The Tea Party Movement

          Many have speculated that the Tea Party has run its course.  The 2012 election cycle was the death knell of the more conservative, fiscally responsible faction of the Republican Party.  I disagree with this simply for the reason that there are still numerous candidates in Congress who have won elections running on the Tea Party platform.  Ted Cruz won in 2012, as did Deb Fischer of Nebraska.  The Tea Party candidates won in several primary elections only to lose to a Democrat in November.  The thing that is important to remember about the Tea Party movement is that it is still relatively new.  It has only been in existence since 2009 and will I believe continue to make inroads using the grassroots efforts that it has been using.  With people like Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz in Congress, as well as strong leaders like Sarah Palin, Allen West, Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh, Ben Carson and Glenn Beck continuing to tour the country speaking to voters, I expect that the Tea Party will be here to stay.  Even if they do not eventually take over the Republican Party, their presence will at least be a deterrent to establishment Republicans that may help keep them on track.
         What the Tea Party wants is fiscal responsibility which is evidenced clearly by the fact they were formed after Democrats passed the ACA on a completely partisan vote.  The idea that the Tea Party is racist or sexist is also clearly rebuffed by the number of African American, Latino, and women leaders it has.  For me, the charge of racist or sexist is thrown at the Tea Party simply because it is the easiest way to try and silence the argument the Tea Party is making without actually answering to the charges.  

The evils of Koch

           The supreme court recently ruled that it was unconstitutional to put restrictions on the amount of money entities could give to political donations, effectively giving big corporations and wealthy donors the right to spend as much as they like to elect candidates.  The money can't go directly to the candidates coffers, but through super PAC's, people such as the Koch Brothers and George Soros can spend unlimited amounts.  Immediately, Democrats began a campaign against one particular entity, the Koch Brothers.  At first I was curious because of all the talk, how much did the Koch Brothers give to conservative causes?  I thought surely it must be the largest amount of all donors, and not by a small margin.  I was very wrong.  The Koch Brothers are not even in the top 50 according to opensecrets.org.  The top 10 donors are all primarily Democrat donors with the exception of National Board of Realtors that is effectively split between the parties.  Tom Steyer, the City of New York, Democrat Governors Association, and National Education Association are the top four donors and all of them are strongly democratic.  The Republican Governors Association at eleven is the first truly GOP donor.
           This calls into question why Senator Reid and other Democrats are so strongly pushing against the Koch Brothers.  Is it because they want to draw attention away from their own financial masters?  Or is it because they feel that a corporation should not have the same rights as a union for example?  To me it seems like nothing more than smoke and mirrors, trying to draw the attention of America to the Koch Brothers and away from the many issues they face in this coming election.  The democrats are in trouble this midterm, and they are desperately trying to control the losses that some are expecting in November.

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/us/politics/supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-contributions.html

Why only in Africa?

Nigeria is mired in violence and inequality. it's only girls who suffer? Nigerian counts as the highest GDOP in Africa., it also has more  nature resource. so why many people are suffering? violence is everyplace siglr part you go in Nigeria. Is the UN watching what is going on in Nigeria or they just wast to ignore it?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/11/nigeria-boko-haram-education-schoolgirls-kidnapped

Astroturfing

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/11/1297694/-Anti-union-astroturf-group-is-not-watching-out-for-your-best-interests
Astroturfing is an interesting phenomenon. It is the practice whereby monied interests veil their sponsorship of an interest group in an effort to present it as the product of grassroots activism. So named for the nation’s favorite plastic grass-substitute, and much like that petroleum-based pasture it feigns the existence of grass roots with naught beneath but artificial support.

This practice seems sketchy at the best of times. Some defend it by claiming that it allows them to present their message free of any prejudice that may be attached to their reputation. While I can respect the desire to have one’s argument evaluated purely on its intellectual merits I can’t help but look at cases like the one I've linked to above and levy a certain degree of suspicion. Astroturfing doesn't just free monied interests from their own reputation, it allows them to co-opt the sense of legitimacy lended to actual grassroots organizations. There’s no such thing as a truly “neutral” medium when it comes to expressing political messages, and when you present a view that directly affects working-class people through a facade of working-class grassroots, it colors their perceptions just as much as presenting the argument as a corporate entity would.

What happened to the moderate political leaders?

