money out of the market and ensure such drastic price bubbles may not form.



http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTVmZjgyOWJiNzNiNTBlMWZhODIxZmYyMmM3ODgwMjk=

Terror in Mumbai: Is it Only a Matter of Time Before Another U.S "9/11"?

[ One Day Late.... Sorry :( ]

It has been a little more than seven years since the terrorist attacks in NYC on September 11th, 2001. Since that fatal morning, one that will be remembered forever in the hearts and minds of all Americans, the U.S government has taken strict measures to make sure that nothing like 9/11 would ever happen again under it's watchful eye. In seven years the daunting task has been fulfilled. Though Osama Bin Laden has not been captured (though some believe he is already dead) and Al-Queda, though weakened, is still operating in the bowels of the Middle East we have been fortunate enough to have not witnessed another "9/11" in this country since that fateful day in 2001.
On November 26th, 2008, one week ago today, Muslim militants believed to be from Pakistan caused terror in Mumbai, India where they attacked seven populated locations including taking hostages and killing over 100 people in the Taj Mahal Hotel (Some of which were Americans). The Mumbai terrorist attacks in Mumbai darkly parallel that of the September 11 attacks here in the U.S. which bears the question: Is it only a matter of time before another "9/11" like attack here in America?
The Pakistani militants known formally as "Lashkar-i-Taiba" stormed Mumbai targeting three luxury hotels, a Jewish cultural center and a railway station. Like 9/11, the Mumbai attacks were widespread. Most people in the U.S, especially those who live in and around NYC remember the World Trade Center when they think of September 11th. In fact sights such as the Pentagon were also afflicted. When one thinks about the Mumbai attacks they probably will remember the 100 + killed in the Taj Hotel when in actuality 2 other hotels and as before mentioned a railway station were also attacked. Another frightening comparison is that the city of Mumbai was supposedly forewarned of an attack and was reluctant to act upon the warning. Some people have provided evidence that the United States was also warned of a possible attack and like Mumbai it occurred in the form of September 11th. Acts of violence such as the Virginia Tech shootings is also an example of an attack like Mumbai, a violent attack in a widely populated area (Virginia Tech being a college is widely populated and Luxury Hotels and Railway stations are also populated areas as well).
With these distinct similarities one could definitely say after seeing the Mumbai attacks that it is very possible that a terrorist attack in the U.S in the near future is likely or at least a frightening possibility. Especially since some of the victims in Mumbai were of American decent one must wonder if the attacks could have indirectly been related to the United States. One can only wonder and draw his own conclusions but in the end the question remains: Is it only a matter of time?

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2008/12/the_next_mumbai_on_us_soil.html

Reaching Across the Aisle

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/02/gates.defense/index.html

I think its safe to say that Barack Obama will be reaching across the aisle with his reappointing Robert M. Gates as Defense Secretary. Gates not only took the job but he said he was impressed with the President elect and thankful for Obama's confidence in him.

Gates has not registered himself with a party, however, he does consider himself a republican. In light of this Gates has stated that he doesn't necessarrily disagree on Obama's military policy making. Obama proposes that the troops be removed from Iraq within the next 16 months. Obama according to gates is prepared to take on a responsible draw down and listen to his military commanders.

Overall Gates was impressed with Obama's ability to be down to earth with Adm. Micheal Mullen, our nations chairman of the JCS (first Admiral to be named to that position by the way). Obama makes it clear that he wants a regular dialogue with his commanders. To Gates and to me as well that is what our men and women in uniform need. A commander-in-chief that they can look at as a person who is for them.

If a "republican" can see our president as a man for the people, a man for the greater good of the country I believe that the President -elect has already accomplished his goal,his goal of reaching accross the aisle, and making a new cabinet of people that are truly bipartisan. I am confident to see what the future brings.

Creating Change We Can Believe In

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/11/29/obama_choices

In his acceptance speech, on the night of November 4th, Barack Obama professed that he had, “the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics.” He was right. Regardless of your political affiliation it is impossible to ignore the fact that Barack Obama has become a celebrity through his political campaign. Never before have so many people thrown their support behind a candidate in such a public way. America definitely did not observe as much enthusiasm when Grover Cleavland campaigned against James G. Blaine, or when Dwight D. Eisenhower ran against Adlai Stevenson. Despite this country’s love affair with the Barack Obama, we must now ignore his stardom and instead focus on his administration.

The progressive media has criticized Obama of creeping towards centrism, as David Sirota’s article explains. Sirota argues that Obama’s celebrity status has granted him the power to rule his administration however he sees fit, regardless of if it is far left or centrist. Sirota is correct…if the public allows him to do whatever he pleases. People must strive not to be “Obama loyalists” as Sirota describes, and instead become educated on the issues and act accordingly. Organizations such as http://www.november5.org/ have been created to organize citizens to pressure the new administration into achieving the progressive goals it campaigned for. This country’s new found political enthusiasm must be carried throughout the Obama administration if we hope to achieve the “change we can believe in.”

