FINAL BLOG!!

Finally, my last blog. I must say this was quite an experience, between the ambiguous schedule of when to do blogs and the open ended topics there's no doubt i stuggled, more than a little. I'm not calling the blog a bad thing, I mean we had the Articles of Confederation, but we eventually evolved and drew up the Constitution, so there can be hope for blogging. The biggest trouble I encountered, besides getting motivated to blog, was thinking of an idea to blog about. Current events seemed to be the easiest and with the tight mid-term elections material was abundant. In the future I would suggest giving students some ideas or subjects to write about, or maybe even just have them write about the reading, etc. Secondly, I suggest creating a deadline day, forcing students to have the blog done by a certain day; this would keep them on track preventing my situation of falling behind and never really gaining back ground. If I had the choice of a term paper or blog, I think I would still do the blog-even though I wasn't an A+ (or B-)blogger, it's a lot easier and interesting to write 15 collective blogs than a 15 page term paper on one topic. I think the idea of blogging is fresh and may be the wave of the future as far as papers, etc. are concerned. My sixth grade Social Studies teacher said that cell phones were going to replace regular house phones one day, I thought she was crazy.

Kansas

“What’s The Matter with Kansas?” this is the question posed by Thomas Frank; the answer, nothing. Frank argues that Kansas has encountered a “De-alignment” triggering a population to vote against their economic interests and more toward moral issues. The reasoning for this is the “Liberal Libel” in which liberal ideas are stigmatized with ideas of latte drinking, Saab driving, Oxford shirt wearing preps from the East Coast, who have no idea what Midwestern life on a farm or in a factory is about. I really believe Frank tries to justify his arguments through simple reasoning and interviews with citizens, but doesn’t use numbers or facts to back it up.

Frank also has a hard time understanding the culture in that particular area. As far as rural Kansas, people depend on agriculture and hard work. They’re trusting people who hold a man’s word and a handshake above most everything else. The simplicity of the society is attractive for Republicans to target and appeal to because of their “moral” issues and thoughts on families in America, issues that matter to these people, not things like education and gay rights. You can see why George Bush appeals to these people, he has pictures and video of himself out on his ranch, people can relate to him, not someone like John Kerry who rides a bicycle and makes millions from his wife’s catsup company. This same argument can be used in opposite respect to describe places like Connecticut who sits in the liberal Northeast. This area of scholars and Ivy League schools, where the Kennedys are the most popular and well liked people (forget about Chappaquiddick), and where intellect and educational prestige are everything and no one wants government or other individuals to think for them.

Overall I think I’d have to agree more with Bartels’ articles against Frank solely because of his numbers and more of a scientific approach to the matter (something George might not agree with for the fact that it was found in a book). Peoples behaviors aren’t always rational and I think that’s what Frank has such a hard time with, he feels like he’s too smart to not understand some of the most simple minded people in the country, and Frankly (pun intended) he is.

Aldrich response

In the article "Political Parties in a Critical Era,"Aldrich states that the 90s were a critical era in American politics. He discusses different "dimensions" explaining his theory, with the most important being, "the identity, beliefs and actions of political elites." The other dimensions include public attitudes and institutional changes. I don't know if i necissarily agree with the public attitudes dimension being downplayed as much as it was. Maybe I'm not understanding something, but aren't the politicians and political parties accountable to the public? I would argue public influence is greater than Aldrich thinks. I would also argue that the reason we have such elections as '94 and '06 is because the public is finally fed up with the direction of the governing body and is the voice that is going to be heard over the dimensions of the elites and institution.

Moving on I think I would agree with Aldrich that the 90s were a critical era, but not like the way it is today. The 90s I think were the beginning of what we are encountering today. The '94 elections were the end of a Democratic stronghold on congress and showed an increase interest in politics by bringing the Southern Democrats over to where they should have been all along. Aldrich says that, "critical eras are associated with major changes in policies and related outputs of government." The best case that Aldrich makes is with the third graph he shows. It showed the percentage of incumbent candidates that won by 60% or less was a dramatic increase since the 80s. I think the 90s was only a start to where we have ended up so far, finding ourselves in the middle of the seventh stage, and with the latest mid-term elections, a political system in a critical era.