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/22/nation/la-na-republican-moderates-20121022

This article focuses on an older woman being a moderate voter and that it goes into detail how the moderate politician is a dieing breed. I for one agree with this article and I find it to be very disturbing. I believe that liberals are moving further and further towards the left side while conservatives are moving further to the right. Which scares me quite honestly. I am a moderate republican and I feel I am poorly represented by the republican party. I think America is heading towards socialist ideas and once again that scares. Our government should not be too far left or right and it should be right in the middle of the political spectrum. There are more registered independents than there are democrats or republicans and the independents get represented  as a minority and are almost forced to choose a side. I understand that both parties represent different ideologies but they should be moving closer to the middle to represent the greater population rather then moving away from the middle of the spectrum. I just want to see the majority of people being represented to their fullest. Moderates do a great job of understanding both sides and do a great job of working with each other while it takes every once of energy for republicans and democrats to work with one another. Like I said I lean more towards the right but I want to see politicians move towards the middle rather than away from it.

Being a modern day conservative.

A few thoughts on why I am a young conservative,

From the likes of Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan and through to our modern day conservatives, we have always been put on the forefront from political adversaries. The media has portrayed conservatives in a negative light and I simply want to put my views on paper and show that modern day conservatives are a different breed.
     Being a conservative isn't always easy I do have to admit. Engaging in political discussion and talks with fellow classmates is always an uphill battle when it comes to convincing people that my principles and what I believe are worth listening to. Over my lifetime and since I have been politically aware it has always been "cool" and "hip" to be liberal. I have nothing against liberalism other than that I don't agree with a lot of it. What I do believe in as a modern day conservative is the rights of all people. I think being a young Republican and conservative is about fighting for the constitutional rights for all people while still maintaining and respecting that others may have a different view point. I separate my own personal views from what is legal and what is just underneath our law.
     I believe in economic opportunity for all and the opportunity to achieve dreams and goals. I believe everyone should have that opportunity. Young conservatives and young Republicans alike believe that the American dream is still alive and well. We believe that the role of government should be to provide basic services for everyone and give everyone the equal opportunity to rise and do what they see fit. On the flip side we do believe that solving real world problems do not come from lobbyists and top-down approaches that Washington tends to put on us. Young conservatives believe that local control and states rights should be paramount in educating our generation and solving issues.
    Young conservatives believe in protecting the environment at all costs. As humans, we love the places where we live, vacation and stay. We want to pass that on to our children and future generations. We don't politicize this issue. It's a common problem we want to tackle.
   Young conservatives are leading the way in the fight against government overreach regarding our personal privacy. Young people have grown their entire life with technology as a role. We want to protect the rights and privacy of all citizens while maintaining peace and order in our society. It's paramount to us that we uphold our traditional consitutitonal values and show that the constitution is a timeless document in which applies to our society even several hundred years later.
   young people believe in our rights as citizens. We want to show that there can be fiscal responsibility and economic prosperity for all as long as we are willing to work for it and make tough decisions. We want to make sure that our government is just the right size to provide and protect the people but be small enough that Americans are able to pursue their dreams and have their own pursuit of happiness.
   These are just a few things that make up young conservatives. We all differ on issues and that is what makes the party and being conservative great. We can disagree on certain things but we always will fight for our rights and freedoms as US citizens. Thank you for taking the time to read why the next generation of conservative leadership is different.

-Connor Brown

Should We Raise The Wage?

Today the U.S. Senate voted on a bill to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 but they ended up falling short of their goal. The Senate needed 60 votes to pass the bill and ended up getting a vote of 54 to 42. The bill has been championed by the Dems with the Republicans leading the counter.

The Democrats believe raising the wage will give a "fair shot" to all Americans and help out our middle class. While the Republicans believe that raising the wage will hurt some and harm others and that we need more job opportunities not a higher wage. (These are just the broad ideas)

I myself am in favor of raising the minimum wage. I think people have the idea that if we pass a bill to raise the wage than it will magically happen when the President finishes his signature. If the bill gets passed, it will gradually raise the wage to $10.10 over 30 months, allowing businesses to adjust. I think that not raising the wage is a bad move by the government because factors such as new technologies and education are making the cost of living much higher than it used to be. Times are changing. People won't be able to survive off of $7.25 forever.

But what are your thoughts? Who's Right? Raise the Wage?