Though I personally think it is much too early to count out the Obama administration, and I do remain hopeful that the Obama administration will deliver the change this country needs, I do think it is important to be relatively skeptic. Barack Obama is not America’s savior. Not every ill this country faces will be fixed, not every promise Obama made to the people will hold true, and it is foolish to think that would ever be possible. Barack Obama does have the power to shape his administration however he feels, for better, or for worse. We cannot fault him if we sit back and remain loyal despite our reservations. We, the people, have made our voices heard and elected the candidate we felt was the right choice for America, now we must continue to be heard by doing all we can to pressure the administration to carry out it’s promises. It certainly is not time to lose any hope, but we must stop relying solely on our hope and start using our minds.

Introducing Obama's economic stimulus plan...

Click here for the article

President-elect Barack Obama wants to create a two-year economic stimulus plan that will save and create millions of jobs. By investing in green jobs and infrastructure projects, the economy will be stimulated and unemployment rates will go down. There are still jobs to be found, and Obama wishes to reveal them.

His economic team will [most likely] include:
Teasury Secretary: Timothy F. Geithner
Director of the National Economic Council: Lawrence H. Summers
Head of the Congressional Budget Office: Peter R. Orszag

Obama stated, “We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels, fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead.”

I think Obama’s plan will definitely help the economy. Our job market is deteriorating and the unemployment rate is soaring. Old problems need to be fixed and new jobs need to be created. The plan will cost more than 300 billion dollars, and I am usually distrustful of huge government spending, but in this case, I will make an exception. Money is needed to fix our money problem. As long as you invest in the right things, the economy will be saved. FDR proved this fact to us during his first term as the 32nd president of the U.S.

Like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Obama faces an immense economic challenge when he enters the Oval Office in January. When FDR first became president, he immediately began to propose emergency measures to help the economy and introduce public works programs to stimulate the job market. Obama plans to do the same thing. I can’t help but to see the parallels between one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history and the first black president in U.S. history. Will Obama prove himself worthy of the world’s acceptance in this crisis? Only time (and good legislation) will tell. '

Where the Mines Are.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/obamas_tripwires.html

It has been said that "new presidents make mistakes." Bill Clinton ran into some trouble very early in his Presidency. Whether it be him being involved in a losing fight to allow open homosexuality in the military or appointing his wife, who was a political novice at the time, to formulate a health care reform plan, which ended in failure. With these mistakes, Clinton became a better, more moderate president in response.
This brings up the point of certain "trip wires" that could cause controversy for the new President. The first trip wire is his stance on abortion and bioethics. In the matter of bioethics, an executive order for the federal support of stem cell research with "spare" embryos, is an example of a decision, if pushed further, that would cause controversy. For abortion, many fear that the removal of limitations on governmental involvement would be a major blow on the pro-life movement, and therefore be a "trip wire" for Obama to find himself involved in much controversy and therefore end a period of governmental neutrality on the issue of abortion.
The second trip wire Obama faces is on the issue of the Fairness Doctrine. This is a federal regulation that requires broadcast outlets to devote equal air time to opposing political viewpoints. This is seen as unnecessary and has even been quoted as "Orwellian." Although Obama stated that he does not support the reimposition of this act, his fellow democrats (such as Nancy Pelosi) are in strong favor of the act. If Obama decides to endorse this act then he will face strong opposition by many who oppose this regulation of speech.
The third trip wire Obama will come across is the "card check" issue. According to current law, workers must have an election with a secret ballot to organize a union. Obama's approach is to remove the secret ballot and allow unions to be created by simply collecting cards signed by workers. Making the ballot public is begging for intimidation and would be seen as hostility towards the business community from the Obama administration. This would be increasingly hazardous for the Obama administration when the need for business cooperation when new energy and health reform is implemented.

"Every new president makes mistakes. But some are avoidable."

Rules To Protect Health Workers Draw Protest

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

The Bush administration is now pushing "rules" through our government. The administration is attempting to push legislation that would "prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their 'religious beliefs or moral convictions.' " It would also prevent hospitals from requiring employees to assist in activities that go against their belief systems. The Administration is trying to come out with a final version of this bill within a few days, but there are many people that oppose this bill, and Obama said that he will rescind this bill, which basically just means to repeal it, but that process could take three to six months.

According to three officials appointed by President Bush on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, this rule would overturn about 40 years of civil rights legislation being passed. They also stated that this so called necessary rule for the employee shouldn't even be necessary because it is covered by Title VII, which prohibits employer discrimination based on religion (It was passed in 1964.)

A lot of the concerns following this rule are whether this rule is truly to assist people in maintaining their belief systems without discrimination, but many people are suggestion that the proposed is really a method trying to make acts such as abortion or obtaining contraception's more difficult. Pharmacies have voiced their concerns that the rule would allow employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and could “lead to Medicaid patients being turned away.” State officials also stated that this rule could void state laws that require insurance plans to cover contraceptives and require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims. This protest risen from many American citizens, including doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, state attorneys general and political leaders, and even our President-elect, Obama. Protests have been made whether this rule should even be allowed, because it the White House tried to ensure against last minute legislation by stating that no more regulations should be proposed after June first, and issued before November first, the Administration defended that statement by stating that there could be exceptions "in extraordinary circumstances," but even the White House couldn't state what the circumstances would be in t
the case of the rule proposed.

