Embattled World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz agreed to resign after weeks of controversy over his handling of a pay package for his girlfriend, a bank employee, the institution's board of directors announced.
In a statement announcing the decision Thursday, the bank said "a number of mistakes were made by a number of individuals" in the matter. Wolfowitz said the bank board accepted his contention that he acted "ethically and in good faith."
In a written statement, Wolfowitz said his eventual successor will his "full support." His resignation will take effect June 30. As the largest shareholder in the bank, the United States appoints its president. After the announcement, the White House said President Bush "reluctantly accepts" Wolfowitz's resignation and would announce a replacement soon.
Wolfowitz said it is "necessary to find a way to move forward. To do that, I have concluded that it is in the best interests of those whom this institution serves for that mission to be carried forward under new leadership." (Wolfowitz's resignation statement)
"Change should not be feared, it is something to welcome. It is the key to keeping this important institution relevant and effective in the future and meeting the needs of the world's poor, and of humanity as a whole," the statement said.
Wolfowitz was appointed to the World Bank post in 2005 after serving as deputy U.S. defense secretary, where he was one of the leading architects of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The World Bank Group Staff Association -- which had previously called for Wolfowitz's resignation -- said in a statement he had done "the necessary thing" by resigning.
But, they said, Wolfowitz should not remain as president through June.
"He has damaged the institution and continues to damage it every day that he remains as its president. ... He has demeaned the bank, insulted the staff, diminished its clients and dragged this institution through the mud. He put his own interests before those of the institution. In making a statement of gratitude to Mr. Wolfowitz, the board has done the same," the staff association said.
A World Bank committee concluded Wolfowitz violated staff rules when he arranged a raise and transfer for his girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, a longtime bank employee. After Wolfowitz took over at the bank in 2005, Riza was transferred to a U.S. State Department job at a tax-free government salary of almost $194,000 a year. (Watch how Wolfowitz is criticized in an internal World Bank report ) Wolfowitz, the White House and bank officials held talks Wednesday afternoon to work out details of his resignation. Wolfowitz's lawyer, Bob Bennett, had left the door open for departure if Wolfowitz wasn't singled out for blame.
"He will not resign under this cloud and that remains his position," Bennett said Wednesday.
In its statement, the board praised Wolfowitz's work on anti-poverty and anti-corruption programs.
"Mr. Wolfowitz has stressed his deep support for and attachment to the World Bank and his responsibility, as its president, to act at all stages in the best interests of the institution," directors said. "This sense of duty and responsibility has led him to his announcement today." (World Bank's statement) Wolfowitz, in his statement, said: "Hopefully the difficulties of the last few weeks can actually strengthen the bank by identifying some of the areas of governance and human resource management where reform is needed."
Earlier Thursday, Bush sounded as if he was resigned to the fact that Wolfowitz's tenure was coming to an end.
"I regret that it has come to this," he said. "I admire Paul Wolfowitz. I admire his heart, and I particularly admired his focus on helping the poor."
Bush applauded Wolfowitz for having made sure the bank "focused on things that matter -- human suffering, the human condition."

Mr. Wolfowitz has certainly done an admirable job leading this organization and it appears that many people are divided on the issue - some want him to stay while others think he should have resigned a while ago. Either way, a replacement will be named and the organization will be up and running in no time.

Bush's carbon plan isnt "anything to rely on"

Feeling the pressure from a recent Supreme Court ruling Bush declared on monday that his administrations will decide how to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicles by the time he leaves office. The intricate "plan" does little more than order the departments of Transportation, Agriculture and Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to create regulations that will cut gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles, effective by the end of 2008. Thats a whole three weeks that the president will have to deal with this. "It appears that the president wants to run out the clock to the end of his term without addressing our energy needs," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Environmental groups are declaring that this plan lacks any real commitment of administration to take action. There has been nothing promised and the kicker is if there is no serious health risks found in the next couple of months, which there wasnt when the EPA studied this same thing in 2003, then there will be no regulations implemented at all.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. and chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, agreed that Bush's order was short of details. "The absence of any standards in (the) announcement is a reason why Americans will be looking to Congress for stronger leadership on energy policy," he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18673575/

Fix Immigration Now

Fix Immigration Now:

