GT Group 1

This years election I have read in this article is that there is a substantial increase in voting, Especially among th woman population adn younger voters. Referring back to Vince Keenan lecture is this what he predicted. Well anyway the cause they present in the article is because of 9/11. THis was a major event in our history, but why did it just mainly target woman and inspire them to vote. "MILLIONS OF women are watching the presidential debates looking for answers to key questions: "Who can win the war on terror and keep America and my family safe?" "Who is the stronger leader?" "Who would use better judgment in a crisis?" This is what the article states. Personally they are selecting the wrong election to try to find a strong leader.To the contrary, it has morphed into a powerful issue with an intense emotional component that has huge political implications. It's hardly surprising. I guess the major cause is on they day all they thought about is their family and eaht they should do to protect them ot make sure they are okay. Honorable reason why they should.

This has been my first opportunity to vote and I am grateful to have it. Since I am officially a resident of North Carolina I must use a slightly different means to "have my voice heard". Basically, I need(ed) to get an absentee ballot. Fortunately for me, my mom beat me to the punch and sent all the information I needed to get one of these ballots. It took about two weeks in all to get my ballot, primarily because the mail here takes FOREVER to get to us. The ballot was incredibly simple and straight-forward. Unfortunately I am not familiar with the candidates running to be Appellete Judges in District 7. Fortunately, God created the quarter...you figure out the rest.
I believe our class discussions and reading assignments helped solidify my views. I was going to vote the way I did anyway, but I feel it is much better to have some reasoning behind it. Normally, I live in a relative void (politically) so class is very informative for me.

From reading Moss’s article, it is very sad that the both of the candidates’ parties will go to extreme measures recruiting voters. Several of these voters were using questionable addresses. People were registering in different counties, so those people can vote more than once for this election. All these confusion that people are causing is making the officials to panic for the election that is in less than 10 days. There is so much chaos going on around U.S. with election process right now. In Colorado, people have to take an oath that they are a qualifying voter. Is that just not depressing? The officials do not know who is a qualifying voter from a non-qualifying. Most of voting that is being use on November 2 is all done electrically, so that means there are no paper trail. There is no way for the officials to recount or re-check the votes easily that the people will be casting. It is sad that the voters in the America cannot use a normal voting system that other countries use easily. Some how people messes it up and the losing parties will whine that they lost because the voting process was wrong; so to fix this problem for the next election change the voting system into one same voting process that will be used throughout the nation, instead of, having multiple different ones in just one state. The possibilities for fraud in this election are very high. People can vote more than once. People can easily tamper with computer system. The possibilities are endless for manipulation. Cannot wait to see what happens on election day, this coming Tuesday.

Moss' article is intriuging in that it opens our eyes to the corruption in our electoral system. Everyone everywhere suspects some corruption, mainly because it is inherent in human government, but this article provides additional evidence. In Ohio, there are many voters registered that don't even live in the counties they are registered to vote in. This can lead to them being able to vote twice. Also, some voters have given fake addresses to the voting comissions which again allow them to vote more than once. There are efforts to get rid of these fake registrations, and so far a list of 14,000 names has been given to the voting commisions to look for, and challenge, these fake registrations. On a more positive note, there has been a great effort to recruit new voters! The exact mechanics of how they have recruited new voters is vague. Does anyone know exactly? Another interesting thing about the election is how some of the smaller states, like Ohio for example, can carry so much weight and be considered so important in this nation of some 295 million people. It shows us how well our system is working (electoral college) by balancing out the states, regardless of size. These are just a few points for us to think about, or talk about during class.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6602622&pageNumber=1

Bill Clinton is adored by his followers and hated by everyone else. I don’t understand the lack of middle ground in this issue—maybe it’s because Conservatives find it more important that Clinton messed around with Monica Lewinsky and Democrats choose to leave that occurrence to Clinton’s personal life and to focus on things like the balanced budget. So Kerry’s bringing Bill along for the campaign pretty much only rallies the Democrats, and doesn’t do much for swing voters or, of course, Republicans. The Republicans claim that Clinton’s presence will make Kerry look bad because of the comparison between the two, which makes it sound like Clinton was a good president, but that refreshing memories about Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky will also rally the Republican base. So does that mean that Kerry is an even worse person than a morally terrible adulterer? Clinton is a good guy in every aspect, to me, except that he had an extramarital affair. And any way that’s none of my business. He did a good job on a lot of other presidential matters, and his presidential performance did not seem to be affected in a bad way by his personal life, be it morally sound or not.
Is anyone else getting a little bit nervous about terrorism on Election Day? Especially since the 380 tons of explosives were confirmed to be missing from a sensitive Iraqi military installation? I wonder who would win the election if another terrorist attack occurred before November 2? Would Bush, because he’s “tough on terror,” or would Kerry, because Bush’s toughness didn’t seem to be working?