A lot of Republicans are concerned about Obama making decisions for everybody in America, and turning our nation "socialist" but isn't this type of strict regulation even more demeaning? The government is making it difficult for citizens to obtain the assistance that they want and feel necessary, even though there are many people qualified to provide their service.

The Choice for New Secretary of State Causes Problems

Now that Barack Obama has become the President-elect, he has started talking about the people he wants to help run the country. Senator Hillary Clinton is one of the names that have been flying around Washington D.C. Word is that Obama may choose Clinton to be Secretary of State. Both the advisers of Obama and Clinton have stated that the two Democrats have very similar ideas when it comes to foreign policy, especially when it comes to all of the issues about Iran and Iraq.

Each politician wants to withdraw the troops from Iraq as soon as possible, send more troops to Afghanistan, create ways to solve the climate change crises, and help to create peace between Israel and Palestine.

One issue that has been publicly displayed is whether or not President-elect Obama should meet with Iranian leaders without preconditions. Obama feels that this should begin with lower-level preparatory work. Something that Clinton could work on. Many people feel that Hillary Clinton cannot do this mainly becuase of the things she said about Obama during the election. Iran became so upset that they formed a protest against Clinton to the United Nations. They didn't like the things that she had said in an interview during the election. When asked the question "What would you do as President if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons?" she replied: “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Senator Clinton is not Obama's only choice for Secretary of State. He is also considering Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and former Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

President-elect Obama has many choices for the issue in Iran. He could have the new Secretary of State handle it or he could handle it himself. Obama could also have the Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who is well equipped in foreign policy handle it. Whatever does end up happening will have a strong effect on the Iranian President anyway. When something major like this occurs, the only choice a leader has is to do the best for the country.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us/politics/16clinton.html?ref=politics

A New Hope?

Sources:
CNN.com(Romney Article)
CNN.com(Republican Primary Tracker)
The New York Times(Republican Contenders)


After significant losses on November 4th , Republicans have been doing a little soul searching, and may be looking to the former Massachusetts Governor to lead the way to the White House in 2012. Mitt Romney, for all intents and purposes, can be considered second runner-up to the Republican nomination, having only gained 271 delegates, closely behind Mike Huckabee's 278 . While not being anywhere close to winning the nomination numbers-wise, Romney gained some respect and trust from the Conservative base of his party during the primary season by attacking John McCain for his more moderate views. However, Romney has been accused of flip-flopping in order to pander to the base in the past.

Other names that have been thrown into the 2012 Republican nomination hat already include Alaskan Governor and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Palin and Jindal both remain rising stars on the national stage, while Huckabee recently launched his own show on Fox News. Fortunately for Romney if the country is truly shifting more towards the center, as many assume due to the results of the election, he will most likely fair a better chance for nomination in 2012 than Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee; both having the ability to successfully fire up the base, but not so much with moderate Republicans or Independents. Meanwhile, Bobby Jindal has not yet reached the same notoriety as the other three potential candidates so it is hard to say how much support he can accrue.

If this be the case, Republicans may see Romney as their best shot at attracting Independents away from an incumbent President Obama in a general election, partly due to his experience with economic issues and dealings the the business world, while also maintaining a significant level of support from his own party. However, if Obama's presidency is successful Republicans may not even have a decent shot at the White House until 2016. And, if Hillary Clinton runs again at that time, that time may not be until 4 0r 8 years after that.

The fate of the Republicans power over the next decade basically relies on whether the party chooses to continue the same tactics and continue to bend to the right or chooses to modernize and readjust to a more Centrist platform. If they fail to do this, many analysts predict that we will experience a long period of Democratic control over Congress and the White House.

On the other hand, four years is a very long time in politics. Who knows? A little known Republican candidate could emerge, transform the GOP into a party with much broader appeal, and get nomnaited instead of any of the current "front-runners". Just look at what President-elect Obama did since his speech at the Democratic National Convention four years ago; back when barely anyone knew him outside of Illinois.
It's also important to keep in mind that this is all pure speculation, albeit an intersting story. There really is no telling who will be the prominent Republican figures four years from now.

Still, it seems like for some people the 2012 primaries have already begun.

Calif. Gay Marriage Backers Go To Court Over Ban

The November 4th election has caused many arguments over state issues such as gay marriage. Arizona, California, and Florida all passed new laws placing a ban on gay marriage. In California especially, this new law was met with outrage among a large percentage of the public, because most residents there have more liberal views and are open to change. There are two different arguments going on in the California courts, the first is trying to repeal the ban. There have been many protests, especially outside Hollywood restaurant El Coyote. The restaurant serves gay and straight customers, but it has used its profits to donate money supporting the ban on gay marriage. The ban on gay marriage is also known as Proposition 8, which the restaurant supported with a donation. Many supporters of gay marriage have filled lawsuits hoping to repeal the ban. 

 Another argument in California is whether gay couples married in California are still legally married, or if their marriage is now null and void. The ban on gay marriage is now an amendment on the California Constitution, yet the Constitution in California had been amended 500 times, so many guy marriage supporters have strong hopes for repealing the law. If the state of California is unable to make a decision about the ban, many court cases are likely to go to the Supreme Court where the debate will have to come to a conclusion.  

