Clinton for Mayor?

Recently, I read the New York Times article that reported New York City Mayor Bloomberg has asked Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to consider running for his position.  It is an interesting to think of Clinton becoming Mayor of New York City. In the article it talks about how Bloomberg reached out to Clinton regarding the position. He believes her to be a great choice for mayor. But really would the Secretary of State become a mayor after working in such a high position. Would it not be more fitting for her to run for President next time around. Clinton did tell Bloomberg that she did not want to run for mayor.
Two things I find interesting about this article. First, is the idea that Bloomberg regards being Mayor of New York City almost equal to being President. Yes, New York City is a large and important city but is it that important? Bloomberg's main concern is finding someone who is fitting to run the city after his final term but Clinton seems to be a bit of a reach. Especially when it seems he does have someone who is interested in the position, and has been working with him for years, Ms. Quinn who is the City Council Speaker. Bloomberg may need to rethink some of his views on the importance of the "Big Apple".  It is great that he wants who he believes is the best but maybe he should focus on a more feasible option.
Second, the article makes me think of what politicians do after they reach a certain point in their political career. If Clinton were no longer Secretary of State would she return to New York and run for Senate again? Or run for President? But what if those options were not available or even possible? Could Clinton become mayor? There is a point I feel where politicians who have held positions of power can not rise anymore but also no longer can stay in their position of power. For example, those who run for President, like Romney, how easy is it for them to try and run for a smaller position. The more I think about it the less possible it is for me to see some like Hilary Clinton or Mitt Romney running for mayor of a city. So what happens once you reach a certain point?   

Ann and Rush in the Public Eye

According to mainstream media, many political analysts believe that people like Ann Coulter 

 and Rush Limbaugh help taint the public view of the conservative party.  Due to the Democratic Party's re-election, many people have seen a shift in our country to a very liberal society.  The current view of the Republican Party is that they are racist, against women’s rights, against gay marriage, and that they support the wealthy and privileged.  Even Romney felt the pressure to surrender to our liberal society as he began to take a moderate stance towards the end of the race.  After Republicans faced the results of the election, much talk has circulated in regards to reforming a new conservative party that leaves behind its traditional values.  People like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh brutally defend the old traditions of the Republican Party without remorse or respect for the liberal party.  Are the harsh views of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh causing the decline of the Republican Party and should they consider giving up the fight? 

Ann Coulter takes no prisoners when she answers to the public.  She shows no remorse for her answers and she sticks to her guns.  She was quoted, “I'm a Christian first, and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it.” She intentionally wears skimpy outfits because conservatives are supposed to be “proper” and she hopes to offend the democrats by dressing provocatively.  Colin Powell, a fellow member of the conservative party, accused Ann of being “polarized.”   She has recently been uninvited to Fordham University where she was supposed to speak for the students’ Republican Club.  The president of Fordham would not defend his decision but the student body did through many interviews. “I wasn’t a fan of the comments Ann made after 9/11,” said one student.  Ann had stated that, “Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims — at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours.
  Another student claimed , “She makes racist remarks with no regard for others.”  There were even a few members from the Republican Club that did not want her to speak.  On the other side of the fence, people like Bill O’Reilly and Hannity were appalled because Fordham has had outspoken people like Bill Mahr and Peter Singer deliver speeches at the University.  The general consensus of the student body at Fordham was against Ann Coulter’s appearance at the university.  If those students represent America’s future, then maybe Ann Coulter really is bringing the Conservative Party downhill. 

                 

Rush Limbaugh is even worse than her.  He’s just like Ann because he supposedly represents a “Godly” party, but he is so ruthless when criticizing the liberal party.  He attacked a Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, and called her a slut and a prostitute. President Obama called her and apologized for Limbaugh's remarks, using this as a tactic to look better in his campaign, but also to console the law student.  This reflects so poorly on the Republican Party because Republicans don’t really feel that Sandra is a slut.  Due to Limbaugh’s desire to entertain the public, he uses a terrible choice of words.  Colin Powell once said, I think what Rush does as an entertainer diminishes the party and intrudes or inserts into our public life a kind of nastiness that we would be better to do without.” Rush, who reflects the Republican Party, has now insulted a student who is part of the most liberal body we have, the student body.  Many feel that it is time Ann and Rush keep their comments to themselves.  The majority of the youth does not agree with their statements nor find them amusing. 

