Five Questions for Fox

1. What has the been the response of the natural gas lobbyists to your film? Have any of them contacted you directly?

2. Have you conversed with any lawmakers on the state or federal level that have proposed bills to regualte hydro-fracking?

3. Have you contemplated filing a lawsuit against the natural gas companies?

4. What is the next step of action you plan to take, if any?

5. Will you make more documentaries or is this a one time thing?

Electoral College

            The Electoral College is the name of the process which is used to select the President of the United States. It is unique to the United States in that no other country uses this exact system. Under this system the United States really has 50 individual elections rather than one national election.

How does the Electoral College work?

            The Electoral College works by awarding a candidate a certain amount of electoral votes if they win the popular vote of that specific state. The number of electoral votes is the sum of the number of senators and representatives from each state. This means that the minimum amount of electoral votes a state can have is 3. In order to become President a candidate must win at least a majority of the electoral votes which would be 270 (538 total).

When has the popular vote and the Electoral College vote conflicted?

            The popular vote has contradicted the Electoral College on three occasions; the election of 1876, election of 1888, and election of 1888.

What happens if no candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College?

            If no candidate wins the required 270 electoral votes then the Presidency is decided by the incoming House of Representatives. This occurred during the election of 1824 when John Quincy Adams was named President despite the fact that Andrew Jackson had won a plurality of the popular vote and electoral vote. Henry Clay and William Crawford were also candidates in the election.

 What about the Electoral College is good?

            The Electoral College is good because it still puts importance on smaller states with smaller populations. For example, New Hampshire is a very small state which only has 4 electoral votes but it is considered a “swing state” and is relatively important for a candidate to win.

What about the Electoral College is bad?

           

            The Electoral College is bad because theoretically a candidate can win the Presidency without actually winning the popular vote. This is bad because if a majority of the country thinks that the President-elect should not be President than it will be difficult for the incoming President to accomplish much early on in his term.

 Should the United States eliminate the Electoral College?

            I do not think that the United States should eliminate the Electoral College. I say this because then most parts of the country would not have an effect on the election and all the campaigning would take place in the large cities like New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, etc. I like the uniqueness of the Electoral College and it is the fairest process for all 50 states, so it should not be eliminated.

Source: www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college

Fixing the Deficit

            For this assignment I was charged with the task of solving our national deficit problem. Currently, we have a projected shortfall of $418 billion dollars in 2015 and an estimated shortfall of $1,345 billion dollars in 2030. To fix the budget I used the New York Time’s interactive online game called Budget Puzzle: You Fix the Budget. This puzzle forces the user to either cut programs or raise or implement new taxes. While trying to solve this crisis there were many easy decisions but also very hard decisions that are sure to affect a lot of people but I feel that I did what I think is best for the country. Ultimately, my plan will have the USA at a surplus of $7 billion dollars in 2015 and a surplus of $328 billion dollars in 2030. To see my full plan you can visit this link- The Cam Smith Plan.

            Domestic Programs and Foreign Aid- I chose to cut all domestic programs and foreign aid. I don’t have problem with giving other countries aid, but with the situation that we are in right now we definitely have to scale it back a bit. In my opinion, you have to shovel the snow off your own porch before you can shovel your neighbor’s porch. Also shrunk the workforce of the federal government because it will save taxpayer’s money and I fundamentally believe in a smaller government.

            Military- I made a lot of military cuts with the only thing not being cut was the size of the navy and air force. The only cut I really had a problem with was the reduction of noncombat military compensation and overhead because it reduces the benefits of some of our armed forces members. There are some positives to this however because it gives members of the military shorter tours of duty and longer breaks between each tour. As far as pulling troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq goes my view is that it is more or less a losing battle at this point and we should bring them home slowly, so a reduction to 60,000 by 2015 would be a good proposal.

            Health care- As far as healthcare goes I raised the Medicare age to 70 because in this day and age people are living longer than ever before and it is only five more years than the current eligible age of 65. Also I decided to reduce the tax break for employer provided health insurance and cap Medicare growth in 2013, both of which will save the US hundreds of billions of dollars down the road.

            Social Security- When dealing with social security I decided to raise the retirement age to 70, tighten eligibility for disability, and use an alternate measure for inflation. I chose to raise the age of social security for the same reason I raised the Medicare age, because people are living longer than ever before.

            Existing Taxes- The only tax I chose to implement was the Lincoln-Kyl proposal which is an estate tax that would exempt the first $5 million of any estate and tax any estate over $5 million at 35%. This is proposed tax is the least aggressive of the proposed estate taxes. I also chose not to implement any aggressive taxes on the rich because they are the people who use their money to stimulate the economy and are going to be the people who ultimately get us out of the current recession.

            New Taxes- I chose not to implement any new taxes.

            Ratio- My ratio between cuts and taxes was 98% cuts and 2% taxes.    

