2016 Presidential Election: Will Name Recognition Give Candidates A Boost?

Running for President is certainty easier when people know your name. This election we see two people, Jeb Bush and Hilary Clinton, with famous names squarely in the mix. The lifeblood of politics is money, not ideas, and those with it and those who have donors lined up are in a much better position than those without. Senators and Governors are used to being well know in their home states, and have the ability to raise money for their elections. Running for President is a whole different game, unless you are a political science major most of the candidates are known outside their state of region. Bush and Clinton are in the best position to take advantage of their name and have access to large donors, other candidates need to connect with a portion of America and show they are relevant and hope they attract a few large money donors to raise cash. Cash ultimately decides how far they go in the process. 

http://www.ibtimes.com/2016-presidential-election-will-name-recognition-give-candidates-boost-1880280

New Hampshire Poll

  The saying that in politics, 6 months is a lifetime, 18 months is forever is true here. A lot can change in 18 months, but in that time the nation will select the 45th President of the United States. A new poll shows of a lot of uncertainty in the Republican field. No less than 5 declared candidates are currently announced with another 8-10 looking to get in. Seven of the candidates are polling  with a preference in the 7%-12% range. The Democratic field is dominated by Hilary Clinton, who as of today has only one declared candidate running against her.

In the battleground state of New Hampshire, a small but vitally important state, the race to succeed Obama starts the the primary season. The next nine months the candidates will try and get voters comfortable with them. The biggest challenge will be to attract independents, as New Hampshire allows Independent voters to vote in either primary. A strong showing in New Hampshire allows candidates to build momentum in both public perception and the ultimate driver, campaign contributions. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-10/new-hampshire-poll-republican-field-tightens-hillary-clinton-still-out-in-front-among-democrats%C2%A0

2016: A look Forward

With a new GOP candidate announcing their candidacy every few days it seems, it is hard to hypothesize who is going to win the presidential nominee. Candidates such as Scott Walker, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul all bring new and different ideas to the table. They will also appeal to very different social, economic and religious groups. It also may not be any of these candidates but there are some early predictions. As of now it is thought that Scott Walker has commanded a rough 12-15% of the votes over the course of several months which is very unusual for candidates to do.

There are a few reasons why I believe this is the case. First Scott is an experienced executive as he is the Governor of Wisconsin. Further more his more libertarian-esque fall more into line as to where the party is evolving. The Republican party is experiencing a major shift in ideals from the "old ways" of social conservatism to the new hands off and personal freedoms approach. Gov. Walker is also a major supporter of state over federal rights which is becoming increasingly popular on both sides of the aisle as well as in independent voters. Finally I think that Gov. Walker will be the nominee because he appeals to the classic blue collar working man. He has risen through the political ranks without a college degree through hard work and dedication, a true testament to his spirit and character.

2nd amendment

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The second amendment has changed meanings from when it was written in the constitution to the present. Many people believe that when the amendment was written it was for civilians in the military   and no longer applies today. I believe that the second amendment is something that is necessary and should stay in the constitution. With all of the shootings that have happened and law enforcement over using their power I believe that people who are suitable to carry a firearm should.  I am all for background checks and interviews because I do believe that not everyone is suitable/mature enough to carry a gun. But I don't believe that it should be removed because people have the right to protect themselves in whatever way the need to. 


http://members.tripod.com/~waycool_dude/secondamendment.html
http://solutions.heritage.org/guns/

Do we need an electoral college?

"The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. 

The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress. 

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes."

To me the electoral college does not seem fair to the american people. I believe this because many american citizens believe that when they cast a vote it doesn't matter. Even though I vote every election its hard for me to believe that mine actually does anything ether. I believe that the system should be whoever has the majority vote will win the election. This is clean cut and gives each state equality. I don't think the electoral college should be eliminated just used as a back up in case of a tie. This will give people a reason to go to the polls every election because they will know that their vote is actually making a difference. 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

From Race to Gender

The decision for the topic of this blog post was between new presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Socialist Bernie Sanders, according to many analysts and polls, doesn't have a chance at winning the presidency, so it’s time for another post about Hillary, and it’s time for a history lesson.

The presidential election of 2008 seems like an eternity away. Every student in this class was about half a decade away from voting age, yet our memories of ‘change’ and ‘progress’ seem to never fade. 2008 was a year of an overwhelming sense of accomplishment and satisfaction for many and disappointment for some. There are many reasons why President Obama won that election. You could go on and on about how McCain ‘wasn't a good speaker’ and something about him ‘just didn't sit right with you’, or ill feelings towards Bush pushed voters left, but one thing you can’t deny is that race played a key factor. Many people voted for Obama because he was black and ignored his policies, whether they agreed with them or not. Race was the key issue to many people, they thought that his election really did mean ‘Change’ and made up for the terrible past. This was even evident in the international community, as Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” just for being elected, an award that Obama even said he didn't deserve.

Now the 2016 election is right around the corner, and these feelings of ‘change’ and ‘progress’ are reemerging all over again. Hillary Clinton, who barely lost the nomination to Obama in 2008, has already surfaced as the Democratic front runner. Now, the history lesson.

 Hillary Diane Rodham was born on October 26, 1947 in Chicago, Illinois. She was raised conservative in a Methodist family. She was very politically active, and supported the election of Richard Nixon in 1960, and Barry Goldwater in the following election. She attended Wellesley College majoring in political science, and was even President of the Young Republicans club there. Conservatism was deep in her blood and beliefs, she remained active in her church. But her beliefs took a 180 degree turn when her leftist minister introduced her to a protégé of Al Capone’s right hand man. This man spent extensive amounts of time with Capone’s criminal organization and brought their scare tactics to politics. That man was the father of modern community organizing, and his name was Saul Alinsky.

