AP GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Santorum Denounces Gingrich as "very High Risk Candidate"

2012-01-24T21:21:00.002-05:00

Rick Santorum tore into his Republican rival Newt Gingrich on Sunday, calling the former House speaker a “very high risk candidate” who could dash Republican hopes of winning back the White House, if he becomes the party’s nominee.

Appearing on This Week, Santorum denounced the winner of Saturday’s South Carolina GOP primary as an “erratic conservative, someone who on a lot of issues has just been wrong,” adding “we have to have someone who makes Obama the issue in this race, not the Republican nominee.”

Santorum told me he considers Gingrich “a brilliant guy with a ton of ideas. The issue is discipline. The issue is leadership.”

The former Pennsylvania senator pointed to Gingrich’s tenure as House speaker, telling me “If you look at his leadership… there was a conservative coup within three years of him becoming the Speaker and eventually he was forced out because of, well, you know, issues of being able to focus, execute, discipline.”

“This is not, you know, the old Newt,” he said. “This is the last six months.”

For Santorum, it’s been a week of highs and lows. He was declared the official winner of the Iowa caucuses, but then went on to a disappointing third place finish in South Carolina.

“I’ve beaten Mitt Romney,” he said. “Newt Gingrich has beaten Mitt Romney. The idea that conservatives have to coalesce in order to beat Mitt Romney, well, that’s just not true anymore. Conservatives actually can have a choice.”

1. Do you think GOP candidates should be more focused on making Obama the issue rather than who gets the nomination?

2. Do you think Santorum has a valid argument, or could he be upset at losing South Carolina?

3. Which GOP candidate do you think has the best shot of winning?

Syria Rejects Peace Effort From Region

2012-01-24T20:35:00.002-05:00

DAMASCUS, Syria — Saying that “half the universe” was conspiring against his country, the Syrian foreign minister forcefully rejected a regional attempt to broker an end to the 10-month conflict here on Tuesday and suggested that there would be no end to the government’s use of force to put down the uprising.

Activists reported a sharp escalation of violence in the last two days, saying at least 17 people were killed in one neighborhood alone in troubled Homs, the city that has become a focal point for concerns about Syria’s slide into civil war.

At the United Nations on Tuesday, key Western members and their Arab allies drafted a new Security Council resolution that endorses the Arab League action, which calls on the government to start a dialogue with its opponents that would lead to the formation of a unity government. But putting it into play hinged on a briefing from Nabil al-Araby, the Arab League secretary general, which could be delayed until Feb. 8, they said. Such a resolution would have to win the approval of Russia, a close ally of Syria that, along with China, vetoed a resolution condemning Syria in October.

The impasse has thwarted the council for months, and animosity was vividly on display in the chamber on Tuesday. Without naming Russia, ambassadors of the United States, Britain and France all strongly criticized it for continuing to deliver arms to the government in Damascus.

The Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, accused the Western nations — also without naming them — of seeking to use antigovernment demonstrators to bring to power here a government closer to their interests.

Despite his condemnation of meddling in this country’s internal affairs, Syria on Tuesday approved a one-month extension of an Arab League monitoring mission, which has been criticized for failing to curb the violence. Echoing the frustration, six Persian Gulf countries announced that they were pulling their citizens from the observer mission, saying the killing was continuing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/world/middleeast/syria-rejects-regional-effort-to-end-conflict.html

Do you think the tensions between the Western nations and Russia are hindering progress?

Does the United Nations have a right to step in even though Syrian officials feel like “half the universe” was conspiring against them?

Marine to serve no jail time in Iraqi killings

2012-01-24T20:12:00.002-05:00

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) — The lone Marine to face sentencing for the killing of two dozen unarmed Iraqis in one of the Iraq War's defining moments walked away with no jail time Tuesday after defending his squad's storming of the homes of Haditha as a necessary act "to keep the rest of my Marines alive."

Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich's sentence ends a six-year prosecution for the 2005 attack that failed to win any manslaughter convictions. Eight Marines were initially charged; one was acquitted and six others had their cases dropped.

Wuterich, who admitted ordering his squad to "shoot first, ask questions later" after a roadside bomb killed a fellow Marine, ended his manslaughter trial by pleading guilty on Monday to a single count of negligent dereliction of duty.

The deal that dropped nine counts of manslaughter sparked outrage in the besieged Iraqi town and claims that the U.S. didn't hold the military accountable.

"I was expecting that the American judiciary would sentence this person to life in prison and that he would appear and confess in front of the whole world that he committed this crime, so that America could show itself as democratic and fair," said survivor Awis Fahmi Hussein, showing his scars from a bullet wound to the back.

Military judge Lt. Col. David Jones initially recommended the maximum sentence of three months for Wuterich, saying: "It's difficult for the court to fathom negligent dereliction of duty worse than the facts in this case."

But after opening an envelope to look at the terms of the plea agreement as is procedure in military court, Jones announced the deal prevented any jail time for the Marine.

"That's very good for you obviously," Jones said tersely to Wuterich.

Jones did recommend that the sergeant's rank be reduced to private, but decided not to cut two-thirds of his pay because the divorced father has sole custody of his three daughters. The rank reduction has to be approved by a Marine general, who already signed off on the plea deal.

Wuterich read a statement apologizing to the victims' families and said he never fired on or intended to harm innocent women and children. But he said his plea shouldn't be seen as a statement that he believes his squad dishonored their country.

"When my Marines and I cleared those houses that day, I responded to what I perceived as a threat and my intention was to eliminate that threat in order to keep the rest of my Marines alive," he said. "So when I told my team to shoot first and ask questions later, the intent wasn't that they would shoot civilians, it was that they would not hesitate in the face of the enemy."

"The truth is I never fired my weapon at any women or children that day," Wuterich told Jones.

The contention by Wuterich, 31, of Meriden, Conn., contradicts prosecutors and counters testimony from a former squad mate who said he joined Wuterich in firing in a dark back bedroom where a woman and children were killed.

Defense attorney Neal Puckett said Wuterich has been falsely labeled a killer who carried out a massacre in Iraq and insisted he only intended to protect his Marines in an "honorable and noble" act.

Prosecutors argued that Wuterich's knee-jerk reaction of sending the squad to assault nearby homes without positively identifying a threat went against his training and caused needless deaths of 10 women and children.

Wuterich directly addressed family members of the Iraqi victims, saying there were no words to ease their pain.

"I wish to assure you that on that day, it was never my intention to harm you or your families. I know that you are the real victims of Nov. 19, 2005," he said.

Wuterich, who hugged his parents after he spoke, declined comment on Jones' decision. His attorneys, Neal Puckett and Haytham Faraj, said in a statement: "We believe justice prevailed for Staff Sgt. Wuterich and in turn, he wishes it was within his power to impart the same measure of justice to the families of the victims of Haditha."

Military prosecutors worked for more than six years to bring Wuterich to trial on manslaughter charges that could have sent him away to prison for life. But only weeks after the long-awaited trial started, they offered Wuterich the deal that stopped the proceedings.

It was a stunning outcome for the last defendant in the case once compared with the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

The Haditha attack is considered among the war's defining moments, further tainting America's reputation when it was already at a low point after the release of photos of prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison.

During the trial before a jury of combat Marines who served in Iraq, prosecutors argued Wuterich lost control after seeing his friend blown apart by the bomb and led his men on a rampage, blasting their way in with gunfire and grenades. Among the dead was a man in a wheelchair.

Faraj said the deal was reached last week when the government recognized its case was falling apart with contradictory testimony from witnesses who had lied to investigators. Many of the squad members had their cases dropped in exchange for testifying. Prosecutors have declined to comment.

Wuterich was also seen as taking the fall for senior leaders and more seasoned combat veterans in his squad, analysts said. It was his first time in combat.

Brian Rooney, an attorney who represented a former defendant, said cases like Haditha are difficult to prosecute because a military jury is unlikely to question decisions made in combat unless wrongdoing is clear-cut and egregious, like rape.

Wuterich plans to leave the Marine Corps and start a new career in informational technology. His lawyers said they plan to petition for clemency.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ia22wCH6IhDqEM5np9LA9P1P8_KQ?docId=f55cac498a9344c18760e4341cec45c9

Should Wuterich go to jail for his war crimes?

Do you think Judge Jones let Wuterich off too easily?

Based on the evidence at hand, do you think Wuterich was guilty of manslaughter, or just a soldier doing the best he can?

Is all fair in war or is there a line that shouldn't be crossed?

Obama Will Challenge Congress in Aggressive State of the Union

2012-01-24T19:58:00.002-05:00

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If history is any guide, President Barack Obama will reach for the stars during his State of the Union address Tuesday night. But in the end, reality will bring his plans back down to Earth.

Obama's "blueprint" for 2012 may run into similar partisan roadblocks that trimmed his lofty hopes for last year.

