A little about Newt Gingrich and what he stands for

Education He supports public school prayer. He feels that schools should compete for students just like businesses compete for customers. He feels teachers should have to compete with each other too. Gingrich feels education is one of the keys to getting the country back on solid ground.

Taxes Gingrich feels we should have low taxes. He is opposed to increasing taxes on the rich, and he feels the corporate tax rate in the US is too high. He wants to do away with the corporate tax rate, and he also wants to eliminate the inheritance tax. For conservatives and Republicans that favor lower taxes, they like what Gingrich stands for on these issues. 

Government Gingrich is all about limited government. He feels that the government intrudes in our lives too much, and he feels that we should get the government out of our lives as much as possible.

Environment On the environment, Newt Gingrich is in tune with the issues of the day more than most of the GOP candidates. He used to teach an environmental studies class at West Georgia College. He also co-authored a book with Terry Maple called A Contract With the Earth. He is a strong proponent of green technology and energy conservation. He also feels the government should incentivize people with monetary prizes and tax incentives to come up with new innovative ways to generate alternative energy sources. He does not believe man is responsible for climate change, but he would support carbon emissions regulations.

Health Care What does Newt Gingrich stand for on healthcare? He is against Obamacare, also known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He feels Americans should have the right to make their own decisions on their healthcare needs. He believes ObamaCare is unconstitutional and should be repealed by the US house of Representatives. He feels everyone should have to contribute to the healthcare system in some form.

Jobs To help stimulate job growth, Gingrich supports major tax cuts including a 50 percent reduction in payroll taxes, a 12.5% jobless rate, and several other taxes too.  He also wants to stimulate job growth by providing other market incentives to businesses to encourage growth in the United States economy.  If you want to know what does Newt Gingrich stand for, just look at his long history in the United States government. His views have not changed, as he still supports many of the same positions he held in the 1980s working with President Ronald Reagan. He would be a good candidate for the GOP, but he has a lot of personal baggage from his failed marriages that could hold him back against President Obama.

Cain leaves the campaign trail.

Herman Cain suspends his campaign for 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

Why am I not surprised..? I had a feeling this was coming.  


The brief but dramatic campaign of Herman Cain ended on Saturday in Atlanta when he said the relentless attention on accusations of his sexual misconduct had become too much to bear.
Cain again denied allegations of sexual harassment and an extramarital affair, while declaring, “I’m not going away.” But, he said, after “a lot of prayer and soul searching I am suspending my presidential campaign because of the continued distraction, the continued hurt caused on me and my family.” Cain also cited difficulty in raising enough money to remain competitive.


Cain gave no indication on Saturday who was his second choice for president, but he said he will endorse one of his former rivals “in the near future.”

In a Republican nominating contest that has see-sawed from one frontrunner to another, Cain, 65, was perhaps the unlikeliest to rise to the top of the pack. A former pizza executive with no political experience, little campaign organization to speak of and a schedule tailored more to selling books than winning votes, Cain nevertheless captured the hearts of Republican voters with a clear message, confidently delivered.

“I’m upset. I feel like the other side won, their dirty tricks,” said Marelli Gardner, a health-care coordinator and tea party activist from Cummings, Ga., who drove 45 minutes and waited two hours to hear Cain speak on Saturday. She left before his remarks were over. “A lot of people had a lot of hope in Herman Cain.”

The question now is where the rest of Cain’s backing goes. Asked in an interview in Iowa last week if he would pick up Cain’s supporters, Gingrich responded: “Oh, sure.”

The Gingrich campaign moved quickly to appeal to Cain supporters on Saturday, praising his ideas immediately after he announced the suspension of his campaign. Gingrich himself lauded Cain a short while later at a Staten Island event, saying that he “deserves credit for having the courage to talk about big ideas and focus on the economy.”

But there is also evidence that Romney could benefit from Cain’s departure. A Pew poll conducted before Thanksgiving showed that Cain supporters split evenly between the former Massachusetts governor and Gingrich when asked for their second choice.

Ron Paul and Israel...

Setting himself far apart from his Republican colleagues, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul on Tuesday night suggested that the U.S. should have less involvement in Israel's affairs.

"I think they're quite capable of taking care of themselves," he said.

The statement came in response to a question in a Tuesday night debate about whether the GOP candidates would, as president, support Israel in an attack against Iran.

Paul responded that he wouldn't expect such an attack to take place -- but if it were to, "Why does Israel need our help? We need to get out of their way."

The United States sends roughly $3 billion to Israel in military assistance every year.


---
If they were to conduct such an attack, "that's their business, but they should suffer the consequences," Paul continued. He added that Israel has hundreds of nuclear missiles, so "they can take care of themselves."


One of the necessary reasons for the U.S.-Israeli diplomatic and economic relations to continue is because Israel is not part of the non-proliferation treaty and have always kept their nuclear program somewhat of a secret from U.N. officials and American intelligence sources. Intelligence that is publicly known suggests that at one time Israel was involved with testing nuclear bombs in 1979, around the time it is believed that South Africa was.