Hillary then went on to Yale Law School, where she met Bill Clinton in 1971, and they got married four years later. In 1978, her husband was elected Governor of Arkansas, where he maintained that position until 1980, and then re-assumed it in 1982 up until his presidency. This is where Hillary’s scandals began. First there’s the Whitewater Scandal, in which she and her husband had invested and became partners in the Whitewater Development Corp., which allegedly, under her influence, engaged in tax fraud, unethical practices, and ultimately failed. Next there’s the Travelgate scandal, in which she had the head of the White House Travel Office wrongfully fired so he could be replaced by her friends. The victim, Billy Dale, was later cleared of all charges, but his career was still ruined. A couple of scandals later emerges the Chinagate scandal where the Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown, sold seats on Department trade emissions to China, under the direction of Hillary.

After Bill’s presidency, the couple stole a play from what is now considered Scott Brown’s playbook and moved to New York so she could run for the US Senate. Clinton serves eight years as a Senator, though during those eight years not a single bill had her name on it and her voting record included supporting the Iraq War. After narrowly losing the Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama in 2008, she became the Obama administration’s Secretary of State. Her four years as Secretary of State yielded no major accomplishments and two new scandals: Benghazi and her emails. Benghazi occurred because repeated requests for more security at the US Embassy were denied and ignored by her and her State Department. Libya was and still is a hot zone in the Middle East, all calls for more security should not have been ignored, and the US Ambassador died because of her negligence. Upon investigation, Hillary’s emails were demanded by subpoena and then subsequently deleted. Deleting evidence while under subpoena is a third degree felony. Hillary has also made the claim that she was “dead-broke” upon leaving the White House despite purchasing a million dollar mansion upon becoming a former First Lady and continuously having an average net worth in the millions. Finally, and more recently, is the scandal of the Clinton Foundation accepting millions from foreign governments that abuse human rights and women’s rights.

Why is any of this important and how does it relate to gender in the presidential election of 2016? Hillary’s positive accomplishments are existent, yet none of them occurred while she was First Lady, Senator, or Secretary of State, other than a voting record that might appeal to you. What is present though, is a variety of scandals. Take a second and imagine what would have happened if a male Republican directly caused an ambassador to die in Libya, withheld information from a subpoena, used his private email while Secretary of State while citing carrying two phones as a hassle, and associated with someone formerly (and formally) involved with an associate of Al Capone. Remember that many Presidents get excessive amounts of grief for something that was not their fault or that they were not directly involved with. Hillary’s misdeeds, alleged misdeeds, and lack of accomplishments are ignored simply because she is a woman, and similarly to Barack Obama in 2008, her supporters want change. All political views aside, Hillary would not be a plausible candidate if she was male, or even a Republican. Lesser things than a single one of Hillary’s scandals have sunk entire presidential campaigns, if the American people really want a woman President then why not wait for a better option?

Moving Forward After Baltimore

Now that Baltimore has calmed down and the National Guard has left, what's next for the citizens and the police department? The state attorney general announced 4 days ago that Freddie Gray's death is consider to be a homicide and the state will be charging 6 Baltimore police officers in the case. Baltimore's police commissioner did not know about the chargers being brought to his officers until 10 minutes before the national televised press conference. He seem surprised in his interview that his officers may be charged with second degree murder and manslaughter. However he seemed to be very understanding of the distrust the Baltimore community is having with his police officers. He has made it very clear he plans on gaining the trust back for the police departments. When discussing the riots during the interview he made it clear that his officers were not ready to handle the mass amount of angry protestors the hours following Gray's funeral services. The commissioner promised to reunite the community and the police, but admits it will take some time. Change will not happen over night. The commissioner, who is also African American,  stressed the point that the lack of education for African Americans is being a nation wide problem and believes it's one of the underlying causes of the lack of trust in authority many people have throughout the country.

My issue with all of this is the solution. What actually is going to be done to assure Baltimore won't happen again? Eduction reforms are a must but that isn't going to fix the brutality of police officers towards members of the community they serve. How many African American males are going to have to die before Americans as a whole are up in arms & have complete distrust with the police? This isn't a Baltimore issue, nor a Ferguson issue but instead a national issue that needs to be settled as soon as possible. Any suggestions on policy that could be passed to improve this distrust with our police?

Link to commissioner interview

No Casinos in New Hampshire

The New Hampshire House of Representatives just recently voted down the approved Senate Bill 113, "relative to video lottery and table gaming". With 156 yeas to the 208 nays, the vote failed by a fairly wide margin of 56 votes, but certainly not a landslide. Personally, I had been on the fence about the whole casino issue, because there are very compelling arguments for and against casinos. For one, New Hampshire is certainly in need of added revenues, however gambling was being touted as a cure all to all of our fiduciary woes. Social costs, were also another main concern amongst many Democrats and Republicans alike. Although I have no moral qualms about gambling, NH and the northeast has been undergoing a significant heroin epidemic and although gaming revenue could be used to address that, I was hesitant to vote for something that may have the potential to increase or centralize criminal activity near the casinos. Additional fears of the gaming lobby coming to dominate NH's political landscape, also surfaced during debate, especially considering the fact that the proposed casinos would ultimately be the largest taxpaying bloc in NH. During the dawn of the 20th century, the railroad industry in NH effectively owned the Statehouse, so fears of returning to a similar era certainly led a few legislators to vote against gaming. No doubt, images of "Casino" and "The Godfather" conjured up some worries about organized crime, but this argument was repeatedly shot down and probably wouldn't have been a major concern. Ultimately, I voted against organized gaming because I disagree with the premise of gambling providing most of our States revenue. Although I would be in the minority, I would certainly rather see a modest income tax on top revenue earners, before we establish a more regressive revenue source that tends to draw revenue from the poor and elderly. Also, I reasoned that if NH established gambling as a major revenue source, Republicans would fight tooth and nail to prevent any future fees, taxes or revenues being raised for any additional state agencies or needs of the State. Simply put, I didn't want to see the State that's always been my home establish gambling as its main source of revenue, when a much less environmentally and socially questionable alternative could (and should) be implemented, namely a moderate income tax.