CNN
Washington Post
Fox News

Global Issues

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-statshttp://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
Today number of poor people in less developing countries keep increasing almost everyday. At least 80% of humanity live on less than $10 a day. the poorest 40% of the world's population consume 5% of global income. however, richest 20% consume 3/4 of world income.
Is this fear though? all the wealthy countries depend on less developing countries nature resources. I don't see how wealthy countries go to less develop countries and steal their nature resources and left them with an empty hand. this needs to stop and let help those who's poor so they can live in happy life. believe or not, no one want to be poor so why can't we help them?

Smartphones and the 4th Amendment

On April 29, 2014 the Supreme Court will be considering whether or not officers during an arrest may search the contents of a person’s mobile phone without a warrant. The court should recognize that new technologies do not alter basic Fourth Amendment principles, and should require a judicial warrant in such circumstances.

If you consider how many American Adults own a smartphone and/or a personal computer, you'll see that a new law if implemented wouldn't only be effecting a small number of people. We all know what the 4th Amendment is and how police officers must obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” As all Amendments, there are a few narrow exceptions to the warrant requirement. For example, when police officers lawfully arrest someone, they may search his or her body and immediate surroundings and seize any belongings to ensure officer safety or the preservation of evidence. But mobile phones aren’t weapons and pose no physical threat, and any evidence on the phone can be preserved by using special devices to prevent remote deletion of the data.

The U.S. Government argues that mobile phones are no different from other personal items that may already be searched, like wallets, purses or address books. But the exception for searches incident to arrests was limited by the constraints on what a person could physically carry. 

I have to agree with the United State Government on this one. What does everyone else think? When do you think, if ever,  a law will go into effect?


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/smartphones-and-the-4th-amendment.html?_r=0

x

Party legitimacy and political stagnation

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-michael/these-parties-are-lame_b_3817973.html

Legitimacy is a powerful concept in politics. It does more than simply conferring authority: it confers support. When I look at the two main parties and the persistently dominant presence they maintain on our political stage, and wonder how they maintain their status despite their just as persistently disappointing performance, I am forced to reach a similar conclusion to Mister Michael.

People don’t care enough to challenge the status quo, and those who do care enough often get caught in the partisan furor and become champions of that same state of affairs. The few who do support a genuine change find themselves derided as political hipsters at best, and vote-splitting traitors at worst.

Supreme Court critical of Ohio law punishing campaign lies

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-critical-of-ohio-law-punishing-campaign-lies/

The Supreme Court is trying to put laws in place to stop false advertisement throughout political campaigns.  Specifically in Ohio this article focuses on stopping the recklessness of the false claim ruining others campaigns.  People are complaining that this violates the first amendment of free speech.  From 2001- 2010 more than 500 false reports have been looked at and reviewed.  Out of the 500 only 5 have been brought t curt.  False advertisement has been a part of campaigning since day the first election.

Do you think that this violates the first amendment?
Should they put in a law that stops false campaigning?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/04/sudan-bans-political-party-meetings-201441595653225806.html

While this article doesn't directly involve the United States, it is extremely important to the concept of political parties worldwide

            On April 6, the President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan decreed that it was forbidden for any political parties to meet, unless they first got permission from "relevent authorities." This is due to al-Bashir allowing a national dialogue about potentially ending his 25 year reign in the office. Unfortunately for him, the various parties were all in agreement that he held the office for too long, so he prevented meetings and jailed the leader of the Reform Now party's student wing.

           This kind of action, though clearly extreme, poses two questions to me-how much power should the government have over parties, and how much power should parties have over the government? For example, though they shouldn't be able to prevent meetings between members of political parties, there should probably be some way to limit the incredible amount of clout the Democrats and Republicans have in our country. People generally pay more attention to the words of partisan candidates than they do to those of judges who have already been appointed, for example. 

U.S. Effort On Climate Change

The never ending battle between the underlying science of global warming and lawmakers’ ties to the fossil fuel industry has to come to end as it is time for the United States to implement a major climate change law. Of course political reality in Washington has repeatedly prevented the administration from tackling climate change. As a result of this week's climate report, it is now evident that this window to forge and implement new policies to protect the globe from food and drinking water shortages, drastic sea level rise, increased poverty and disease, is narrowing quicker than expected. 


I think that a nationwide tax on carbon pollution should be the first step. I do not think that this should be held off until the end of the decade. I think this needs to be put on the top of the Administrations priority list. 


What do you think the first step should be in order to prevent a catastrophic impact resulting from global warming? Do you think that this should be number one priority in Washington? Why do you think Congress hasn't intervened and set up a nationwide policy? 