AMAKE-OR-BREAK point has arrived in this country's effort to enact meaningful immigration reform. After failing last year to devise a way out of the deadlock that has left 12 million illegal immigrants in legal limbo, and the likely future influx of several hundred thousand new workers annually in equally dire straits, Congress is faced with the political calendar's hard reality. If lawmakers fail to hash out a compromise now, the presidential cycle probably will dash any hope for progress until at least 2009. Americans overwhelmingly prefer a workable solution now, and lawmakers owe it to them.
The components of that fix do not lend themselves to the usual horse-trading on Capitol Hill; expediency could produce more laws that won't work, and an artless compromise may invite more law-breaking. But an array of stakeholders -- employers, unions, immigrants' rights groups and others -- agree on the outlines of an approach that would replace chaos with an orderly regime that coaxes illegal workers out of the shadows, satisfies the labor market's demands and fashions a realistic, enforceable legal framework while protecting the interests of newcomers. Here are the main ingredients of such a system:
? For the 12 million immigrants already here illegally, a fair route to legal status and citizenship. Almost no one seriously advocates mass deportation of illegal immigrants, who comprise perhaps 5 percent of the labor force. For workers who satisfy clear and reasonable requirements -- a modest fine, a law-abiding record, steady employment, competent English, payment of back taxes -- there should be a pathway to eventual citizenship. Onerous, open-ended fines, as the Bush administration has proposed, or a requirement that immigrants leave the country and then reenter in order to "reboot" and supposedly legitimize their status here, will only dissuade many from compliance.
A realistic system for future immigrants. Any workable law needs to reckon with the demand for 400,000 immigrant workers annually, most of them in relatively unskilled jobs. The current slogan that "temporary means temporary," in fashion among some conservative Republicans, is reality-blind: If the law creates a revolving door of future immigrants, it will frustrate the needs of employers while encouraging some so-called guest workers to overstay their visas and break the law. This country long has welcomed foreign workers and in time made Americans of them; there must also be a legislative mechanism for that to happen with those future immigrants who want and deserve to stay.
A humane approach to immigrant categories. Proposals to scrap the long-standing system of preferences based on family or employer sponsors, and replace it with a merit-based regime, pose a false either-or choice. Much of the demand for immigrant labor is for farmhands, landscapers, drywallers and other low-wage workers, and denying them the chance to reunite here with their families is inhumane. A sensible strategy needs to recognize both a globalized economy's demand for employees with fluent English and advanced academic degrees and the continuing need for lower-end workers.
The debates over these and other parts of an immigration bill tend to obscure the broad agreement on many points, including the need for tougher border enforcement; sanctions for firms that hire illegal immigrants; and a system for employers to verify that job applicants are here legally. Many of those points of agreement are reflected in a bipartisan House bill introduced in March.
But the House is waiting for the Senate; if a bipartisan deal can be struck there, the House will probably follow suit. A starting point for any debate should be that this country needs immigrants -- those already here and those yet to come. Immigration hawks who seem more intent on punishing illegal workers than incorporating them into America's social fabric won't solve the problem. And the longer Congress dithers, the more states and localities will attempt to deal with the matter on their own -- and the more anarchy will become the rule when it comes to immigration enforcement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/14/AR2007051401400.html

As a conservative I feel that all illegal immigrants should be deported as soon as possible. If they want to be in the U.S that bad then they have to go through all the procedures in order to be a legal resident in the U.S. Anyone feel this way or object to this, feel free to comment

Gingrich for President?

The former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has said that there is a very good chance he will run for the presidency in the 2008 election. He does not know for sure, but sates that it will only be after September if he chooses to do so. "I think right now that it is a great possibility," Gingrich said. "I don't want to get into all this stuff. I want to focus on what we have to do to make America successful."

In September, Gingrich plans to hold a workshop where he will find solutions to the problems this country is facing, and then will decided whether or not to actually run. Since Gingrich has left Congress in 1998 after the Republicans lost a seat in the elections, he has been busy writing his first historical novel about Pearl Harbor.

I am curious as to everyone's opinion on joinging the race so late. Is he going to be too far behind with campaiginng at that point? He has already missed debates, and will not have near enough time to travel around the country making speeches in different areas in order to gain te support of voters. Is the fact that he was in fact the Speaker of the House going to not put him as far behind as many of the other's that are running? What are his chances of success after being out of COngress for so long, and possibly entering the race so far behind?

Deputy Attorney General Announces Resignation

Deputy attorney general Paul McNulty announced yesterday that he would resign this summer. A day later, attorney general Alberto Gonzales comments. Gonzales said that he relied on the deputy's advice more than any other advisor. Gonzales told reporters at a National Press Club forum in Washington "You have to remember, at the end of the day, the recommendations reflected the views of the deputy attorney general. He signed off on the names."
It appears to me that Gonzales is just trying to put the blame on someone other than himself. Yes the deputy attorney general should be held accountable; however, Gonzales signed off on firings as well. In a corporation, the CEO must sign off on virtually everything. At the end of the day he is held accountable for everything he signed off on. I do not see how this is different in Gonzales' case.

news.yahoo.com

New Poll Shows 70% of Americans Support Uniform License Standards

A new poll shows that 70% of Americans support the introduction of national standards for driver's licenses under the Real ID Act. The poll was UPI/Zogby survey of 6,000 Americans across the country. Surveyed adults that considered, or labeled, themselves as conservatives and moderates supported the law the most at 84% and 75% respectively. On the other hand, 51% of libertarians and 49% of progressives oppose the law. These numbers were not that surprising to me. I am not sure where I stand on the issue. This is clearly a controversial issue; however, you must be careful not to jump to conclusions when looking at the poll numbers.