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96933454  

Bailout goes directly to consumers, supposedly

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/12/news/economy/paulson/index.htm

The $700 Billion dollar bailout plan has decided to help consumers with credit card loans and auto loans. On the downside, it won't be taking your bad foreclosure loans from the back anymore. They were originally supposed to relieve troubled banks by buying back the bad loans but now they decided to help the people who are foreclosing their houses, to not. In my opinion its good and bad. It's good because it teaches people not to take loans out you cannot afford to repay. It's bad because it may take a lot longer to revive the economy by individually helping families rather than just buying the loan back from the bank. Since there doing this, they just have to keep on pumping capital into these banks and non-banks. That is there main issue now..pumping and pumping capital into the system hoping it works. Just to show us even more how bad the economy is the government had to tap into $40 million dollars for some emergency loan. So we don't even have enough money to do that on our own, we have to tap into our reserve. That should make everyone feel really safe. At least Paulson believes that we wont need more than $700 billion to stabilize our economy, not like that's not a lot of money or anything.

"Without access to funds, consumer financing companies have had to curtail their offerings or shut down. As a result, Americans have had a harder time getting car loans, student loans and credit cards."

That really stuck out at me. I knew getting loans would be hard now, but there's basically no hope for getting a student loan at a decent interest rate. If consumer financing companies cant get acces to funds, our class of 2009 is going down in the debt hole.

Ending on a Good Note: Is it Enough?

It is hard to look at President Bush's legacy and say anything positive without mentioning a few negatives first. Over the past eight years, Bush has proven to be one of the most unpopular presidents to ever grace the halls of the White House. However, despite the sour notes that riddle his incumbency, Bush is attempting to end his reign in a positive light. He is trying to do so by wholeheartedly accepting the president-elect, Barrack Obama. When Obama visited the White House Bush spent more than an hour discussing domestic and foreign policy in the Oval Office and then gave Obama a personal tour around the White House. Bush has also stated that he is inspired by Obama's victory, and that Barrack truly represents the American dream. The nation now seems to appreciate the way in which Bush is handling Obama's victory and it definitely helps his image. But, is ending on a good note enough to save his presidency from being marked with unpopularity and social disdain? In my opinion, most certainly not. If a song is horrendous for the first 3 minutes, it will still be a bad song even if the last 10 seconds are phenomenal. And that's not to say that, in terms of presidential decisions, the way in which Bush's welcoming of Obama is something that can be described as phenomenal either. Regardless of how smooth Bush makes Barrack Obama's transition, he will still go down in history as the unpopular president that he was for the majority of his eight years in office. To look at it another way, if President Hoover hand built a wheel chair ramp for FDR and single-handily made every room in the White House "handi-capable," would that erase the way he handled the depression? The answer is a big NO; people in Hoovervilles could give two craps if Hoover smoothed the presidential transition for FDR. To sum up this entire scenario, this is way too little way too late to make any difference at all.

Link to Article

JoJoToo Little, Too Late

Music Video Codes By Music Jesus.com

Franklin Delano Obama?

(one day late) this article is from Monday.
New York Times Article
The article shed light on some unknown facts about FDR's new deal. For example that FDR didn't engage in as much fiscal spending as we are taught to believe. Herbert Hoover enacted a large tax increase "whose effects weren't felt until his successor took office." Also FDR was very eager to return to conservative budget management after his win in 1936. His administration cut spending and raised taxes which caused the unemployment rate to return to the double digits. So, what this have to do with our newly appointed president? The columnist, Paul Krugman, uses FDR's short comings as a warning to the new Obama administration. Krugman believes that Obama's staff should think of how much the economy needs saving and add 50%. I'm a little confused about what Obama can do for the election, since Mr. Latham mentioned in class that realisticlly the President doesn't have the power to completely turn our economic downturn around. However, by this he meant that President Obama will need to rely on Congress to get his plans passed. Maybe Obama will introduce us to the Fresh New Deal....with a ph.

Gay Marriage: Good or Bad

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/us/10protest.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin




Even though I am personally not crazy about gay people getting married, I do not think it fair to tell people what they can and cannot do. People do not ask to be gay and I think it wrong that America goes through so much trouble to punish them for their sexual preference. I love how people are so passionate about gay people getting married and yet they show no concern to real issues haunting our nation today.People act like gay people are monsters,when gay people are just like every other person. Gay people are not bothering us, so why do we make gay marriage such a big issue. If you do not like, turn the other way. It's really not a hard thing to do. It sickens me to see people so enraged by gay people. They even go as far as to beating and discriminating people who are gay. It not fair that California legalize gay marriage one minute, and then takes it away another minute. Where is the democracy in that? Who are we to tell people who they can and cannot married?Doesn't it say in our Constitution people are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Many gay people are not happy , and their liberty is being threatened everyday. What happen to not mixing mixing religion with government? I think peoples' religion have a strong influence on people acceptance of gay. If the Bible did not say marriage should be between a man and a woman, people would not be acting or feeling the way they do now. Everyone keeps saying it is wrong. I just wonder how people would feel if the government would tell certain people they could not get married because it wrong. Not more than 50 years ago, Calfornia was saying it was wrong for a black person and white person to get married. California should never legalized gay marriage in the first place if they were planning planning to remove They gave so much false hope to the millions of gay people out there. As a state, California actions were very cruel. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said that this issue might go through the court systems. Why must this process go through the court system again. It is going to take at least two to three years before Calofinia court systems makes any major decisions. As for now, gay people must suffer and wait.

