Rudy Giuliani's website

Rudy Giuliani's website still has a message of "Contribute", strange, consdiring his participation ended, effectively, over a year ago.

He hasn't adopted many teachout06 hints, in fact, his campaign strategy might as well have been written by a 4th grader - they would have done a better job...

see link:

http://www.joinrudy2008.com/

2008, Politics, and Beyond

When we consider the year 2008, and what an amazing year it was for Politics, it is important to consider that, for many of the candidates; the race began much earlier than that. Barack Obama, for example, started eulogizing about a run in October 2006! And John Sidney McCain III declared his candidacy as early as February 2007, in New Hampshire, where McCain is formally known as "The Maverick" for his fantastic showing in that state in 2000 against "Dubya".

Of course it's important to remember that, back then, the main issue was the war in Iraq. And initially, on the Republican side [although I'm sure many will have forgot this] Rudy Giuliani was the early frontrunner, despite his pro-gay rights and pro-abortion views antagonizing much of the far right. Despite an endorsement from Pat Robertson, one of America's most crazed, fanatical evangelicals, Giuliani's risky, Las-Vegas style campaign strategy of not showing the cards in his hand until Florida proved disastrous, absolutely disastrous, and embarrassing. Did I say disastrous!? He spent roughly $40 million and never even carried a state. What a complete and utter joke of a candidate, surely the 2008 election's equivalent to the Detroit Tigers....??????? Ultimately, the Republicans countered the Democratic ticket by selecting the most experienced candidate in the race, McCain, though doubts over his age and potential longevity in office lingered among many on the right, left, and centre.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton was the early frontrunner - she had more name recognition than the then candidate Senator Barack Obama n co. However, with Edwards winning Iowa, it gave others in the democratic ticket legitimate hope that an upset could be on the cards. Clinton proceeded to rebound strongly in New Hampshire (do we all remember those infamous, FAKE, tears...?) but really lost her way after "Super Tuesday" when Obama carried [something like] 11 states in a row. She then resorted to cheap, gutter-snipe politics and her public support continued to wane, eventually deteriorating, and Obama's campaign slogan of "Change we can believe in" really hit the nail on the preverbal head.

Then, out of the blue – the Alaska blue skies to be exact, came Mrs. "YOU BETCHA" - Sarah Palin. A successful governor in a large, yet isolated state in Alaska, she proved to ultimately be a laughing stock for the Republicans - though initially energizing the base - her inability to define the Bush doctrine or name a national newspaper really left her a sitting duck for the media "gotcha" giants like MSNBC, CNN, and somewhat surprisingly, FOX.

Then in September, all hell broke loose. The economy plunged south faster than a bat out of hell, and many conservative-leaning middle class Americans began to think with their wallet, not their so called "value system". Obama's economic populism resulted in a spiking in his poll/approval ratings across the country, and he even came close to beating McCain in his home state of Arizona, whilst taking previous Republican strongholds like Nevada and Colorado, ultimately - the “Joe The Plumber” mentality is really what sealed the final nail in McCain's political coffin. McCain tried to pretend to be in touch with the average American, while at the same time trying desperately to keep his lavish lifestyle and [multiple?] houses out of the newspapers. Obama's lower-middle class upbringing, meanwhile, did him a world of good.

The rest, as they say, is history...

Link Post to Cricket Financing

I now realize why I only received an 8/10 last week. I was so stupid to forget the link post assignment.

Anyways this story kind of goes "out of bounds" so to speak but it concerns Sir Allen Stanford, the Texan Billionaire who has contributed so heavily to cricket.

What exactly a Texan is doing investing in Cricket, well... seems a bit strange to me, but it again highlights how corrupted outside donations/influence can be.

Here is a link to the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/7895611.stm

Here is a link to Sir Allen Stanford's views on Cricket, claiming it can "replace" Soccer as the most popular team sport within 10 years... ambitious? Certainly. But I think Cricket has got a long way to go before it replaces baseball and American Football in Texas, let alone take over the world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/7365806.stm


Maybe he should have followed his fellow Texan George W. Bush's lead and stuck with Baseball...

Election Rules and Factions.

I think the modern era of primaries is a good one, it is decentralized. Since Wisconsin has moved to a direct primary, I think it has been a benefit to the voters, and a hindrance to the candidates - but that is the way it should be, we [the general public] should have as much control as possible.