"There are absolutely things that remain undone that need to be done," White House spokesman Jay Carney admitted to reporters on Monday even as he touted a "fairly comprehensive list of proposals" that he believes the president has achieved.

Ambition is taking the fall for unfinished business.

"If you got through a year and you achieved everything on your list then you probably didn't aim high enough," Carney said.

Among the president's unmet promises from last year's address are pledges to increase investment in clean energy, take action on the status of illegal immigrants, fund new infrastructure projects, overhaul social security and let the Bush tax cuts on the highest income bracket expire.

The president submitted proposals to Congress addressing some of his 2011 pledges, including on infrastructure spending and the tax cuts , but Republicans promptly rejected those measures. On other issues, including entitlement reform, a simplification to the tax code, and addressing illegal immigration, no concrete plan from the White House ever reached Congress.

But the White House can point to some concrete achievements outlined in last year's address. These include the passage of trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia; an end to the war in Iraq; and a repeal of the "1099 provision" that was said to burden small businesses' bookkeeping efforts relating to health care coverage.

Even before the president utters the first words of his carefully crafted 2012 speech, Republicans are sending loud signals that there will be little to applaud.

"This year, the president's prospects for hope and change are even smaller," Republican National Committee press secretary Kirsten Kukowski said.

Some of the president's policy proposals that White House aides describe as ambitious will require congressional approval, and most of those "may be dead on arrival in Congress," Kukowski predicted.

But the president's tone is expected to be matched with a call for action. "He rejects the idea that nothing can get done in an election year," Carney said.

Through draft after draft, top aides have described the president as "very engaged" in the process. He worked with chief speechwriter Jon Favreau and others on his policy team to "refine it." Tweaks will continue until delivery.

Another sales pitch will involve the president hitting the road Wednesday with a three-day, five-state tour. He'll tackle one of the main pillars laid out in his address each day, according to a senior administration official. On Wednesday it will be manufacturing; Thursday, energy and energy security, and Friday, American skills and innovation.

Republicans consider the highly touted tour a tax-funded campaign trip, with convenient visits to states that could be key to the president's re-election efforts.

"Obama's speech won't be as important for the policy agenda he lays out ... as for the political campaign it sets for the next nine months," the RNC's Kukowski said. "Perhaps that's why he will travel to Iowa, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Michigan, all potentially swing states in the election."

The White House brushes aside that criticism and redirects attention to the president's primary goal of fixing the economy and creating jobs.

Top aides insist that despite predictions of more gridlock, there's no reason proposals that will be detailed in the State of the Union address can't find bipartisan support.

And while some of last year's promises went unmet, Tuesday night's address will be no less ambitious.

"You shouldn't trim your sails because of that," Carney said.

SOOO...

1. What do you hope the President includes in his State of the Union Address?

2. The article states that the President "rejects the idea that nothing can get done in an election year", do you agree or disagree?

3. Should the President reach for the stars in this speech or do you think it would be better to set fewer more realistic goals?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/24/politics/sotu-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Superbowl

2012-01-23T19:50:00.003-05:00

Who is going to win the Superbowl??

New England or New York?

Giants or Patriots?

And to relate this to politics, as this is a GovPol blog, will political figures use the Super Bowl to increase exposure? If so, how?

Because advertising is so expensive for the super bowl, will this give Romney an advantage if he chooses to run ads?

What happened to Romney, the 'inevitable' candidate?

2012-01-23T10:03:00.003-05:00

Columbia, South Carolina (CNN) -- Newt Gingrich has pulled a Double Lazarus, coming back from the dead twice in this campaign to win decisively in South Carolina.
Exit polls showed a broad and deep victory in this conservative state, with Newt winning tea partiers and evangelicals -- as well as both men and women. Interestingly, Newt won voters who said the economy was the number one issue as well as people who said their priority was defeating President Barack Obama in November.
This not only turns the Romney campaign's electability narrative on its head, it's got to be making the Obama camp in Chicago smile, looking at a long GOP nomination fight ahead.
Mitt Romney's sole strong suits were people making over $200,000, moderates and non-tea partiers, making him look like Jon Huntsman in this primary state. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley's endorsement did not have the impact that was projected -- pulling back the curtain on her 34% in-state approval rating despite her rising national profile.
At the Romney HQ, the atmosphere was like someone died before a big party, but the caterers still arrived, standing glumly behind the cash bar.
Supporters on bleachers behind the podium were prompted to chant "Florida! Florida!" as a way of pivoting attention forward from the debacle that was unfolding as Newt was declared the early winner.
The state of the race has fundamentally changed in the course of one dizzying week. The inevitability narrative that surrounded Mitt Romney -- along with the claim that he was the only GOP candidate to ever win both Iowa and New Hampshire consecutively -- has collapsed. Rick Santorum was belatedly declared the real winner of Iowa on Thursday morning and that same day Rick Perry dropped out of the race and immediately endorsed Newt Gingrich.
Over the course of two contentious debates, Romney was hammered on his failure to release his taxes, the revelation that he pays a 15% rate and reports that he has accounts in the Cayman Islands. The result was a stunning reversal of fortune, from 10 percentage points up in the polls a week ago to a double-digit loss on primary day.
Gingrich revived his campaign with pugnacious debate performances punctuated with deep policy knowledge. Two-thirds of voters said the debates had helped determine their vote and not surprisingly those voters mostly cast their ballot for Gingrich.
In addition, Team Newt's ever-present attack on Mitt Romney as a "Massachusetts Moderate" seemed to have special resonance south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Two quick notes on the other two candidates: Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Days after New Hampshire, a meeting of evangelical big-wigs at a Texas ranch resulted in a broad-based endorsement of Rick Santorum -- but the religious right's benediction failed to create a surge of support for Santorum even in this stereotypically religious and socially conservative state.
That should call into the question the real influence the religious right's self-appointed leaders actually have in the Republican electorate.
Ron Paul had a strong showing in a state where conventional wisdom stated that his libertarian beliefs would fail to attract broad-based support because of the evangelicals' disproportionate influence.
I spoke to several voters who had cast ballots for Ron Paul, ranging from fiscal conservatives who leaned libertarian on social issues to Democrats who voted for Paul in this open primary because they agreed with his views on civil liberties and non-interventionist foreign policy.
In his concession speech, Romney started by recycling lines from his New Hampshire victory, but delivered in a very different tone. His attacks on President Obama were now balanced by indirect hits on Newt, trying to tie him to what was styled as Democratic-oriented attacks on free market capitalism. This primary fight is getting personal.
The big picture takeaway: Florida is now set up to be the tie-breaker -- its traditional role in the January gauntlet. A different candidate has won each of the three primary contests to date, reminding Republicans and political observers to call off the coronation and give the people a chance to vote.
We are looking at a long-primary fight now -- almost certain to extend through Super Tuesday in early March. All of this is good in my book -- the more voters who have a say in picking the Republican nominee, the better the democratic process is served.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/21/opinion/avlon-romney-stumble/index.html
Questions:
1.) D0 you beleive that Romney will be able to regain momentum in Florida.
2.) Does it seem like the race has become solely between Gingrich and Romney, or does the race now have a larger spectrum.
3.) How does the GOP struggle affect the race of Barack Obama?

Should Everyone Be Required to Have Health Insurance?

2012-01-22T20:27:00.004-05:00

Should Everyone Be Required to Have Health Insurance?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204124204577152842650354880.html

The Supreme Court has been presented with a case regarding the Constitutionality of forcing all to have health insurance or pay a fine. The law was passed by Congress in 2010 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but will not be active until 2014, and may not be implemented due to the high level of controversy. Provisions of this act require coverage to be available, affordable, and renewable for all applicants regardless of health and history. While this reform was the basis for Clinton’s campaign, its experiment in Massachusetts has proved to be unsuccessful.

In support of the act, individuals argue that health care will become affordable for all socioeconomic levels, reliable because it will always exist, and accessible for individuals will not be able to be denied to a range of health care levels. Although the burden will be shared by all, this process will work to help families save $2000 a year on premiums, and is a responsibility much like social security. Furthermore, this will eliminate the occurrence of “free riders” who cause hospitals to charge all patients more for services.

In opposition, requiring citizens to purchase a private product such as health insurance violates Constitutional freedom. This act is unpopular as it will raise premiums for those without coverage and those with minimal coverage and will thus simply encourage the healthy to lower coverage, which in turn raises over costs, or to abandon coverage all together in favor of paying the fee and getting insurance only when they become ill. Because the coverage is so expensive, the government may resort to rationing the amount of health care available to each citizen, preventing a free market even more than the current system, which is in reality the only way to make health care affordable.

How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on the act?
Which side do you take on the issue?
Will this act be discussed in the 2012 election?
Does the passing of this act alter your perception of Obama’s accomplishments in office with a Republican Congress?

