State of the Union Address

As Obama took the podium to address Congress, some of the most endearing, and upsetting, qualities of American society and politics were witnessed. As the president entered the room, greeting all of those surrounding him, he stopped for a special welcome for Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who suffered severe injuries after a shooting in January 2011. The embrace between President Obama and Giffords was heartwarming to all who watched. The acts of the president, and all of congress, reminded America how we should support one another, despite personal beliefs or differences. 

I felt as though President Obama's speech inquired very endearing and powerful symbols. With the use of the Osama Bin Laden mission, the President was able to compare that mission to the mission of the American people. He explained that it didn't not matter what each individual member of the mission believed, they were there to do one and job and one job only, to complete that mission. He then compared that mission to the mission of congress. Despite the differences faces by all members, congress had a duty, a mission, to help the American people, and they shall not be deterred from that mission. Given the connection most Americans have to Osama Bin Laden and the harm he has done to our country, I feel as though this was a very smart move to include, and conclude, his speech with this image. Many will want to relate to this scenario, and it was a powerful image to place in the minds of the American people. 

However, the speech was way too long. I was very interested in what Obama had to say, but after a certain amount of time, I felt like I could not fully appreciate what he was saying for I was waiting for him to be done speaking. I also found it intriguing that Obama made a point to separate himself from Congress at this time. Many of his points addressed Congress as "you put the bill on my desk and I will sign it" rather than a cohesive approach the gridlock state Congress finds itself before elections. Another aspect that surprised me was that Obama addressed issues that were not expected of him. His focus did not address what many expected him too, while a large focus on energy not the deficit. 

We will have to wait and see how this address will impact the President's re-election campaign. Although approaching this speech with a new tone, being more direct and specific in his requests and goals, will the American people jump on his band wagon or will they look for change? 

Game-changer?

January 19, 2012

This past week, Rick Perry has announced that he will be dropping out of the race of the Republican candidacy. After falling into last place in the South Carolina polls, and being urged to end his campaign in order to support the anti-Romney movement, Perry has decided to give his support behind Newt Gingrich. 

In his speech, Perry spoke of Gingrich being the "conservative visionary" to win the GOP nomination. However, how strong can his support truly be if he feels the need to mention that Gingrich " is not perfect". Although Perry was severely losing to the other candidates, this appears to be a move of arm twisting on Perry's behalf. 

With this seriously effect the election? With Perry's endorsement, Gingrich can now attract more votes from Perry supporters. Considering the fact that the two candidates were drawing votes from a similar type of voter, the elimination of Perry  entails that  all support from this similar group of people can be thrown behind Gingrich. 

However, many have speculated that this endorsement will not greatly change the race at all. With Perry only  bringing in 4% of the votes in South Carolina, this move is being used a plot to combat the Hunstman's endorsement of Perry. Although not a definite game changer, one candidate will be effected by Perry's decision, Rick Santorum. WIth Santorum trailing just behind Romney, Perry could have been the boost he needed to take the lead in this race. Ironically, with the speculation of Santorum being encouraged to drop out and support Romney, Santorum actually won the Iowa caucus- not the first declared winner, Romney. 

With the removal of Huntsman and Perry from the race, the movements or decisions of the candidates (and the drop outs) are unpredictable. Will Allegiances form to create a Romney vs. Anti-Romney Republican Primary? Will more candidates drop out unexpectedly, or will a new front runner emerge? More to come. 

http://theweek.com/article/index/223455/rick-perry-quits-and-endorses-newt-gingrich-game-changer

Ready, Aim, Fire... On Mitt Romney

January 17, 2012

As the candidates took the place on stage in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Romney prepared his poised, respectful composure to address the South Carolina population before the primary. However, the other candidates came prepared to do nothing but focus their attacks upon him. Rivals compiled numerous attacks on his job-creation record, wealth, even his character. It was obvious that the other candidates used this debate not as a way to spread their own ideals, or elicit the flaws in the current president or their other competitors, but to solely bring down Romney. 

The attacks specifically elicited Romney's taxes returns that he is refusing to release. As a primary tactic, he has claimed to reconsider this move, but not until April. The other candidates have pressured Romney to release his returns sooner, hoping that they will reveal information on his own company. Perry argued that Romney needed to release hie returns now for "as Republicans, we can not fire our nominee in September. We need to know now". Gingrich, who has been the leader on the attack of Romney's tax return, continued the attack by stating that he was "fulfilling a duty to the party so it knew its nominee's vulnerabilities before making a final choice about who should face Mr.Obama in the general election." Gingrich went even further to question Romney's ability and influence were he to become president. 