Proposition 8: A Step Backwards For America

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/gay_marriage/2008/11/05/148267.html

America has reached a turning point. The November 4th election has granted us the first ever African American President of the United States, it has promised us relief from the worst economic crises since the great depression, it has promised a successful end to the war on terror, it has promised us energy independence. With such a historic election at hand smaller statewide propositions have gone overlooked. One such bill, Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California, the current home to an estimated 18,000 married gay couples, has received much less attention than it warrants. The passing of Proposition 8 made California the first state to revoke the right of gay marriage after legalizing it. Proposition 8 creates a legal dilemma, as well as a moral dilemma for California, and will cause the state grief for years.

Proposition 8 leaves many legal questions unanswered. Where does Proposition 8 leave current married gay couples? Can California nullify 18,000 marriages, or will they be forced to allow the marriages to continue as they deny others the right? The United States prohibits ex post facto laws, which are laws that “make an act criminal although the act was legal when it was committed.” This concept could relate to gay marriage bans also. One could easily argue that the 18,000 threatened marriages were legal when they were performed, so they can’t be revoked now. However, it can be assumed the opposition will do all it can to end these current marriages. As if this legal dilemma was not enough, not only is California stuck in a legal dilemma, it is stuck in a moral dilemma.

Proposition 8 leaves almost as many moral questions unanswered as it does legal questions. Is it fair to put a minority's rights up to a majority vote? How fair is it to put the marriages of 18,000 committed couples in jeopardy? Newsmax quotes Evan Wolfson saying, "There's something deeply wrong with putting the rights of a minority up to a majority vote, if this were being done to almost any other minority, people would see how un-American this is." Gay rights have been a hot button issue for years. For decades hate has been fostered against gays much like hate has been fostered against other minorities. Proposition 8, which allows strait citizens to vote on the fate of gay couples is comparable to allowing whites to vote for black rights in the 1930s. November 4th 2008 signified a giant leap for equality in America, yet a huge black mark has been put on this date. Americans may have advanced the rights of one minority, yet we stomped on the rights of another. Proposition 8 indicates that though we may hope equality is among us, we are nowhere near close. California must consider its choices regarding Proposition 8 before they do further harm to the rights of minorities.

Obama Preparing to take on Issues

Currently, President-elect Barack Obama along with his advisers are laying out plans to deal with the many issues to take on when he is officially President. As his first priority, Obama is focused on dealing with the current economic crisis. Obviously, there are multiple issues that require his attention, but with the current state of the country, he has decided that an economic recovery plan must be addressed first and foremost. On Saturday, Obama stated: “I want to ensure that we hit the ground running on Jan. 20, because we don’t have a moment to lose.” By saying this, he is confident that with proper handling of the situation, the economic issue will be dealt with accordingly. 

It is debatable if whether Obama should attack many issues at once, or take them on one at a time. For as following FDR or LBJ's ideas that health care, energy, education are all linked in the economic problems, could be one way of handling the situation. However, fellow democrats and advisers are discussing a similar strategy as of now. It is very difficult to say which way is the most efficient, because the issues of today are extraordinary, and unlike any we have faced before.

It is also questionable if there is too much for Obama to handle and if he is over his head suggested by one of his advisers. Yet in the past, presidents such as FDR dealing with WW2 and LBJ with Great Society have always had a lot to deal with, and they were successful. In this case, there is certainly much work to be done, but a great president can solve them. Obama's transition advisers have been at work studying past presidents such as Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan and Clinton to assess the best way for Obama to start off his presidency. By taking ideas from all of these men, a rational solution can be made to best handle the first issues to be taken care of.

Before the election, Obama stated that he plans to take on are first: an economic recovery package with a middle-class tax relief, second: the energy crisis, third: health care, fourth: tax restructuring, fifth: education. Of course there are many more issues that need his attention such as withdrawing from Iraq, talks with Iran, immigration, detainees in Guantanamo Bay, trade with neighboring countries, and many more. Yet he feels that these five must be seen and solved as fast as possible.

We don’t know yet what’s going to happen in January,” he said. “And none of this can be accomplished if we continue to see a potential meltdown in the banking system or the financial system.” There is still much time before Obama is officially the President of the United States, and until then he will continue to prioritize and gather his ideas for what course of action to be taken when he is signed in.

Article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27611106/

Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27608206#27608206

What's Next For Sarah Palin?

Sarah Palin was sent packing by Barack Obama and Joe Biden's great victory. However, although she did not become our Vice President, there still may be great things in store for Sarah Palin. As Ted Stevens is still taking heavy criticism for his accepting of gifts, he is being pushed closer and closer to resignation. If that were to occur, Palin would be a prime candidate for his seat in the Senate. Even though the article did not mention it, I would like to bring up the fact that if this happens, Palin is only a short leap from the White House. Barack Obama would know this concept well... If Palin decides to run against Barack Obama(maybe not Obama based on how his term plays out), will she stand a chance? In order to determine this, there are several things that we must ask ourselves.