Our economy is hurting enough, but just because you cut off foreign aid to a place as critical as Israel, a nation that is a nuclear country with a policy for opacity that demands strong control over providing the marketplaces that give to industry and commerce that U.S. companies allow. Industry and commerce that helps other nations struggling in the region to keep peace as they try to form a more stable government. Israeli secrets over weapons technology gives them a strategic advantage in a supposedly de-proliferational global network, a posture that has the capacity to likely puncture vital trade agreements in occpied and unoccupied territories that allow U.S. companies to prosper- and our service epeople in the military to have job. Even sanctioning Iran with tighter restrictions gives Israel more control and influence on the regions' overall political shifts. And also, the ability to manipulate the levels of peace adjoining societies can achieve within themselves, especially in locations that are constantly seeing bombings and social unrest (while they build their nations up using trade relationships with the U.S., 240 billion flows through Israel, per year by some estimates).


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-503544_162-57330050-1.html?assetTypeId=41&blogId=503544&tag=accordionB;commentWrapper#ixzz1elmDssaj

Presidential Campaign Advertising

Mr. Farnsworth and Mr. Parry-Giles spoke about presidential campaign advertising. They focused on Senator Obama's 30-minute television message aired the previous night as well as other political advertisements by Senators McCain and Obama. They responded to telephone calls and electronic mail.

In one of McCain's campaign ads, it questions the lack of experience and judgement Obama has. The McCain campaign does an effective job with an ad of presenting their strongest points and pointing out Obama's vulnerabilities.

Lets take a look at one of the ads:

Obama's political ad

Talks about how President Obamas political Ad was produced. For example: is style, talking into the camera. Obama makes sure he is connecting with Americans and is "less exotic", he tries to make us comfortable through his ads and ensures that he understands us.

CNN Republican debate

Newt Gingrich: His rise to the top of the polls afforded him lots more time to speak. And that’s good for Gingrich, who is a skilled debater. If you went into the debate undecided on Gingrich, you likely came out leaning toward him. One potential trouble spot: Gingrich’s refusal to back away from his belief that we shouldn’t throw out all 11 million people here illegally could come back to bite him in a party that is vehemently opposed to anything that looks or sounds like amnesty.


Jon Huntsman: Given the national security/foreign policy focus of this debate, it was one where the former Utah governor had to do well. And, by and large, he did. Huntsman is still learning the game of presidential politics — he veers off message occasionally — but he gave off an overall image of competency and reasonableness. Combine tonight’s performance with the $1.5 million the pro-Huntsman super PAC is currently spending in New Hampshire and now must be the time the governor makes his move in the state. If his numbers don’t start ticking up soon, it’s time to start looking at 2016.


Mitt Romney: It was far from Romney’s most commanding performance, but the former Massachusetts governor — yet again — avoided any sort of gang tackle from his rivals. Romney seemed content to not force the issue but when he got his questions he was solid (as usual) in answering them. Romney also made a point to ding Gingrich on his immigration answer; if Newt stays in the top tier there will be lots more where that came from.


Herman Cain: The former Godfather’s Pizza CEO seemed lost for much of tonight’s debate. Obviously domestic policy — “9-9-9”! — is his strong suit but Cain also needed to demonstrate a firmer grasp on the foreign policy front in order to be taken seriously as a contender for the Republican nomination. The Cain slide appears to be well under way — if new polling is to be trusted — and he did nothing to arrest it tonight.


Ron Paul: We wondered aloud earlier today if the Texas Congressman might temper some of his national security/foreign policy views in an attempt to court the more mainstream part of the GOP. Nope! Paul’s views on domestic policy are largely in line with the rest of the candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination but on foreign policy he is an outlier. It showed tonight as Paul said we should leave Israel to fend for itself, called for disentangling ourselves from Afghanistan and even for an end to the war on drugs. Paul’s base undoubtedly ate up every word. But, tonight’s debate was a case study in just how hard it will be for Paul to be a genuine contender for the nomination


-Washington Post

Obama and McCain's economic plans

Senator McCain and Senator Obama participated in the third of three presidential debates, which focused on the economy and domestic policy. The candidates were seated at a table with moderator Bob Schieffer. Each candidate is given two minutes to respond to questions and there is a five minute period for rebuttal discussion. The debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., was presented in a full-screen format provided by the network pool showing candidates as they spoke with occassional shots as they reacted to their opponents' remarks.

I am using one example to show how a debate usually goes.
The question is "Why is your economic plan better than your opponents?"

A little about presidential debates

During presidential elections in the United States, it has become customary for the main candidates (almost always the candidates of the two largest parties, currently the Democratic Party and the Republican Party) to engage in a debate. The topics discussed in the debate are often the most controversial issues of the time, and arguably elections have been nearly decided by these debates (e.g., Nixon vs. Kennedy). While debates aren't constitutionally mandated, it is often considered a de facto election process. The main target for these debates are undecided voters; those who usually aren't partial to either political ideology or party.