Mitt Romney eyes smaller footprint, later start for 2012

In a recent news story on politico.com, Mitt Romney says that he will begin his 2012 campaign for the presidency much later than he did in 2008. According to Romney, he will not announce has plan to run in January or February because he believes that are people are worn out from November’s midterm elections and need a break from major politics. Also, Romney said it was not as crucial to announce his candidacy for 2012 as early as he did in 2008 because he is a better known national figure now. In 2008, Romney had to spend millions just to get his name known by the American people. Romney also alluded to the fact that he will campaign with a much smaller staff this time around. In 2008, Romney needed a large staff to get his ideas and messages out and to organize his campaign just to keep up with frontrunner John McCain. Since this is his second time running for the presidency, Romney now knows what it takes to run an effective campaign so a smaller campaign staff will simplify the process. Romney even stated that such a larger staff was the cause of much confusion and miscommunication during the 2008 campaign. Romney was quoted saying this information during a conference call addressing his biggest financial donors along with Senator Scott Brown and former Florida GOP chairman Al Cardenas. The article also mentioned what are believed to be the other major candidates for the GOP; Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, John Thune, Sarah Palin, and Tim Pawlenty. Overall, the main idea of the article was to express the notion that Romney will announce his candidacy sometime later in the year, most likely the late spring or early summer.

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45369.html   

Red Over Blue

“Red Over Blue” by James Ceaser and Andrew Busch examines the 2004 Presidential election between George Bush and John Kerry and analyzes how a 527 organization cost John Kerry his bid for the Presidency. The excerpt begins by explaining how the Democratic National Convention went and that Kerry seemed to have a lot of support and enthusiasm. Throughout much of the campaign, Kerry had only trailed President Bush by 5 or 6 points. Later Ceaser and Busch explain how a 527 special political organization which was made possible by campaign finance reform championed by John McCain. The 527 organization was called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and was made up of men who had served in John Kerry’s swift boat during the Vietnam War. The group came out with an attack that criticized Kerry, questioning his heroism and stating that Kerry should not have received the medals he was awarded. This TV ad was very effective because the swift boat veterans looked straight into the camera and were very sincere. At first the group only spent $500,000 dollars on TV spots and in only three states, but after a few days the ad took-off. The ad was shown on all major national news networks and was written about in major newspapers. This attention led to large donations to the group, so they made a second TV ad. This ad made it impossible for Kerry to talk about his time in Vietnam because he could no longer talk about his service without being questioned about the swift boat TV ad. Ultimately, this is a great example of how influential a small interest group can be. This group spent very little on ads compared to Bush or Kerry but their ads probably had the most influence over the election.

Source: Lanahan pgs. 494-499

The Rise of Southern Republicans

                “The Rise of Southern Republicans” pages 527-534 by brothers Earl and Merle Black is an excerpt which explains and analyzes the movement from a solid Democratic South to a more solid Republican South. The Black Brothers state that with this new republican stronghold in the south, the south is now a region that is politically competitive and not just reserved for the Democrats. The Blacks say that the beginning of this switch really began with the election of 1964 which had the liberal Lyndon B. Johnson vs. the ultra conservative Barry Goldwater. Prior to the election, as a senator from Arizona, Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was ultimately passed. Goldwater was one of the few senators to vote against this bill. By voting against this bill, Goldwater attracted many racist southern white voters. In the election more southerners voted Republican (Goldwater) than in any previous presidential election. This trend would continue in the elections to follow. Also twenty years later during Ronald Reagan’s election, more southerners called themselves Republicans than Democrats. These two instances are known as the Great White Switches. From here new southern politics had emerged where blacks and liberal whites made up the Democratic party and conservative whites anchored the Republican party. During his presidency, Ronald Reagan was very responsible for changing the ways in which the south votes. His strategy was to realign white conservatives as a reliable source of Republican support and neutralize white moderates as a consistent foundation of Democratic strength. By doing this Reagan was the most popular President among southern whites since Franklin D. Roosevelt. In closing, the rise of Southern Republicans can be attributed to mainly two things: the 1964 presidential race between Johnson and Goldwater and the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Source: "The Rise of Southern Republicans" Lanahan pgs. 527-534

Street Fight

                The 2002 documentary Street Fight follows the Newark, New Jersey mayor’s race between upstart Cory Booker a high educated well spoken, African-American  and Sharpe James an African American, old-school ,straight talking incumbent. The documentary primarily follows Booker and his campaign but also does include James and his campaign as well. From the opening scenes of the film the viewers are exposed to Booker’s main campaign tactic which is going door to door to meet and talk with voters. Booker does this very effectively as he portrays himself as a compassionate and outspoken candidate. Throughout the campaign, Booker is the candidate who uses positive or neutral campaigning tactics and James is the one who tends to use more negative tactics. Other positive tactics that Booker uses is filming political ads in the streets of Newark, holding campaign fundraisers, and holding public outdoor rallies with food and entertainment. Sharpe James on the other hand uses much more controversial tactics. When a downtown business owner put a Cory Booker sign in his sidewalk windows, James had the shop shut down by citing arbitrary building code violations. Another negative tactic James uses is sending a pamphlet to voters calling Booker a “White republican” and also a “Faggot white boy”. Also other dirty campaign tactics which were most likely connected to James is that Booker’s phone was tapped at times during the campaign and also Booker’s campaign headquarters were broken into and valuable information regarding campaign strategy was stolen. Ultimately, James won the election by slim margin (53%-47%) but in 2006 Booker won in a landslide taking home over 70% of the vote.
Additional Campaign Strategies
        As election day in the city of Newark, NJ came closer, Sharpe James took even more drastic measures and used more controversial negative campaign tactics. Some of these tactics include ordering town workers to remove Cory Booker signs around the city, busing in supporters from out of state, and ordering cars and trucks with PA systems to sabotage Cory Booker rallies. James also attempted to manipulate the voting booths to make sure they would give him an unfair advantage but the NJ district attorney's office stepped in. Overall, James implemented many negative camapgin strategies during his campaign for re-election.

http://www.corybooker.com/

3.