Richardson, a wise decision my friend.

After getting over the thrill of this past election many have turned to the race for the White House in 2008. The front runners look to be Hilary, Obama, and Kerry. Do you see a problem here? Well maybe not a problem, but a theme? Well in case you don't here it is, these are all Senators. I want to know what is the deal with the take over of the Senators for president? I realize that these three candidates are well qualified and knowledgable about the position, well maybe actually two of them, but they haven't had any experience as an executive. My main point is why are we not considering Governors more as an option for President, more specific, Bill Richardson (D) - New Mexico?

Out of the last five presidents, four have been former governors and one has been an ambassador to the UN. Carter, Governor of Georgia; Reagan, Governor of California; Bush, UN ambassador; Clinton, Governor of Arkansas; and Bush II, Governor of Texas. Now i'll admit that not all Governors make good Presidents, take our latest president for example. However, Reagan and Clinton have both been two well above average presidents and there's no doubt their previous experience had helped them in office (Reagan with the Cold War, and Clinton with his focus on peace in Bosnia). I also realize that JFK, a Senator, dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I would also give a lot of credit to Bobby and McNamara.

Richardson has great attributes and is certainly qualified for the job, with experience as Governor, an ambassador to the UN and pitched in high school and college. In his years as Governor he has done great things with tax cuts and life insurance for the New Mexico National Guard. One very appealing aspect was his meeting with North Korean leaders in 2003, where they discussed nuclear energy. He obviously has a foot in the foreign arena already and is capable of improving the country much like he did New Mexico, it only seems very obvious to me. With the Democrats taking control of Congress and most likely holding it in 2008, why not put someone who isn’t from Washington and has executive experience in that position?

Election Predictions

Only two days, only two days until we get to stop seeing these ridiculous campaign commercials. Only two days until we find out if the Republican leadership has faltered and given way to the surging Democrats. Only two days until we find out if Governor Doyle will continue his title of Governor. Only two days.

To me the most interesting races are those in the Senate, that is why i'm saving them for last, so you read the rest of what i say. First, the House looks to be headed in a new direction with many polls indicating the 25 closest races have Democrats leading 21 fo them, but only 11 have a 4% margin or more over their republican opponent and a couple like the 22nd district in Texas and 12th district of Georgia have a large margin of undecided voters. The Democrats have increased their avertising for candidates in New Hampshire, New York, Kansas, and Nebraska, the last two being Republican territory in recent years. On 1 November, Republican officials pulled advertisments for candidates in Colorado, Ohio (Ney), and Pennsylvania (Weldon), conceeding to the Democratic challenger. Many of the closer races the Republicans could have a good chance of winning because of the candidate's status of being an incumbent or their position of taking over for a fellow Republican. The races where these candidates trail by less than 3 percentage points include Ohio's 1 and 2 districts, Indiana's 2 and 9, Arizona's 5, Minnesota's 6, and Illinois 6. This gives them 7 of the 25 up for grabs, then there's the 4 races they lead, that gives them 11 of the 25, giving the Dems only 14 of their needed 15. However, I think the Democrats will pull off more than a couple of these seats. They'll win the distiricts that they have a 4% or better lead in and also get Minnesota 6, Ohio (who is normally red) 2, but not 1, and Illinois 6. Bringing the grand total to 17 of the needed 15.

In Wisconsin, Doyle will hold on to the small lead he has over Green, but it's definately going to be close because of the Republicans ability to mobilize voters and the vote on the Marriage Ban. Herb Kohl obviously is going to continue his position as Senior Senator from Wisconsin, what is this his 93rd term now? and Steve Kagen, with a 6% lead over the Republican running in Mark Green's 8th district, will most likely be headed to Washington.

The Senate race is even more white-knuckled than the House race. If all polls point accurately the race is going to come down to more than the previously thought three races of Virginia, Tennessee, and Missouri. All of these being red states it's going to be tough for a Democrat to win any of these. However, the biggest underdog i see is Harold Ford, Jr. in Tennessee, a young, black candidate who essentially needs 40% of the white vote to win and is trailing by 12% in the polls as of today with a 9% undecided count. Although Webb has been gaining momentum he still looks almost even with Allen in Virginia, Allen has received $1 million more from the Republican party for increased advertising and has that important label of incumbent in a red state. Missouri has a tie right now between McCaskill(D) and Talent(R), both candidates being well liked by the public. Montana is close but looks to be leaning toward Burns(R). Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island look to be pointed left, but Chafee is gaining points in Rhode Island.