Obama to Draw an Economic Line in State of the Union

2012-01-22T19:43:00.002-05:00

WASHINGTON — President Obama will use his election-year State of the Union address on Tuesday to argue that it is government’s role to promote a prosperous and equitable society, drawing a stark contrast between the parties in a time of deep economic uncertainty.

In a video preview e-mailed to millions of supporters on Saturday, as South Carolina Republicans went to the polls to help pick an alternative to him, Mr. Obama promised a populist “blueprint for an American economy that’s built to last,” with the government assisting the private sector and individuals to ensure “an America where everybody gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules.”

Mr. Obama has honed that message for months as he has attacked Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, contrasting it with what he has described as Republicans’ “go it alone” free-market views.

Last week at fund-raisers in New York, he told supporters that his push for a government hand had a precedent dating to the construction of canals and interstate highways, and the creation of land-grant colleges and the G.I. Bill. He said that Republicans had moved so far to the right that 2012 will be a “hugely consequential election.”

Notably, Mr. Obama will again propose changes to the tax code so the wealthy pay more, despite Republicans’ consistent opposition. Americans overwhelmingly support the idea, polls show, and the White House hopes that it gains traction with voters, given last week’s acknowledgment by the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that he pays taxes at a lower rate than many middle-class Americans because most of his income comes from investments.

With most Americans registering disapproval of the president’s economic record after three years, it is all the more imperative for Mr. Obama to define the election not as a referendum on him but as a choice between his vision and that of his eventual Republican rival.

Mr. Obama’s third State of the Union address is widely seen in parallel with the one delivered in 1996 by President Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton likewise was seeking re-election, after voters in the midterm elections had put Republicans in power in Congress as a rebuke to his perceived big-government liberalism.

But Mr. Clinton sought to co-opt Republicans’ small-government message; his State of the Union line “the era of big government is over” is among the most memorable of his presidency. Mr. Obama is confronting them instead, and framing the election-year debate in a way that aides say will challenge Republicans’ support for unfettered American markets and “you’re-on-your-own economics,” as he put it in December in Osawatomie, Kan., in a speech that was a prelude for Tuesday’s address.

Advisers and other people familiar with the speech say Mr. Obama will expand again on the administration’s effort to resolve the housing crisis with both carrots and sticks to lenders dealing with homeowners behind on their mortgage payments — after yet another debate between his economic and political advisers.

The political team has long argued that most Americans oppose bold government action to stem home foreclosures, like forcing lenders to reduce borrowers’ principal, seeing it as rewarding those who had bought houses they could not afford. The economic team holds that until the housing market recovers, the broader economy cannot — and that all Americans suffer.

On Tuesday, Mr. Obama will flesh out his populist message with new proposals to spur manufacturing, including tax breaks for companies that “insource” jobs back to the United States; to double-down on clean-energy incentives; and to improve education and job training initiatives, especially for the millions of long-term unemployed, the officials familiar with the speech said.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/us/politics/obama-to-draw-an-economic-line-in-state-of-union.html?ref=politics

Questions:

1.) Do you believe Obama is correctly addressing the issue of the economy?

2.) Do you think Obama will take a bipartisan approach like CLinton, or do you believe he will stay steadfast to his recent ideas?

3.) Do you think this adress will have a large impact on wether or nor Obama is re-elected?

Obama Reaffirms Insurers Must Cover Contraception

2012-01-22T19:27:00.000-05:00

Obama Reaffirms Insurers Must Cover Contraception
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/health/policy/administration-rules-insurers-must-cover-contraceptives.html?ref=health&pagewanted=print

On Friday, the Obama administration decreed that insurance companies must cover contraceptives and sterilization procedures for women, including religious employers. Although the Roman Catholic church pleaded for an exemption for Catholic-affiliated employers, Obama sided with the advice of scientists, Congressmen, and family planning advocates.

The rationale behind covering contraceptives is that they help women’s health significantly, and the cost of them has always been a barrier. Obama provided a one-year grace period for outstanding organizations to comply, however, those against this action believe this period is Obama’s scheme to gain support for reelection. The opposition claims that forcing Catholic organizations to provide birth control is contradicting to their morals, and they are working to pass legislation repealing the decree and are trying to bring the action to court.

Groups in support include the National Academy of Sciences, Planned Parenthood, and Democrats, while those against include National Association of Evangelicals, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and Republicans, as well as evangelical, Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Jewish Orthodox leaders.

Is it wrong to force religiously affiliated groups to provide services that contradict their morals?
What will the effect of affordable birth control be on America?
How will this action sway support in Obama’s reelection?
Do you think this will effect the GOP?

Changes in Diagnosing Autism Will Make Leaps and Bounds…Backwards?

2012-01-19T22:43:00.002-05:00

Proposed changes in the definition of autism would sharply reduce the skyrocketing rate at which the disorder is diagnosed and might make it harder for many people who would no longer meet the criteria to get health, educational and social services, a new analysis suggests.

The definition is now being reassessed by an expert panel appointed by the American Psychiatric
Association, which is completing work on the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the first major revision in 17 years. The D.S.M., as the manual is known, is the standard reference for mental disorders, driving research, treatment and insurance decisions. Most experts expect that the new manual will narrow the criteria for autism; the question is how sharply.

The proposed changes would probably exclude people with a diagnosis who were higher functioning. “I’m very concerned about the change in diagnosis, because I wonder if my daughter would even qualify,” said Mary Meyer of Ramsey, N.J. A diagnosis of Asperger syndrome was crucial to helping her daughter, who is 37, gain access to services that have helped tremendously. “She’s on disability, which is partly based on the Asperger’s; and I’m hoping to get her into supportive housing, which also depends on her diagnosis.”

The changes would narrow the diagnosis so much that it could effectively end the autism surge, said Dr. Fred R. Volkmar, director of the Child Study Center at the Yale School of Medicine
and an author of the new analysis of the proposal. “We would nip it in the
bud.”

“Our fear is that we are going to take a big step backward,” said Lori Shery, president of the Asperger Syndrome Education Network. “If clinicians say, ‘These kids don’t fit the criteria for an autism spectrum diagnosis,’ they are not going to get the supports and services they need, and they’re going to experience failure.”

Adapted from the New York Times.
This is a serious change, no? Do you agree with the last paragraph? How do you think this
will affect our generation as we mature into adults? How about the generations to come? Do you think the government influenced this change, suggesting that it has been over-diagnosed? What happens if someone who genuinely needs aid because he cannot support himself as an adult is not provided with benefits because he “doesn’t fit the new criteria”? Who is liable?

General says Army suicides have largely 'leveled off'

2012-01-19T22:29:00.002-05:00

For three years, Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli has been spearheading the Army's effort to reduce the number of suicides in the service.

His effort has been thorough and transparent -- but the numbers indicate the effort may not be effective.

The latest numbers released by Chiarelli during a briefing with reporters Thursday show that active-duty Army suicides were up again in 2011, compared to 2010. And suicides throughout the Army, the Army Reserves and the National Guard, while down in the past year, are still nearly 40% above what they were from 2008, the year before Chiarelli began overseeing the Army suicide prevention effort.

The figures show that there were 164 suicides in the Army in 2011, compared to 159 in 2010. For all three categories -- Army, Army Reserves and National Guard -- there were 278 suicides in 2011, compared to 200 in 2008.

Chiarelli believes that one way to reduce soldier suicides is to get guns away from soldiers who exhibit high-risk behavior. However, the general doesn't want to take the guns, he simply wants the Army to have the right to ask high-risk soldiers if they want their weapons locked up at a base depot while they are dealing with behavioral issues. Right now, an NRA-backed law forbids even asking soldiers about guns in the home.

Luckily, Chiarelli has predicted recent treatment and mental health evaluation programs and awareness among military leaders will help turn the trend around.

Do you find it surprising that these efforts have not effected suicide rates? Should the NRA allow us to ask soldiers about guns in their homes? Do you think there could be another effective way to helping struggling soldiers?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/19/us/army-suicides/index.html?hpt=us_c2

SOPA Blackouts Cause 10 Senators to Oppose the Bill

2012-01-19T21:45:00.002-05:00

As we all know, on Wednesday, January 18th, many websites such as Google, Reddit, and Wikipedia decided to participate in an internet blackout. As explained in Jack's launch yesterday, this blackout was a form of protest over the proposed bill, SOPA, or the Stop Online Piracy Act. If put into legislation, this act would end copyright infringement and illegal download. However, the wording of the bill is broad and would cause many companies to lose millions as well as give government the power to censor the internet. Hundreds of websites participated in this blackout to raise awareness and gain support against the proposed bill that would harm the future of America.

As a result of this protest, many senators decided to change their views of the bill. This started as Senator Marco Rubio of Florida decided to renounce the bill even though he was a co-sponsor. Later, Senator John Cornyn of Texas also decided to oppose the bill. This pattern continued with 8 more senators, meaning that the blackout influenced the views of 10 senators and almost double the amount of House members.