FYI: Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is up for debate

Why should everyone mark the date of June 1st, 2015 on their calendars? The provisions of Sections 206, 215, and 6001, of the USA PATRIOT Act are set to expire on June 1st. That also means that the Senate and House of Representatives will be voting on its renewal which would last until 2020. The most controversial of the three that the American people should definitely inform themselves of before June 1st, is Section 215. The big debate with Section 215, is that it authorizes the National Security Agency to carry out unwarranted government surveillance on those suspected of conspiring against the American people. It is also known as the "library records" provision because it allows a wide range of personal material to be investigated. 

But how can we be assured that the government is properly determining whether a person is involved in conducting actions against the United States and its civilians? Recent scandals such as the Edward Snowden case in 2013, revealed that the NSA has abused its capabilities under Section 215 in order to gain intelligence. 

In reality, the policy was drafted and then implemented in less than 2 months. It was meant to address the issue of the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001. But how long do we need to be combatting terrorism in the United States on such an extreme level? Many argue that the issues present over 10 years ago, are not at the same level of relevance in today's American society. 

The questions we must ask ourselves before June 1st are:

1. What elements of Section 215 are truly necessary to protect the American people? 
2. Has its implementation carried out more positive or negative change? 
3. What kind of outcome does Section 215 hold in future American politics?

http://www.olcu.org/PDFs/USPatriotAct_Summary.pdf

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/22/gop-pushes-patriot-act-renewal-critics-demand-end-mass-surveillance-provision

http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/patriot/

Baltimore Riot

This riot happened today, the same day as Gray's funeral. Gray was the 25 years old African American who was arrested on April 12, then died a weak later from a spinal cord injury. Most of the protesters were young people of color from middle school and high school, that were seeking for a fair justice. For now we know that the police officers who did this (beat Gray to his death) they are on probation until further investigation. But the protesters see this as injustice progress, and claim that the Gray's family does not deserve this result. Billy Murphy a family attorney said "I am sure that the family is concerned, and I am positive that they are against what is beginning to develop here in town". Do you think this situation need a further investigation or it is a clear case?

Will the next President please stand up?

Time now, of course, for presidential politics in New Hampshire! Hilary Clinton was just in the State, as well as all the other Republican candidates. 2016 is going to involve quite the show, all the campaign ads a side. But this is certainly no game! Certain candidates would love to see the nuclear negotiations with Iran fail, Obamacare stripped down or reversed, and student grants eliminated and refinancing more difficult. Scandals are already starting to appear also with revelations about the Clinton foundation accepting millions of dollars from parties interested in the transfer of one of the largest uranium producers in the U.S. from a Canadian to a Russian company. No doubt will the Republican primary be contentious with the long list of candidates already in the mix, but with only one declared Democratic frontrunner, it's quite difficult to predict how the field will be in one month, much less the primary results. Much will boil down to the primary and candidate debates, leading up to the election, along with the usual campaign gaffs and controversies that spring up out of the wellspring of human error. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

New Attorney General Means New Changes?

As of today, April 23, the Senate confirmed that Loretta E. Lynch will our new Attorney General. Lynch is the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York and was confirmed with a 56-43 vote. She is the first African-American woman to hold the position of Attorney General. While her confirmation took longer than probably some would hope it shows some hope for the future in the Justice Department. One issue that she wants to take on is that of the police. One of her advisers stated:

She really thinks the communities and the police officers have more in common than they realize.

Lynch has a strong relationship with many police groups who feel that they have unfairly criticized in high-profile cases that involve the death of African-Americans at their hands.

Ms. Lynch is concerned that morale in police departments has declined and that officers are being unfairly tarnished by episodes that do not reflect all of policing, several aides and friends said.

It sounds as if there will be rapid and highly public changes but that is not Lynch's goal. While she wants there to be changes she will make them on a "subtle but significant internal changes." She would like to make changes inside the Justice Department office, especially in terms of cyber-security cases, very much like the office restructuring done after Sept. 11 attacks.

In the immediate future she might be called on to support another task, the renewing of a section Patriot Act which expires in June of this year which she is a supporter of. This particular section allows the National Security Agency to acquire phone records from American citizens without a warrant or any evidence of law breaking.

While Lynch has not made any promises to what she will do has Attorney General, she did promise to do one thing... to strengthen the relationship between Congress and the Department of Justice.

Ms. Lynch told aides that she wanted a better relationship with Congress and planned to meet with lawmakers regularly. Just as with police groups, Ms. Lynch told aides, a lot can be accomplished with a simple change in tone.

Hopefully with a new Attorney General there will be a better justice system in America and less violence and crime in our streets.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/as-attorney-general-loretta-lynch-plans-to-shift-tone-for-justice-dept.html?ref=politics

For information about her Senate Confirmation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/politics/loretta-lynch-attorney-general-vote.html?ref=politics