First of all, did Sarah Palin make a name for herself during the campaign? For anyone keeping up with the news and the Saturday Night Live skits, the answer is definitely yes. Sarah Palin was the centerpiece of the media; she appeared in tons of stories and cartoons, and her life was made public to the United States. However, it was not the good aspects of her life that were brought to the forefront, but it was the negative aspects, such as the fact that she has a child with Down's Syndrome, or the fact that her teenage daughter is pregnant.

This can be looked upon either positively or negatively. In one light, her life definitely demonstrates her strong anti-abortion standpoint. However, these facts also portray an irresponsible person, a person that few would want to lead their country. It is this unfortunate fact that greatly contributed to John McCain's loss in the election as well.

The next question that needs to be asked is whether or not Sarah Palin has what it takes to go up against Barack Obama. If this happens, she will have a strong disadvantage depending on how well Obama's term went. However, she is currently well known and if she does decide to run in 2012 she will be instantly recognized. This will greatly aid her, but will depend much on what she does in between now and four years from now.

During this campaign she showed that she was unknowledgable in some areas and that interviews are not her forte (by far). However, mistakes can be viewed as learning experiences and it is for this reason that I think that Sarah Palin is more qualified now than when she was first chosen. She was the "deer in the headlights", but now she knows the ins and outs of Washington and at least in my eyes, she changed for the better. I truly believe that she stands a viable chance if she decided to run in 2012.

I know that this is definitely making a bold statement and it is for this reason that I will base my opinion heavily on what WILL happen with Sarah Palin in the future instead of basing it on what HAS happened. Obtaining a seat in the Senate will also play a large role in my opinion and most popular opinions I predict, as Palin will be having her first experience with running a country. In this respect she would also be getting her "on the job training" which would make it MUCH easier for her to run. It is for these reasons that I would consider voting should she run in 2012.

It is articles like these that, although they are short, they create lasting discussion and encourage speculation. This article especially was NOT biased and instead of speaking from Democratic principles or Republican principles, the article was speaking based on neutral speculation. I have always been intrigued by political speculation and that is why I found this average article very interesting.

Source: The New York Times

CLICK HERE FOR ARTICLE

A Felon on the US Senate?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06alaska.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=alaska%20senate&st=cse&oref=slogin


A member of the US Senate, a felon? Most of us probably thought this was as likely to happen in our lifetime as a Black President being elected... Alaskan Senator, Ted Stevens has been convicted of seven felonies for which he failed to disclose more than $250,000 in gifts and home renovations. He continued to run his campaign for re-election on the stand that he has not been "formally convicted" yet, and can still run for his 40-year position of Senator. He has somehow convinced the public that he is innocent until proven guilty, and is currently at 48%, leading his opponent Mayor Mark Begich by merely one percent. It is said that if he is elected and afterwards convicted, an emergency election would have to take place, in which Governor Sarah Palin would be a likely candidate.
My question for this article is: Why is this not more widely known? Without being a loyal New York Times reader or National Public Radio listener, you may never have heard more about this than "Something strange happened in the Alaska senate election." Obviously the election of President Barack Obama holds a high place in the political portion of people's minds, but shouldn't the public be aware of a potential felon contributing to federal decisions that affect their lives every day?
It could be attributed to a failure in the media. Or perhaps not a failure, but a purpose. The media plays things off as unimportant for reasons unknown to the public. More likely, however, it could be simply Lazy Americans. Maybe the Presidential election is over, and no one really cares about the rest. Many people don't realize how much actually happens on election day; laws are made, amendments passed, senate changes, etc. As our class is getting closer to being the "Political Elite" of Newfield High School, we are starting to notice how little people really know about politics. It is frustrating, and I think we can all relate to it.

The Tradeoff between Expierence and Personality

Election day has come and gone. It was a day that most Americans, including myself, never thought would come in our lifetimes. The historical and political consequences of November 4th 2008 will not be soon forgotten. Now, however, we must move on. A new era is dawning in our country and President-elect Obama knows celebration has ended and work has began. His first step towards reshaping America has been to select his chief of staff. Representative Rahm Emanuel will take the job. As a former adviser to President Bill Clinton Emanuel has all the experience in government you could want. He was directly involved in the bailout plan. Someone with that much knowledge about the financial crisis would be invaluable to the new president who's inheriting the crisis. Emanuel knows Congress, he know the ins and outs of government. All this knowledge seems to make him the perfect candidate for the job.
So, if the guy's smart and knows his stuff, what's the problem? His personality is standing in the way of the country's support. Many are divided on if he is the right choice. He is known for being loud, swearing and yelling often. He comes off as pushy and abrasive. He seems especially over the top when standing next to the cool and calm Obama. This is where the trade off we see so often in politics comes into play. Is it better to hurt feelings and push hard until everyone goes along with you or at least listens or is it better to play nice with the others and hope they like you enough to support you.
It happened in the election with McCain. Had he been the nice, well spoken, gracious man that he seems to really be during the campaign he would have gained some voters. That's not to say he wouldn't have lost any if he had. So where does a politician draw the line? When is it too much? Where's the right combination of the two? In my opinion knowledge is more important in general, but if you can't use the knowledge appropriately its useless. So my best solution for politicians: be smart, but be trustworthy. If the people trust you you'll get what you want and you can be as loud as you want. While how you say something is important, your content should matter more, it doesn't always, but it should.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06rahm.html?ref=politics