What is your opinion on the effectiveness of the blackout? Using this as an example, do you believe that people are easily able to voice their opinion to the policymakers and influence the ideas of policymakers? Do you think that the anti-SOPA movement will pick up momentum and continue to influence the views of the senators?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-key-senators-change-course.html

Obama rejects Keystone oil pipeline

2012-01-19T21:36:00.002-05:00

President Barack Obama on Wednesday rejected a Canadian company's plan to build a U.S.-spanning, 1,700-mile pipeline to carry oil across six U.S. states to Texas refineries, raising the stakes on a bitter election year fight with Republicans.

Though the project promises thousands of temporary jobs for the recovering U.S. economy, Obama said a February deadline set by Congress would not allow for a proper review of potential harm from the $7 billion Keystone XL project.

"As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline's impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment," Obama, a Democrat, said.

Newt Gingrich, campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination in South Carolina, called Obama's decision "stunningly stupid," adding: "What Obama has done is kill jobs, weaken American security and drive Canada into the arms of China out of just sheer stupidity."

The pipeline proposal has forced the White House to make a politically risky choice between two important Democratic constituencies. Many labor unions back the project because of the prospects of new jobs in a fragile economy. Environmental groups fear the pipeline could lead to an oil spill disaster.

Some liberal donors threatened to cut off funds to Obama's re-election campaign to protest the project, which opponents say would transport "dirty oil" that requires huge amounts of energy to extract.

Obama said his decision was not based on the pipeline's merits but on what he called an arbitrary Feb. 21 deadline set by Republicans in Congress. They set the deadline as part of a tax bill that Obama signed into law in late December.

"I'm disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my administration's commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil," Obama said.

Do you think that Obama's rejection of the pipeline goes against his plans to increase jobs/employment and do you agree with Gingrich's accusation?

Do you think that Obama made the right call by following the deadline?

How do you think this decision will affect his upcoming reelection?

Santorum Edges Ahead of Romney in Iowa

2012-01-19T20:56:00.001-05:00

Rick Santorum’s campaign claimed a belated victory in the Iowa caucuses on Thursday morning after certified results from the contest showed him leading Mitt Romney by 34 votes, a reversal from the eight-vote edge for Mr. Romney on caucus night.

Matt Strawn, chairman of Iowa’s Republican Party, announced Thursday morning that an actual winner could not be determined in the caucuses because results from eight of 1,774 precincts could not be located for certification. But of the votes that could be reviewed by the party, the officials said, Mr. Santorum finished narrowly ahead of Mr. Romney.

“Just as I did in the early morning hours on Jan. 4, I congratulate Senator Santorum and Governor Romney on a hard-fought effort during the closest contest in caucus history,” Mr. Strawn said in a statement. “Our goal throughout the certification process was to most accurately reflect and report how Iowans voted the evening of Jan. 3. We understand the importance to the candidates involved, but as Iowans, we understand the responsibility we have as temporary caretakers of the Iowa caucuses.”

The certified results found that Mr. Santorum received 29,839 votes, and Mr. Romney received 29,805 votes.

Mr. Romney called Mr. Santorum on Thursday to concede the Iowa caucuses, a spokesman for Mr. Santorum said. The call affirmed the Santorum victory in Iowa.

He will argue to voters in South Carolina, aides said, that the result shows that he is the best-equipped candidate to emerge as a conservative alternative to Mr. Romney.

“The history books will read that the winner of the Iowa caucuses in 2012 is Rick Santorum. That’s the bottom line,” Hogan Gidley, an adviser to Mr. Santorum said in an interview Thursday. “This just goes to prove what we’ve been saying: We can take it right to Mitt Romney with a fraction of the resources and beat him. We can do the same to Barack Obama.”

Mr. Romney’s campaign shrugged off the new vote totals, saying that it had always considered the Iowa results to have been a virtual tie.

“The results from Iowa caucus night revealed a virtual tie,” Mr. Romney said in an e-mail statement to reporters. “I would like to thank the Iowa Republican Party for their careful attention to the caucus process, and we once again recognize Rick Santorum for his strong performance in the state.”

The muddled result could be a psychological gain for Mr. Santorum, and robs Mr. Romney of being able to say that he swept the early contests.

Mr. Santorum had initially referred to the results in Iowa as a tie. He told Fox News shortly after the caucuses ended that he dismissed reports about possible errors in the count.

“That doesn’t really matter to me. I mean, this was a tie,” Mr. Santorum said on the network at the time."

Do you think that voters will continue to see Romney as the winner of the Iowa caucus? Or will they now shift their attention to Santorum because they now know the true winner of the caucus? How much of a gain is this for Santorum and how much was it a loss for Romney?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/the-iowa-caucuses-will-have-no-official-winner/

Watchdogs campaign to ban ‘super PACs’

2012-01-19T19:20:00.002-05:00

Two years ago this week, the Supreme Court set the political world on its head by ruling that corporations could spend unlimited money on elections, rolling back decades of legal restrictions.

An array of liberal-leaning activist groups are marking the anniversary by launching new efforts to overturn the decision, including calls for a potential constitutional amendment.

The 5 to 4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission effectively laid the groundwork for super PACs, the new independent groups that have overwhelmed the Republican presidential race with millions of dollars in negative advertising over the past few weeks.

The decision, issued Jan. 21, 2010, outraged Democrats and many watchdog groups, but they’ve had little success in doing anything about it over the past two years. Activists are hoping to try again by focusing on the difficult task of passing a constitutional amendment, which would require ratification by three-quarters of the states.

“We’re already at a point where the public overwhelmingly opposes the decision,” said Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a watchdog group helping to spearhead the efforts. “The goal is to build a grass-roots movement that will eventually be able to shape the debate.”

Public Citizen is teaming up with local activists to stage about 300 rallies and other events, most of them on Friday or Saturday, targeting multinational companies around the country. Many are being billed as “Occupying the Corporations” protests, inspired by the anti-Wall Street demonstrations that have taken hold in recent months.

“It’s time to stop the unlimited flow of corrupting money into our elections,” the group’s petition reads. “To do that, we need a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and declare that only people are people.”

These and other such efforts essentially serve as an acknowledgment that previous attempts at reform after the Citizens United decision failed miserably. In 2010, the White House and Democrats in Congress tried to pass legislation requiring fuller disclosure of political spending by corporations, but the changes were blocked by Senate Republicans.

Advocates for stricter campaign finance laws are also disgruntled by the Federal Election Commission, which frequently deadlocks along party lines and has given super PACs wide latitude. Several watchdog groups are conducting a petition drive urging President Obama to fill vacant FEC seats. The seats remain occupied by previous commissioners for a lack of nominees.

Conservatives in large part take a much different tack, viewing Citizens United as just one step toward a less-regulated election system. Republican front-runner Mitt Romney, while complaining about some of the ads put out by super PACs, has argued in recent days that contribution and spending limits should be removed for candidates as well.

Amendments are notoriously difficult to launch, and even more difficult to get ratified. The 27th Amendment, which limits increases in congressional pay, was first proposed in 1789 — and not ratified until 203 years later, in 1992.

Weissman and others say they are under no illusions about how difficult such an effort would be.

“I think everyone understands that winning a constitutional amendment is an uphill fight and a long-term struggle,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-influence-industry-activist-groups-want-to-undo-ruling-that-led-to-super-pac-frenzy/2012/01/18/gIQADUCR9P_story.html?hpid=z9

Questions:
1. Should super PACs be banned?
2. Is it probable that they will be able to pass a constitutional amendment?
3. How can these activist groups win over support and possibly get the amendment passed?

Poll Shows Obama’s Vulnerability With Swing Voters

2012-01-19T19:12:00.002-05:00

"President Obama opens his re-election bid facing significant obstacles among independent voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, with the critical piece of the electorate that cemented his victory four years ago open to denying him a second term.

As Mr. Obama moves toward a full-throated campaign, delivering a State of the Union address on Tuesday and inching closer to directly confronting his Republican challenger, a majority of independent voters have soured on his presidency, disapprove of how he has dealt with the economy and do not have a clear idea of what he hopes to accomplish if re-elected.

The swing voters who will play a pivotal role in determining his political fate are up for grabs, the poll found, with just 31 percent expressing a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama. Two-thirds of independent voters say he has not made real progress fixing the economy.

The president, mindful of the headwinds facing him, begins his first major television advertising campaign on Thursday in a handful of battleground states. His targets include independent voters, who the poll found also hold deep skepticism of Republicans.

While Republican primary voters say Mitt Romney stands the best chance of defeating Mr. Obama, nearly half of independents say they have yet to form an opinion of him, creating a considerable opening for Democrats to try to quickly define him if he becomes the nominee.

As Mr. Romney and his rivals fight to win the South Carolina primary on Saturday, the poll suggests that Republicans have grown less satisfied with their choices. Nearly 7 in 10 Republican voters across the country said they now want more options, a probable reflection of conservative unease about Mr. Romney and the remaining candidates.