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/us/politics/political-rifts-slow-us-effort-on-climate-laws.html?src=me

Obama Lets N.S.A. Exploit Some Internet Flaws, Officials Say

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/13/us/politics/obama-lets-nsa-exploit-some-internet-flaws-officials-say.html?ref=politics

President Barack Obama has decided to let the National Security Agency announce when a major flaw has been found in Internet Security.  They think that it is better to make everyone aware of the problem so that they can fix it quicker and more efficient.  They want to make people aware if there is a Cyber attack so that they identify and fix the problem.

Is this just another way for the N.S.A. to get more information from the citizens?
Do you thin that they should let people know when there is a major security breach over the internet?
Would it be "ok" to use it for military use like they did to Iran?

I feel that they should let people know when there is a major breach for their personal information.

Palabras

    Recently I stumbled on a new NPR series called Borderland with Host Steve Inskeep. Inskeep has done reporting in Syria and Afghanistan, but his latest assignment brought him a little closer to home. The series attempts (and succeeds) to tell the complex and complicated story of life on the border. Inskeep and other journalists began their journey at Boca Chica, TX where the mouth of the Rio Grand meets the Gulf of Mexico and from there drove west while zigzagging across the border. The series gives a face to the many hot topics that are associated with this region such as immigration and the violence of the cartels.
    While the series gives a lot of facts about the border and shares many stories, two of the stories really jumped out at me. The first took place in a Catholic shelter that takes in recently arrived immigrants in a small town in Texas. The story was about the journey of one of the women who was staying at the shelter, which began in Ethiopia and travelled through 12 countries with a false passport. She was seeking asylum with her husband who was detained upon making it to the U.S. They travelled through jungles and rivers and across the desert in order to get a chance at a better life. This really struck me because I had never really thought about people from other parts of the world making the same journey that numerous others from Latin America make on a daily basis.
    The second was about the words we use and why people choose certain words over others. They explain that the decision to use English or Spanish in the region is a political statement and even the words one uses can reveal a political bias too.  They use the example of calling the physical barrier between the U.S. And Mexico either a fence, which is the term the Border Patrol use, and a wall which some claim to be a more accurate statement. Other words are more obvious as to what your stance on immigration is, such as the term illegal alien versus undocumented immigrant.
    Words do mean so much and it is amazing how so much meaning can be packed into just a word or two. Recently, students at Dartmouth College petitioned for the word 'illegal' to be banned from the classroom when talking about immigration. We've changed the words we use for so many groups of people and we realize how deeply hurtful and harmful a word can be. So I guess I would like to leave off by asking if it is really such a burden to not use the word illegal? And if so, why? Also, I encourage all of you to take a look at the series, because there are so many beautiful pictures and stories in this series. 

Paul Ryan Proposes New Budget Cuts for GOP

This Tuesday House Budget Committee Chairman Paul ryan released his plan that would potentially cut 5.1 trillion dollars from the National Defecit in 10 years, concentrating mostly on cuts to social benefits programs like food stams and parts of the Affordable Health Care Act.  In turn the plan would provide Pell grants for Low-income Students and pensions for many federal employees, also straying away from cuts in social benefit programs for senior citizens.  Many conservative who were against this are now embracing it as the GOP budget while Democrats will likely oppose the plan.  Ryan had to say this about the budget plan, "By cutting wasteful spending, strengthening key priorities, and laying the foundation for a stronger economy, we have shown the American people there's a better way forward"

What does everyone think? should we make cuts to social benefit programs to balance the budget or continue on the path towards universal healthcare coverage as well as the other programs Ryan and other conservatives wish to cut?


http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/01/paul-ryan-gop-budget-plan-major-medicare-cuts

The People's Pledge and Super PACs in NH

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/21/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-brown-shaheen-peoples-pledge-ruckus/

Sorry for the videos embedded in the article it makes it look kind of confusing but try to ignore them.

I would love to start discussion of outside money and how it affects political campaigns. Whether it is at the national or state level, third party money flows on both sides of the aisle. Is it a good thing? Or a bad thing? Should it be changed? Scott Brown created and signed the "People's Pledge" in Massachusetts to limit the amount of third party money being added into the campaign...and it worked. However, now that hes in New Hampshire he refuses to sign the pledge, committing a great injustice to the people of New Hampshire.

I applaud Scott Brown for the progress he made with the People's Pledge, but I want him to carry over that progress into New Hampshire. I strongly believe that campaigns should be about facts and ideas and winning over the hearts and minds of the people you will be representing. NOT using third party money to publicly slander your opponent.