"The Choice on Immigration" is an editorial from the Washington Post; it is one in a series of editorials about the presidential candidates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46566-2004Oct19.html

The author of this article writes about the problems surrounding the issue of immigration and seems to lean toward the liberal side by the end of the editorial. Throughout the article he argues that neither Bush nor Kerry seems to be very vocal about the issue and he analyzes why this is the case. He assumes that the presidential candidates’ indecisive-sounding policies on this issue are due to the fact that immigration is a very touchy issue- that it “evokes strong opinions and emotions”. The author reminds us that Bush had a very strong plan at the beginning of the year to reform this country’s immigration laws, and proposed a guest worker program and also a way for illegal immigrants to earn legal status. The term “earned legalization” did not make Bush’s Republican base very happy, and the liberals who might have thought it was a good plan did not want to side with Bush. Then, in the third debate, Bush said definitively, “I don’t believe we ought to have amnesty,” to clear things up about his opinion. Kerry’s opinion differs from that of Bush. Kerry favors earned legalization and has voted for agricultural guest-worker bills in the Senate. He tends to keep relatively quiet about this, however, and focus on border control, as does the President. Border control is a good issue to emphasize, but it does not address the issue of the many illegal immigrants who are already in the country. The author ends the article by giving examples of how Americans’ opinions on the issue are conflicted; for example, we “are happy to eat the cheap food and to enjoy the cheap services provided by recent immigrants” but “prefer hearing about border controls rather than earned legalization”.

click here for article

I've heard a few peers in the past few weeks that were very concerned about the supposed draft that Bush will reinstate if he is reelected. I was very doubtful of the truthfulness of this concern. This article covers Bush's trip to Florida and his speech to the elderly people in that area. Bush refuted Kerry's claims that he would reinstate the draft. Bush clearly stated that he will NOT start the draft and he wants to keep our military services purely voluntary. Now why would Kerry spout of saying that Bush wants to reinstate the draft? Dick Cheney hit the nail on the head when he said that Kerry was using "old-style scare tactics." Cheney also made an excellent point that Kerry's campaign is using these scare tactics to strongly persuade both young people and old people (old people probably aren't afraid of a draft, but maybe they're frightened by privatized social security) because they are simply behind in the polls. Cheney said he was actually glad to see that Kerry's campaign is using scare tactics because that shows him that they realize they're behind. This is their way of fighting back. Bush chose the "flip-flop" argument from his arsenal, saying that he's not surprised Kerry would make such a thing up because of his record and his contradictions in his campaign. On the flu vaccine, Kerry criticized Bush about the deficit of vaccines. Somehow he relates a lack of vaccine to not being able to protect the country from bioterrorism. Someone help me out, which logical fallacy is this? Maybe Kerry wasn't listening when Bush said the flu vaccine deficit was caused by a malfunction on the supplier's side. But Kerry is probably right; the terrorists will probably infect us all with the Flu and only 4 million of the most vulnerable will get their medication. Sounds like a Tom Clancy novel, if you ask me.

click for article

Arnold Schwarzenegger announced a new proposition, Proposition 71, which will spend $6 billion towards stem cell research. To be voted on November 2nd, the proposition would spend $3 billion through bonds on stem-cell research and the other $3 billion would finance the interest payments over the next 30 years. It is odd that he announces this proposition even though he has repeatedly called for stricter financial discipline. Unfortunately, the article does not give any other details about Arnold's backing of stem-cell research. I think it's great that Arnold is taking this action in the stem-cell research field because it's important to let everyone know that not all Republicans are against this type of research. We've read in recent articles posted to this blog that Bush is very active in the stem-cell research field and the only thing that he opposes is using stem cells that must be destroyed rather than only using ones that have been destroyed by natural causes. The process may take more time if scientists don't have access to all the stem-cells they want, but the process will take a good amount of time anyway. What Schwarzenegger needs to do is let the public know exactly where he stands on the issue of stem-cell research. One small difference in beliefs of the issue could mean the vote. I feel that Schwarzenegger's views might differ from Bush's somewhat just because the article says that most Californians are for the proposition and that it will most likely pass. Am I the only one that gets a clear image of Arnold as a terminator again when he says, "we are the world's bio-tech leader"?