A glimmer of hope may be on the horizon for Mr. Obama, though, as the economy appears to be generating more jobs. The poll found that 28 percent of the public says the economy is getting better, which is the biggest sense of optimism found in a Times/CBS News poll since last February.

When asked whom they trust, the poll found that Mr. Obama has an advantage over Congressional Republicans in making the right decisions about creating jobs, health care, Medicare and Social Security. Yet the gap narrows on the economy — the chief concern among voters — with 44 percent of Americans saying they trust Mr. Obama and 40 percent saying they trust Republicans in Congress.

The public is evenly split on whom they trust to deal with the budget deficit, which the poll found to be the public’s second most important issue.

“I’m not saying Obama hasn’t done anything good, and maybe it’s not fair to blame him or the administration, but I just think there were more expectations for an improvement on economic issues,” said Elaine Vignali, 60, a homemaker and independent voter from Uniontown, Pa. She added that she was deeply frustrated, declaring: “To be honest, if I had to vote today I wouldn’t vote.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/us/politics/poll-shows-obamas-vulnerability-with-swing-voters.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Questions:
1. Do you think swing voters will be more apt to vote for Obama or for the Republican candidate?
2. In what ways can Obama and the Republican candidates win over swing voters, and will this cause the candidates to compromise some of their ideas and policies to win over voters?

Megaupload Shut Down by US Authorities

2012-01-19T18:15:00.002-05:00

Earlier today Megaupload, one of the world’s largest file-sharing sites, was shut down. The Justice Department announced they charged its founder and six other company executives with violating copyright laws. The suspects are accused of being members of “the Mega Conspiracy, a worldwide criminal organization whose members engaged in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale.” The indictment claims that Megaupload has made $175 million in income while causing $500 million in damage due to the lost revenue from pirated materials.

Megaupload allowed its users to download movies, TV shows, music, and other content for free. However it made through advertisements and by charging subscription fees for those who wanted extra privileges such as faster download speeds. It had over 150 million registered users and was at one point the 13^th most visited website on the Internet.

Megaupload already garnered attention last month with a promotional video in which various celebrities voiced their support for the site. It is currently involved in a lawsuit with Universal over this video. This case has garnered even more attention due to the fact that it has been introduced just a day after the mass online protests against the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. Large websites, such as Wikipedia, shut down their sites in order to express their opposition of the bill. After these protests, several members of the Senate withdrew their support for SOPA.

Do you think we will see more sites like Megaupload being shut down in the future?
Do you think the recent protests against SOPA caused the federal authorities to take action?
Will this case influence politicians to support or oppose SOPA?

What are your opinions on SOPA?

Sources: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/technology/indictment-charges-megaupload-site-with-piracy.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/justice-fbi-crack-megaupload/story?id=15396526#.TxilMXMlYVu

Perry closes campaign, endorses Gingrich

2012-01-19T17:45:00.003-05:00

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. – Texas Gov. Rick Perry ended his campaign for president today and endorsed Newt Gingrich as the best conservative to take on President Obama in the fall.

By David Goldman, AP
Texas Gov. Rick Perry announces the end of his presidential campaign in North Charleston, S.C., on Thursday as his son, Griffin, and wife, Anita, lo

Perry's departure two days before the South Carolinaprimary leaves four candidates vying for the GOPnomination.

"Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?" Perry said. "There is forgiveness for those who seek God. I have no question that Newt Gingrich has the heart of a conservative reformer" and "the ability to rally and captivate the conservative movement."

Perry's announcement brought a swift end to a campaign that started with high expectations in August. After making few moves to run early in 2011, Perry jumped into the campaign in August and quickly rose to the top of Republican polls, outpacing former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. A series of poor performances in debates starting in September knocked Perry on his heels, and he never recovered in the polls despite raising more than $17 million.

His departure eliminates one of the conservative alternatives to Romney leading up to Saturday's South Carolina primary. Former House speaker Gingrich has argued that the presence of Perry and former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum on the ballot dilutes the anti-Romney vote.

Do you think it was a good move for Perry to end his campaign? Do you think he made a good decision in endorsing Gingrich? Did Perry drop out at a good time?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-19/perry-republican-race/52677368/1

Ex-wife: Gingrich wanted 'open marriage'

2012-01-19T17:32:00.002-05:00

Newt Gingrich sought an "open marriage," his former wife, Marianne, told ABC News in an interview airing tonight.

Marianne Gingrich told ABC's Nightline that the former House speaker asked her if he could remain married to her while also seeing another woman, Callista Bisek, his current wife.

Marianne Gingrich added that she doesn't believe Gingrich has the moral character to be president.

Gingrich declined to comment about the specifics of the interview -- airing two days before the South Carolina primary -- when talking to reporters in Beaufort, S.C. He said the interview is "tawdry and inappropriate."

Gingrich's three marriages have been an issue for some social conservatives in as he seeks the GOP presidential nomination. He has acknowledged he has made mistakes in his life and has sought God's forgiveness .

Do you think this news will affect Gingrich's position in the polls? Do you think this story should be disregarded, since Gingrich claims the affair occurred 15-20 years ago? Do you believe Gingrich is handling the the situation well?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/01/newt-gingrich-ex-wife-interview-/1

Deportation Policy in Action

2012-01-19T15:30:00.002-05:00

In Denver, Colorado prosecutors have completed a lightening review ordered by the Obama administration of almost all deportation cases before the immigration court, identifying many foreigners who pose no security risk and allowing them to remain in America.

The Obama administration's effort to apply prosecutorial discretion to halt tens of thousands of deportation is a major departure for prosecutors and enforcement agents, and was generally welcome by immigration organizations. However, the administration is not offering any positive legal status to illegal immigrants permitted to stay. Immigrants who are allowed to continue living in the United States will be in somewhat of a limbo, where they are not allowed to work or obtain a driver's licenses and may struggle to subsist.

Republican's are stating that Mr. Obama's plan is an end run around Congress to give amnesty to illegal immigrants. Claiming that the actions strain the constitutional separation of powers and defy the will of the American people.

Since the new policy, which came out in June, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement are trying to be more discriminating with its resources, use prosecutorial discretion to hasten deportations of criminals while avoiding illegal immigrants who only have civil violations and have strong family ties to the country. If an immigrant is chosen for discretion, they must pass background checks against federal criminal and national security databases. If passed, the ICE prosecutors offer to file a motion to close the deportation case and the approval of the judge is relatively quick. However, the deportation becomes a "sleeping beauty" meaning that even though it is closed it could be reopened at any point in time.

Questions:

Do you think that these trials should continue to be quick if there is no criminal record?

Are the conditions facing illegal immigrants allowed to stay fair? If not, why and how would you change them?

Which side would you take on this issue, the Republican's or Democrat's?

Perry Drops Out of GOP Race

2012-01-19T12:59:00.002-05:00

Texas Gov. Rick Perry exited the race for the GOP nomination right before today's South Carolina primary. Perry said "that there was no longer a 'viable path' forward in the contest and added that he knows when it's 'time to make a strategic retreat'". He also claims that he ran for President "because [he] love[s] America", but that America's government needs to be fixed and "humbler". Perry offered his verbal support to New Gingrich for the GOP nomination. He feels that Newt is "a conservative visionary who can transform our country". He also admitted what many satirists and the public have wanted to hear all along: that none of the GOP candidates are perfect, "but who among us is?" Although Perry was popular when he initially announced his intention to become President, Perry finished fifth place in the Iowa caucus, his last big step before South Carolina. Other GOP candidates still in the running sent their regards to Perry, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney who told reporters, "He's a great man. He made a real contribution. He already has to his state and to our country."

1. Which actions do you think really hurt Rick Perry's campaign?

2. Now that the GOP candidates have been widdled down, who do you think will be the next to drop out, or who do you think will ultimately win the Republican nomination? Why?

3. Would you vote for Rick Perry? If not, then who of the remaining candidates would you vote for now?

SOPA Protests

2012-01-18T10:13:00.000-05:00

Today Wikipedia has issued a 24 hour blackout to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, for fear that this bill will cost them and other websites millions. The bill is aimed at ending copyright infringement and illegal downloading that now runs rampant on the internet. However, it will also open the door for corporations and music labels to sue various websites for millions and essentially censor the internet. Although file-sharing nearly collapsed the music industry back in the '90's, this act will allow companies and various organizations to find anything that resembles copyright infringement and remove it from any website, no questions asked.

For years, the internet has been about freedom of speech and sharing information and media from articles found on magazine websites to music found on youtube or various music blogs. All of this would be brought to an end by SOPA and websites such as youtube, facebook, and twitter, would stand to lose almost everything. That is why these websites, in addition to google and wikipedia, have said that they will protest the act by blacking out for 24 hours should it get closer to being passed.