Over all I think the Dems win back the House getting two more spots than the 15 they needed. However, they're going to fall short in the Senate, winning Virginia and Missouri but losing the needed Montana, it's going to be a split house with The Penguin breaking the ties. Doyle's going to take it by 2%, Kohl 68 to 30, and Kagen by 5, Marriage Ban is going to be "Yes" by 8.

The Right Woman For the Job.

With the numbers coming out for the House race it looks as though the Democrats are going to regain control, sending House Speaker Dennis Hastert out. Leaving that spot open for Nancy Pelosi, an extremely liberal Democrat from California’s 8^th district (San Francisco), the fightin’ 8^th. As the highest ranking female ever, she has committed to working with conservative democrats and republicans if she gets the nod. She plans to highlight the issues of a phased withdrawl from Iraq, changes to the healthcare system, and an increase in the minimum wage. But is everyone sold on her as the best person for the job?

Although her record of responsible party voting is strong keeping the party together voting similar 88% of the time, the highest unity in 50 years. However, some would argue that she might just be too liberal, and the only reason the party went along with her as much as they did was so they didn’t go along with Bush. An interview of Democratic candidate Tim Mahoney, the man running in Foley’s vacated district in Florida, revealed uncertainty as to if he or other conservative Democrats would cast a vote for Pelosi as Speaker. Do Pelosi’s lefty views mesh with those of her fellow Democrats from more conservative districts? This is an issue many of these representatives must wrestle with. In a Wall Street Journal poll 43% of the public isn’t even sure who Nancy Pelosi is, 25% have a negative view of her, 18% a neutral view, and only 14% have a positive view about her. These certainly don’t look like the numbers of someone who says that she’s “in touch with America.”

I think the Democrats almost have to put her in as Speaker, because of the fact she’s such a high ranking member and although outspoken and sometimes controversial, she keeps the party in order look at the way the party has voted in the past. Now, because I think the Democrats have to pick her, don’t confuse that with any approval of her from me. I think the House Speaker needs to be open to negotiate and work with the other side, I don’t necessarily think Pelosi fits that profile. She has strong, negative feelings toward Bush and Republicans in general and can come off as controlling and almost arrogant. I myself would like to see a more moderate in that spot, but it’s highly unlikely.

Hillary in '08

With these mid-term elections coming up everyone's focus is with the races for governors and congress. However, right now is the time that the push for the 2008 presidential nomination starts to get going. One thing that has really caught my eye is the possibility of a woman becoming president. It was a sign that shows how far we have actually come as a country and society from being riddled with old, white-haired, male fat cats in the beginning, to a more diverse and encompassing representation today. After reading an MSNBC article about the discussions of Hillary and Pelosi getting the democratic nominee it made me think, not only about those two women, but the entire political spectrum.

The idea of electing a female to the office of President is quite a bold statement, however it is one that might no longer be just an idea. After the re-election of Bush there was a buzz of Hillary in ’08, and that buzz has continued, showing her as a front runner for the Democrats in different national polls. Due to the disapproving image portrayed by Bush, could a female be what the U.S. needs to fade that image out? What would be the implications of electing a female to office and is it truly feasible?

In my opinion, I’m not really sure. I think there has certainly been enough discontent with the way Bush and the Republicans have handled Washington, but does revamping the White House push for the induction of a female? If you look at our book on page 193 the graph shows most women are democrats already, pretty much sealing that demographic for Hillary, but then might some republican women move left if Hilary is the candidate? In the end it may be Republican men left out in the cold. So the election could certainly go Clinton’s way, but what about her effectiveness once she takes office? Does she have enough leadership skills in the foreign ring? Her being a female might bring her even more conflict with foreign countries (Islamic, etc.) who don’t necessarily hold women to the same regard as we do. I myself would like Richardson to get the nominee because he’s a lot more moderate than Hillary and something about Nancy Pelosi scares me.