Obviously the biggest criticism of the primaries in the 2008 Presidential election was the fact that in some primaries, open primaries to be exact, any voter can vote for any candidate. However, in closed primaries, you can only vote for whom you are registered for (i.e. Registered Republican can only vote for a Republican). This can create problems for some candidates because, for example, many republicans were said to have something against Hilary Clinton. I don't have any numbers to back that up but it was considered a popular unsung rule within the Republican party that anyone but Hilary would do. So, in open primaries, some Republicans would come out and vote for Obama, or John Edwards, because they were desperate that Hilary not take the oath of office. This discrepancy needs to be addressed because I believe it is an unfair tactic and is harmful to America's democracy because it is, in my opinion, gutter-snipe politics with a vicious end game. You should vote for who you want to vote for, not against who you do not want to win. That seems pretty cut and dry to me... [What do you think....?]

I also think the US Government should scrap the electoral college, and switch to an all out General Election. Personally, I think this would be a better representation of Democracy. In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election due to the electoral college. I don't think it makes sense to have someone get the most votes in the country (i.e. the "will of the people") and still end up on the losing side.

With regards to factions and financing, there is absolutely no doubt that factions play a role in politics. Federalist 10 was very clear about the reality of what factions are and how they can damage the goal of the party and hence damage and tarnish the image of the country. I am going to define the word faction :

"cabal: a clique (often secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue"

source = http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=faction

When it comes to American politics, that definition certainly sounds familiar doesn't it (i.e. special interest groups, lobbying, etc..)? In truth, I think the overall idea of Campaign Finance Reform is positive but implementing it is another story. Implementing laws that limit the individual contribution of personal donors to $2000 and PAC to $5000 is a solid start, nonetheless, there's no guarantee this will root out all of the dirty money in politics. What's to stop wealthy individuals from special interest groups (i.e. NRA, Board of Education) from giving out money to others in order to provide the money to the candidates? The IRS? Give me a break.

In conclusion, however, I think we are very lucky to live in the United States. In some countries for example, like China and Russia, you still have de-facto dictatorships. While America's democracy is not perfect, it's better than the alternative. I also think it's important that the same side doesn't always win. I wouldn't be very nice if we had 50 years of consecutive Democratic or Republican rule, would it?!

Decentralization and how it affects Political Parties.

In my opinion decentralization was a massive factor in the election of 2008 and blew the traditional "election map" out of the window in many states, and showed us all that, despite many people losing faith in the system, there is a great deal of hunger out there in the country for "something different".

Take the Republican party, for example. Their traditional mantra was : "Less Taxes, Less Government, Less spending." Despite this, as we all know, the Bush administration has ballooned the Federal budget, deficit, and the national debt to levels not seen since WWII. I am not passing political judgment either way on this, good or bad, but the Republicans lost their identity with the voters, in my eyes. They decided to base their campaign around "the politics of fear" and portrayed the democrats as too weak to combat the non stop terrorist threat that we face from Islamic extremists.

While that probably took Bush, and the Republicans over the line in 2004, the voters were less convinced this time around. And all of a sudden, you get a candidate like Ron Paul, who - when the election started - was a virtual unknown outside Texas, but by the end of the political cycle he became infamous for winning every "Fox News post debate poll" and arguing with Sean Hannity about public policy. The notion of a 70 year old Congressman from Texas with some extreme, radical views (i.e. banishing Social Security, closing all foreign US military bases) could harness incredible awareness in the political spectrum says a great deal about the decentralization of the Republican party. There is an "identity crisis" within the party at the moment, and the fact that Ron Paul did as well as he did speaks volumes for the transformation the GOP is going through at this present moment in time.

As for commenting on political heterogeneity, as the Professor indicated in this week's video, heterogeneity and decentralization are correlated. Moving away from the lesser known Ron Paul, to the super-star status of Barack Obama tells its own story. It is obvious to talk about Obama being the first African American to be elected into the White House, and that is a marvelous achievement. But what interests me, as someone who has lived in many different countries, is his unique International background.


Below is a fine article about why his international background "is an asset, not a flaw." :


http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8713


This receives less attention in the media, but it nonetheless speaks volumes about the heterogeneity of the USA today and the way globalization has shaped the world we live in. Obama's roots are in Hawaii, Indonesia, Kenya, and England (his step-mother and sister live in Bracknell, England). That's 4 different countries, on 4 different continents! Not to mention his sojourn at Harvard, and "political upbringing" in Chicago, Obama is an extremley diversified candidate for many reasons. To me, that is absolutely incredible that this country has a President of such a global, diverse, international background. The fact that someone like Barack Obama can become President indicates a shift in heterogeneity within the US, moving away from the small town, rural mentality, and thinking on a broader, more global scale about how to change the country in order to face up to the challenges in the future.