Do you think that this is an overreaction to a bill with good intentions or do you believe that there is a real threat in censoring the internet? What additional effects do you think this could have if passed?

Live Blogging the Myrtle Beach Debate

2012-01-16T21:50:00.002-05:00

The five remaining Republican candidates are squaring off tonight in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, just five days before the GOP primary.

During this debate, live updates and analysis of the best moments are going to be blogged and tweeted in real time. The New York Times will also be taking suggestions from readers for candidate statements that deserve a closer look. You can submit them via Twitter with the hashtag #asknyt or on the dashboard.

This is not the first time live blogging and twitter updates have been posted during debates. The Fox News Debate in Iowa also posted live updates throughout the debate.

These update probably make it easier for more people who don't have access to a TV at the time of the debates keep up with whats going on. Twitter and online blogs can be easily accessed with smartphones, laptops, etc.. It also wraps up what is being said into shorter, simpler, and more easily understood language.

Most of the updates are titled: FACT CHECK: (GOP candidate and an issue). These posts break down and summarize the candidates positions they've taken during the debates, while adding a little bit of writer bias.

QUESTIONS:

1. We are learning about the media influence on politics currently in class. Do you believe that these live updates could change the outcome of the GOP primaries/caucus' that follow them?

2. Do you think more people will pay attention to the debates now that they are more easily accessible on the go? Or are the people who actually care just going to watch it on TV?

3. Do you think these brief live updates are a good source of information? As opposed to actually watching the debates?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/live-blogging-the-fox-news-debate-in-iowa/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/live-blogging-the-myrtle-beach-debate/?ref=politics

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/debates/2012-01-16-republican-debate

Keystone Pipeline deadline approaching

2012-01-16T19:12:00.002-05:00

Another all-but-certain battle over the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline is fast approaching as the White House signals resistance to a new Feb. 21 deadline for approval of the project and interest groups step up their campaigns.

The White House agreed to the new deadline as a part of Republican language inserted in the recently passed payroll tax cut extension, but with that deadline now looming, the White House appears hesitant to meet it.

"The State Department has been very clear that that does not allow for the kinds of reviews that are necessary," White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week of the fast approaching deadline.

The State Department has the final say in approval of the pipeline because it crosses international borders. It has been reviewing the proposal for three years.

Pipeline supporters say that several environmental reviews of the proposed pipeline have already been conducted and that the White House is stonewalling under competing pressures from two of its core constituencies -- on one hand big labor, which wants a piece of the thousands of jobs the pipeline would bring, and environmentalists on the other hand, who abhor the further reliance on fossil fuels that the pipeline would bring.

To pressure the White House, congressional Republicans and their allies in the oil industry -- headed by the American Petroleum Institute -- have begun a media campaign in support of the pipeline.

An ad run by API begins with the voice of a narrator saying Obama "promised," followed by a statement from the president that he "will do whatever it takes to

Environmentalists are confident that the State Department will reject the pipeline given what they believe is the narrow timeframe for review. They plan a Capitol Hill rally later this month targeting congressional supporters of the pipeline.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has promised that he would consider selling oil from Canadian tar sands to Asian customers if the U.S. rejects the North American route.

What is your opinion of the Keystone Pipeline?

Should we build it to create thousands of jobs? Or are the jobs not worth the potential environmental impacts?

Would the Pipeline give the economy a boost at all?

Will Romney Release His Tax Returns?

2012-01-16T18:35:00.003-05:00

In an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham on Monday, Rick Santorum joined Newt Gingrich in calling on Mitt Romney to release his federal income tax returns, saying: "I don't know why he isn't releasing his tax returns. I think he should. I think it's appropriate if you're going to run for federal office that you let folks know. Particularly someone with the enormity of wealth -- and he keeps going out there and talking about how he has all this experience, how he's done all these things, how he understands how the economy -- Well, let's see how he manages his own economy."

At a town hall meeting in South Carolina, Rick Perry also called on Romney to make his returns public, saying, "My taxes, Anita and I put out our taxes every year since back in the '80s. And every candidate up there, they should put their taxes out, including Mitt. September and October is not the time for us to be finding out that whoops, there's something out there that is a problem. We need to know it now."

Romney has so far said he has no intention of of doing so. Though not required by law, most recent presidential and vice-presidential nominees have chosen to make their tax returns public.. Former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin also said recently that Romney should release his.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told USA Today the campaign will look at the issue of releasing Romney's tax returns during the next tax-filing season. She added that Gingrich "is in no position to lecture anyone on disclosure," because he still has not disclosed all the information on his consulting work for Freddie Mac.

QUESTIONS:

Does whether or not knowing a candidate's tax returns matter? If Romney released tax returns that revealed a character flaw, could that cost him the election?

Are the other candidates honing in on a rather picayune issue? What does their concern for revealing Romney's tax returns suggest about the focus of American political campaigns?

SOURCE:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/south-carolina-primary-2012-_n_1199084.html?ref=politics#127_santorum-romney-should-release-his-tax-returns

Gas Prices May Reach $5 in Certain Areas

2012-01-16T13:02:00.007-05:00

The new year has greeted Americans with the highest January gas prices ever, and some analysts say prices could get close to $5 a gallon in some areas during the warm-weather driving season. The average price for a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in the United States on Monday was $3.39, according to motorist group AAA-- this is nearly 30 cents higher than a year ago. The national average reached a peak of $4.114 in July 2008.

Experts say there are a variety of factors placing upward pressure on prices at the pump. For one thing, the U.S. economy appears to be in a modest recovery, heralding a likely uptick in gasoline demand. For another, the possibility of conflict with Iran over its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz has driven a rally in crude oil prices over the past few weeks, increasing input costs for refineries.

The Strait of Hormuz is a critical shipping lane, with 17 million barrels of oil per day passing through in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. That's about one-sixth of global oil production and nearly 20% of all the oil traded worldwide. "The potential surrounding the Iranian situation is much worse than Libya," said Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst at gas price reporting website GasBuddy.com, recalling the oil spikes that accompanied Libya's civil war last year. "The stakes are much higher."

Looking ahead, continued geopolitical risk as well as speculative interest in oil and emerging market demand could push prices higher. Although U.S. demand is still lukewarm, American refineries are increasingly exporting gasoline abroad, where strong demand is keeping prices high, said Kyle Cooper, director of research at IAF Advisors.

"The U.S. consumer is competing with the emerging market consumer, namely Brazil, China, and India," Cooper said. "You throw on top of that the fear of anything happening with Iran, and most likely prices are not going to come down significantly in the next few months." But Cooper only sees a modest boost in gasoline prices coming, to an average of around $3.50 per gallon by the beginning of the summer.

GasBuddy.com expects bigger increases coming, predicting that the median U.S. gas price will stand at $3.95 a gallon in May.

Some cities could experience record prices by Memorial Day, GasBuddy says, with Chicago residents paying up to $4.95 a gallon and New Yorkers shelling out up to $4.55.

QUESTIONS:
Can anything be done to avoid gas prices of $5.00 a gallon? Will there ever be a point when we aren't fearing rising gas prices, due to wars and the fact that we're running out?

How will people react to the expense? Will people need to make lifestyle changes (driving less) in order to adapt?

Should the government be focusing on lowering gas prices? Could the government's time and resources be better spent pursuing alternate sources of fuel?

SOURCE: http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/16/markets/gas_prices/

Huntsman Drops Out and Supports Romney

2012-01-16T12:15:00.003-05:00

Huntsman has just dropped out of the race for president only about 10 hours before the next Presidential debate in SC. He now throws his support (but not full endorsement) to Gov. Mitt Romney although there is significant distance between them on certain issues. He explained how all the toxic and negative ads flooding the airways is hindering the common goal of trying to get a new President into the White House under a united Republican party. All Huntsman wants is someone who can change the economy around and he believes that man would be Romney. He also put out a brief plea asking the candidates (and PACs) to stop all the negative attack ads; however, I think he realizes that will never happen.

"This divisiveness is corrosive and does not advance America's interests," he said. "Rather than trying to advance our common goal, this race has degenerated into an onslaught of negative and personal attacks not worthy of the American people," Huntsman said. "At its core the Republican Party is a party of ideas, but the current toxic form of our political discourse does not help our cause and is just one of the many reasons the American people has lost trust in their leaders."
This is clearly evident with Obama's disapproval rating crawling upwards daily as well as Congress' approval rating dismally low somewhere near 10%.

He will support but not endorse Romney because Huntsman said Romney lacked a "core," "has been on three sides of every major issue" and hadn't made an "effective case for trust in his campaign."

His record is pretty extensive, but one of the main reasons he was unable to gain traction in the race is because while all the other candidates were gaining media attention about possibly entering the race, Huntsman only resigned from serving as ambassador under Obama in April. Serving half way across the world naturally diminished his media attention here. He didn't have any spark that made him really different from other Republicans and he seemed sort of dull to me. That also probably had an effect on his campaign. One thing that may have helped him in his campaign were his daughters who seemed to be popular among younger crowds.

