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.

Cory Booker: A Politician for the People

    We always hear about politicians claiming to work for the rest of the population and how they try to understand what the rest of us are going through. However, one stand-out example of a politician actually committing to live like his constituents and share their experience with regards to food uncertainty is Newark mayor Cory Booker. If all goes as planned, Booker plans to, for a week in December, live solely on a budget of food stamps, or SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

   Rather than formally setting this up as a way to attract media attention and gain airtime which could further help and promote him in future campaigns, this idea was brought on quickly by the people. The challenge came about through an exchange on Twitter, a platform that Booker is well-known for using often. Cory Booker’s website demonstrates his commitment to using social media, especially Twitter, to connect to and speak with the people over a master medium. As we discussed the growing influence of political campaign websites, we can see how the Newark mayor’s (and his recently set up food stamp challenge) came about with the power of online users. Also, adaptability and interaction with voters is taken into account as Booker is very present within the social media world and takes Internet users’ messages to him into account, as is shown by the recent Twitter exchange, excerpts of which can be found here.

   Though this is a great way to connect with the people, the an ABC News article quotes the director of a branch of Food Bank Services who points out the limitations as “Even if Booker sticks to the dollar limit,” it is possible that the “experience might not replicate the exact experience of surviving on food stamps, because low-income families might not have the luxury of searching for the cheapest grocery stores.” Similarly, many without Internet connection may also not know of this challenge, since Booker’s online followers are a limited demographic. It is possible that some of the people he is trying to reach while taking the SNAP challenge may be unaware of it, as they may not have access to or be able to afford Internet, much as they may not have transportation options for finding food at the cheapest prices.

    The challenge is only set to last for a week, yet it highlights the importance of a politician relating to the people, especially as the challenge was suggested during a conversation with another Twitter user. As is expected, Booker’s website has since been updated, detailing his participation in the SNAP (or food stamp) challenge. This demonstrates the power of the Internet and social media as there was no press conference or formal media interest needed to set up the challenge. Instead, politicians, even at the local level, can connect with people all over the Internet (even though this demographic may not encompass everyone within a constituency) without worrying about media filter, and thus agree to participate in such challenges without first hearing about media backlash of such a move. I really hope that he follows through with the challenge and, in effect, encourages many other politicians to do the same, especially when the contrasting lifestyles of the rich and the poor are so often discussed without fully being understood by leaders helping to make and pass the laws.

Self-Educated or "Parakeet"- Children and Politics

There are a number of articles and sources that talk about how parents should address the topic of politics with their children. On one hand, it is extremely important for parents to introduce political concepts to their children, BUT is it possible that their political views will be influenced by these parents? This is where self-education comes in. Sometimes, children/ young adults are interested in politics to the point where they want to discover them on their own and develop their own views. However, often times (as was the case for my own interest in politics), children act as "parakeets" of their parent's political views. When I was younger and not able to vote, I found myself thinking that I did not understand the concept of being a Republican, but I knew that I was one. The truth of the matter is, it all comes down to communication and how these political ideas are addressed.

Today social media allows parents, who are struggling with how to introduce political concepts to their children, to interact with other parents who experience similar problems . Twitter feeds like Parents on Politics (which can be located here) provide parents with ideas on how to present this information as well as what other parents are thinking on the same topic. Another Twitter feed, also called Parents on Politics (found here) provides a bit more of a biased view as it "appears" to be a Democratic parent who enjoys tweeting about politics. Both of these offer different views on politics. While one is more of an input and helpful source, the other focuses on what someone thinks about political issues from a parent's perspective. Both feeds can help in the process of communicating politics to children in different ways. In another way, blogs like Parent's on Politics, offer a similar situation where parents can talk about how they addressed certain issues and how successful they have been. The blog offers a question of the week on popular political issues giving responding parents a good amount of response time.

As we have studied in class, social media has a huge impact on people's political ideals. Sites like the ones mentioned above are a form of communication that can assist in relaying messages to both,  parents who visit the sites and their children, should they decide to take the advice or address different topics. The way parents communicate the importance of politics determines whether the child will be self-educated on politics or a "parakeet" to their parent's own beliefs. A website on children's health says, "Knowing what kids think about these [political] issues and how they might affect your family is important. Talking about it not only helps to promote learning and develop critical thinking skills, but also lets you clarify any misconceptions your kids may have or calm any fears about the future." The article talks about how children are affected by social media in politics, though many parents like to believe that their children will not pick up on it. The article stresses how talking about politics with children also teaches them about the way the world works. The author suggests that parents who address political issues with their children, "keep it positive, be reassuring, and suggest they get involved." The truth is, the future of the United States' government will one day rely on these young peoples' votes and it is important that they are educated, even if they seem young. Also, articles stressing the importance of communication within the family have been published by The Huffington Post and The Wasington Post.

Saturday Night Live & Governor Chris Christie

            Governor Chris Christie Saturday Night Live

            This past weekend Governor Chris Christie made a cameo on Saturday Night Live to appear on the segment titled “Weekend Update” to discuss events post Hurricane Sandy. The link to the video is here. Governor Christie made fun of the impatience of New Jersey residents. He even poked fun at himself with his “Chris Christie: Governor” Fleece Jacket. The main focus is when Governor Christie said that he would not like to thank the “stupid mayors” who decided not to evacuate. I think that it’s very interesting when politicians poke fun at serious issues or scandals that they are involved. As a form of political communication, appearing on television shows such as SNL can help politicians clear the air and provide comfort and entertainment to the audience. 

            This relates to the media-politics relationship that we discussed in class, more specifically politicians influence on mainstreaming. We’ve talked about President Obama appearing on late night TV. Going on SNL and doing segments on late night TV can be used to get more positive coverage and/or providing neutral coverage. I think in particular for Governor Chris Christie on SNL provides him with more positive coverage as well as bringing more light to Hurricane Sandy as the recovery process takes place.  It’s actually quite interesting that Republicans are more likely to go on shows such as SNL than Democrats.

            Not only was this segment used as a chance to bring comedy to Hurricane Sandy, but it was also an opportunity for people to be thanked for all that they have done in helping with the hurricane relief. This segment in my opinion brings comedy and awareness together for the public. That is something that can really only be done in media. It’ll be interesting to see how in the future more and more politicians begin using media in that way.