This little "article" doesn't isn't really credible, it's just some guys opinion of the second presidential debate, and it's dont minute by minute. However, it is really sarcastic and quite entertaining to read if you like to hear about the candidates getting made fun of for stuff. Happy reading!!! (Sorry I keep posting totally wierd articles... =)
http://www.wonkette.com/archives/town-hall-debate-sort-of-halfassed-live-blogging-023066.php

Weapons of mass destruction have long been a debate for this election. This article details some of the specifics of the reports for Bush on weapons in the middle east. It goes over point by point what the reports say, and how Bush justifies being in Iraq from the reports. This is a very informative article, and might clear up some confusion you might have about Bush's policies in this area.

Stem cell research has been debated for a long time, and this article brings out some points about it. Bush has said some things that have been misconstrued as bad things. This article basically sets the record straight about what Bush has said and what it actually means. The article is pretty long winded and seems to repeat a lot of points, especially how the Bush administration "takes everything seriously." It is a fairly informative article, but you probably only need to read half of it to get the whole picture.

This article is about the second presidential debate, talking about the flaws of each candidate. It seems much more Democratic than Republican however, promoting Kerry and Edwards over Bush and Cheney. Filled with many quotes that each of the candidates made against each other, the article shows the true nature of the election. It tells how each of the candidates react to each other's criticism, and what they each say to each other.

The second debate, known to some as the Town Hall debate, was a brutal one. This article describes how the candidates were becoming overly defensive in their reactions to some of the public's questions. It goes on to explain both of the candidates shortcomings, and is really an article that is just intended to be informative, not so much promoting one candidate over the other. Being that it is quite interesting, you should take a look at it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22830-2004Oct10.html
Just an interesting article on what the real topic of the election should be. War or domestic issues?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6191354/ This article was quite interesting because it finally showed the views of the undecided voters. In the past it has just been the views of people who are for Bush or who are for Kerry, but this article tells about the other voters. The author had sat down with these people during the second round of presidential debates and logged their reactions to how each candidate performed. It was very interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/international/middleeast/11sunni.html?pagewanted=2&8bl&oref=login

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6191354/

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/election/0904nation/06debatemain.html?UrAuth=aNaNUOcN]UbTTUWUXUUUZTYU]UWUbU^UZU]U]UcTYWYWZV

Sorry, something went screwy. Here's the article URL:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/opinion/9sat1.html?oref=login

This is a commentary on the second debate entitled "The Town Hall Debate". It does have a slightly left slant to it (it feels that Kerry is winning), but generally I think it tries to remain objective by pointing out the weaknesses of both sides without pulling too many punches.

Leon R. Kass, chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, writes that the Republicans are actually friendly to stem cell research. . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16510-2004Oct7.html

No WMD found in Iraq - MSNBC

By the end of the Kerry and Bush debates I felt that Kerry did have the debate won. Although throughout the debate Bush was making very strong points, Kerry just was able to respond to each question with what sounded like well prepared responses. However, Bush being the incumbent, he was able to still hold his own in the election and I feel that even though he lost the debate, he probably did not lose that many voters. Since their will be many more debates to come, Bush still can win over the undecided voters, but if they base their decisions on that last debate I think that Kerry could have won most of the swing votes over. From the debate we had after the presidential debate I got the feeling that most people agreed with what I saw and I totally agree that Kerry seemed more prepared but Bush was very good at conveying his point and getting the audiences reaction. All in all the debate was probably won by Kerry but both candidates made enough good points to make it still be a close election.

Vince Keenan Lecture:

The 2 questions I came up with for Vince Keenan were "How much time and effort did you have to put into this before it actually took off?", and "How did you come up with the idea to start a website to inform voters of everything?"