Debates are broadcast live on television and radio. The first debate for the 1960 election drew over 66 million viewers out of a population of 179 million, making it one of the most-watched broadcasts in U.S. television history. The 1980 debates drew 80 million viewers out of a 226 million. By 2000, about 46 million viewers out of a population of 280 million watched the first debate, with ten million fewer watching the subsequent debates that year. In 2004, 62.5 million people watched the first debate, while 43.6 million watched the vice-presidential debate

"You're no Jack Kennedy"

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/300569-1&start=1099

Program not embeddable. But the time frame I would have liked to have on my blog is 18:00 to 22:00. I will also post a YouTube video.



One of the most famous moments in US political history. 1988, Vice Presidential Debate, Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen.

Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" was a quotation used during the 1988 United States vice-presidential debate by Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Lloyd Bentsen to Republican vice-presidential candidate Senator Dan Quayle. Jack Kennedy was a reference to John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States. Since then, the words "You're no Jack Kennedy," or some variation on Bentsen's remark, have become a part of the political lexicon as a way to deflate politicians or other individuals perceived as thinking too highly of themselves.


I don't think what Quayle said was a direct comparison. You can see he is only comparing years served. But by using JFK's name, he made an implied comparison. It no longer was simply years to years. It was quality of years, and in that case Bentson got the better of him.

I give Quayle credit, he was trying to make an impactful statement that he was ready for the job at hand, and he had.  But his comparison left a big opening for a counter and Bentson leveled him.

Perry's awkward momemt..

Texas Gov. Rick Perry made the worst stumble of the presidential campaign on Wednesday, struggling awkwardly to remember the name of a third federal agency he would eliminate if he became president.

“It is three agencies of government when I get there that are gone,” he said, beginning to lay out one of the staples of his stump speech. “Commerce, Education, and the — what’s the third one there? Let’s see,”

a dark mood awaits Obama and GOP rival

One year out from the 2012 election, President Obama faces the most difficult reelection environment of any White House incumbent in two decades, with economic woes at the center of the public’s concerns, an electorate that is deeply pessimistic and sharply polarized, and growing questions about the president’s capacity to lead.

Those factors alone portend the possibility that Obama could become the first one-term president since George H.W. Bush, who was defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992 at a time of economic problems and similar anger with the political establishment in Washington. To win a second term, Obama probably will have to overcome the highest rate of unemployment in an election year of any president in the post-World War II era.

Last year’s midterm election victories have made Republicans eager for 2012. But public disaffection with the party and a muddled battle for the GOP nomination leave open the possibility that Republicans will not be able to capitalize on the conditions that have put the president on the defensive. Failure could produce the kind of disappointment that would trigger recriminations and an examination of the party’s priorities, tactics and leadership. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney remains the candidate to beat, but so far he has not been able to consolidate support or generate enthusiasm in a party that is more conservative than he is.

What can be said at this point is that, after three years of pitched battles between Obama and congressional Republicans, the country is heading toward a high-stakes contest. Election 2012 will be a contest not just between two candidates but also between two starkly different views of the role of government that underscore the enormous differences between Republicans and Democrats.

Herman Cain raises $2 million, heads to late-night TV

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain has raised $2 million in campaign contributions in the week since sexual harassment allegations against him became public, his spokesman J.D. Gordon said today. By comparison, the Georgia businessman collected $2.8 million in political donations in the entire June-to-September fundraising period.

The release of the fundraising numbers came as Cain's GOP rival Jon Huntsman urged Cain to disclose all the information about the allegations, which have dominated the GOP contest in recent days.

"It's got to come out in total," Huntsman said, during an appearance earlier today on NBC's "Meet the Press." "Legitimate questions have been raised." Huntsman, a former U.S. ambassador to China who trails in the polls, said the allegations have "taken all the bandwith" in the primary.

Cain has repeatedly denied allegations he sexually harassed women in the 1990s when he headed the National Restaurant Association. During an appearance Saturday in Texas, Cain refused to answer reporters' questions about the issue. "We are getting back on message," Cain said. "End of story." Gordon blamed journalists for the controversy, saying "not a single shred of evidence" supports the allegations. "The American people see it for what it is, a malicious smear campaign," Gordon said in an email today. "And it has not impacted Mr. Cain's poll numbers."

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

...smoking is not "cool"

Herman Cain insisted Sunday that his now-viral campaign video featuring chief of staff Mark Block dragging on a cigarette was not meant to send a message that smoking is cool.

The GOP presidential candidate, appearing on CBS' Face the Nation, was chided by host Bob Schieffer for the Web video, which now has been viewed about 1.3 million times on YouTube.


I really love this video on youtube. The guy is hilarious and brings up great, valid points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy92n4t4h18


"One of the themes within this campaign is let Herman be Herman," Cain said. "Mark Block is a smoker and we say let Mark be Mark. Let people be people."