Washington Times Article

Academic Bill of Rights

Academic Bill of Rights :

What this bill does:
• Requires the board of trustees of each public and private institution of
higher education to adopt a policy recognizing that students, faculty and
instructors of the institution have the following rights:
o A learning environment in which students have access to a broad
range of serious scholarly opinion.
o Students are to be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned
answers and not to be discriminated on the basis of political,
ideological, or religious beliefs. Faculty and instructors are not to
use their courses or positions for the purpose of political,
ideological, religious, or anti religious indoctrination.
o Faculty and instructors are not to infringe the academic freedom
and quality of education by persistently introducing controversial
matter into the classroom that has no relation to their subject of
study.
o University administrators, student government organization, and
institutional policies are not to infringe the freedom of speech,
freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of
conscience of students and student organizations.
o The institution must distribute student fee funds on a viewpoint-
neutral basis and must maintain a posture of neutrality with
respect to political and religious disagreements.
o Faculty and instructors are free to pursue and discuss their own
findings and perspectives but have to make students aware of
other serious scholarly viewpoints.
o Faculty and instructors have to be hired, fired, promoted and
granted tenure on the basis of their competence and knowledge
and not on the basis of their political, ideological, or religious
beliefs.
o Faculty and instructors cannot be excluded from tenure, search,
and hiring committees on the basis of their political, ideological, or
religious beliefs.
• Boards of trustees of public and private campuses are required to adopt
a grievance procedure under which a student, faculty member, or
instructor may seek redress for an alleged violation of any of the rights
specified by the institution’s policy adopted under this bill.
• Each board of trustees must provide students, faculty, and instructors
with notice of the rights and grievance procedures in the institution’s
course catalog, student handbook and web site.
Additional information:

• To access the bill in its entirety, click on or visit the following link:
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=126_SB_24

I hope all institutions across the country follow the same direction that Ohio has. As a conservative here at Plymouth State University, I had professors who are very liberal and press there political view as fact. I've had professors that all they talk about is liberal this, liberal that and not talking about other political views. Futhermore, if you have another political view the professor feels threatened and switches subjects, or might take points off from a paper, test, etc for different view's. If they are going to teach then they should teach without political bias, or at least mention what the other political parties think about that certain subject. I'm wondering if anyone else has an opinion about this, or had this happen to them, or visa versa.

You can't beat NEWSMEAT

I'm a bit of a political junkie, as I'm sure most of us are. I found a great website called NEWSMEAT some time back that easily gives you access to federal campaign contribution records. You can look up all contributions of over $200 to federal campaigns since 1980. It gives some good insights into the process and is also just fun to look up celebrities or people you know and see who they're donating to.

For instance I went ahead and looked up Boston Celtics general manager Danny Ainge because I suspected that he, as a Mormon who moved to Massachusetts and made a name for himself there, would probably be a supporter of Mitt Romney. True enough, he and his wife have donated several thousand dollars to the Romney campaign.

I also looked up News Corp chairman Rupert Murdoch. I'm not surprised that the owner of Fox News has donated hundreds of thousands to Republicans (including Conrad Burns and Rick Santorum, ech) but look at which Democrats he's given money to-- names like Hilary Clinton, Harold Ford, Jr., and Diane Feinstein, among others.

It's also interesting to look up "celebrity" candidates to see where a lot of their contributions come from. Basketball Hall of Famer Bill Bradley received a lot of donations from athletes and entertainers during his senate campaigns and his try for the White House.

You can also narrow down contributors from NEWSMEAT's Hall of Fame list based on how they're famous. Is it surprising that NASCAR drivers donate a lot to Republicans?

Post some of your interesting findings in the comments.

I'm Barack Obama, and I did not approve this message.

Now that Americans are spending more and more time getting their information and entertainment online, the power for individuals to have a large effect on the political process is now larger than ever. An endorsement from a popular blog like the Daily Kos or Instapundit has the ability to sway the opinions of a gigantic base of readers. Even YouTube is an important political hub nowadays. An unauthorized ad for the Obama campaign, borrowing (stealing) heavily from the famous Macintosh ad from 1984, caused a huge splash. This is unchartered territory we're in now. Nobody is quite sure how these kinds of changes in the campaign process are going to affect the candidates and the process.

If bloggers and YouTubers are going to spread the word of their favored candidate most candidates would probably be all for it, right? It's free advertising, basically. But the candidates have no control over what these people do or the kinds of messages they put out. The unauthorized Obama ad was an attack ad against Hillary Clinton that came out months ago, well before the traditional time for primary candidates to start bringing out the attack dogs against the other candidates from their party.

Controlling the message is one of the most important parts of running a campaign. They don't want their opponents to try to put words in their mouths and misrepresent their views. This has always been something campaigns fight against. Now they may face the problem of making sure their own supporters don't disseminate false information about them, be too harsh on their opponents, and alienate undecided voters.

Public Killings

After the Virginia Tech incident you would hope that security becomes much stricter within schools and other public places. Unfortunately there was another shooting very close to here in Keene. A roommate shot his roommate then killed himself. I feel that they need to make it much more difficult for people to get guns by doing this I feel it would help tremendously with the amount of killing. I was just wondering how everyone else felt and if there are any other ideas of how to make sure somehting like this do not happen again.

Violence Forum

The violence forum enough is enough is currently taking place here on the alumni green. This forum is taking place mostly due to the tragic death of Jared Barrows. An active sophomore here at Plymouth State University who lived in Langdon Woods. However, both the Student Administration as well as the Campus Administration has been under critical fire due to this most recent death here at Plymouth State. There is a group of students that are mostly present in Langdon Woods and friends of Jared Barrows who are trying to raise money for his tuition, medical and burial costs. This effort taken on by students is to help relieve his family of these fees during the family’s tragic time of loss. Hopefully, this forum will help address the issue of security on this campus as well as what will come of the fundraising efforts. Since the students that were organized were told they cannot fundraise on campus for such an event.