Chris Christie 2016 Presidential Bid

          Chris Christie has hit the ground running on his 2016 election campagin, With a long history of intrest in New Hampshire Christie shows that he understands how much power winning the first primary in the nation has over his political campaign After having been part of a few scandals, such as bridgegate (the closure of the George Washington Bridge) as well as another investigation involving Christie's role in firing Hunterdon County Assistant Prosecutor Bennett Barlyn, Christie has remained silent untill recently when he announced his candidacy for president in the 2016 election.
          In a speech he made in Washington DC Christie criticized Obama's and House Democrat's foregin poilcy decissions regarding both the Keystone Pipeline (a oil pipeline that would connect the Gulf of Mexico to Canada) and normalizing diplomatic relations with Cuba. The pipeline he said was being handled in an "insulting" manner, and that the US was not acting in a diplomatically friendly manner towards Canada. He said of Cuba that relations shouldn't be normalized because Cuba is a nation "that denies civil rights and freedoms to their people". It seems unwise to me for him to openly take such harsh stances on partisan issues such as these, the reason being that he shouldn't want to look like such a hardline republican and cause moderates and undeclared voters to back away from his campaign, expecially after leaving a period of political weakness brought on by his involvement in scandalous events.
          Another issue facing Christie's future in the 2016 election is his approval rating. Currently only about 38% of NJ voters approve of Christie's Job performance, as well as 65% of his constituents saying that he would not make a good president. If Christie has such a poor rapport with his constituency it seems like his chances at making a successful run for president are extreemly low. Though that may be why he has spent so much time in New Hampshire
         Because we maintain the first in the nation primary Christie has spent a considerable amount of time and money here in the state campagining for other republican representatives such as Walt Haverstein in his bid for Governor in 2014. And in short no other candidate has spent nearly as much time trying to convince the NH voter of their legitimacy as Governor Chrisie has. Though I personally believe that Governor Christie has a very slim chance of becoming the Republican candidate 2016 only time will tell if he can compete with the other Republican hopefuls.


sources
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4188582096001/power-play-can-christie-bounce-back/?#sp=show-clips
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jersey-gov-chris-christie-criminal-investigation/story?id=28753740
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/17/in-new-hampshire-speech-christie-takes-aim-at-dem-gov-hassan/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal#Possible_motives
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/christie-takes-aim-us-policy-toward-cuba-keystone
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/christie-faces-worst-ever-approval-ratings-new-jersey-article-1.2191366

Marco Rubio - A Prison Profiteer's Best Friend

 Okay, I went back and forth on what I wanted to do todays blog post about. Both topics I was debating between have personal application to my life. After some initial research into the first topic, I wondered about the chances that the second topic would be at ALL related, and low and behold…The two topics end up being quite intermingled and quite related. The prison system in FL and a spanish speaking candidate. 

My sister just flew down to Fla to turn herself in to serve some remaining time in jail. It’s a long story but she was living down there for drug treatment, and had been clean nearly two years when she relapsed and got herself into legal trouble down there. She did rehab time, and 60 days in jail. When my mom passed away in July of last year, they transferred her probation up here, when she stupidly got herself in trouble for drinking and driving up here, she did 5 weeks in Valley St. due to her former legal troubles. Florida listed her as a fugitive of the state during the time she was doing time up here, and wanted to send a private company to come retrieve her. LONG story short, she is so ready to be done with all of her legal troubles that she is now back down there serving time without having even been sentenced to it yet, to get ahead of the issue. This got me interested in what the deal is with Floridas jails and prison systems.

Random fun fact: rock road jail requires inmates to have a cash account for any services they want to use, like a phone call/ paper and pencil, etc.. they then DEDUCT 3$ a day from that cash account, just because. 

The other interest I had is in Marco Rubio for President. I am only allowing myself to watch Spanish channel TV this semester, if any at all, as a submersion technique in learning to speak it. I am taking a Spanish 2 class and have actually decided to continue on to a Spanish 3 non-credited class this summer, because I would like to be fluent someday. I have heard the name Marco Rubio scattered about now for a few days on the news programs of these three channels. Last night, I watched him address the Spanish Speaking American people on Univision. 

My first thought was: BRILLIANT! You will lose all of the Gay Rights voters to Hillary, but the Republicans are going for the larger population of voting potential, first generation spanish-speaking Americans. Hell, I will even listen to what he has to say here. For the record, the Univision journalist asked some tough questions about what in his 44 months in the senate he has done for Latino-American community, etc. I am not as well-versed as I would like to be in the language to give you an opinion on Rubio’s answer, but you can tell how comfortable he feels speaking it. 

I decided to go slightly less political, and more humanitarian in function, and started doing some research on the Florida Department of Corrections. They openly acknowledge that the management of a few of their Prisons, and most of their Jails, are being done by private contracting companies, or in other words, for-profit prisons. I decided to click the link to each one of their private prisons to see what the deal was, and I found that 5 of 7 of them were run by the same company- the GEO Group.

So then I google this group, and low and behold, there are PRwatch reports left and right about this group, the human rights violations taking place in their prisons. I found out some seriously interesting stuff, like:

“According to SEC filings, from 2008-2012 CEO George C. Zoley's compensation was an eye-popping $22,315,704 [4], almost all this garnered from U.S. taxpayers.” 

http://www.prwatch.org/print/12255

Also, I highly suggest reading the cited article to anyone interested in the GEO Group, who run prisons all over much of the Southern US. They must have a phenomenal PR department for the amount of findings against them they have for abuse, and settlements  regarding poor management and  wrongful death suits. I am surprised it hasn't been a country-wide outrage campaign yet, but obviously they keep a bunch of it under the radar. There is also some possible correlation between the increase in imprisoned people where theses private prisons get built. 

BAM! That is when it hit me, there is BIG business is private prisons. You don't need to adequately train or pay staff, and if that leads to human rights violations and abuse, then so be it right? Also, you can contract out Prisoner labor to continue to make more money off of FREE LABOR. Big business, and politics, usually go hand in hand. I couldn't help but wonder what would happen if I went and looked up Marco Rubio and GEO group… CA-CHING!!!!