I do feel since he has not been "an attacking candidate" he may get some sort of staff position in the White House or will be appointed as an upper-level ambassador if a Republican wins the election.

People wonder how much this may change the dynamics of the field although I don't believe it will have much of an effect. If he had dropped out earlier it would have given Romney a massive lead with probably about 50% of the vote in that primary, but in other parts of the country Huntsman was polling lower than Steve Colbert so its not like more supporters will be flocking to Romney. I have a feeling this race will boil down to Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul by the last few primaries.

So how do you think this will change the dynamics of the field?
What do you think hurt or helped his campaign the greatest?
Where will he go from here?
Will he ever fully endorse Romney?
Which candidates do you think this race will boil down to by the last few primaries?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/15/huntsman-to-withdraw-from-race-for-republican-presidential-nomination/

PACs’ Aid Allows Romney’s Rivals to Extend Race

2012-01-13T12:02:00.002-05:00

Under the old political rules, Mitt Romney arrived in South Carolina this week the prohibitive Republican front-runner: flush with cash, awash in endorsements from a party establishment starting to coalesce behind him and buoyed by victories in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But as Mr. Romney is quickly learning, those rules no longer apply.

Mr. Romney’s carefully tended network of Republican donors has been rendered functionally less important by “super PACs,” through which a handful of wealthy individuals are financing a multimillion-dollar advertising barrage to assail his record and prop up his opponents.

And Mr. Romney’s victories in Iowa and New Hampshire have netted him just a handful of the delegates he needs to become the nominee, thanks to the party’s decision last year to lengthen the nominating process by shifting more winner-take-all contests to the end of the primary season.

As a result, Mr. Romney’s remaining opponents have little incentive to drop out, knowing that their support from super PACs and Internet contributions from grass-roots supporters can keep them in the race long after they would have remained viable in earlier eras, potentially draining money and delegates away from Mr. Romney even as he lurches toward the nomination.

Since the contests began, only one candidate, Representative Michele Bachmann, has pulled out, while two others, Newt Gingrich and Gov. Rick Perry, have failed to break into the top three in Iowa or New Hampshire.

“I think everybody in the race right now has a legitimate shot,” Mr. Romney said to reporters at a news conference in South Carolina on Thursday. “And I wish them all well.”

The debut of candidate-aligned super PACs in the Republican primaries has further upended a party already struggling to reconcile its restive Tea Party-inspired grass roots with a traditional party apparatus that is rapidly losing whatever control it once exerted over the process.

On Thursday, even as hundreds of wealthy Republicans gathered in Palm Beach, Fla., and raised an estimated $1.5 million for Mr. Romney the old-fashioned way, a super PAC backing Mr. Gingrich began buying half-hour blocks of advertising time in South Carolina, with preparations to broadcast a scathing video about Mr. Romney’s record as the founder of Bain Capital.

The group, Winning Our Future, is armed with $5 million from just a single Gingrich ally, the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. And Mr. Gingrich signaled on Thursday that he would continue his own assaults on Mr. Romney’s private equity days, even as other prominent Republicans — including Rudolph W. Giuliani and Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a Tea Party favorite — called on him to cease.

“I’m not going to back down or be afraid to say, ‘We, the American people, have the right to know, and any candidate for president has an obligation to tell us,’ ” Mr. Gingrich said at a convention of the elderly in Columbia.

Asked if Winning Our Future was keeping him in the race, Mr. Gingrich said that “it just offsets the other PACs.”

He is not necessarily wrong. The Red, White and Blue Fund, an outside group that is promoting the candidacy of Rick Santorum, began advertising in South Carolina before the New Hampshire primary, softening the negative effects of Mr. Santorum’s potentially campaign killing — at least by the old rules — poor finish there on Tuesday.

On Thursday, the group, which was seeded with a major contribution from Foster Friess, a wealthy mutual fund executive, announced a new investment of $600,000 in television advertising in South Carolina. The group had its largest fund-raising day on Wednesday, officials said, allowing it to expand its reach into all television markets in the state.

In a brief interview on Thursday, Mr. Santorum said that he welcomed the support and acknowledged that his allies had kept his candidacy afloat. Asked whether the new investment would improve his chances in South Carolina, his eyes lit up, and he declared, “I hope so!”

“We certainly don’t have the kind of money that these other super PACs have,” Mr. Santorum said after a stop in Hilton Head, S.C., “but the modest amount that they’re able to put out there will, hopefully, be a help to us.”

While Jon M. Huntsman Jr. has had too little campaign cash to afford substantial advertising, a super PAC supporting him, Our Destiny, helped keep him afloat through New Hampshire and is expected to weigh in for him to some degree in South Carolina. The group has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Mr. Huntsman’s father, a billionaire industrialist.

Officials with Mr. Huntsman’s campaign have conceded that without the help of the super PAC supporting him, they would have had a much harder time competing. But John Weaver, the chief political strategist for Mr. Huntsman, said having Our Destiny’s help was “not a clean shot” because it left the campaign’s strategy in the hands of people it is legally prohibited from coordinating directly with.

“We would prefer to have the funds within our coffers so we could have direct control of the message,” Mr. Weaver said.

Mr. Weaver put Mr. Huntsman in a different category than Mr. Gingrich, noting that Mr. Huntsman began rising in the polls just before Election Day in New Hampshire, whereas Mr. Gingrich began a sustained slide weeks beforehand. “Without a super PAC, Newt wouldn’t have left Des Moines,” he said.

The outside help for his rivals may, of course, prove to have an upside for Mr. Romney: By keeping a half-dozen different candidates viable, the super PACs may inadvertently be making it impossible for one of them to emerge as the alternative to him.

But the change in the delegate-awarding process means that if Mr. Romney continues to win states only with pluralities, he could face a long nominating fight, as other candidates pick up delegates under new party rules that increase the number of states that award delegates based on vote share.

Still, Mr. Romney will himself enjoy the benefit of a well-financed super PAC in his own corner: Restore Our Future, which spent millions of dollars to attack Mr. Gingrich in Iowa and is preparing to spend even more in South Carolina and Florida.

Do you think that superPAC's have gained to much power in the GOP candidate race?

Does it seem necessary for the government to step in and reduce the reach of superPACS even though their acts are within their "freedoms of speech."?

How much longer do you believe the other candidates will continue to be run due to thier support form superPACs?

Stephen Colbert Announces Run in South Carolina Presidential Primary, Hands PAC off to Jon Stewart

2012-01-13T12:01:00.001-05:00

President Stephen Colbert?

Now that Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert has passed control of his Super PAC to BFF Jon Stewart and announced he is running for the GOP presidential nomination in South Carolina, that scenario is one step closer to reality.

Here's how it all went down.

On the Jan. 12 edition of his show “The Colbert Report,” Colbert asked his lawyer, former Federal Election Commission chairman Trevor Potter, “Can I run for president and keep my super Pac? Don’t sugar coat it.”

Potter explained: “No. You cannot be a candidate and run a super PAC. That would be coordinating with yourself.”

Hence, Colbert passed control of his super PAC, “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow” to Stewart, who hosts "The Daily Show" in the slot preceding Colbert.

“I’m honored,” said Stewart. “But... can we do this? Because you and I are also business partners.”

Stewart is a producer on "The Colbert Report."

Colbert turned to Potter for guidance.

“Being business partners does not count as coordination, legally,” the attorney explained.

With Colbert and Stewart’s signatures on a single legal document, Colbert is now legally on his way to a legitimate presidential run, according to his lawyer.

“Now that that’s all cleared up, I have a major announcement to make,” Colbert said. “I am proud to announce that I am forming an exploratory committee to lay the groundwork for possible candidacy for president of the United States of America of South Carolina.”

As red, white and blue balloons dropped from the ceiling, Colbert triumphantly cheered, “I’m doing it!”

Colbert is a native of South Carolina. Although the filing deadline to run in the GOP primary there is past, Colbert, who said he is polling at 5 percent in the state, could undertake a write-in candidacy.

Colbert’s 501(c)4 is the Colbert Super PAC SHH (as in “shh”) Institute.

Questions:

1. Do you think he has any realistic shot of winning the nomination?

2. What is your opinion on him joining the race?

3. Is he getting into the race too late?

Iran Ready to talk about Nuclear Weapons with UN

2012-01-12T20:44:00.000-05:00

On January 28 a team of UN nuclear agents will make their way over to Tehran, in order to talk to the Iranians because now saying they are ready “ after years of refusal to discuss allegations that it was involved in secret nuclear weapons work”. For over three years they have blocked the International Atomic Energy Agency from following up the US and intelligence sources on how Tehran is converting Iranian work on nuclear arms. However as Tehran talks to the UN, Iran is staying clear and denying such allocation yet if they do choose to take part in this meeting this will create a hopefully future in working together in the future.