In conclusion, even though the individual messages of Obama and Paul differed vastly, their common message of a need for "change" within the political system catapulted both straight to the forefront of American politics.

Good article in the San Jose Mercury about Tom Daschle. [Module 1 Link-Post]

The Link to the article is here below:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11621190?source=most_emailed

This article is interesting because it describes the political maneuvering that is required of the Obama administration as his Presidency is dogged by yet another nomination scandal regarding unpaid taxes. Obama's political allies aren't doing him any favors right now, the Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, tried to auction off his senate seat. And more recently, his nomination for US Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, faced similar questions about unpaid taxes - although he has since been confirmed.

Defining political parties. [Module 1 Essay-Post]

Defining Political parties seems to be very difficult. From my point of view, defining parties seems to about defining agendas, special interests, and lobbying political favors on the part of those who do not represent the willpower of the electorate. However, things were not always this way.


Federalist Papers:

Federalist 10 and Federalist 51 seem to convey the dangers of a tyrannical government, and how this can be avoided. Obviously, Madison and his colleagues are still fearful of the British rule that they experienced in which they were ruled by a Monarch, and do not want this to be repeated in a new government. The Federalist approach, according to Madison, limits this risk.


George Washington's Farewell Speech:

George Washington seems to sense the danger of what political parties could turn into and stresses the need for the country to unite. During these times, there were two major political parties. I suppose that George Washington is one of the few Presidents in the nation’s history who did not really have a party, as such, he wanted what was best for the nation first, and his political interests always came second.

Tom DeLay’s Farewell Address:

Comparing Washington to DeLay is like comparing chalk and cheese. DeLay is a political animal, who has a particularly Machiavellian view of politics – the ends do justify the means. This is the opposite to George Washington, DeLay views politics as the very essence of the American life. His farewell address seems to convey a sense of humor to a man that has a tiger-ish political past, i.e. the K street project, Terri Schiavo, etc..


Conclusion:

To summarize, and to incorporate my view on how parties have evolved, I think one great way to analyze this is to look at lobbyists and how they influence politicians. In George Washington’s days, this was not a major problem – in fact – the goal was to get special interests (i.e. Great Britain, no taxation without representation) OUT of government. The opposite seems to be the case today. Farm subsidies are a great example. It is something that harms us all, but not greatly, however, it is a great benefit to a small few. This power to organize has entrenched politics and politicians and it has left many to distrust congress, because most people think politicians are only acting in their own greedy self interests. This highlight’s a famous line from the Federalist Papers: “Men are not angels”.

Hopes, Dreams, and Fears Surrounding Party Politics in America [Welcome Module Post]

About Me:

My name is Lewis Mathieson. I am originally from Scotland, in the United Kingdom, although I have lived in several countries in several continents, learning to speak a few languages in the process. I have also lived in 4 different States in the USA, so I am familiar with this country as well; my knowledge of America is not just limited to Wisconsin! Funnily enough, I also already have a blog on here, but it's about something much more boring than politics... sadly... soccer!

Here is the link:

http://lewislovesfootball.blogspot.com/

Besides soccer, my interests include TV, the Internet, 24 (TV show) and reading.

One more thing, this is my last semester, so please, don't fail me!

About Politics:

Many people seem to have lost faith in the American Political System. As a British citizen it is amazing to see some of the aspects to American politics that take place. From the amazing feat of nominating an African American the highest office in the land, to the extravagance of "Joe The Plumber" - American Politics is one wild ride for sure! But I guess politics is different from the UK to the US for one big reason. In America, you don't have a royal family. In Britain we have a Royal Family and although they don't take a direct role in politics, however crazy our politicians act, the Royal family are even a bigger joke and it takes the heat off of some politicians in the UK.

One thing I love about American politics is the sheer length and marathon-like nature of elections. In the UK, the election is over in a matter of weeks - and there is not TV advertising allowed. So you can imagine, for a British person to watch this election, it was similar to "The Greatest Show on Earth". I've already mentioned "Joe The Plumber", but what really amazes me is the longevity of the political cycle and the ferocity of some of the debates.

Another cool thing this year, I thought, was how the networks incorporated technology into the debates and this allowed more people to get involved in the political spectrum. If you look at the success of a candidate like Ron Paul for example, his success was largely down to Internet funding. And you got to participate in the debates on Facebook and stuff, it was really neat. I suppose that's what this course is about, incorporating technology into the course and mixing it up with politics. The fact that Obama is the first President to be addicted to his Blackberry speaks volumes of how technology's role has grown in American politics...??

I'm really interested in what this course has to offer. Like I said American politics is really interesting especially if you are from another country watching it.