The campus does have a full emergency plan. It includes everything from bioterrorism, spills, floods, bomb threats, to lockdown methods. The university President Sara Jayne Steen pointed out a little known fact that we are the center of our region. If there is an epidemic that does occur people will be processed here at Plymouth State University in the Foley Gymnasium. To make our campus safer is looking into a text messaging system. This system does seem like a positive environment to access all students in a short period of time. However, the President did say that legally the University can’t require students to relinquish their cell phone numbers to the university. The President did ask for access to student’s cell phone numbers to cooperate so that we can effectively reach students.

President Steen said that she would rather have a student call 911 or campus police at extension 2330. She also asked for trust. Truly this is the Presidents first stride in asking for the students trust when the university will try to get in contact with students. A large number of faulty truly came out of their offices to listen to the Presidents Speech. Dr. Shirley, Dr. McCool, Mr. Chong, Mr. Barba, Ms. Tardiff, and Dr. Browne just to name a few. The current and past student body Presidents Trevor Chandler and Peter Laufenberg were also present at this form and ceremony.

However it is time for two questions to be answered.

1. Response time to dispatchers answering the campus police phones. The administration is meeting with the Campus Chief Of Police. The President said that she would bring up this question posed by the writer. As I was waiting to ask the President (Sara Jayne Steen) this question I saw a fellow classmate ask a similar question to the Chief of Campus Police. Last night during our class three to four students were scaling and climbing the walls of Memorial Hall. One classmate called Campus Police and got through and before the student could answer the student was put on hold. The student hung up and just wondered what our dispatch response time was. Another student called soon after and got through to an operator. When patched through he told the operator. However, during the entire class the class saw no response by Campus Police.

2. There is a way in which the students could try to organize a fundraiser for Jared Barrows. The Vice President Dick Hage said that the students should try to contact the development office. The President said that the Attorney Generals office established a fund to cover the family’s medical and burial cost. However, neither the President nor the Vice President said anything about coverage or voiding the tuition costs of Jared Barrows. Hopefully, the students that are trying to organize this fund will be successful so that the family does not have to suffer any further with the burden of his tuition bill.

This clearly illustrates how university politics have tackled the issues about violence. It is refreshing to see that our administrations are doing their best to make Plymouth State a much safer place for all that attends the university. This is a step in the right direction on the part of the President and her staff. As well as I think the trust that she is asking for is one that we should grant her. This is the one of the most effective ways to make Plymouth the town and the University safer for all who come onto our campus. This was a great forum and it exemplified politics on the University, Town, State and National levels.

President Bush Vetoes the Iraq War Spending Bill

Photo by AP

Exactly four years to the day that President Bush, stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and proclaimed that “major combat operations” in Iraq were over. He exercised his veto power for the second time in his Presidency.

President Bush referred to the bill as “unacceptable.” He said that he would give an address to the nation tonight to give his reason why he veto, then in mid-speech, President Bush cited the following reasons why he veto the bill; just hours after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) sent the bill to the White House.

In his address to the nation, the President cited three reasons, why he veto the legislation that would have approved the $124 billion war spending measure with the stipulation that troop withdrawal could start as early as July 1st, and it would have to start no later than October 1st regardless of the situation on the ground:

First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq…Second, the bill would impose impossible conditions on our commanders in combat. After forcing most of our troops to withdraw, the bill would dictate the terms under which the remaining commanders and troops could engage the enemy. That means America's commanders in the middle of a combat zone would have to take fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C. This is a prescription for chaos and confusion, and we must not impose it on our troops…Third, the bill is loaded with billions of dollars in non- emergency spending that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terror. Congress should debate these spending measures on their own merits and not as a part of an emergency funding bill for our troops.

After President Bush gave his remarks and announced his decision to veto the piece of legislation. One thing was very clear, the Democrats received exactly wanted, they were able to make their political statement about their opposition to the war. However, the problem with this is that it is just a statement, it will come quite apparent in the coming days that there is not enough support in the Congress to override the President’s veto.

Related Links:

President Bush Vetoes Spending Bill May 1, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html

President Bush's Speech May 1, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/washington/02bush-text.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Politico.com May 1, 2007
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0507/3773.html

“Mission Accomplished” Speech May 1, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2415-2003May1?language=printer

$400.00 Haircuts!...Sure!!... Why not?!

It is costing Senator John Edwards quite a bit of money to keep his school boy appearance. He recently paid $400 a piece for two haircuts while campaigning in Iowa. It turned out that the way he paid for the bills was with his campaign money. When the stylist sent him the bill, it was sent to the campaign, and paid for by mistake. Edwards states that it was an honest mistake, and that he is putting the money back into the campaign. When asked why he paid so much for his looks, he replied that it was simply because the stylist had to come to him to cut it, and that his schedule was just too busy for him to leave.