What are your feelings on campaign finance?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/us/politics/paul-ryan-budget.html?ref=us

Republican, Paul Ryan designed a budget plan that cuts $5 trillion in U.S. spending over the next decade. He plans on creating a balance between government spending and taxes by 2024. What does the House Budget Committee chairman have in store with his plan? On one hand, he plans on increase spending on defense. However, does the country need to increase our defense system? On the other hand, he plans on making cuts to the following:

• Medicare and Food Stamps
• Affordable Care Act
• Domestic Programs

What do you think? If the Affordable Care Act is fixed and citizens become more pleased with the program, will the Republican Party still want to abandon it? What about Medicare and food stamps, should they be released to states as block grants?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/20/us/politics/racing-to-deadline-white-house-plays-to-young-in-health-care-push.html?ref=us

The New York Times article is focused on the target audience for health insurance. Recently, Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff to attract young people to sign up for health insurance through the media. According to McDonough, a new website that features games, videos, and athletes that explain the benefits of health care. Ultimately, the Obama administration has created a new kind of HealthCare.gov. Why the change? By March 31, the administration has to acquire another 1,000,000 sign ups to meet their goal for the end of the enrollment year. Originally, seven million were bought into the insurance, but after its crisis, more than 1 million had cancelled their health care with the administration. In order to attract young men, the White House is using March Madness to advertise health care. I chose this article because I find it interesting about how politics have become more social and less political. What is your opinion? Do you think that this website is positive or negative? Will young people sign up without learning about the cons of health care because the website appeals to them?  

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/us/gop-moving-to-ease-stance-on-sentencing.html?src=me

Is this article showing more of a shift in Republican ideas? Often known for their tough on crime stance, Republicans seem to be easing up on mandatory minimum sentencing to save money. Is this a foreshadowing and reflection of the ease up on Republican ideas? This trend seems to be following as the GOP seems to be backing away from the majority of their major issues, including immigration as a major player. The article talks about the penal system not doing it’s job. This brings into question the sentencing for the ‘war on drugs’ which Republicans are so active in. As marijuana is beginning to become legalized, is this potentially a step to Republicans agreeing with decriminalizing the drug in order to save money?

Generational Political Ideologies

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/us/politics/social-issues-splitting-young-republicans-from-their-elders.html?_r=0

The article above talks about how the republican party is being split by social issues when it comes to "young" and "old" republicans. What is so interesting about this topic is the fact that the republican party over the years has had a difficult time giving the party something to get excited about and that is because the republican party is still stuck in their old ways. I feel that todays world is very similar to to the 1960's when the civil rights act was put into place. In today's world issues like gay rights, abortion, legal use of marijuana, and much more are major social issues. I believe when the Republican party decides to rearrange their ideologies we will see more of a libertarian party then a republican party. The said thing is in my eyes today's social issues are not the most pressing priorities in our country. I believe that foreign affairs, immigration, health care, and the economy are the problems worth focusing on. I am a registered republican and may consider my self to be a libertarian but I am a republican and it frustrates me when people make a decision on who they will vote for based on issues that arent important right now. I believe there are more pressing needs that the United States needs to take care of. With that being said I do think social problems are important but not to the point where I dont vote for someone based on their beliefs on the death penalty when immigration is a bigger problem.

So my questions are. Why do people base their vote on social issues over issues that show real importance right now?

My next question is do you agree that like the 60's times are changing and the republican party is heading towards libertarian ideologies or the republican party will find a way to show importance in todays society?

Immigration Reform

Hello All,

Now I am not an expert on immigration reform what so ever, nor can I consider myself fully updated to the current stance proposed by Boehner and the Republicans. With that being said, I am writing this blog post to become more informed on the current positions on both sides of the political system (Democrat and Republican). So if there are any experts on this subject please comment after the post to add more information, thanks.

So it seems that the issue on immigration reform is back as a hot topic in the political world. From what I have read, the current Republican House members as a whole are looking at "a mass deportation of 'illegal' immigrants" with numbers reaching 11-12 million. Deportation would be a result of a person without citizenship in the U.S. not meeting the standards of being a legal citizen proposed by Mr. Boehner. If I understand correctly, "DREAMERS", or children of illegal immigrants, would be safe under the proposed legislation which is certainly a plus. But looking at this in the sense of our country being built by immigrants seems silly when considering what some are proposing. If a said "illegal" person passes the standards to become a citizen (not unrealistic standards) they should be able to have the chance to become thriving members of our economy legally. Not to mention even though these citizens of America are looked at as legal they still contribute to roughly $600 million in taxes each year.

