The Dish Has Been Served

While the 2012 presidential election is merely around the corner, the candidates’ campaigns are becoming even more harsh and direct, specifically between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Romney’s detractors often target him for his work done at Bain Capital, pointing to companies in which he invested both time and money that failed, causing the loss of several jobs. Recently on Twitter, however, Barack Obama released information about a particular investment of Romney’s, tweeting, “After Romney’s firm drove a 105-year-old steel mill into bankruptcy in less than 10 years, they walked away with at least $12 million.” President Obama continues to tweet about the wrongdoings of Romney’s firm in the following hours, asking his followers to join him in the fight against ‘Romney Economics’. Mitt Romney had a retaliation plan in mind and within the same day, releasing a campaign video entitled ‘American Dream’ that defended Romney’s actions at Bain. The video references a steel company of Indiana by the name of Steel Dynamics that was evidently saved by Romney’s actions. Several Steel Dynamics employees are featured in the video, each revealing how much of an impact Steel Dynamics’ economic growth has had on both their finances, their families and their community. It includes what we know very well as an emotional appeal, or pathos, that evokes feelings of pride and reverence for the viewers. At one point, the voice in the ad says, “SDI almost never got started. When others shied away, Mitt Romney’s private sector leadership team stepped in.” Although Romney’s return address was a bit more subtle than Obama’s original attack on ‘Romney Economics’, the essence of politics can still be clearly noted in this event.

(Click the picture to watch the video on YouTube)

I believe that this confrontational back-and-forth debate displays the true nature of campaigning. In class, we explored the different tiers of elections, discussing the Electoral College, electoral strategy, money and elections, voter participation, and campaign commercials; but this disagreement, only one of many, between the top candidates in the 2012 presidential election has pushed me to think further about the importance and power of words while campaigning.We were able to look into the incredible amount of influence that money has in elections, however I would like to propose something that gives money ‘a run for its money’. Perhaps words, expressly harsh attacking claims against candidates, hold a similar influence. It seems as if politics are evolving into an even deeper etched divide between the two political parties as well as opposing candidates. It’s partly due to the fact that it’s election season. As we are in the midst of a very important presidential election,  the more important the election, the more publicity it receives. However, the media, fellow politicians and voting citizens can see through this harmless example of politics in which Obama grills Romney for his poor economic tactics, thus encouraging Romney to retaliate, that words can be extremely powerful, and like the prominence of the election, the more direct and harsh the words, the more attention they will receive. Candidates have been employing this tactic for many years, as evident in campaign videos such as Lyndon Johnson’s well-known Daisy Girl attack ad of 1964. Despite the popularity of this tactic, is pinpointing often insignificant things about a potential candidate’s past actions truly in the spirit of elections? Is this knowledge that candidates are leaking about each other eventually going to be beneficial for the general public to know, or are they merely trying to elevate themselves by putting down others?

In my opinion, the primary focus of a President while campaigning is to tell the public of his personal policies and how they will benefit American citizens. He should discuss what he will do for his country if he is to be elected rather than investing too much time and money into attacking his opponents. After all, we are not necessarily voting on the candidate that has made the least amount of mistakes or has the least controversial past, we are voting on the candidate that in our minds will be the best at leading our country into success. In the end, the candidates are merely trying to gain as many supporters and guaranteed votes as possible in order to secure the victory, and they often go to extremes in order to do so.

Super PACs aren’t so Super

Political fundraising is one of the most important aspects of the elections process.  This year’s presidential election is shaping up to be the most expensive ever.  The presidential candidates have already accumulated over $330 million, and they are expecting much more to come.  All this money can be attributed to the huge influence Super PACs have had on elections.  Super PACs have the power to potentially define the outcome of elections.    

A PAC, or political action committee,  is an organization that campaigns for or against political candidates by donating at least $1000.  Until recently, outside groups were limited to contribute $100,000 on behalf of one candidate.  However, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the federal government may not ban political spending by outside organizations or corporations.  This resulted in the rise of Super PACs, or “independent-expenditure only committees”.  Although the Super PACs cannot directly contribute to candidate campaigns, they are allowed to engage in independent political spending without any legal limits.