As you all know, campaiging is a very dirty game. It is a long and strenuous process that not everyone can handle. When a candidate makes a msistake like this, it does not go unnoticed for very long. Other candidates love to see slip ups, and no one enjoys it more than the media. I am sure that most people will agree that it was a silly mistake, and that a multi millionaire like John Edwards was not stealing money from his own campaign to fund his lavish hair cuts. However, everyone and anyone will make the story sound as though he is an evil and sneaky man who cannot be trusted. I believe that it is unfair that every little thing these candidates do is scrutinized by all of the American people. It is unfortunte that instead of everyone focusing on his plans to revitalize rural america, they are more concerned with his hair stlye.

These candidates know to expect anyhting and everything while on this long and dangerous journey, so I am sure he will get through this with no problems. It is just sad to see the truth of the matter. Instead of focusing on what really matters in this country, people find themselves spending more time on irrelevant issues such as this. Also, do not feel left out New Hampshire residents, Mr. barbie doll also left his beauty mark in Manchester, NH where he spent $225.00 in Mancester, NH at Sapphire whcih is a boutique for women!

Protest in a red state

On Thursday March 28, 2007 Vice President Dick Cheney spoke at the commencement of Brigham Young University. The speech which the Vice President gave was void of politics. Brigham Young University is run by the Church of Latter Day Saints which makes it one of the most conservative schools. Also the University is located in Utah one of the reddest states. Those circumstances make the reaction to the chosen commencement speaker shocking and quite controversial.
The day before the commencement the College Democrats gathered outside the BYU library for a sit in to protest the commencement. Simultaneously across the street the Student Republican group also protested. It is important to note that not all students protesting Cheney are Democrats. Some of the students at the protest recognized the moment to show political diversity within the University. One Republican student at the sit in said “"He made some horribly misleading arguments linking Iraq to attacks on 9/11, We are Mormons and are subject to kings, rulers and magistrates, but we're also upholding the right of popular sovereignty." The more than 200 student protest was not the only action taken by those opposing the Cheney choice.
An alternative commencement was planned and organized by students. Hundreds of students attended the alternative commencement on the same day. The students raised 26, 000 dollars in nine days in order to have alternative speakers. Speakers at the alternative commencement were former Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Pete Ashdown, ex-Amnesty International director Jack Healey and consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Nader commented on Cheney’s speech by saying “He avoided a political speech, and I think that was sending a message right there. You can wave the flag, and surround a deadly, boomeranging war with patriotic symbols. He could've done that.”
This situation is pretty telling that change is wanted amongst many, even those who many would expect the opposite from. It is somewhat comforting that even in the reddest of states there are those who disagree with current policy. Is graduation a time to make a political statement though?

related links:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/cheney_to_give_byu_commencement_speech/

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/219900/4/

http://nn.byu.edu/story.cfm/64170

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3086552&page=2

Todays Floor Debate

Sen. Edward Kennedy (Democrat Senior Senator of Massachusetts) and Sen. Judd Gregg (Republican Senior Senator of New Hampshire),

Sen. Kennedy was on the floor or the Senate today. He debated a bill on Math and Science Education in our country. We are currently twenty-four out of twenty-four countries placed in both Math and Sciences he said. This is a bleak outlook on our educational system.

I left the room for a minute and came back and looked at the television and the discussion turned to how the Vice-President has lied to the country over and over again. How he has mislead the country down a path that is wrong. Into a war that is sinking into a civil war.

After Kennedy’s speech Sen. Gregg was the second Senator to rebuff Sen. Kennedy’s statements. Gregg said that he thought we were fourteenth on the scale. The battle for this bill raged on as Gregg cited numerous time of how he was Governor of New Hampshire during the President George H.W. Bush’s Presidency. How the first President Bush wanted to be known as the education President. However, he thought why waste taxpayers money. Possibly, because this is Education and it is very important to New Hampshire, to New England, and to the country. It makes it interesting why some people think his seat is vulnerable.

Student Body President Debate

As I sit here at the Hartman Union Building I am watching the debate of the year here at Plymouth State University. Here this will directly relate to how our political parties work on the larger scale. We have seen clearly here at the university there have been political differences within the university itself. Some of the issues that were addressed here at the debate are some of the same issues that we have tried to discuss for years now. Candidates Sean Greenlaw, Dustin Siggins, and Trevor Chandler will bring up great topics throughout this debate. Some of the issues that are being addressed are improving zoning and university relations. Trying to get textbook prices down, sodexho dining services here on campus, as well as make sure that we are the cheapest school here in the state. Also another issue that was addressed was to promote the campus as a whole within the state.

Balance of life and President. Each candidate has said that they would make the Presidency a large part of their life. Trying to make the Presidency available to the public having it be an important day to day aspect. The balance of the presidency will come with an aspect of a Presidents commission. This commission was brought up by candidate Sean Greenlaw. All candidates have stated that the presidency would be an affective role and an interactive role.

Working with their Vice-Presidents was addressed by all of the candidates. Each candidate said that they would fully work with their Vice Presidents. They would seek their advice and their effectiveness. Dustin Siggins said that although people have criticized him on the issue of gender identity. He addressed this issue saying that his Vice-Presidential candidate Alex Ward effectively agreed with this legislation that came to the Student Senate.