Rahm Emanuel Accepts Chief of Staff Post

This past Tuesday, after a long season of campaigning, Barack Obama came out victorious over John McCain in a landslide electoral vote, although the popular vote was relatively close. The day after his victory, Obama did not hesitate and said he was going to begin his selections for his presidential advisors. Two days after the election, this proved to be true when Obama chose democratic representative Rahm Emanuel from Illinois to be the Chief of Staff. Obama said he has "deep insights into the challenging economic issues that will be front and center for our administration." Emanuel was his first appointment because the Chief of Staff is vital to a president for accomplishing goals on an agenda, and Emanuel is good at getting things done according to president elect Obama. Earlier this morning, Emanuel informed Obama that he will be stepping down from his seat as a fourth ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives in order to be part of Obama's administration. Emanuel said he wants to "stitch together the frayed fabric of our politics" and he wants to help Obama to bring about the change the country needs, and desires.

Obama's early decisions make me feel optimistic about the future of his administration. To me, this is a sign of fulfilled promises, and a demonstration of good initiative. This shows me that Obama is not going to waste any time, and is dedicated to getting things done. Hopefully, this will not change, and he will begin his job immediately after his inauguration.

Tomorrow morning, Obama will be having his first post-election news conference, and it is said that he is not going to pick any more members of the administration, but he is keeping his focus on the economy, and is eager to begin his work. I think this is a smart move by Obama because the economy may have been the most important issue in the election, and it is the first priority.

Some of Emanuel's Republican colleagues support Obama's choice, while others ridicule it. I think Emanuel is a good choice as Chief of Staff because of his political experience, specifically his work with the Clinton administration. Emanuel wants to unite both parties for a common goal, which is a healthy economy.

This upcoming Monday, Obama will be meeting with President Bush to discuss the problems facing the country, which is a reminder of the problems Obama will inherit. This includes a transition of presidents during war for the first time in four decades, and world leaders are already making ultimatums and pleas to president elect Barack Obama. I feel confident that Obama will handle these situations properly, because part of his foreign policy plan is to use war as a last resort. It also includes an incredibly unstable economy, which plunged yesterday and again this morning.

I found this article to be neither liberal nor conservative, which is why I liked this article. This was informational, and it provided perspectives of both sides.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/07elect.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

America the land of dreams

Shouts, screams, peaceful crowds, tears of joy, voices of millions could be heard everywhere last night. November 4 2008 marked an epic historical event for America, that will for ever go down in matrimony. This event has had a major impact on the entire nation and countries world wide. Why? Barrack Obama is now the first African American president. In the eyes of the younger generation, democrats and especially those of African Americans saw this as a new beginning. The fact our nation can elect an African American as president has given dreams and hopes to everyone. Not only that, it has exstinguished the thought that there will never be an African or a woman in office.I honestly thought i would never see this day come, due to the fact it took America over 100 years to end slavery then another 100 years to end discrimination against blacks. Which in most cases still exist today. Barrack was literally the answer to Martin Luther King dream; to see an African be someone important and not it be base upon their skin. The roads for Barrack are long and vigorous. As every politician proclaims nothing but broken promises and "change" lowering taxes etc, its going to be difficult to uphold this. Especially since Bush left him nice gifts like the two wars, a trillion dollar deficit and a huge economic crisis. IF Barrack were to fail to uphold his policy he would have it much harder simply because he is of African decent(sad to say). This election has surely brought a new aspect to society that the country is finally heading in a new direction It was the first election where an African American ran for president, Hilary was the second woman to run for office, Sara Palin (although in my opinion does not have the qualifications to be vp) was the first woman to be a vice president and let us not forget that John McCain would have been the oldest person to be president. Each candidate represents a dream, and society can now say "hey i can be that" All in All America has proven once again it is the land of the free the brave the strong and certainly the land to accomplish what ever the American dream may be.


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1857222,00.html?iid=tsmodule

America What a great Country

I really wanted to wait to do my blog today to share my opinion on the election.