What exactly do these Super PACs do with all this money?  Most of them utilize the ability to solely go on the attack against the opposing candidates.  The most common and effective form of attacking is putting out negative ads against the opponent.

For example, conservative billionaire Joe Ricketts is planning to fund a $10 million campaign to bring down Barack Obama titled, “The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama, the Rickets Plan to End His Spending for Good.” Ricketts primary concern is to end the budget deficit.  The campaign is a 54-page proposal that essentially claims that Obama has misled the American people by portraying himself as a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.”  In addition, the plan is to bring up past ties between controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Obama in order to show how Obama’s ideologies have been negatively influenced from the beginning.  This anti-Obama campaign has the potential to destroy his public image, which proves that Super PACs have the potential to define the outcome of elections.

This year’s election has been greatly influenced by a plethora of Super PACs that have already contributed $100 million.  These Super PACs have led to one of the nastiest elections to date because of the flood of negative ads that they have leaked to the public.  The negative ads are actually detrimental to democracy because they deter people from participating in the elections process.  Super PACs undermine the basic principles of political equality because they take the power out of the hands of the people and place it in the deep pockets of an elite group donors.

Manager for the People

As we discussed in our assignment, “Modern Presidential Roles”, according to Clinton Rossiter, the president of the United States possesses many roles and responsibilities, including those of Chief of State, Chief executive, Commander in chief of the army, chief diplomat, chief legislator, chief of party, voice of the people, protector of the peace, manager of prosperity, and world leader. Among these, is an important, yet controversial role, the “manager of prosperity”. With today’s current economic crisis, questions arise about what the extent of a president’s action should be in order to maintain a capitalist society and democracy. So, how does this affect voting? People of the United States will vote for the candidate whom they think will be the best leader of the nation and the best manager of the economy. And, today, there is a current argument that the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, is not capable of managing the prosperity of the nation because of his personal socioeconomic status.

Yes, many voters today do believe that Obama should be the next president due to the proposed incapability of Mitt Romney to command the economy. Mitt Romney, as stated in many news casts, such as that of USA Today, “The former Massachusetts governor, has disclosed only the broad outlines of his wealth, putting it somewhere from $190 million to $250 million”, which, makes him about “50 times richer than Obama” (1).  Thus, this may cause a particular problem with voters. Having a candidate with this vast amount of money, many would doubt his concept of the dollar and his ability to ascertain the value of money. To him, $10,000 dollars is just a sum, with smaller value, but, to many citizens of America, this amount of money is very significant and most likely more than they will ever see. According to a Gallup poll, “Fifty percent of Americans say they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in President Barack Obama to do the right thing for the economy or to recommend the right thing for the economy, while only 42 percent say that about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney”. Thus, Americans are more trusting of the democratic candidate than the republican one.

This situation, however, is even more significant due to our current, insurmountable economic debt. Our government is drowning in debt, with around 15,700,000,000,000 stacking high on our dues. With all of this, our nation has our economic situation as a priority in their minds, and, therefore, this crisis will heavily affect the voters’ decisions. The people of America have two “modern presidential roles” in mind when they are making their decision as to who the president should be: the “manager of prosperity” and the “voice of the people”. The American people want a president that can best relate to their needs in the economy, and, with the great wealth of Mitt Romney, it is likely many citizens would choose Obama for this role. They also want someone who would vie for their needs economically, one who is indicative of the greater population of the United States, and would be their “spokesman” of economic standards. In accordance with these “modern presidential roles”, it is predicted that in the area of economic development, Barack Obama is the preferred candidate.

Newt is in the Hole and out of the Race

Through out the past couple of weeks I have been going through our Government blog and I have seen many posts related to Money and its effects on elections.  I guess this came with good timing because after hearing about the news of Newt Gingrich suspending his campaign, I saw the connection.  This specific connection interested me  because it amazed me that an idea that we learned in Government class would still be present when I flipped on the TV when I got home.  Although there are many reason for Newt dropping out, like staying at a steady fourth place in the poles, the primary reason is his four million dollar campaign debt.  We did learn a lot about how money affects elections but I will reflect about how money affected the Newt Gingrich campaign for the Presidential race of 2012.