Now I understand that the way I am presenting this information is rather broad but that is because I am searching for more information on the topic. So I am asking the class here, what is your stance on immigration reform? Do you know any additional information on this topic that I did not elaborate on? Please feel free to put in your opinion I am not offended easily. Thanks

Zach

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/12/rubio_immigration_reform_unlikely_under_obama.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/01/republicans-and-immigration?zid=309&ah=80dcf288b8561b012f603b9fd9577f0e

Regulation or not?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/10/1283610/-Louisiana-legislator-and-the-governor-seek-an-abortion-databas

The choice of having an abortion is a personal decision. But if that record is kept in a database with others who have had previous abortions constitutional. Is this an invasion of privacy? Is Louisiana proposing this bill to regulate abortions to stop the turn out of abortions in Louisiana? This brings in many what ifs and many people wondering, how much government regulation is needed? It may be a product of a particular party or interest group trying to push the bill threw.

Blog Schedule

Please post on or before Thursday of the week you are signed up for.

Week of February 24
Leif
Connor

Week of March 3
Derek Barros
Zach
Leif

Week of March 10
Derek Barros
Katrina
Zach
Eric
Andy

Week of March 17
Jaseya
Katrina
Kyle
Simon
Al

Week of March 31
Jaseya
Kyle
Brendan
Timothy
David

Week of April 7
Robert
Brendan
Valerie
Simon
Grace
Gene

Week of April 14
Robert
Erin
Andy
Mike
Al

Week of April 21
Connor
Eric
Mike
Timothy
Valerie

Week of April 28
Erin
David
Grace

Gene

Democrats getting more liberal? Republicans getting more conservative??

When thinking about political parties, we normally think of conservative Republicans making a big slash on the opposite end of the political spectrum. But can it be said that the Democratic party is continuously getting more liberal? As we discussed recently in class the political spectrum, the conservative Republicans would be found on the far right of the spectrum and the liberal Democrats would be found on the far left. Based on recent polls done by Pew Research Center from the years 1987-2012 Democrats as a group have moved farther to the left.

One might ask what is so different about liberal Democrats than moderate Democrats? Well there can be some similarities but there are certainly more differences as their views are normally much more intense. Although the number of liberal Democrats is in the minority at 34 percent and the moderate/conservative Democrats hold the other 63 percent, it seems that the liberals are picking up steam for the 2016 election. This can be found in the last election where New Hampshire liberal Democrats made up 56 percent of primary voters and in Iowa made up 53 percent. With their place in popular sway states it can be said that differences will be made. On the other side, conservative Republicans make up 67 percent in the GOP with 32 percent being the moderate or liberal Republicans, showing them land on the far right of the political spectrum.

Some of the differences between liberal and moderate/conservative Democrats are not only ideological, but are also demographic. It is said that most women and white voters will lean to the liberal side, and it is also said that they are more educated. On the other hand moderate and conservative Democrats are more often male, poorer, less educated, and African American or Latino. 

I would like to point out the major differences between the liberals and the moderates. Most liberals do not believe that people can make it by just tying hard. Most of these voters are looking for government handouts and things along that line. Also liberals tend to care less about the budget at hand while that is a pretty important subject for anyone else involved in politics. Most strongly are in favor of same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and citizenship for immigrants looking to attain it. And the last point I will make is the majority of liberals are not a fan of military strength but peace, which is different from the other Democrats. The liberals are mostly in favor of president Obama and his policies including the Affordable Care Act. 

My question to the group is do you believe that this shift in the Democrats political spectrum will have an impact on upcoming elections both on local and national levels? Do you believe these polls are correct or could they be a misrepresentation of information? I'd love to hear your opinions, thank you.

Zach Stephenson

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/are-the-democrats-getting-too-liberal/2014/02/28/c0d42d7c-8d26-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_story.html

http://www.pewresearch.org/2014/02/28/are-the-democrats-getting-too-liberal/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2014/03/01/are_the_democrats_getting_too_liberal_326793.html

Rand Paul, a party savior?