My interests have been married all along and by their own interests. Private prisons love Marco Rubio, and they would love to have him as President! I found this article by PR watch initially posted published in 2011, and has been revised as of August 2012. The title of the article is: Marco Rubio, GEO Group, and a Legacy of Corruption.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/08/11591/marco-rubio-geo-group-and-legacy-corruption

This is a blog post, so I wont go on and report all about the article for you, but some fun facts I found were:

1. GEO Group is the TOP republican party contributor in FL

2.They have two PAC’s that operate in FL: the GEO Group Inc. PAC, and the Florida GEO Group Inc.PAC 

3. “the corporation gave $85,000 to the Republican Party of Florida from 2006 through 2009, along with tens of thousands of dollars in additional contributions to other state Republican Party PACs and campaigns of individual Republican candidates.”

4. “2005 through 2010, Geo, through its PACs, dispensed an additional $15,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, an additional $32,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and an additional $10,000 over 2009 and 2010 directly to the Marco Rubio for U.S. Senate PAC.”

5. “September 13, 2010, several top Geo corporate executives, along with Geo lobbyists and subcontractors, gave a total of $33,500 in individual contributions to the Florida Victory Committee, a PAC created for the benefit of three other PACS: Marco Rubio for U.S. Senate, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Republican Party of Florida.”

6. The CEO of the GEO Group made a total of $7,400 in personal contributions to the Marco Rubio campaign on a single day.

7. “Geo was the most generous single-interest/corporate donor to contribute to the Florida Victory Committee during this period. It is also worth noting that, of the $33,500 contributed by Geo and its affiliates to this particular PAC, $10,000 came directly from Guy and Neel White, owners and chief executive officers of White Construction Company, the Geo subcontractor awarded the $114 million contract for the construction of Blackwater CF.”

Blackwater CF refers to the Blackwater corrections facility that is run by the GEO Group, and was controversially appropriated which lead to criminal investigations and the resigning of Rubio’s former budget officer. “the most notable individual charged to date is former Rep. Ray Sansom (R-Destin), who, while serving as Rubio's budget chief, inserted language into the state's 2008-2009 budget for what was to become Blackwater CF…while serving as successor to Speaker Rubio, resigned amid criminal and ethics investigations -- chief of which is the allegation that he falsified the 2007-2008 budget by inserting a $6 million appropriation into the state spending bill for the construction of an aircraft hangar for Destin businessman and prominent Florida Republican Party contributor, Jay Odom.”

Here is a document on GEO Groups financing activities from 1999-2014: http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/geo-group/7dfa33488aad4908ac1c75336c20db05

PLEASE CHECK THAT ONE OUT. Marco Rubio is third and George W. Bush is fourth for total campaign contributions by the GEO Groups PAC’s.

My opinion? DOESN’T MATTER. These things happened, and are still happening. We are allowing corporate interest to make slaves of people. It just needs to be known, talked about and looked at. The country should reasonably fear for the future of our Federal Prison System if Mr. Rubio becomes President. 

The Evolution of the Presidential Image: the Crafting for Public Consumption

“I am who the media says I am.

I say what they say I say.

I become who they say I’ve become.”

 -Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

                   Photo by Pete Souza, whitehouse.gov

The President’s public image has been the concern of every administration since the invention of the camera. Abraham Lincoln was seen as an uncivilized country lawyer upon his election. His photographer, Matthew Brady, was regarded by Lincoln as the man who made him president. Images of Lincoln with messy hair and meager attire soon became a refined and combed gentleman with Brady’s crafting. Current public knowledge permits that Franklin Roosevelt was a paraplegic since long before he took office, but only three pictures of him in a wheelchair exist. As far as the public was concerned in the 20 years after his death, Roosevelt was an able-bodied man and if any pictures were taken of the contrary, cameras were confiscated by the Secret Service. Lincoln and Roosevelt had carefully crafted images so as to be viewed more favorably in the eyes of the public.

When Obama, much like Lincoln, was faced with considerable scrutiny at the beginning of his first term, the Obama administration began a synchronized campaign to craft a new image of the President in the eye of the public. One of the methods used was emphasis on association with popular culture, accomplished through dozens of photos where celebrities were pictured with Obama. Pete Souza, the current White House photographer, was the first to distribute images of the President via social media. With apps like Flickr, Instagram, and Pinterest in its arsenal, the administration viewed independent media as being no longer needed to represent its point of view to the public. Press photographers were excluded from various events while Souza had unrestricted access to the president.

In response, 38 news organizations, including the likes of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, and NBC News signed a letter of protest to the White House in response to Jay Carney for ignoring complaints of coverage and access. A section of the letter reads:

“As surely as if they were placing a hand over the journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government.”

The First Amendment defends “the public and press from abridgment of their rights of access to information about the operation of their government” which seems to be at odds with the policies of the White House. Events to which independent media has been barred was due to the declaration of the event being ‘private,’ only for the White House to post its own photos of the event. Scrolling through the White House photo gallery, one can examine how carefully created and symbolic each picture is. You can see the symbolism of President Obama talking with Governor Mike Pence, with the nearby portrait of Abraham Lincoln looking the other way, or the picture of Obama looking up at a portrait of John Kennedy, who is in turn looking down on him. Each picture was carefully crafted to project a certain image, agenda, or feeling, ultimately to better the view of the President. Under Bush, or any other President, photos by White House staff were used as carefully staged propaganda to heighten public opinion of the highest office. Supposed violations of the First Amendment are certainly always debatable to some degree, and Jay Carney defends his administration saying every president has had meetings the media has not been allowed to attend. Some argue that social media has eliminated the need for independent media in some cases. The various media organizations counter Carney with they have had the least access to the Obama administration compared to any other.  Should independent media continue to be viewed as obsolete with the integration and usefulness of social media, or should the press be just as welcome at White House events as the White House’s own photography staff?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WrZKgTNE0g

Technological advancements and their effect on security.