Relationship with their administration is an important issue that was brought up at this debate. Candidate Chandler said that their relationship would fully depend on the fact of respect. It is this relationship that it so delicate and fragile that we respect it. Siggins has said that it not only agreeing with the administration but disagreeing with the administration. This shows that issues are not just complacent. Greenlaw said that he would maintain his relationship with the current administration.

Military recruiters on this campus are a hot button issue. This issue was taken up by Sean Greenlaw who said that a compromise has been reached. He said that a sign would be posted saying that the Senate does not agree with this organization because they discriminate. Candidate Siggins said that he believes that students can have these groups here on campus to accelerate people’s careers. Candidate Chandler says that he does not believe in discrimination. The army clearly discriminates.

Access to the President was well defined by candidate Chandler. He said that he has pushed for the Student Senate meetings to be put on our local access channel. This is an important issue as well as staying in touch with different clubs from ALSO to the Auto Club.

The moratorium of the Greek Life was addressed throughout the debate. This issue was also addressed to how their community service truly helps with our campus. We should support Greek Life and how they have helped our community grow. How these Greek Life affect our community. Siggins was the only candidate that didn’t swallow the “ethanol” type promise here at Plymouth State University. He stood up against the other two candidates to defy that Greek Life should stay present on this campus.

The textbook prices are outlandish. However, some of the candidates did believe that we should have a working relationship with our books store. Siggins, however, recommended a website half.com. Chandler said that Professors should have a list of their books as well how much these books would cost the average student. Chandler has said that he has represented ALSO and other groups at the state level. Trying to stay and contact with all of our legislators in Concord. This will be a individual and group effort that we bring towards the legislature. The USNH summit has come up over and over again something that has been mentioned throughout the debate. This summit is something that we need to succeed and make a reality. Candidate Chandler agreed that we need to include our state legislature. As well as we should increase the federal funding.

A Bio-Diesel relationship Chandler has been brought up. Chandler wants this relationship to grow in the town and the University as a whole. Greenlaw wants to meet with the campus community council, the town council, and other town administrations. He wants to improve relations on and off campus. Siggins brought up changing the zoning regulation so that four unrelated people can live together. Greenlaw talked about maintaining our relationship with the town without forcing our ideas on the town or the town’s relationship with the University.

The issue of the Red Cross discrimination was brought up in a student question. Greenlaw addressed the fact that he couldn’t give blood but he said that he wouldn’t support the Red Cross’s discrimination. Although the Red Cross does great work in our communities throughout the state and on our campus. Siggins felt as though we should be allowed to donate blood to which ever organization we want. Chandler felt the same way that there is no reason why we should have people are dying over the issue of whose blood it is.

Siggins said that he would have all aspects of dealing with people brought into his dealings with The Clock. Chandler said that a Student Body President requires all points of tact and responsibility. Greenlaw addressed this issue saying “Oh Yes” having professionalism most of the time. He all said that he is Student Body President at all times.

This debate that has taken place is a debate that we have seen on a larger scale. Whether, it is a University, a town, or a country. Many of the same issues that were debated here today are topics that we are debating on a larger scale. These issues I’m glad were brought up here at this miniscule level. However, these topics are raised that need to be raised on the larger scale. It is innovative to me that these topics were brought up at this scale. Let us recognize these events on our campus as well as at our country.

Plymouth State...Do We Not Count In The North Country?

We were talking the other day in one of my classes that Keene State College, University of New Hampshire, Dartmouth College, and St. Anselm's College have either already have had major presidential candidates come to their campuses or have scheduled visits. However, here at Plymouth State University we have had none and well none that I have even heard of coming. This was a sentiment felt on both sides of the aisle within my class. I felt as though this is an issue that should be addressed. It is not only Plymouth State but the North Country as a whole. The North Country has a lot to offer a candidate. Plymouth itself is a bastion to the Democratic Party. We are a nestled area within the White Mountain Valley and on the outskirts of the Lakes Region. PERFECT! What else does a candidate dream for. I encourage and urge that candidates on both sides of the aisle heed this advice. The North Country is seems under rated to some. But, as i said we are a jewel that it coveted. A mostly conservative area with Plymouth as a fortification as a Democratic Stronghold. As well what else could a presidential candidate ask for you may ask? Well I present two more points. Plymouth now has the pleasure of having a University campus in its town. Plymouth State University is booming. With growing majors within fields like Criminal Justice, Education, and Meteorology. Plymouth has been known as a teachers college and its true. As an education major myself I can speak to this in effect. Presidential Candidates should realize that coming to Plymouth State University means talking to tomorrows teachers. We are known throughout our great state as having this reputation of turning out great teachers. Candidates speak on education let them speak to those who are going out to the field in the next few years. Hear how future teachers what their concerns are. But it is not only teachers that can speak to this effect. It is the future law enforcement and social workers within our criminal justice and social work programs whom can speak to this. Candidates would not only be speaking to tomorrows law enforcement agents and social workers but tomorrows voters. Plymouth State has this bastion of potential democratic voters. We are a very active campus in many democratic areas. Such as ALSO, Environmental Planning and Geography Clubs, College Democrats and Republicans. Plymouth not only has the University but it also has a Regional High School. I know of many potential voters that are present within this high school from doing field work. However, like many New Hampshire voters we have to meet our candidates, shake their hands, and listen to what they have to say. This is important to some of these new voters currently present in our system. Once again don't count out the North Country and don't count out the Plymouth Area. We have much to offer Presidential Candidates. Another aspect that we have to offer at Plymouth State if I may say is a great Social Science department. Presidential Candidates may be surprised at the questions that college students would pose to them from the North Country.