                 

Some people do still enjoy listening to Rush and Ann.  I don’t even think that all of the viewers necessarily agree with the things they say.  A lot of their success comes form entertainment and they draw crowds by voicing outrageous comments.  Their populist deliberation may be costing the Conservative Party its vote.   

ill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/213855-president-obama-expresses-support-for-georgetown-student-at-the-center-of-birth-control-contrversy 

http://www.anncoulter.com/ 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4QSztfVnT4 

               

           

             

The Importance of the Youth Vote

In politics today, young people are becoming more involved.  The youth vote is gaining greater importance in elections and can be vital to a candidate's standing in the polls. Young people are online actively participating and monitoring political activity through social media like Twitter and Facebook. They respond greatly to a candidate’s presence in social media and are able to get a better sense of their stances on issues.  The most important way that candidate’s are able to connect to the youth are by being relevant to the issues they face, like college tuition and employment.

The reelection of President Obama was partly made possible by the youth voters.  The amount of young voters is on the rise and was considered by many to be a big factor in the election outcome.  According to the Huffington Post, Obama received 61-66 percent of the millennial vote in the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Virginia.  As for Romney, he lost the youth vote fairly significantly.  These results show how well the candidates connected, or tried to connect, to the younger generation.

I think the major downfall of Romney’s was that he failed to see the significance of the youth vote.  He was not as focused towards relevant issues such as student loans and instead focused more on his economic policies.  Romney was not present on college campuses or popular media like President Obama.  Those are places where young people are more apt to listen and feel connected.  Many young people have preconceived notions of what the republican party represents and I believe that if Romney had put more effort into appealing to younger voters, the election outcome may have been different, or at least closer.  Furthermore, the Republican Party should take this election as a chance to reexamine themselves.  They need to be more relevant to the younger generation and see what issues they really care about and the general shift about society and politics in our modern world.

The vote of young people today is more important now than ever.  I think of political clubs on campuses and programs like Rock the Vote and I see how much encouragement is out there for young people to go and vote.  With this increased activity, candidates should find ways in which to further their connection with the youth.  Political blogs and Twitter activity are great ways to keep the attention of tech-savvy youth.  Social media is a great way to keep people updated and informed in a readily accessible and efficient way.  Being physically present is also important.  I think college campuses are great environments to get young people thinking and involved in politics.  When the resources are right there in front of them it is easier to take action.  I think this election is a learning tool for candidates in the future that the youth votes matters tremendously.  The youth vote is projected to only grow larger and politics and politicians should be ready to adapt and re-adapt to meet the needs and concerns of millennial voters.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/youth-vote-obama-reelection_n_2219086.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2012/11/08/youth_voter_turnout_announced_by_Rock_the_Vote.aspx

Lessons the GOP needs to learn from the election

Mitt Romney’s defeat last month should signal at least a few red flags for Republicans. In years past, Mitt Romney would have been the quintessential Republican candidate. But this year, a successful businessman and once-moderate Republican governor was unable to beat a frequently polarizing and susceptible Democratic incumbent in a time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty.

Romney’s selling point was his economic expertise. From the start, his second selling point should have been his moderate social views. Instead, he blew out a large sum of his money defeating the likes of a hyper-conservative circus sideshow, namely, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich. In attempting to beat this cast, Romney tacked hard to the right and was forced to proclaim himself as a “severely conservative” governor – something which neither his record nor the ending chorus of his campaign ever aligned with.

Then he secured the nomination, but we must not forget how far-right Republicans had to be dragged to their own convention. Here, Romney was in the process of sprinting back to the center with funds, and the lack of money restricted his ability to proclaim his newly re-found bipartisanship.

And so, in a reoccurring theme, normal, moderate middle-to-upper-middle class voters were again forced to choose between what they see as a Republican’s favorable economic policies paired with increasingly isolating social policies, or a Democrat’s less favorable economic policies paired with more acceptable social policies which reflect our increasingly diverse society.

But, there’s a hyper-conservative chunk of the party that doesn’t see it this way. These members don't recognize how mainstream voters who are economically inclined to cast a Republican ballot will eventually no longer be able to overcome the increasingly extreme takes on legitimate social policy platforms. Instead, this group believes that by doubling down on the less-moderate parts of its message, it’ll somehow attract people to its platform.

And so it goes for Romney, who, upon reflection, might now realize no amount of “Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can’t Lose” positivity could shake the fact that his retreat back from the far right was unsuccessful.

He never crossed the 270 electoral vote finish line.

This is not to say the Republican Party is irrelevant. We must remember that Republicans remain in control of the House of Representatives. But, recall that the influx of Republican freshmen in the House was largely reactionary to the policies of the Democratic chamber, not necessarily due to the their legislative expertise, which could use improvement.

The true relevance of the Republican Party, as the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof indicates, is in America’s need for “a plausible center-right opposition party to hold Obama’s feet to the fire, not just a collection of Tea Party cranks.”

This, indeed, is the true relevance of the Republican Party. The message of free markets and small government is valuable in our national dialogue. Angry, militant rhetoric about “culture wars” is not.