But Schieffer, who battled bladder cancer, pushed back on Cain's assertion that there was no subliminal message behind the Web video. The TV journalist called on the former pizza executive -- who is also a cancer survivor -- to come out and say he's not endorsing smoking. Schieffer has blamed his cancer on smoking.

"Young people of America, all people, do not smoke. It is hazardous and it's dangerous to your health. Don't smoke," Cain said. At Schieffer's behest he added: "It is not a cool thing to do."



"Let people be who they are...rather than try to restrict who they are." Cute, very cute. Unless you're gay, or atheist, or a liberal, or pro choice...


the campaign ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=K5lfsENdYzU

Media and sustained movements

People are actually in motion now, and not only in occupy wall street.
The mainstream media is giving attention to those movements. There is a wide array of movements and groups that reflect a great diversity in this country.

What role does media play in politics?

Social media has clearly become about more than keeping up with high school friends, following celebrity gossip or emailing jokes. Candidates and elected leaders at national, state and local levels are using Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and even blogging to connect with potential voters and current constituents.

Gone are the days when the only way to find information about a local election or politician was through lawn signs, public access TV, local newspapers or snail mail — now a candidate without a social media presence will likely be at a disadvantage.

Though the last Presidential Election wasn’t that long ago, social media has come a long way since 2008. How so? Well, while the two political parties were doing some of their most intense campaigning, MySpace was still the number one social networking site on the web. Oh how times have changed. Today, Facebook reigns supreme and according to the rumor mill, MySpace is on life support and struggling to survive. The point is that social media has evolved tremendously, so it would not be surprising to see candidates utilizing tools like Twitter and even LinkedIn, in addition to Facebook to help drive their campaigns for the upcoming Presidential Election.


Of course nothing is for certain, but from the looks of it, the battle for the next U.S. President could very well be decided on the digital playground. President Obama’s campaign has sparked a trend future hopefuls are sure to follow all because it was so successful. This will essentially level the playing field and make for some very competitive political showdowns. The next big election should definitely be interesting to watch from the sidelines.

The latest developments in the 2012 presidential campaign, including fundraising, advertising campaigns, policy issues and the primary calendar.

interesting to sort of compare some of the views from republicans and democrats. (i.e. abortion)

This is a prime video example of platforms of Democrats and Republicans.The Republicans do not want to raise taxes and the Democrats do not want to hurt entitlement programs and instead want to raise taxes especially for the wealthy who have loopholes and have not had to pay a lot of their taxes.

2-party system we are living under

The panel discussed the U.S. political system, its historical development, its current state, and its future. Mr. Raskin gave a historical overview of the development of political parties and their platforms during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He noted that platforms have often not been followed and many times contain internal contradiction. He discussed the Democratic and Republican parties' platforms during the current election, and noted that in spite of many complaints that the two parties are too similar, there are significant differences in their platforms.


Ms. Anderson spoke about some of the similarities between the 2004 platforms,


http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PartySys


(not embed-able) but start from 3:00 point..

troops out of Iraq!

There’s little question that between the Arab Spring, the killing of bin Laden, the death of deposed Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi and now the news of the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq that this has been a momentous year in American foreign policy. And yet, the a recent Gallup poll showed just 2 percent of people thought terrorism was the most important issue facing the country, while anounce 2 percent said war was the most important. By contrast, the economy and unemployment were each above 30 percent.


While those numbers make clear that foreign policy will be on the backburner heading into 2012, it doesn’t mean that Obama’s successes internationally don’t matter. They do. Or at least might. They play into the idea of Obama as leader — as someone who can stand on the world stage and effectively represent the United States’ interests.


To be clear, Republicans are not likely to be swayed into supporting Obama by these successes. But independents who tend to vote less on a single issue — or issues — than on a general feel toward the individuals running for president may be.


Republican reaction?: In the immediate aftermath of President Obama’s withdrawal announcement there was broad silence among the 2012 Republican contenders.


It seems likely that Republicans will seek to acknowledge the end of the war, offer as little public credit to Obama as possible and then return to talking about the economy.


But, politics is unpredictable. If Republican candidates — or the Republican base — decide to take issue with the pull-out then the issue could take a far different course in the primary fight to come.

Republican debate

Perry’s attack on Romney employing illegal immigrant lawn service workers was decidedly personal and aggressive, and, for the first time in these debates, Romney got visibly angry. The extended “let me finish, no let me talk” exchange over immigration rapidly escalated to the point where it was very uncomfortable (and yet strangely alluring) to watch.

The ill will between the men seems to set the stage for a very nasty next few months as the two best-funded candidates in the race (not to mention their super PACs) will soon take to the television airwaves to continue the argument begun last night.

Cain  really showed the gaps in his knowledge when the conversation moved off of the economy. He was shaky on immigration and his answer on negotiating with terrorists directly contradicted a position he had taken only a few hours earlier.