A recent article published by the Wall Street Journal discusses expected security threats to states, businesses, and individuals as a result of the persistent development of technology.   The article considers what may occur when technology is placed in the wrong hands.  A few of the suggested threats include biological warfare, hacking, and drones.  For example, as drones become more available to the public they could be used inappropriately for spying purposes or new scientific developments could assist individuals in developing diseases and exposing them to the public.  These examples seem pretty drastic and may sound like they came right out of a NBC TV show, but they are perfectly possible considering the invasive practices that already occur with our current technology. 

I think with new technology will come great debates about the role of the government.  We already live in an era where privacy doesn’t necessarily mean what it used to.  We choose to sacrifice certain elements of privacy in exchange for protection, but does transparency mean safety? How much is too much? What does privacy mean to a person in 2015?

It’s interesting to see how these technologies have already affected U.S. security.  For instance, the current drone policy as a counterterrorism strategy has been controversial due to questions of legality and civilian deaths.  There is no doubt that the use of drones decreases U.S. military casualties, however as a long term solution it is insufficient.  One negative affect of this policy is increased anti-American sentiment and contribution to recruitment for terrorist organizations in the Middle East as a result of civilian deaths.  So it would seem that terrorists are being replaced as quickly as they are being taken out, and at the expense of hundreds, perhaps thousands of civilians. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-laws-for-new-threats-like-drones-and-bioterrorism-1429297143

Can We Trust Cuba To Be Removed From State Sponsor of Terror List?

The White House announced today that President Barack Obama, will removed Cuba from the list of state terrorism. According to Julie Pace, President Obama sent a message to Congress saying that, the government of Cuba "has not provided any support for international terrorist" over the last six months. Is this enough months to trust Cuba? we can all have different opinion on this question, but so far I think this will be very hard issue to pass in Congress. recently, when the President was at Panama Summit, they were a lot of talk in the state saying why the President refuse to meet with Netanyahu, but decided to make deal with a communist regime. I understand that things haven't work out with Cuba over the past 60 years, do you think this is a time to make right?

Hillary Clinton 2016?

          Hillary Clinton has officially announced that she will run for president in 2016. This is amid several recent scandals, including her private email server and her handling of the Benghazi attack that took place on September 11th 2012. It seems to me that Hillary must be extremely confident if the thinks she'll be able to run as an effective candidate when her credibility both as a person, and as a political official is so questionable.

          Her private Email server is such an important issue for several reasons. The first being that because this was a private Email server the government has no record of any email sent or received By Ms. Clinton. Her aids also used private Email, and the server had the capacity to delete Emails completely, leaving no record of their existence. Not to mention the fact that a hacker could have easily breached the security of the server. The frightening truth is that Hilary intentionally used a private Email so that the state department would have no record, meaning that she intended to keep her correspondence between important officials secret from, not only the people, but the government as well. Though She Herself tuned over 55,000 emails from her server "a proper search was not conducted" according to Judicial Watch Lawyer Michael Bekesha.

          Hillary's history of corruption begins in 1974 when Hillary Clinton worked for the House Judiciary Committee. At this time they were investigating Richard Nixon's involvement with the Watergate scandal. Hillary along with several other Members of the committee conspired to remove Nixon's right to legal council. In order to do this She, according to Her Boss Jerry Zeifman, stole documents and wrote a fraudulent legal brief that ignored the right to legal council precedent set during the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Zeifman believed that the brief was so fraudulent that had Hillary submitted it to a judge he believed she would have been disbarred. This event serves to underline her obvious contempt for the legal processes and institutions of the Constitution and this Country.

          The fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton has been the center of many scandals over her entire political career. Many other presidential candidates with less storied pasts have run and lost because of them. This means that unless Hillary is ready to loose She'll need a virtual media firestorm of support in order to be elected.


Sources
https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-judicial-watch-reveal-top-hillary-clinton-advisers-knew-immediately-assault-benghazi-armed-attack/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/judicial-watch-the-clintons/
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-list-washingtons-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2008/
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-state-department-foia-116030.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2981534/posts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpPrhkmV_rA

Death Penalty for the Boston Marathon Bomber?

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Found Guilty, May Face Death Penalty

As many of us already know The Boston Marathon was bombed almost two years ago to the date. It's known the bombing was planned and carried out by the Tsarnaev brothers. Tamerlan, the older of the two who was shot and killed during a standoff with Watertown Police, and the younger of the two Dzhokhar. With Dzhokhar being the only one left to stand trial, he was charged with 30 counts with many having the death penalty as a sentence if found guilty. Today the jury came to the verdict after about 12 hours of deliberation over a 2 day period. They found Tsarnaev to be guilty on all 30 counts his faced. Now, the same jury moves to the sentencing phase. With more witness testimonies the group of seven women and 5 men will have to decided if Tsarnaev should be put to death or not. The vote for him to receive the death penalty must be unanimous.

The question comes into play now if death is the easy way out for a man who injured over 200 people and killed 4. The Tsarnaev brothers set out to cause death and destruction on innocent civilians, but is sentencing him to death enough justice for the atrocities they caused? I believe not. Making him suffer in prison for the rest of his life seems more fitting for me. Those in favor of the death penalty might claim that their is no mistakes in this case, everyone knows he did it, thus there can't be any mistake in killing an innocent man which has happened in other death penalty cases. But isn't that the easy way out for a 21 year old? He would have to spend his entire life thinking about the decisions he made if not sentenced to death. He's a coward and doesn't deserve the right to forget about the mistakes he's made. Let him rot in prison. Opinions? Do you think that seeing we live so close to Boston we're more likely to lean one way or another on the issue? Is the death penalty really the answer?


