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?