In class we discussed as a group whether or not we agree that money is a corrupting  factor  in elections currently.  In my opinion, I think that candidates should be limited to the amount of money they can spend on their campaign.  This is the only way to ensure that candidates are voted on because of their values and ideas rather than who has more money, which is not what being the President is about.  Currently the candidate who made the most money this past year is on his way to be the Republican candidate for the upcoming election (Mitt Rommney made 41.5 million dollars last year).  This shows how much of an impact money is on the outcome of an election.  Also, it will prevent candidates from getting in a great amount of debt like Newt Gingrich did.

Now, to relate this concept of how money is spent in elections to Newt’s campaign.  Obviously, the ideal campaign not only wins, but also manages to raise more money than they spend.  However, Newt Gingrich was successful on none of these levels.  On top on getting the fourth spot of the Republican Presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich has managed to be over four million dollars in debt.  The chart below is taken from the website Open Secrets, and it shows that Newt’s campaign could not raise enough to keep up with how much they were spending.  This is very significant because they managed to raise over twenty-two million dollars.  Clearly, Newt’s campaign did not manage their money, which helps return to starting argument, that campaigns should have cap in which they can spend so unsuccessful campaigns like Newt’s do have to struggle in debt.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the true importance that money has on campaigns and how its can affect a great candidate like Newt Gingrich.  It is also necessary to recognize that money is not the only factor the Presidential candidates have to deal with during an election, however this current event allowed for a perfect example to exemplify how money can effect a candidates chances at becoming the President.

Politicians Are Humans Too!

Mitt Romney senior year book picture

Throughout the many years which we attend school and listen to our parents we always hear the common sayings when it comes to how to treat your peers: “follow the golden rule”, and “treat others the way you want to be treated”.  Well sayings like these worked in kindergarten, but as we get older and develop new ideas and perceptions, especially during our teen years, it is inevitable that we are not going separate ourselves from those who do not think like us.  But sometimes this separation is not enough for people, and some feel the need to express their opinions to people who do not believe what they do.  Recently Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee running against Obama, had a scandal with a bullying incident which happened way back when he was in high school.

The cranbrook school

Mitt Romney went to a very prestigious prep school near Detroit called Cranbrook during his high school career.  Romney did very well in school but as most of do, no matter how wrong we all believe it is, teased a student about his hair and decided to pull a prank on him.  The student who accused Romney of this is John Lauber described the attack as if it were a scene pulled out of The Lord of Flies, when simply Romney cut a snippet of the boy’s hair which was hanging over his eyes.  Through the complex and twisted world of media, the idea was firstly twisted as if to say that because of this one act, the act of an 18 year old Mitt Romney, should convince us to vote otherwise in the upcoming election.  How can the action of  an eighteen year old high school student affect how we perceive the man which we see today?  Are we to believe that over all of the years that he has lived since then, he has not learned from his mistakes.  Are we to believe that politicians do not make mistakes; that politicians are supposed to live above the standards we uphold for ourselves?  It does not seem fair to me that because of this one incident which happened in the 1960’s, people can rapidly feel dis-heartened by what he/she did.  Everyone who has gone through high school, or life for that matter, are always making mistakes and learning from them and developing.  Mitt Romney states,” Back in high school, you know, I did some dumb things, and…I participated in a lot of high jinks and pranks during high school, and some might have gone too far, and for that I apologize.”  Mitt Romney is a person too even though he is a politician.  Like all of us he made mistakes in high school and has learned from them.

Obama declares opinion on gay mariage…. Romney has a gay haze scandal leaked? Coincidence?