I'm a registered Republican, and let me say, sometimes its hard to have that affiliation in America today. While I agree with a lot of conservative economic values and a conservative approach to government , I cant get past the social conservatism of many of the mainstream Republican candidates that take the spotlight on a national stage. I, like many other young Republicans and Libertarians would much rather see politicians reign in the deficit and fix the economy than worry about legislating morality. The anti abortion and anti gay rhetoric often propagated by some members of the GOP has only helped to turn away young voters, like myself while the Democratic Party has increased its youth base.

During the past election I had the chance to campaign for a great politician in the Republican Primary, Ron Paul, but unfortunately, even from the start most in his organization new that he would have little chance to compete nationally. As I think back to some the candidates and politicians that have been the faces of our party for the past couple years I think of Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, and Rick Santorum and I have no trouble seeing why Republicans get made to look like idiots on a consistent basis. Not only do Republicans often make themselves seem like bigots with their anti abortion anti gay rhetoric, but they somehow are able to forget their Ivy League educations whenever they get behind a microphone. MERICA'. While there are so many intelligent and polished Republicans that the party could choose to push to the podium, for some reason this just dosent happen.

For this reason I'm excited looking forward to the 2016 election. I'm excited by the thought that Senator Rand Paul may step forward as a competitive presidential candidate. Today it became public that Senator Paul has made efforts with the Kentucky State legislature to clarify election law, which would allow him to run for a Senate position and the presidency at the same time, just as Lydon B. Johnson did. This sign of a 2016 presidential campaign is very exciting to me and others who have been waiting for a savior for the Republican party.

 In early straw polls Paul has fared well, and I believe that he may be the man to unite Libertarian and Republican voters to take the presidency. Paul has been an outspoken advocate for the Constitution and conservative spending practices and could surely do wonders for the Republican Party image when given the spotlight of a presidential election. Paul would also surely help to promote the Republican Party to young voters, a demographic that his father, former presidential candidate Ron Paul, had a large following with in 2012.

I tend to agree with some of the political junkies that say nobody will beat Hillary Clinton if she decides to run, but at least Rand Paul's presence in the Republican Party spotlight in 2016 could serve to right the ship and move issues of true importance onto the party's radar.

Only time will tell, and until then all we can do is speculate and hope.



UPDATE: 3/8/2014

So later in the week after my original post Rand Paul spoke at the CPAC conference and won the CPAC straw poll by a strong margin. This is very encouraging because many "establishment" Republicans did not fair well in comparison. He has gotten a lot of media attention over this speech, I suggest you take a look.

Can we just live in harmony?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/02/1280725/-Economic-conservatives-take-religious-conservatives-for-suckers

Why do we feel so strongly against a person who is different from us? Like the saying says "opposites attract" but in this day and age almost all people we give our attention to share common interest? Think to yourself if someone walking into a coffee shop and sparked  a conversation with you but had all opposite views. Would you still talk to them? Would you persecute them? Would you stereotype them and call them names". But now think of it like this "why cant we love people for who they are as a person not if they are homosexual or not"? Will Arizona law be changed?

Politics and Culture among other things..

Politics and Culture

Have you ever heard of the news station shows such as: Huckabee? Rachel Maddow? Anderson Cooper or even Piers Morgan Live? Well if you watch MSNBC or Fox news you are bound to see these shows and subsequently be subjected to the views of these anchors for their respective news outlets. What I want to point out in this blog is the question of how politics and culture are intertwined. Or are they?

Even now and again someone from a major network has a slip up and the rest of the media grabs onto it. Taking a look at someone in particular would be Piers Morgan. Piers Morgan took over Larry King's 9pm time slot in 2011. Morgan has been an outspoken advocate for tighter gun control especially after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting. Piers has gone on record on his show numerous times with panelists for and against gun control and has argued his stance on the issue as well. As some of you may know by now, Piers Morgan will be leaving the air as early as next month. My question is that since his show was sheerly political, does it make sense that his culture directly reflects his political views? I believe it does and to be frank it doesn't bother me. I am a firm believer on everyone is entitled to their own opinion and should be respected. Piers Morgan obviously comes from a much different culture with different ideas and philosophies in which he lives by.

Conversely on the other side of the aisle if you will is Fox News. Fox is putting on programs such as Huckabee and Hannity. Culturally, these two men are very different from Morgan. Hannity and Huckabee are much more conservative in ideology than Morgan. What my thought is that culture and political ideology have a correlation. I am not making a bold claim here just suggesting that culture has a bigger role in politics than we tend to lead on. Being from the UK, Morgan has a much different outlook on guns than Huckabee and Sean Hannity. What we see in todays media is a constant battle for ratings and market share. It is in the best interest for news outlets to put polarizing views of a certain topic in order to stir conversation. 