Virginia Tech

As all of you know a horrible act was committed at Virginia Tech. 33 people were killed by a north Korean man students. This is the worse school shooting in American History. I feel that there are many things that are going to come from this shooting. Much like past shootings, there will be a political push that will take place. Most likely it will be a push to control the sale of firearms. In many southern states the rule is that there is a background check that last several days. I can see in the near future political leaders making a push towards stricter gun control laws. It is my beliefs that being a gun owner is a persons personal right. But it is not their right to use that gun in a manor which causes death or harm to any person. These are basic laws of our country. There are people in this country that have several mental problems which makes them exempt from own a weapon. This is the for safety of the populous. It is not yet apparent how the man got the two weapons he used but I'm am positive there will be a full investigation. A large majority of our population owns a gun. There are those few cases where those weapons are abused but that does not mean all guns are used to kill.

Don Imus

I was just wondering about how everyone feels about his punishment towards what he said. For those who dont know Don Imus is a very famous radio person who made racial coments towards the Rutgers girls basketball team. His punishment was that he lost his job with CBS. People are saying the main reason why he lost his job is because many of the sponsors where going to take back what they where giving to CBS if he still was employed there. I think that after what he said he should not be able to be on the radio again because he should not promote racism over the radio. I just was wondering how you felt about this topic and if his apology was enough?

Stem Cell

Yes the Stem cell reaserch bill is not going to fly because the president will veto it. BUt with the passing of it in the senate it will over time show the president that more and more people are supporting this kind of bill. Because they see the dieses around them that can be cured. Usually almost all the republicans vote no for this bill. This time around 14 republicans voted yes for the bill. That is a huge number because usually the republicans are very much in favor of what the president says and he is going to veto it. When this bill comes up next time i think it will eventually get through because it will have a 2/3 vote and over ride the presidents veto. But we will see.

Political Parties and Interest Groups Response to article

After reading the article that Dr. Fistek and Dr. Egbert posted, I have a few questions. I was first wondering why NH is always so important during election time. Being such a small state, with no major importing or exporting, why is our particular vote so important? Is it because we are always undecided and no one ever knows which party we will side with? Also, the artciale sates that NH's majority party is the Democrats. It then goes onto say that the party is probably going to change soon again. Why would this be???

I also have no idea what I am supposed to do. What exactly are we supposed to blog about???

Political Party History in New Hampshire--Part One

This is from an article Dr. Egbert and I wrote for State Party Profiles: A 50-State Guide to Development, Organization, and Resources, Andrew M. Appleton and Daniel S. Ward, eds. for CQ Press, 1997.

Political Parties in New Hampshire reflect the enduring characteristics of the state: a homogeneous population, a moderately high level of economic prosperity, dominance by a narrow range of political interests, and a traditional and amateur governmental structure. New Hampshire, with a population less than 2% racial minority and ethnic minorities that have tended to be as conservative as the majority white populatioon, has endured few deep and lasting cleavages among its major groups. The state has no large cities, few large employers, and no dominant industry. Interests such as railroads, newspapers, textile manufacturing, lumber, and tourism have been dominant only in alliances with one another rather than individually. The structure of government, especially the amateur nature of the 424 member legislature, has made party organization difficult. Consequently, the state has had a one-party system except during a few transitional periods. Further, dominance by a single party has made strong organization difficult for the minority party and unnecessary for the party in the majority. The recent switch to a Democratic Majority bodes change for the state's party structucture.

PARTY HISTORY

Several themes run through the history of New Hampshire political parties: dominance by a single party, strong party organization and competition only during transitional periods, cycles of corruption and reform, the influence of coalitions of powerful interests, and the impact of strong personalities.

At first, New Hampshire was among the strongest of the Federalist states; the state's Puritan Congregationalism was synonymous with the Federalist Party. Most town charters required that land be set aside to build a church, the state constitution required towns to support a Congregational minister, and public office was restricted to Protestants (Heffernana and Stecher 1981, 103).

Federalists began to lose support in the granite State when their reckless abuse of power became evident in the Union Bank fight of 1800. John Langdon, a Democrat-Republican, organized a new bank which made small loans on easy terms. The state legislature refused to charter Langdon's bank since the state owned a considerable interest in the state's only bank, the New Hampshire Bank. Langdon and the Democratic-Republicans, unable to obtain loans at the New Hampshire Bank, paralyed this into a hard-fought campaign alleging the denial of the charter was just "another piece of Federalist intolerance." (Robinson, 1916, 30).

In 1806 the democratic-Republican Party became the majority party. New Hampshire's people were ideologically much more closely aligned to the party of Jefferson, so the change is not surprising. During the transitional period after the turn of the century, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans created permanent hierarchical organizations. The latter, still using the legislative caucus for nominations, created a "Grand Committee of Elections and Correspondence" and subordinate local bodies, and the existing New Hampshire Gazette (which continues publishing today) became the party organ. The grand committee appointed and controlled county committees, which in turn appointed and controlled town committees (Robinson 1916, 63).