Secondly around the time this news was released, Obama announced his support for Gay Marriage in America.  Allegedly, the student which Romney “bullied” was gay.  Romney in an interview claims that they did not talk about sexual orientation and that it was not a deliberate act against gay peoples.  Many believe that in light of Obamas new announcement, the story was brought out to bring hatred toward the Romney campaign.  Even though Romney has stated that he did not know nor even care for that matter the sexual interests of the individual, the story still brings fourth Romney into a negative light which is meant to show the exaggeration of his views.  I simply believe that the incident which happened nearly five decades ago, was a learning experience and should not reflect the  Romney of today.  If we have learned anything from our time in government, it is that the media and people manipulate stories to their advantage and personal gain, and we as learned men and women must decipher for ourselves what is false and what is fiction.  Truly an incident which happened fifty years ago, in high school, has no reflection on a man of today!  We all make mistakes, we are all human!; even politicians!

The Pot calling the Kettle Black

             Political candidates always argue over who makes more money, who pays more taxes, who’s telling the truth and who follows the rules.  This is done to attempt to hurt the opponents’ reputation and sometimes to even get that candidate to drop out of the race.  Most of these attacks occur during the beginning of primaries when there are a lot of candidates.  Usually the first punch thrown by candidates is pressuring other candidates to release their tax returns.  The next punch is usually consists of accusations and uncovered scandals brought to the light.  After these initial attacks are launched and a few candidates have dropped out, the attacks focus more on the actual political decisions of the candidates.  Every word, action and decision a candidate has ever made in his life is analyzed, criticized and bent around until no one knows what is true anymore.  I understood why candidates did this, but what I did not understand was why does this work so well?  By studying Government AND economics I have come to understand how social media blows everything up, how important the tax brackets are especially during a rescission and how impactful political primaries and debates are on a candidates future.

 “Who’s cheatin’ who, who’s being true

Who don’t even care anymore”

         More and more in recent elections candidates have prioritized their time in making opponents look bad rather than make them selves look good.  During this recent Republican primary, Mitt Romney was pressured by the other candidates to release his tax returns.  The other candidates wanted to use this as ammunition in an attempt to defeat Romney.  Romney eventually folded and released his tax returns, which showed that he had only paid a tax rate of less than 15% on $42 million dollars of income.  He was able to get away with this because of loopholes he had found; the tax rate is far less on investments than actual income that has come from a job.  It was also found that he had bank accounts in other countries to avoid U.S. taxes.  The other candidates did this in order to make Romney look bad, but he’s not the only millionaire candidate avoiding taxes.  Nearly all politicians pay about a 15% tax rate, because it requires wealth to run for office and is too time consuming to hold a job.  These means that the other candidates are most likely doing the same thing, but Romney is the only one who has released this detailed of a tax return.  By studying government and economics I have been able to look deeper than what the media tells me and form my own opinion that all of the candidates are hypocritical because they all find tax loop holes.

Another major punch that candidates throw at each other usually involves scandals and lies.  Candidates spend an enormous amount of money on private investigators to dig up the opponents past.  In this recent primary Herman Cain was forced to drop out due to accusations of him sexually harassing women in the 1990’s and having an affair.  This is just one example of how valuable these “one hit knock outs” can be to opposing candidates.

All candidates strategize and spend a great deal of time trying to get “dirt” on the other Candidates wit private investigators because it can drastically change the results of an election.  The ironic thing about this is that all of the candidates have secrets and no one is perfect.  So it all comes down to who can dig up dirt on the others the best… this is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

The Little Guy’s Big Day

One of the biggest events happening in our country right now is the 2012 presidential election. Candidates are coming to a close in their campaigns and it is almost time for the people to share their opinions officially to elect the next president of the United States. I have learned a lot about this process over the year, and the policies the candidates choose to shape their image. Our unit on elections helped me, as a new voter, understand what goes into the process of an election and how everything works behind the scenes. From the Electoral College to campaign commercials, our Government class has given me a better understanding of the everyday life of a politician. It also goes the other way as well. The events occurring in the presidential race have helped me understand a more realistic version of our studies in class.