Issue	Republican Party	Democratic Party	Libertarian Party
Social Security	Social security should be privatized (not to be confused with private savings accounts, but rather, private investments).	Social security should remain a government sponsored insurance plan for retirees.	Believe in an "opt out" policy in which one can choose to privately invest (they believe this to be the better option) or go with a government sponsored social security plan.
Jobs	Pro small business. Supports giving small businesses tax incentives so that more jobs can be created.	Encourage businesses to keep jobs here and not outsource them overseas. Supports unions and advocates for the rights of low income workers.	Free market should dictate the job market.
Economy	Supports free market competition and entrepreneurship, corporate deregulation and cutting entitlement spending.	Increase taxes to cut deficit. Believes large deficit negatively affects government services and that low deficits stimulate the economy.	100% Free Market.
Security/Defense	Believe in a proactive military and defense. Supports building weapons and technology that serve to protect our nation. Believe that peace is achieved through strong defense. Increase defense and research budget.	Believe in a limited missile defense. Oppose nuclear buildup in the U.S. Believe that peace is achieved through worldwide relationship building.	Believe in reducing nuclear arms in the U.S. Military should be used to protect people's livery and property only.
Legal/Tort Reform	Supports tort reform and limiting victims compensation, especially for frivolous lawsuits.	Oppose tort reform and oppose limiting liability of doctors and/or businesses.	Generally does not support tort reform.
Tax Reform	Supports tax cuts, low interest rates and the repeal of the death tax penalty in effort to stimulate the economy.	Generally supports raising taxes on the wealthy, lowering taxes for the middle class.	Stridently opposes all government imposed taxes and employer withdrawal of employees money for tax purposes.
Immigration	Generally supports closed or tight borders and tracking system for foreign travelers.	Support illegal alien's ability and right to become citizens and giving them more protections under the law.	Support open borders.
Faith	Religion strongly associated with Republican party. Advocate free exercise of religion.	Strict adherence between the separation between church and state. Promote secular issues and a more secular nation.	Strong belief in separation of church and state and by contrast, Libertarians hold a strong belief in freedom of religion.
Education	Promote school choice/vouchers and homeschooling. Supports voluntary student supported prayer in school. Opposes gender and race quotes in colleges.	Oppose vouchers. Increase NCLB federal funding. Enact new taxes to decrease class size and hire new teachers.	End government financial support of public schools, believe that all public schools should be privatized with tax credit for tuition.
Abortion	Generally pro-life with emphasis on promoting alternatives to abortion.	Generally pro-choice owning the mantra, "Safe, legal, rare."	Adamantly pro-choice but oppose any government financial aid to subsidize abortions.
Energy	Oppose Kyoto treaty. Support tax incentives for energy production.	Wish to find environmentally friendly energy sources and solutions. Oppose increased drilling, especially in the U.S.	Supports deregulation and believes all government energy resources should be turned over to private ownership. Opposes government conservation of energy.
Heathcare	Keep healthcare private. Would like to impose caps on malpractice suits. Supports reformed medicare to give seniors more choices.	Supports more federally funded healthcare programs.	Strongly supports a complete separation of healthcare and state. Supports the deregulation of the healthcare industry.
Foreign Policy	Spread Democracy. Supports UN reform. Wants to stop WMD proliferation countries. Believe that nations who support terrorist are just as bad as the terrorist themselves.	Strongly supports worldwide coalitions and multi-national programs. Supports aid for disadvantaged countries. Supports the UN.	End all foreign aid because it's the same as welfare for nations. Believes that aid perpetuates independence on your government.
Campaign Finance Reform	Generally support soft money contributions from individuals but supports limiting it from corporations. Also supports full disclosure.	Favor more regulation with spending limits on individuals and corporations.	No restrictions on contributions form any legal resident. Believe that politicians holding an office should not be able to run for another seat until term is over.
Environment	Supports privatizing federal land. Believe in cap and trade market based air pollution reductions and that the market should regulate itself.	Generally puts the interest of the environment over business. Wants to maintain federal land under government control.	Believes that land and animals should be sold to private organizations or ranchers and taken out of the hands of the government because private citizens will care for it better.
Guns	Limited gun control.	Strict gun control.	No control whatsoever.
Gay Rights	Oppose gay marriage. Supports constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.	Generally supports gay marriage although Democrats remain largely divided on the issue, as some only support civil unions.	Pro private choice and equality including marriage.

Is there a better way to pick a vice president?

There must be a better way.

Americans are ill-served by this closed-door, autocratic custom — arguably the most anti-democratic aberration in an otherwise sound electoral system. Given the clout of the modern vice president, and with the 2012 Republican National Convention still more than 10 months away, perhaps now is the time to reexamine how America’s major parties choose a vice presidential nominee, that No. 2 who is always but a tragedy away from being the One.