From the lecture on last Wednesday, Vince Keenan explained how he created a website dedicated to voter education. The entire idea of what Keenan was saying is genius because, from Keenan’s explanation, it informs voters who do not know anything about the people running for an election exactly what these politicians’ views and moral values are so the voter will have enough information about the candidates to make an informed decision when they get their ballot. It needs to be adopted by every state because it allows the voter to be knowledgeable on the important decision they are being allowed to make. Keenan saw that many voters were voting for people they had no idea about and wanted to give the voters the opportunity to make informed decisions. Vince Keenan's idea to fix a problem that he saw was occurring was very helpful to all of America. It not only allowed him to do something that was enjoyable to him but to help all of America make informative decisions about who they are voting for. It is hard to understand why only one state so far has adopted his creation because it is in the best interest of the state to have something like it to elect the official that the majority of the citizens really do agree with.

Clara Olson
24 August 2004

Blog Entry #1- Douglas J. Feith’s “A Smarter Way to Use Our Troops”

Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, uses each of the appeals (pathos, ethos, and logos) in his essay supporting President Bush’s new plan for a change in U.S. global force position. He focuses on logos, with many reasons why the plan is beneficial to the U.S., and makes allusions to pathos. Feith’s ethos is questionable.
Because he is the undersecretary of defense for policy, Feith is likely biased in his opinions about Bush’s new plan to consolidate and withdraw troops from abroad in various places around Europe and Asia. He makes only one allusion to anything possibly negative about the plan: that “the changes will cause some dislocations,” and then immediately states that our allies, nonetheless, have “voiced support, indeed enthusiasm, for the realignment,” and thereby negates his consideration of unfavorable aspects of the plan. Ethos may be his least effective argument, where nonbiased facts are concerned.
Feith makes some references to our pathos. He sympathizes with the families of deployed soldiers abroad and notes that 60,000 to 70,000 service members will be shifted from foreign to U.S. bases. Later he gives a more specific example of the strife of soldiers who have to leave their already-deployed families to serve at a different station in another country abroad. The pathos in Feith’s argument is effective mostly for soldiers and their families.
Possibly the logos in Feith’s article is his most effective form of argument. He explains in detail why Bush’s new plan is good for our military and our world relations. Feith lists many logical reasons including that the plan will consolidate scattered facilities around the world and make it easier to deploy forces on short notice.

Personally, I thought Kerry won the debate by a good margain. However, hearing some of the class feedback after the debate it was obvious that not everyone shared my opinion. Most were willing to concede that Kerry came across as the stronger speaker, but many felt that due to 'content' Bush made up ground. They felt that Kerry did not specifically answer the questions he was asked. For example when asked about his plan about Iraq Kerry only gave general statements like "I will form new and better alliances" whereas apparently Kerry could have explained his plan to rebuild a wartorn nation satisfactorily in ninty seconds. Yeah, right. It is unreasonable for us, as voters, to expect the candidates to be able tell us everything you would want to know about them and their policy. It is our responsibility as voters to do a little bit of research ourselves and find those things out for ourselves.
Many felt that both candidates were "side stepping" the questions. Well, frankly what do you expect, they ARE politicians. Most of those topics are political bombs; get too close to one and BOOM, you're not getting reelected. To expect a politician to answer a question where a 'real answer' will cast that politician in a bad light is just silly. For example if Bush was asked why he went after Saddam instead of 'the real target' of ben Ladin Bush's response would (and has been) that Saddam was "bigger threat and America is safer with him removed." If asked "what about North Korea? Didn't they just develop nuclear weapons? Isn't that a bigger threat than Saddam was?" Well, you can bet Bush isn't going to answer that directly. When an animal is backed into a corner it gets dangerous, when a politician gets backed into a corner he gets evasive. If we, the common people, would realize that this is just the way it is we would save ourselves a whole lot of disallusionment in our system.
Another thing many people noticed was that Bush just about called Kerry a flipflopper because of his "inconsistent" stance on Iraq. Kerry explained that Saddam was indeed a threat, the president himself pointed out that they both looked at the same intelligence, just that there were more options to be exhausted then to go to war. Something that has annoyed me for some time is how Bush seems to think that "consistent = right", this is just wrong. If anything I would prefer a flipflopper to someone like that. Using that logic if someone 'consistently' hated Jews and they believed in it completely, then at least on some level they were right. Well, clearly that is completely wrong. I would much rather have some with the capacity to admit they are wrong and adjust accordingly. Obviously there are limits to this; but to think that the President, as an individual, has so much power is scary, and I think, untrue.