I have not necessarily formed opinions on any subjects based on discussions in our class, but I have maintained a greater understanding of where the candidates lie on their policies. Activities such as the debates have given me insight to certain events that take place like the Iowa Caucuses. I never knew that one event could have so much influence on a campaign until I researched and learned that, according to ABC News, the Caucus has a 50% success rate on predicting the winner of the election. This is a pretty substantial number considering all of the other primaries and caucuses. I also find it very interesting that the Caucuses can give people publicity that they may not have had before because they lack the money that it requires to make themselves known. Some candidates like Rick Santorum have to find other methods to win over votes. He visited all 99 counties in Iowa to win over votes in the Caucuses to make up for the lack of money invested in his campaign. It was argued in class that the Caucus did not represent the entire American population very well. Because it is a dominantly white state, it is debated on whether or not they can actually predict how the American people would vote. I find it interesting that so much power is placed in one caucus, yet they still do a good job year-to-year of predicting candidates for the GOP and eventually Presidents.

Another debate I learned from was regarding Mitt Romney as a candidate and his conflict of choice of policy, for an example his sudden change in views on abortion. Debating whether Romney was the right candidate to defeat Obama helped me understand both sides of the argument and get a feel for how my views might relate to one of the candidates views come November. I gained insight to policies of candidates for the November elections, and now have a starting ground to make my choice for President of the United States this year. We also recently learned about the loopholes in Congress and the convoluted way bills are reviewed. I would never have known about this had we not studied it. There are much deeper levels to the process involving Committees that most ordinary citizens are not aware of because Congress does not advertise it. There should be an easier way to understand what goes on in Congress without having to research and decipher vague descriptions of duties performed by the members because it is a citizens right to know what is happening in the government. One would think that it was as simple as a signature to approve a bill and would never expect many to go unread or ignored. My hope is that one day, Congress will realize that it’s corruption cannot continue and will make themselves more understandable by the general public.

Overall, our government class has prepared me well for the election this year, and has made me a more responsible citizen with more knowledge about the events that occur during the most important day in our country every four years. I will now be a more responsible voter and know that it takes more research than just hearing the common news to form an opinion about a subject.

A Race for Votes or a Race for resources?

An interesting thing that I have learned in government this trimester is how much work goes into a political race, but what caught my attention even more was how much time a candidate and his or her team spend on trying to accumulate resources.  I have learned that the major resources that candidates go for is money, advertisements, Internet traffic, endorsements, volunteers and support from notable people.  These resources will eventually win equate to votes in the election.  There are way too many people in the United States for a candidate to reach out to by him or herself and win their vote.  As technology improves more and more candidates are gaining more resources at their disposal.

All of these resources are all centered around Candidates getting their image and beliefs out to the public.  TV ads are very expensive but are also very effective because they can display all of their policies and have images to help sway voters.  Candidates also go for “free” advertisements on the Internet and by famous people or companies.  Even though the Internet is free candidates spend thousands on good-looking websites, but the free aspect comes from social media buzz.  Social media buzz can also be categorized as volunteers, because individuals create this by making facebook pages, amateur youtube videos and show support for their candidate on blogs.  I’ve come to learn that although it seems like these social media buzzes are random and spontaneous; they are actually carefully planned by candidates in order to get free advertising.  An example of this is when, “Mitt Romney stuck out his hand and challenged Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet at a Republican presidential debate Saturday night, prompting Perry to decline because he is not in the betting business.”  Romney did this because he knew that such an unorthodox thing to do at a debate would raise a lot of talk in the news and on the web.  His hope was to get people talking about how certain he is on his facts, but the majority of the Internet talk shifted towards how “snobby” it was of him to throw around such big amounts of money.  This is the gamble candidates take when they attempt to create free advertising through the Internet, but if successful it can have a huge payoff.

After the initial projects we did on political campaigning sparked my interest, we started on a bigger project of working on a mock campaign team.  In doing this I have learned the importance of appearance.  Our main strategy is to make everything as eye catching and unique as possible in order to stand out.  On a much smaller scale we are have the same though process as political candidates.  By making that $10,000 bet, weather it created negative or positive media for Mitt Romney, it allowed him to stand out.  Without his big gamble I would not have mentioned him in my post and he would not of received the free advertising on my behalf weather I support him or not.

Click here to keep track of who’s on top money wise