Far from it. Rather, it’s one of the most consequential questions a presidential contender can entertain. For all the debates and primaries we hold while selecting a presidential nominee, it is remarkable how comparatively little time is devoted to vetting the bottom of the ticket. Yet eight sitting vice presidents have risen to the Oval Office after the deaths of presidents, and a ninth did so after Richard Nixon’s resignation. And since 1945, eight vice presidents have gone on to become their party’s nominee for president. A vice president is essentially a president-in-waiting, but Americans use greater scrutiny in selecting federal judges and Cabinet department undersecretaries — all subject to rigorous confirmation processes — than in picking a veep.

Instead, we engage in an odd ritual, a sort of Soviet Party Congress meets the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes: A presidential nominee alone makes the selection, assisted by a few advisers and subject to the festive rubber-stamping of ardent supporters. The gratitude of a newly handpicked veep candidate resembles that of a starry-eyed lottery winner — the selection cloaked in mystery, good fortune and a touch of randomness. The announcement, on the eve of the convention, neatly precludes prolonged deliberation.

It is the national interest that most strongly argues for rethinking the veep nomination process. As the vice presidencies of Al Gore and Cheney keenly demonstrated, America’s No. 2 is more powerful than ever, with an independent power base and agenda. We’re past the point where we can be complacent with a selection process as lax as it is monarchical, a system dangerously vulnerable to saddling us with the unwanted or the unqualified.
-Washington Post

Labor Action Plan

On September 8, President Barack Obama called for movement on the Colombia free trade agreement. In late August, a delegation that included U.S. Representative James McGovern visited Colombia where we met with trade unionists, labor activists and workers from the ports, oil palm, oil and auto sectors. We asked them if the labor rights situation in Colombia had improved since the April 15 launch of the Labor Action Plan between the U.S. and Colombia to merit passage of the FTA.

We were informed that while the Labor Action Plan (LAP) is a good step forward, it has so far only led to formal rather than real changes in labor conditions and protection of trade unionists. Twenty-two trade unionists have been murdered so far in 2011, with ten of them killed after the April 15 announcement of the LAP. Death threats and efforts to discredit labor activists also continue. The rate of impunity in cases of murdered trade unionists remains extremely high at 94 percent. The Protection Program noted in the LAP is very slow in responding to the needs of those it is designed to protect. While a decree to contract the 100 labor inspectors promised in the LAP was expedited, no public information is available on their progress.





The LAP, while flawed and insufficient, attempts to get at changing problematic and systematic labor practices that have been in place in Colombia for the past twenty years. While this is a formal step towards turning around Colombia’s labor rights situation, it is clearly insufficient. The Obama Administration and U.S. Congress should not assume that radical changes in conduct will take place overnight. Nor should they make the mistake of thinking that new laws, decrees and plans translate to immediate protections and safeguards for workers. Rather they should closely monitor the LAP’s implementation and determine whether or not progress has been made by actually tracking the realities faced by workers on the ground. They must also insist that beyond the LAP, broader justice issues that generate violence and impunity in Colombia are addressed. Moving forward on the U.S.-Colombia FTA before the latter takes place would only be an injustice to workers in Colombia.

Battleground states

Republican Party of Florida Chairman Lenny Curry discussed key battleground states in the 2012 presidential election.



Curry answers questions from both democrats and republicans

Presidential Conventions

A United States presidential nominating convention is a political convention held every four years in the United States by most of the political parties who will be fielding nominees in the upcoming U.S. presidential election. The formal purpose of such a convention is to select the party's nominee for President, as well as to adopt a statement of party principles and goals known as the platform and adopt the rules for the party's activities, including the presidential nominating process for the next election cycle. Due to changes in election laws and the manner in which political campaigns are run, conventions since the later half of the 20th century have virtually abdicated their original roles, and are today mostly ceremonial affairs.
Generally, usage of “presidential nominating convention” refer to the two major parties’ quadrennial events: the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention.

Sites of the 2012 party convention 

- June 20–22, 2011: Prohibition Party National Convention in Cullman, Alabama Jack Fellure won the nomination.
- October 14–16, 2011: 2011 Socialist Party USA National Convention to be held in Los Angeles, California
- April 18–21, 2012: 2012 Constitution Party National Convention to be held in Nashville, Tennessee
- May 4–6, 2012: 2012 Libertarian National Convention to be held in Las Vegas, Nevada
- June 2012: Americans Elect National Convention held over the internet
- August 27–30, 2012: 2012 Republican National Convention to be held in Tampa, Florida
- September 3–6, 2012: 2012 Democratic National Convention to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina

small doners/big doners and caucus states

what are primaries and caucuses?

Presidential election primaries and caucuses are two very different methods of accomplishing the same basic thing. Simply put, they are both a means for each political party to let vote­rs nationwide select their party's presidential nominee. More specifically, primaries and caucuses are means of selecting delegates (representatives of party members in each state) to send to the party's national convention.