Romney however, was not phased by this firing of questions. He did lose his composure, nor make any mistakes. Instead, he continue to portray the character that has made him the front runner. Romney not only defended his decision on the tax returns, but also managed to devote more attention to his own content then the candidates standing next to him. Romney made it clear to the audience that his record was clear for everyone to see and that he was proud of what he had done. In addition, he advocated for his ability to understand economics in American society. Romney stated, "I think if people want to have someone who understand how the economy works, having worked in the real economy, then I'm the guy that can best post up against Barack Obama." 

Despite the attempts to ruin the appeasability of Romney to Republican voters, Romney continues to hold on to advantages in important Southern states, such as South Carolina and Florida. In addition to his appearance in the debate, Romney also gained support after former candidate, Jon Hunstman, pulled out of the race and endorsed Romney. As it has been seen in South Carolina, Romney , even under attack, continues to plow through the primary, gaining support as he goes. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/us/politics/forceful-attack-against-romney-in-republican-debate.html?scp=2&sq=january+17+2012&st=ny

January 15, 2012

On January 15, Chris Wallace spoke to Senator Rick Santorum about his presidential aspirations.  Santorum had just received the endorsement of a super majority of Conservative Christian Leaderships, and while he had lost the New Hampshire primary, he had tied for first in the Iowa primary. 

Santorum began by explaining that he got this endorsement because, in his view, he is the only candidate who is conservative across the board--spanning moral issues, economic issues, cultural issues and foreign policy issues. 

He then used his appearance to attack Governor Romney. He claimed that many conservatives have concerns about Romney's record on the economy, and especially about Romney's healthcare plan in Massachussets, which Santorum felt was too close to President Obama's healthcare reform. 

Wallace pointed out two votes in which Santorum voted in favor of big labor, a taboo among conservatives.  Santorum countered that those were the only two times in his entire career where he voted for big labor and then continued to tout himself as the most consistent conservative among the candidates. 

Santorum in the "Red"

January 11, 2012

As Santorum continues to move throughout this election, he continues to divulge his extremely conservative views on social issues concerning this country. Repeatedly Santorum has supposed anti-gay, anti-divorce, and anti-abortion positions. Under no circumstance does Santorum move away from these views. However, a recent article in the Italian magazine, Oggi, has introduced an aspect of Santorum's life that contradicts these views. Maria Malacarne Santorum, wife of Santorum's cousin, discusses the clan of Santorum's family in Italy, who happen to be "red communists". 

This article discussing Santorum's family went viral across Facebook and the entire internet. Despite the interesting content of this article, I think the response to this article exposes a significant factor in American society. Although it is important to know about a candidate's background, I think that the fact that so many people are fussing about Santorum's cousins says something about our society. As a population of voters, we focus too much about circumstance, and not enough on the actual potential of a candidate to lead our country. Instead of worrying about what Santorum's family believes in another country, or what Obama's mentor believed (which became a widespread issue in the 2008 election), we should be addressing what qualities and traits we need in our president to take us out of our financial crisis, and lead America back to the superpower position we have held on this planet for so long now. 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/11/rick-santorum-s-italian-family-speaks-out.html

The Note

January 8, 2012

During the debate in New Hampshire, it was assumed that the GOP presidential candidates would all attack Mitt Romney. To the surprise of many, the attacks were kept to a minimum while the other candidates attacked each other.  In her column in The Note, Amy Walter explained why she thought the candidates refrained from attacking the front-runner. 

The first reason, according to Walter, is that it is easier to attack someone when they are not standing right there.  Having Romney in their sight may have caused the candidates to temper their attacks. Additionally, attacking Romney might backfire and make the attacker look like a bully, instead of a strong candidate. 

More convincing is her argument that they may have been looking towards their own political future.  None of them wanted to be known as the man who slashed and burned the GOP candidate.  Additionally, if he wins, they may be angling for a position in the Romney administration. 

Wallace on the Debate

January 8, 2012

On January 8, 2012, the topic on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace was the Republican candidate debate in New Hampshire.  Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum debated the various issues facing them and the country. Wallace and his colleagues reflected on the tone of the campaign, the topics that were discussed, the topics that were not discussed, and who emerged as the winner of the debate.

Rather than concentrating on issues, the candidates chose to simply attack each other. When it came to ad hominum attacks, Governor Romney began by accusing his colleagues of attacking free enterprise.  Ron Paul and Rick Santorum traded barbs over Santorum's spending bills, and Paul accused Gingrich of avoiding the draft and promoting war.

Wallace and his colleague John Cameron also commented on how social issues trumped Jobs and the economy. Gingrich reiterated his opposition to gay marriage while Santorum promised to overturn Roe V. Wade.

Wallace voiced his (and mine, and probably most people's) disappointment that the candidates shied away from talking about the economy, but reasoned that they were not that far apart in their stands on economic issues but wanted to show where they did, in fact, differ. Cameron agreed, saying that the nominee's (whoever it is) economic attacks will probably be leveled against President Obama in the general election, rather than against each other now.