My last thought on the matter is acceptance. It is my thought that the different sides of the political aisle are to eager to jump down each others throats about any picayune thing. My question to pose to the class is that would it be better to simply accept others views, disagree with them and move on? You don’t have to watch Fox or MSNBC at any particular moment but what we can do is stop bickering and fix real world problems. Not a call for bi-partisan support on everything but being more human about things.

Arkin, Daniel. "CNN Cancels 'Piers Morgan Live' After Three Years." NBC News. MSNBC, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.

"'Piers Morgan Live' to Be Canceled by CNN as Early as next Month, Network Says." NY Daily News. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.

"Hannity with Sean Hannity." Fox News. FOX News Network, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.

Why the assault on the 2nd Amendment? Lets have a "war" on mental illness, joblessness and poverty instead

It is pretty unclear to me why there is such an assault in this country on gun rights. While I understand that people want to see less gun related deaths, I must ask why so much blame is put on the inanimate objects whose related rights are guaranteed us in the Constitution's Second Amendment. Does it not take someone to pull the trigger? Why isn't more blame put on the shoulders of the individual and less on that of the gun? I'm fully suprised that we haven't come to the point in this country where we incarcerate the gun and allow the criminal to walk free (sarcasm).

 To fully understand gun crime in our country why not look at the statistics. Even as gun ownership and the production of guns has risen over the past decade, gun crimes have fallen. While the mass shootings that captivate the media are tragic and very disheartening for sure, they are also a rarity, and since nearly half of these killers obtain their guns illegally, gun control wouldn't solve this problem. Furthermore, the perpetrators most often suffer from serious mental illness which might speak more towards poor mental health treatment in the United States, than a need for gun control. Of the nearly 32,000 gun deaths each year, about 60% are attributed to suicides. That means 19,200 of the 32,000 gun deaths each year are from suicide. Again, Id suggest that this speaks more towards poor mental health treatment in America than a need for gun control. If someone really wants to kill themselves, couldn't they turn to a bottle of pills or other means, if guns were unavailable? Another 3% of gun deaths are attributed to accidents leaving only 34% of guns deaths, or around 11,000 deaths each year to actual gun crime. Of these 11,000 deaths each year nearly 80% of deaths are part of gang violence in large metropolitan areas with high poverty. Gun control wouldn't help here either because these guns are being obtained illegally. What probably would help is if we invested in America and brought manufacturing jobs back to some of the large metropolitan cities that suffer from gang violence like Detroit and Chicago. Jobs would be a hell of a lot more effective in curbing gun violence then gun control would be. This leaves about 2,200 gun deaths each year that aren't related to gang violence. 2,200 deaths from guns in a country of 314,000,000 people! In a country where there are approximately 250,000,000 firearms! (Check out the stats Here) It can also be reasonably be considered that out of these 2,200 homicides, a considerable portion of killers would have used other means had guns been unavailable.

This means that 1 in every 142,727 people was killed by non gang related gun violence in America. If you take gangs out of the consideration gun crime really isn't the huge issue that the pundits make it out to be. I think we as a country should take a harder look at the mental health services and inner city poverty to combat the gun crime numbers in America rather then looking towards legislation to solve our problems. While I don't usually agree with the pundits to the right or left, I think the gun lobby hit the nail on the head when speaking on gun control "criminals don't follow laws".

New Hampshire is a great illustration of why guns aren't the problem. New Hampshire is a state where gun ownership is well above the national average, yet gun crime is well below the national average. In fact New Hampshire, a state with some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation  and one of the highest rates of gun ownership has the second lowest gun crime rate in the country, second only to Hawaii.

A war on guns would only serve to take guns away from citizens who a majority of are law abiding citizens, however if we were to have a "war" on mental illness or a "war" on poverty and joblessness to decrease gang violence, I think we might be able to get closer to solving the gun violence problems America suffers from. Much like many of the platform issues in this country gun control is an issue propagated by the media that only serves to distract us from the real issues that America faces.

Political Party History in New Hampshire

 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 legislature 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.

ReferencesChandler, 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.

Welcome to the Spring 2014 Class!

Welcome to our 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.

Remember you are expected to comment on your classmate's posts!!

Now....get blogging!