Bitter conflict between the parties was in evidence when the newly empowered Democratic-Republicn legislature took over Dartmouth College as a state university, revising its governance and relieving former Federalist trustees of the property and records of the institution. Daniel Webster represented the trustees in court to reverse what Jager and jager (1983, 58) referred to as this "novel process of creative theft." The decision against teh trustees in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire was reversed by the Federalsit-leaning United States Supreme Court (Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518 [1819]), which found the legislature's actions in violation of the impairment of contracts clause of Art. I, sec. 10.

The transfer of power from the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans to the Jacksonian Democrats was complete in New Hampshire by about 1835. Important political figures, of former or later national stature, behind the Democratic Party organization in the state included Isaac Hill, editor, U.S. senator, and governor; Levi Woodbury, governor, U.S. senator, secretary of the navy and the Treasury, and justice of the U.S. Supreme Court; and Franklin Pierce, W.S. senator and later president of the United States. Jacksonian Democrats brought the spirit of reform to the state, and New Hampshire became a leader in the treatment of the insane, prison reform, public education, religious toleration, improved working conditions, and abolition of imprisonment for debt. The Democrats replaced "king caucus" with the state party convention and solidified their power by controlling most newspapers in the state.

The next transitional period began as the Democratic Party split into two conflicting wings in 1842. Independent Democrats, Whigs and abolitionists combined to control the legislature in 1846. Reform efforts continued as railroads and other large interests were subject to state regulation. The issue of slavery unified the remnants of the Whig Party, the Free Soilers, the Know Nothings, rebellious Democrats, and other smaller groups to provide the basis for the Republican Party. In 1853 Amos Tuck called a meeting at his home in Exeter, New Hampshire, where those invited claimed to have conceived and named the Republican Party (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). The Republicans elected their first governor in 1857, and in the 150 years since, only seven Democrats have occupied the New Hampshire executive office.

Following the Civil War, Republican hegemony supported rampant corruption and huge increases in political spending. William Chandler, former owner of the New Hampshire Statesman and Concord Monitor, while serving in the U.S. Senate chronicled the heightened role of political money at the time. he wrote that big money first appeared in 1882, when railroads began to spend "immense" amounts (Chandler 1898, 8). The state party supported candidates directly, and the state committee chair had the discretion to dispense all state party funds (Chadler 1898, 13). Some recipients signed contracts: "In consideration of one hundred dollars, I agree to vote as the maker and prior endorser [party chair, railroad, etc.] of this draft may direct" (Chandler 1898, 15). Free railroad passes and retainers for lawyers were provided openly. By 1907, critic Frank Putnam would write that the man who really governed New Hampshire was "the president of the Boston and Maine Railroad" (Jager and Jager 1983, 61). Republican ascendance in this era did not translate into party government. There was an absence of clear party ideology and organization. Tradition, slogans, "strong personalities, enormous egos and ambitions both broad and narrow fired the political system" (Wright 1987, 53).

New hampshire joined the progressive movement by passing legislation curbing free railroad passes in 1907. In 1909 the legilature voted to require reporting of legislative concerns and expenditures of lobbyists, to require use of the direct primary to nominate party candidates. Progressives were the first to understand and take advantage of the new nomination process, electing Robert Bass as governor in 1910. Under Bass, the legislature regulated utilties and monopolies and provided for child labor reform, workmen's compensation, factory inspections, and forest protection.

The feud between Roosevelt Bull Moose Progressives and the Taft Republicans spilled into New Hampshire. As the Republicans feuded, New Hampshire Democrats organized to elect Samuel Felker governor in1912, the Executive Council, a majority of the legislature, and a United States senator. In the first election following ratification of the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1913 mandating the direct election of U.S. Senators, the Republicans swept back into power and remained the dominant party, until the 2006 elections.

References

Chandler, William E. 1898. The growth in the use of money in politics in New Hampshire. Manchester
Union, Dec. 24 and 28 (A reprint, by Rumford Press, Concord, N.H., appeared in 1899.)

Heffernan, Nancy Coffey, and Ann Page Stecker. 1981. New Hampshire: Crosscurrents in its development.
Grantham, NH: Tompson and Rutter.

Jager, Ronald, and Grace Jager. 1983. New Hampshire:An illustrated history of the Granite State.
Woodland Hills, Calif.: Windsor.

Robinson, William A. 1916. Jeffersonian democracy in New England. New York: Greenwood Press.

Wright, James. 1987. The Progressive Yankees: Republican reformers in New hampshire: 1906-1916.
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

is this going to work?

just testing this to see if I can get something to post succesfully....hope this works!

Hey this is Brandon! Am I the first to post? I just set up this account and have no idea how to blog. Someone help me out!

Welcome to Our Blog!

This is the "maiden voyage" for our new blog! The first step for class members is to set up an account with Blogger so I can add you to this blog so you can get started posting!

A few rules to follow:

1. No profanity or obscenities! This Blog will maintain professional standards of discourse!

2. No jerks.

3. No incivility. You are expected to treat one another with respect and offer constructive comments.

4. follow all rules about fair use of material--copyrights etc.

Now--get blogging!