               

               On Tuesday, voters in Massachusetts had a choice to eliminate the 6.25% alcohol tax (question 1) that was put into place last year and to lower the 6.25% sales tax to 3% (question 3). The voters of Massachusetts decided to eliminate the alcohol tax by a 52% to 48% margin and decided to keep the sales tax where it is by a landslide 57% to 43%. What this tells me is that you don’t get between Massachusettsians and their alcohol (haha just kidding). What this actually tells me is that voters probably got this one right. By eliminating the tax on alcohol the voters got rid of what was an unfair double tax, because alcohol already excise taxed by the distributors. Also, by eliminating the tax the voters got rid of about 100-150 million dollars of revenue which primarily goes to alcohol and drug rehab programs. Although these programs help many people they are not vital to the Commonwealth. Also by eliminating this tax it shows that the MA voters were sensible because by eliminating this tax it will promote much needed business at border liquor and convenience stores. MA voters also got question 3 right by voting it down. If it was voted to lower the sales tax to 3% than the state would lose out on roughly 2.5 billion dollars. Although this would send a strong message to Beacon Hill it would force huge cuts in education funding and town aid. Ultimately, it would be bad for the state. Overall, the voters of Massachusetts seemed to have been sensible when voting on these two questions. (Would have been nice if they could’ve been sensible when picking the governor).

http://www.myfoxboston.com/generic/news/politics/local_politics/ma-election-results-ballot-questions-20101102

a. What do the results of questions 1 and 3 tell you about Massachusetts voters?

2.

    Please analyze the impact Republican control of the House of Representatives will have in Washington over the next two years of the Obama Administration. 

         This past Tuesday, Republicans made a significant number of gains in the House of Representatives. When Congress goes back into session next year the Republicans will take with them at least 239 votes (9 races are still undecided). On Tuesday, Republicans also took 60 seats from the Democrats. With an overwhelming majority and the largest one in the House since 1938 the Republican Party is energized and has a reason to be. With the majority the Republicans will now have a major say in what bills get passed and which ones don’t. This will force Obama to make his agenda more moderate. When asked by a reporter last week about the results Obama said “We get the message.” The majority will make it very difficult for Obama to pass any major pieces of legislation and will also force Obama to make compromises with the Republican Party. There has even been talk by some GOP members about a possible impeachment of Obama but this is most likely not going to happen. Another rumor from the GOP which will probably occur is that the Republicans first move will be to try to repeal the just passed healthcare reform bill. Repealing this would be a huge blow to the Obama administration because this is basically the only notably thing the administration has done since it came it to power in 2008. However, if that were to occur it would give Obama many excuses to use during his campaign for re-election in 2012. Ultimately, it will be very difficult for Obama to get anything done in the next two years if he does not put forward a more moderate plan.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/mid-term-losses-force-obama-closer-to-the-middle-of-the-road-1.1066469

1.

Pick two of the following Senate races and analyzes what the results indicate about the 2012 presidential campaign:

a. Nevada

b. Illinois

c. Pennsylvania

d. West Virginia

e. Florida

                Two senate races which I will analyze are the Illinois and Pennsylvania races.  These two races were both won by republicans and were both previously held by democrats. In Illinois Republican challenger Mark Stevens Kirk defeated incumbent Alexi Giannoulias by getting 48.2% of the vote to Giannoulias’s 46.3%. In Pennsylvania, Republican challenger Pat Toomey edged out incumbent Joe Sestak with taking home 51% of the vote to Sestak’s 49%. It should be noted that Illinois and Pennsylvania are usually blue states. What these results tell me is that even in left-leaning areas the American people are unhappy. This will affect the 2012 presidential election because it will force Obama to run a more moderate campaign, especially if he does not turn the economy around or pass any significant legislation the latter of which will rather hard to accomplish now with an overwhelming GOP majority in the House. Also, when analyzing the results of the Illinois race I see that over 6% of the electorate voted libertarian or green-rainbow. This could mean that we could see a third party candidate such as Ron Paul (Libertarian) or Ralph Nader (Green) make a run in 2012 and take away a chunk of votes from the GOP and/or Dems.  Also, the people in these two states unseated the incumbent party neither state did it by a landslide. This means that in 2012 the Republicans will have to run a rather moderate campaign as well unless the economy gets severely worse, which unlikely to happen. Overall, these two races show that the American people are not happy campers right now and that the 2012 Presidential election will probably go to a Republican unless Obama makes some vast improvements in the next two years.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/senate