America is the only country where this can happen an African American being elected by the populace to the highest office in the land. Whether those of you are happy with the outcome of Decision 2008 or not this is a moment that you should be proud of. All of us will remeber what we were doing last night when we saw this explosion in American history. Yesterday on the anniversary of the formation of the NAACP an African American, Barack Hussein Obama, was elected to the most powerful office on planet earth. This event will forever change public and international opinion of blacks across the world and it will re-establish the respect that the United States once held in the world. We showed that we lead the way in preserving and defending a land of equal oppurtunity and liberty. America is the land where your wildest dreams can really come true.
Last night as the spotlight shined on one candidate it dimmed on another. Senator John McCain ran a hard fought race and whether one loved the man or not he took the loss as a gentleman. I stated this today in class, if pre-election and post-election Senator McCain had ran instead of the ungentlemanly and seemingly senile Senator McCain had ran he may have had my support. I respect Senator McCain as a genuine human being and he showed his true character last night. Many people had said that McCain needed Palin to win, however, in my opinion if he had ran the same way he held himself last night I truly believe this election wouldn't have been the electoral slaughter we saw. Thank you John McCain for all your hard work and I'm glad that last night you returned to the Senator that we hailed in the primary election; the centrist maverick that you so reverently tried to make the public believe you were.
To all the nay-sayers, who believe that this is the worst day in the history of America, to those who believed that we elected a marxist. Do you think that everyone believed it was a great day when the populace elected Lincoln, FDR, or Kennedy? No, they didn't because they were going to bring the change that many in the U.S. were afraid of. Understandably you cannot tell what Senator Obama will accomplish, what he will try and push through the Congress. One can only hope for the best, and let God handle the rest. However, if that truly believe that every man going into the White House is a communist, socialist, or marxist because they bring ideas that many aren't so comfortable with, then we wouldn't be the nation of freedom and liberty, a principle that we hold so near and dear to our hearts. If things went the way some people wanted many of you would never have had the oppurtunity to meet me. A great man once said that "the tree of liberty must refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." And figuratively this statement still holds water. Change from the norm is nothing more than putting ketchup instead of salt on your eggs in the morning, if you don't like it you can easily change back. This something that we all need to take into account. Change isn't always a bad thing and it isn't always a good thing, however, that is why our Founding Fathers shaped our government the way they did. An all but infallable way of preventing things that do not reside comfortably within the constitution. If one is uncomfortable still all I can say is sit back and try and enjoy the ride, liberals have for the past eight years and I think anyone can suffer these next eight years with a more competent individual.

Obama's Ahead of the Game

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27297013/#storyContinued


Obama has started to majorly pull forward 2 weeks before the election, opening the biggest lead over McCain. More voters are seeing Barack Obama as better presidential material than McCain and the many questions about him have been answered. I think that even though Barack Obama may be in the lead now, it might be a different story when voters get into the voting booth. These pre-election tallies are always questionable. The swing states still are going to play a major role in the final decision. McCain has a lead over Obama among evangelicals (76 to 20 percent), small town/rural voters (53 to 40), and those living in the South (54 to 40).

McCain's vice presidential pick was in mine opinion a cry out for more votes. It worked for the first couple of weeks she was picked, and then when people started to realize the experience she really had they started to back down in fear. Even if Sarah Palin does have the knowledge and basis to be a good vice president she already has ruined her image by the many interviews she had that did not go her way. I think overall she just gives women a bad chance in politics, sexists would say this is why a woman cannot be in major politics.

Obama is ahead of McCain on many of the issues stated by both parties. I think that Obama will be able to do a better job with the issues just because of his plans. This will definitely give him an advantage in the race. The trust and confidence people are slowly gaining for Obama after hearing his debates and his side of the issues is going to help him a lot.

Sarah Palin will now be a major concern to people that vote for the Republican ticket since many people are started to lose a lot of confidence in her. They are also concerned about McCain continuing Bush policies which in my opinion I think he will and I also believe that his economic policies will only benefit the rich.

Sheepish, Proud or Set to Flip a Coin, They’re Still Undecided

Mark Leidovich
New York Times

Almost immediately the article raises the question that has bee plaguing my own household regarding undecided voters: “What is up with these people?” For many of us it seems that this campaign has been going on forever, to the point where many people are sick of it, so why is there still a significant chunk of people who haven’t made up their minds?

Some will claim racial tensions or lack of interest, and though these issues are certainly there I don’t believe it is to the extent that we think it is. Pundits seem to be overlooking many of the undecided voters that are truly divided on the issues.

A man interviewed in the article, Doug Finke identifies himself as a fiscal conservative who is liberal on social issues. Naturally he is in a major predicament; vote to save the economy or his idea of civil liberties. People are forced to priorities their ideals, there is no middle ground. Which begs the question: Why not? Why is there not a third (or a more radical idea, fourth) serious choice?

I spend some of this weekend collecting signatures for a letter to New York congress men proposing a change to the rule that prohibits candidates from participating in televised debates unless they have been polled at at least 15% on respectable polls. I was surprised by the knowledge people had about the issues and the enthusiasm toward the idea of having more choices. I had more than one person tell me that “the system we currently have doesn’t work.” These comments came even from people with lawn signs promoting presidential candidates.

A major fear that many people have with the idea of a multiparty system is that most people would not pay enough attention to get all of their facts straight. One woman in the article concluded her interview by talking about her son’s health problems which she said puts things in perspective. “This other thing is just another election” was her final thought. That was perhaps the most disturbing part of the article for me. It is possible that she has a lack of interest in politics, which is disturbing because political knowledge could be the most effective tool with which to take care of her sick son. Or, a more upsetting conclusion is that she has lost faith in the political process. The more people read and hear the more they see the darker side of politics, the corruption, misspent money, lies, and “must win” attitudes.

People need to get involved in policies that shape their lives and the current system has bread apathy. Less emphasis on ties to the parties and more emphasis on ties to the people could do the trick. If people feel that they have more options and can chose between a number of people who are deeply invested in the public good then we can expect to see fewer people flipping coins or voting against the other guy, and more people casting their ballots with conviction and hope.

Amanda Furcall