­ At each party's national convention (held the summer before the presidential election), the party selects a presidential nominee based on how party delegates at the convention vote. The Republican and Democratic parties in each state select delegates based on either caucuses or a primary vote in that state -- the delegates are sent to represent voters in the state.

­At the Democratic convention, the number of state delegates is proportional to the number of votes received in the state primary or caucus. The Republican Party uses a winner-take-all system in which the delegate or candidate with the most votes in a state's primary or caucus wins the right to be represented by all of the party's delegates at the national convention. The total number of delegates each party can send to the national convention is again dictated by party rules. Usually the party determines the number of delegates through a formula factoring in state population, the number of elected officials in office, and that state's past support of party candidates.

Federal law doesn't dictate how states choose their delegates, so individual states decide what system to use. Most states use the primary system -- where voters statewide simply cast a vote for the candidate they support -- but some use the older caucus system.

The term caucus apparently comes from an Algonquin word meaning "gathering of tribal chiefs," and the main crux of the caucus system today is indeed a series of meetings. To see how this works, let's look at the Iowa caucuses -- the first "voting event" of the presidential election year.

won, by only 1 electoral vote... won, by only 1 electoral vote...The Disputed Presidential Election of 1876

Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes won the 1876 presidential election over Governor Samuel J. Tilden of New York by a single electoral vote in one of the most disputed American presidential elections ever. Their contest produced the highest voter turnout in U.S. history.


Michael Holt talked about why this election was so close and what were the areas of dispute and compares the elections of 1876 and 2000

Program not embeddable :(
but this is the frame I would have liked to post 10:50 - 16:30

Florida (with 4 electoral votes), Louisiana (with 8), and South Carolina (with 7), reported returns favored Tilden, but election results in each state were marked by fraud and threats of violence against Republican voters.
One of the points of contention revolved around the design of ballots. At the time, parties would print ballots or "tickets" to enable voters to support them in the open ballots. To aid illiterate voters the parties would print symbols on the tickets. In this election, however, many Democratic ballots were printed with the Republican symbol, Abraham Lincoln, on them. The Republican-dominated state electoral commissions subsequently disallowed a sufficient number of Democratic votes to award their electoral votes to Hayes.


http://youtu.be/f6eBOsnoRJ4

the hispanic vote in campaign 2010

Herman Cain made headlines when he said on CNN that black voters have been "brainwashed" into voting for Democrats. That was condescending, to say the least. But he went on to say that 30 to 50 percent of African American voters are "open minded" and could be persuaded to vote Republican. Despite his unfortunate wording, Cain makes a good point: the Democratic Party shouldn't take the black vote for granted in 2012.

Nor should it take the Hispanic vote for granted, either. The new Univision bipartisan poll of 1,500 likely Latino voters shows a "substantial" Hispanic swing vote is coming into play, according to Politico. A whopping 43 percent of Latino likely voters call themselves conservatives; even 32 percent of Hispanic Democrats polled identified themselves as conservative. Among "swing" Latino voters, their top concern was this statement: "The federal government in D.C. is wasting too much of our tax money." Not immigration, not jobs, not other so-called Hispanic issues. Like the rest of us, Hispanic voters are deeply concerned about the size and scope of government. That says to me that Hispanic voters might be very open to voting for a fiscal conservative in 2012.






Hispanic Voters and Campaign 2010
Oct 26, 2010

C-SPAN | Washington Journal
Brent Wilkes talked about the role of Hispanic voters in 2010 midterm elections and civic group efforts to increase Hispanic voter participation, and he responded to telephone calls and electronic communications. Other topics .. Read More
Brent Wilkes talked about the role of Hispanic voters in 2010 midterm elections and civic group efforts to increase Hispanic voter participation, and he responded to telephone calls and electronic communications. Other topics issues of importance to the Hispanic community and allegations that some groups are trying to discourage Hispanic turnout in 2010.

Cain's 9-9-9 Plan gains traction!

Republican GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain is now being taken seriously. No, not because he won the Florida GOP Straw Poll, but because the elite of the Elite Media has decided his 9-9-9 tax reform plan is worthy of gracing its pages.



I think he is a compelling and refreshing alternative to the Establishment GOP which gave us John McCain. And we believe his tax reform plan should be vigorously debated and if nobody can come up a better idea we think his 9-9-9 might just be better than what we have now.

Not only is the current tax code excessively complicated, but it is inequitable. It is riddled with special interest loopholes designed to insure the re-election of incumbents. The simple fact of the matter is exactly what Barack Obama complains about: "everybody should (but does not now) pay their fair share." When 40% of the taxpayers pay NO Federal income tax something is dreadfully wrong. The fundamental problem with the mess we now have is that we have reached the point where those who pay nothing in Federal income tax elect politicians—of both parties—who are hell-bound to continue to give those tax breaks in order to get re-elected.