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32225787
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/08/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-verdict-boston-marathon-bombing

Funding for Food Safety

In 2010 Congress passed a law that allowed the Food and Drug Administration to create new rules and powers to prevent further food outbreaks that were getting people sicks. However, Congress has not provided the money to the FDA to enforce these practices. The FDA requested 580 million dollars to make these changes, but Congress has given them less than half of this amount.

An estimated 48 million Americans have food-borne illnesses each year, but without the required funding for these changes this number could increase. Since Congress is in the hands of Republicans and they are trying to cut back on spending the FDA is not sure they will receive the money they need. “If we keep shortchanging the F.D.A., it will continue to cost us billions of dollars a year to deal with food-borne illness,” said Ms. DeLauro, a member of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the agency’s funding.

Without the proper funding the FDA will not be able to train 2,000 employees on the new standards that are required in food safety. It is also believed that the agency will not be able to oversee food imports as strictly as they would like. Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky said that anything more than 100 million dollars will be hard to give to the FDA. Should the FDA get the money it is asking for or are they asking for too much at the wrong time?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/08/us/food-safety-laws-funding-is-far-below-estimated-requirement.html?ref=us&_r=0

The Uniting of Nations Gone Sour

Illustration by Joohee Yoon via New York Times

It is no secret that the United Nations includes non-democratic members. In fact, out of the current 193 member nations, less than half are led by  democratic governments. The point of the UN is to promote international cooperation including issues on human rights and social justice. Yet, many of the member nations that head or are members of the Human Rights Council or the Commission on the Status of Women are known violators of the very statutes on which the United Nations stands.

For example Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Venezuela are all members of the UN Human Rights Council. Ironically, all three of these countries have histories of suppressing the rights of their citizens. Saudi Arabia with it's strict congruence with Sharia Law and spotty claims to citizens right to due process, has repeatedly been listed for the ongoing and most severe human rights violations. Qatar, which also has a history of suppressing protesters or anyone that would speak against social principles, while also violating the rights of migrant workers. Venezuela, where the socialist and militaristic regime is known for it's harsh responses to protesters.

Another example being the fact that Iran and Sudan are both members of the Commission on the Status of Women. While Iran continues to sanction the stoning of women for the crime of adultery and other such "honor killings". In Sudan, young girls are subject to genital mutilation. All of these instances are recognized as gender specific violence and therefore human rights violations. Yet both countries are represented on this commission and allowed to pass judgement on other nations.

Specifically noted by Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, is that Israel in particular is targeted far more than others as a result of these loose committee membership legitimacy situations. For example, the Non-Aligned Movement, consisting of 120 member countries, is a bloc and has been chaired by Iran since 2012. This gives Iran the ability to raise 120 votes against Israel, it's enemy. Also, going back to the Human Rights Council, in it's agenda there is Item 4 which brings up issues that require the councils attention. There is also an Item 7, which is specifically for human rights situations in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. This means that there is an entire council agenda item that can almost exclusively target Israel, as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia serve to judge. Ambassador Prosor repeatedly states how Israel faces multiple condemnations from these committees and commissions while there are violators sitting on them as members.

While I am a supporter of the UN and what it stands for, I feel that the strength of it's original standings has dwindled. As an organization that is meant to serve the world justice, it lets an awful lot slip through the cracks. The fact that some countries serve on these committees and commissions (that are meant to uphold rights and justices) while openly violating these very ideals, I feel should be an embarrassment to the UN leadership. Continuing to allow the UN's democratic forum to be taken advantage of, and to be manipulated in order to hide and overlook the discrepancies of some countries is a mistake. All nations need to be held accountable for their actions, and they should not be allowed to abuse a system that is meant for the benefit of the international community.

Sources:

• http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/opinion/united-in-ignominy.html?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=Multimedia
• http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/qatar?page=1
• http://www.unfpa.org/

Human Rights Council Agenda Link:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/10session/ProvAgenda10session.pdf
H.R.C Member List:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx

Hiding Police Names

Monday night before midnight Arizona governor Doug Ducey vetoed a bill that would allow law enforcement to hide the names of police officers involved in fatal shootings or beatings for 60 days. This would prevent the public from finding out which police officer was involved in things. The thought behind this bill was for a cool down period after an event happened.

However, when the bill was proposed there was much concern over it. Civil rights groups and even some police chiefs were some that had concerns over the bill. The police chiefs believed that it would cause distrust in police and not allow them to do their job. I also believe this. If police officers could get away for 60 days after fatally shooting someone it could happen more often as they would not be as concerned with their name being released.

It has caused a split between law enforcement in Arizona, as some are for the bill and others are against it. To add another law that’s going to add distrust or adversarial relationships is not the way to go,” Roberto Villaseñor, the president of the association and chief of the Tucson Police Department, said Monday. He believes that if he had to bring up the subject again 60 days later it would cause even more problems. However, Steve Smith, who sponsored the legislation, noted that the bill had bipartisan support. “I think it’s a good bill, and I think it would have protected our officers,” he said.

I believe this bill would have been a bad idea if it had been passed. It would have caused more distrust towards police in a time where there is much distrust going on. I understand that they are only trying to protect their police officers and their families, but this is not the way to go. Had this been passed before Ferguson and other police shootings that have been happening I think it would have passed. What are your thoughts?


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/us/politics/arizona-governor-doug-ducey-vetoes-holding-back-the-names-of-officers-in-shootings.html?ref=politics

Campaign Funding

A successful election campaign depends on communication, and communication costs money. However, it is believed by some that money has the potential to corrupt a candidate, to drive him or her to serve their own interests or the interests of their campaign donors rather than the public good. In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, George W. Bush and John Kerry raised nearly half a billion dollars in private funding in their bids to win the White House. 

Recent history tells us that the magnitude of big donors' campaign spending rises as their commitment to the public interest shrinks. Mercury Insurance and its founder and chairman, George Joseph, spent a combined $31 million in 2010 and 2012  to pass two almost identical ballot initiatives to remake state auto insurance rules in Mercury's favor and to the public's disadvantage. The spending was so conspicuous that voters recoiled, rejecting both measures.

Big business and political campaigns have become closer in recent history and is driving politicians to appeal to big business and not the public they are meant to serve. With increased funding from corporations it has created corrupt policies and biased voting practices on the part of elected officials. 

Reform is needed and it is needed now!

Take a look at recent articles on the subject

Campaign Reform

Bipartisan Medicare Bill

Courtesy of Boston Globe

Recently the House passed a bill that would establish a new formula for payment to doctors. The payments would be increased by .50% every year through 2019. It was passed 392-97 in the House and is expected to be taken up by the Senate on Friday. The bill also allows doctors to receive bonuses or penalties depending on their performance scores given to them by the government. The bill was a bipartisan bill negotiated by Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Of the bill Boehner said:

This is what we can accomplish when we focus on finding common ground.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would spend $900 million less than if Congress decided to completely freeze Medicare payment rates over 11 years but would increase the deficit by $141 billion over the same amount of time.

Besides from doctor repayments the bill also would renew the Children's Health Insurance Program for two years and provides $7 billion to 1,000 community health centers, also for two years. While it is expected to be harder to pass in the Senate than in the House, Some Senate Democrats are unsure about the bill as that $7 billion funding is not to be used for abortions unless there are cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in jeopardy. Pelosi, as a supporter of abortion rights, encouraged her fellow Democrats to support the bill as

The abortion language in the bill is already in place for community health centers and will expire after two years.

But there are some complaints on the medical side in regards to this bill. Dr. Don McCanne of the Physicians for a National Health Care Program said:

In the fervor to finally rid us of the flawed...model of setting Medicare payment rates, Congress is about to pass legislation that includes ill-advised, misguided and detrimental policies that could cause irreparable harm to our traditional Medicare program.

While president of the American Medical Association Dr. Robert Wah said:

The Senate must act... to stop a looming 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements that will force reductions in access to health care for America's seniors, military personnel and their families.

While I think that the most of the federal programs have their faults and misuses, Medicare included, there needs to be a change that would be for the better good of the average population. These changes seem well and good and if doctors truly want to help people they should accept that traditional methods are not always effective, and if they are it has an expiration date.

It is also nice to see that the two parties can work together and is reassuring that are system does work and can work when correctly done so. Medicare has been a program that is been around for a long time now and these proposed changes, if not approved by the Senate, will hopefully open the door for more proposed changes in terms of health care and health insurance.

Source:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/26/house-doc-fix-medicare-bill/70481156/

Other Sources for information:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/27/us/house-passes-bill-changing-medicare-fee-formula-and-extending-childrens-insurance.html?_r=0

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2015/03/19/house-leaders-push-deal-fix-medicare-payments-doctors/vLKZCt734SqUdCvQJebLIN/story.html

 

 

 

The Political Culture of New Hampshire

Having traveled to many different states and having observed the political culture within these seats, I have noticed several major differences between New Hampshire and many of its New England neighbors. New Hampshire has always been a spotlight within the American political system because of our first in the nation primary. This has given New Hampshirites much more attention than other states in the region. The attention has acted as a catalyst that has since developed an oddly unique civic culture within the state that differs greatly from others. 

First and foremost New Hampshire natives are known for their upfront or abrupt manner in which they converse with candidates. They aren't afraid to ask a candidate tough questions, but beyond that citizens of the Granite State often ask questions in a very candid manner. They are not afraid to come off as gruff and they'll never beat around the bush. With this New Hampshire citizens will press a candidate for an answer. Frequently when asked a question they aren't prepared for, a candidate will give some long drawn out answer that doesn't really answer anything. While some other New Englanders will let this slide, New Hampshirites will press someone for a clear and articulate answer. 

As mentioned before the state of New Hampshire receives a lot more attention than a state with its population/points normally does. I have noticed that this has also created a sense of "entitlement" that is uncommon in many other places. This isn't necessarily a negative, it is just an uncommon traits. Many citizens feel that they are paving the way for the rest of the country and thus they deserve more attention than others so that they can make an informed decision. There is a famous saying that circles New Hampshire politics that describes the average NH voter. When asked what they think of a candidate a person will often respond "I don't know, I've only met them three times" this perfectly exemplifies the unique civic culture within the state of New Hampshire. Have any of you noticed anything similar? 

Message to Iran, back channel or felony?

I am not sure how many of us have been keeping up with it, but recently, a letter was sent from 47 Republican members of the Senate to Iran. This letter said that Iran should not make a nuclear deal with the United States because any deal that President Obama makes with Iran will not be upheld once he leaves office.
What do you all make of this? The last time something like this happened, Richard Nixon sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks and became president. Many people believe this is a violation of the Logan Act, which forbids any US citizen without proper authority from directly influencing negotiations between the U.S. and any foreign country. Violating the Logan Act is a felony.
Many times the Logan Act has been referenced, but this time, 47 people have directly attempted to sabotage negotiations between the U.S. and Iran.

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. 

Blog Schedule

Week of 3/9                                 Week of 4/13
Jackie                                            Daniel S.
Brianna                                           Alexa T
John R                                             Petro
Joe B                                               Jared M

Week of 3/23                                  Week of 4/20
Travis B                                           Jackie
John R                                              James M.
Rebecca W                                        Michael F
Joseph H                                          Rebecca W

Week of 3/30                                 Week of 4/27
Daniel S                                           Samantha B
Sam S                                             Travis B
Phil W                                              Petro
Jared M                                           Joe B

Week of 4/6                                    Week 5/4
Samantha B                                       Phil W
Sam S                                                Alexa
Brianna                                              Joseph H
Michael F                                            James M