Cain scolds Obama, calls Perry "very insensitive"

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain scolded President Barack Obama on Sunday for making "insulting" remarks to the Congressional Black Caucus and called fellow Republican presidential hopeful Rick Perry's handling of a race matter "very insensitive."
Cain - who has risen in opinion polls in the last week after a surprise win over leaders Perry and Mitt Romney in a Florida straw poll -- has challenged rivals over their attitudes toward black voters.

He accused Democrats last week of taking the black vote for granted and offended some black leaders by saying many black supporters of Obama were "brainwashed."


The center will never vote for Paul he’s too fiscally crazy, but what does he have to do with Rick Perry’s thoughtless and insensitive hunting lease in the middle of nowhere?


Glenn Beck asked Herman Cain why President Obama continually throws Texas "under the bus" when the state created 38% of all jobs in America last year. Cain said, "The president, unfortunately, has no clue, with all due respect, of what creates jobs. Right to work states, lower taxes, lower regulations, no government mandates..."

finance of presidential campaigns

how did the last campaign affect this campaign in terms of public financing?

this part of the video also goes over the primary matching funds eligibility requirements

State campaign funance and Disclosure Laws

Panelists talked about the impact of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court decision on state campaign finance and disclosure laws. They also responded to questions from the audience. Washington State Attorney General McKenna moderated this session of the meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General.

Bloomberg. ew Ways to Make Money Start Talking in Campaign Finance Disclosure

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority decision last year in Citizens United, which allowed corporations to contribute unlimited sums toward electioneering, was controversial.
The court’s call for full disclosure of political contributions is supported by the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress

Congress failed to pass a disclosure bill last year and Boehner, now speaker of the House, has not let another near the floor. The Federal Election Commission could rectify the situation simply by requiring disclosure, as the Supreme Court expected it would, but the six-member commission has been stymied by its three Republican members, who typically block even routine action.

Obama Hypocrisy on Campaign Finance

Citizens United launched a web ad calling President Obama a hypocrite because he has not called on Priorities USA to take down its television ad as he told John Edwards to do in 2007.

$$

Campaign finance is a controversial issue, pitting concerns about free speech against concerns about corruption and inequality on the part of those who favor existing or further restrictions.

Political money in the United States is often divided into two categories, "hard" money and "soft" money.
"Hard" money is contributed directly to a candidate of a political party. It is regulated by law in both source and amount, and monitored by the Federal Election Commission (maximum $2500).
"Soft" money is contributed to the political party as a whole. Historically, "soft money" referred to contributions made to political parties for purposes of party building and other activities not directly related to the election of specific candidates.

Campaign Finance

What were the spending limits for Presidential candidates who accept public funds in the 2008 elections?

Candidates who accept public funds must agree to abide by certain spending limits.  During the primaries, these candidates are subject to an overall expenditure limit and separate limits for each state.  During the general election campaign, the spending limit is equal to the amount of the public funding grant the major party nominees may receive.  

Where does the money come from?

The public funding of Presidential elections is not financed by a standard Congressional appropriation. Instead, the program is funded by the three dollar checkoff that appears on federal income tax forms. 

CNN Tea Party republican debate

Took place on Monday Sept 12, 2011.

The debate was an improvement from the politically biased questions and Perry based ratings frenzy of the MSNBC debate. The questions were far more to the point of what the general public is concerned about.

There was of course controversial statements, and jostling against the frontrunners. Gov. Perry was of course challenged on several topics and statements. There was a bit of a sparring match between the 3 governors, and the pair of Texans.

Rep. Ron Paul probably was the biggest loser of the entire event. While his thoughts on debt reduction and cuts to Government spending is popular, his isolationist views are a problem. His comments about 9/11 (where he ascerts America contributed to the attacks by Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda) proved highly unpopular with the audience and likely voters across America. This only adds to our thought that while popular with segments of the Tea Party, Rep. paul is unelectable for the general 2012 election.



Based on the CNN debate the candidates are rated:
Mitt Romney is the most cool and calculated of the candidates. he is the most Presidential looking, but also the most beleagured by his past record.
Gov. Perry is the most self-assured, and likely to make a statement that will cost him the nomination
Rep. Michelle Bachmann is the most likely to repeal Obamacare, but far less potent on virtually all other issues
Herman Cain is the most credible answer to the economy on a short-term and long-term basis. He is also far weaker on issues outside of that realm.
Newt Gingrich is the most experienced of the group, but comes off as far to romanticized about the old days.
Rick Santorum is energetic, and a bit unfocused. He has lots of passion, but cannot seem to come off as Presidential, even in nailing an answer.
Jon Huntsman is still not a presence on the stage. He comes off as too weak, complicated, and a poor foil to the speaking eloquence of President Obama.
Rep. Ron Paul remains the odd-man-out. He has popular ideas about self-reliance and personal freedom. But he is an isolationist and idealic on international policy. His views on most every subject can be defined as the extreme view. Plus he is not a strong debator. He is, in our opinion, the least likely to win the nomination.