With America pulling out of the Middle East, slowly but surely, allegations of US officials killing off Iranian nuclear experts, "There is firm evidence that certain foreign quarters are behind such assassinations. As has been claimed by these circles, such terrorist acts have been carried out as part of the efforts to disrupt Iran's peaceful nuclear program, under the false assumption that diplomacy alone would not be enough for that purpose”. Hilary Clinton, Sec of State has denied such comments. The US and other allies are urging Iran to stop their uranium enrichment programs that lead to the key ingredient to a nuclear warhead.

With that:

What’s your view on America’s involvement with the nuclear situation over in the Middle East?

Do we need to keep our guard up?

How should we go about preventing a nuclear fall out with other nations holding or possible building these destructive weapons?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/12/iran-says-ready-to-discuss-nuclear-work-ahead-un-visit/

Marines Viral Video

2012-01-12T19:55:00.002-05:00

Recently a video of four American Marines urinating on Taliban corpses in Afghanistan has gone viral. The video (Watch YouTube video (Warning: Graphic content)) shows four members of the 3rd Battalion, 2nd Marines, which returned to its home base in North Carolina last fall after a tour in Afghanistan, where they lost seven men killed in action. Regardless, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke of the actions as "utterly deplorable" and that such behavior is "entirely inappropriate for members of the United States military." The results could be harsh for these Marines, who could face court martial proceedings for violating U.S. military rules, which forbid "photographing or filming...human casualties" regardless of whether the Americans were actually urinating.

However, the impacts of this video go far beyond that of the direct consequences on the Marines. Afghan President Hamid Karzai regarded the video as "completely inhumane." The Afghan Defense Ministry called it "shocking" and the Taliban has issued a statement accusing U.S. forces of committing several "indignities" against the Afghan people.

"First they killed the Afghans with mortars, and they then urinated on their bodies. We strongly condemn this inhumane action by the wild American soldiers," said Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid.

The timing of this video is also indisputably poor. Lately the U.S. had been trying to foster peace talks between the Karzai government and the Pakistan-based Taliban high command. However, one of the main obstacles of achieving such peace talks was the Afghan contempt for U.S. military tactics that they view as heavy handed. Clearly this release of this video will only further hinder such peace talks.

Afghans aren't the only ones disappointed in American tactics though. Senator John McCain, a Navy veteran who fought in Vietnam said, "[the incident] makes me so sad. There should be an investigation and these young people should be punished."

What is your opinion on the actions of the American Marines- were they justified in their action after losing seven fellow Marines to the Taliban, or was the action inhumane nontheless? If the latter, what is a just punishment?

Regardless of whether such actions were wrong or not, how do you think this will affect U.S. and Taliban relations in the future?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57357940/2-marines-idd-in-urination-video-probe/

White House’s Krueger Warns of Shrinking Middle Class

2012-01-12T18:22:00.001-05:00

The White House’s top economist on Thursday said income inequality in the United States has reached the point where the “middle class has shrunk” and it is “causing an unhealthy division in opportunities, and is a threat to our economic growth,” according to prepared remarks.

Alan Krueger, a labor economist who chairs the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, said in a speech to the Center for American Progress that “restoring a greater degree of fairness to the U.S. job market would be good for business, good for the economy, and good for the country.”

Mr. Krueger’s comments echo views raised for years by the Obama administration, but they come at a time when a debate has flared up during the Republican presidential primary over wealth accumulation, particularly in the world of finance. Mr. Krueger steered clear of any reference to the campaign trail debate during his prepared remarks.

Rather, he based his speech mostly on research and statistics, finding that U.S. income distribution since World War II has shown income distribution growing together for most everyone in the first three decades after the war. But in the subsequent three decades, earnings grew more for the wealthy and less for the low-income, he said, in part because of a variety of tax and economic changes, such as the impact of computers and automation.

The consequence of a shrinking middle class, Mr. Krueger said, was “more families falling into either end of the distribution, and fewer in the middle. The statistical word for this is ‘kurtosis.’ I can see why the term polarization has caught on.”

How do you think the shrinking of the middle class will have on the economy? Elections? How will candidates use this information to attract voters? How is it possible to reverse this downsizing of America's middle class?

Vermin Supreme and Satirical Candidates

2012-01-12T18:17:00.002-05:00

Recently, news has spread of a Democratic candidate named Vermin Supreme trying to enter the race for presidency. However, unlike other candidates, Supreme's campaign is completely satirical. He campaigns wearing a boot on his head and focuses on issues such as preventing gum disease, advocating time travel, being opposed to zombies, and guaranteeing every American a pony.

This year, Supreme won 781 votes in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary. This may not seem like a lot, but if you compare it to Rick Perry's 1,762 votes in the GOP primary, it seems much greater. Supreme's campaign does not focus on serious issues at all, yet he still manages get almost half of the votes that Perry received.

Supreme is not the only person who has run as a satirical candidate. In 2008, Stephen Colbert launched a campaign and even was ranked higher than some of his competitors. Also, back in 1968, a comedian named Pat Paulsen launched a campaign for The Straight Talking American Government Party.

Some people say that Supreme is taking this too far and mocking democracy and the American Government. However, others, such as Dr. Paul Levinson of Fordham Univirsity, say that this campaign is healthy to a democracy because they expose "the absurdities of the political process."

Personally, I believe that candidates such as Vermin Supreme are not harmful at all to politics in America. They relieve some of the pressure during the campaigning season and they do point out some of the flaws and absurdities that come from the election process.

Do you think that Vermin Supreme's campaign is unacceptable and mocking American government? What do you think about the fact that people like Supreme and Colbert are able to get the amount of support they do by having a satirical campaign? Do you think that candidates such as Supreme do help democracy as Dr. Paul Levinson does? Would you like to see more candidates like Supreme in future primaries?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/vermin-supreme-other-satirical-candidates-enliven-presidential-race/2012/01/12/gIQANVzRtP_blog.html

'Deplorable': U.S. defense chief condemns urinating Marines video

2012-01-12T17:43:00.004-05:00

An Internet video showing what appear to be U.S. forces in Afghanistan urinating on the bodies of dead Taliban fighters will not affect efforts to broker peace talks, a spokesman for the Afghan Taliban said Thursday.

The video, posted on YouTube and other websites, shows four men in camouflage Marine combat uniforms urinating on three corpses. One of them jokes: "Have a nice day, buddy." Another makes a lewd joke. "This is not a political process, so the video will not harm our talks and prisoner exchange because they are at the preliminary stage," spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told Reuters. The footage, which the U.S. military said appeared to be authentic but had not been officially verified, could complicate efforts to promote reconciliation as foreign troops gradually withdraw. The Obama administration, seeing a glimmer of hope in its effort to broker talks, is launching a fresh round of shuttle diplomacy with an immediate goal of sealing agreement for Taliban insurgents to open a political office in the Gulf state of Qatar. Marc Grossman, Obama's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, begins a diplomatic blitz this weekend that includes talks with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul and top officials in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

'Very, very bad impact'
The video will not help his efforts to build confidence among the warring parties. "Such action will leave a very, very bad impact on peace efforts," said Arsala Rahmani, the top negotiator from Karzai's High Peace Council. "Looking at such action, the Taliban can easily recruit young people and tell them that their country has been attacked by Christians and Jews and they must defend it," he said in the first comments from a high-ranking Afghan.

The New York Times reported that Grossman's efforts have been going on for the past year and involved a small team of American officials who secretly met multiple times with a shadowy representative of Afghanistan’s Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, in the hope of starting peace talks. It reported the administration’s best chance for ending the war in Afghanistan had reached "a critical juncture." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the newspaper on Wednesday there appeared to be support, for the first time, for a political resolution that included Taliban leaders who ruthlessly ruled the country from 1996 until the American invasion after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“The reality is we never have the luxury of negotiating for peace with our friends,” it quoted Mrs. Clinton as saying. “If you’re sitting across the table discussing a peaceful resolution to a conflict, you are sitting across from people who you by definition don’t agree with and who you may previously have been across a battlefield from.” The U.S. Marine Corps has said it would investigate the Internet video of abuse.

Marines to be 'held accountable'
The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan described the acts depicted in the video as "highly reprehensible" and "disgusting".

"The behavior depicted in this video is reprehensible and is not in keeping with the values of U.S. Armed Forces," ISAF spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Jimmie Cummings said.

A U.S. official said "it should be pretty easy" to identify the Marines in the video and those involved "will be held accountable for their actions."

The Marines, though not identified by name, were confirmed to be a sniper team out of Camp Lejeune, N.C., U.S. military officials told NBC News. They were deployed to southern Afghanistan from early 2011 until August of 2011.

In a formal statment, a Marine Corps official said: "The actions portrayed are not consistent with our core values and are not indicative of the character of the Marines in our Corps." At first, the Marines could not determine whether the incident took place in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it was later determned to be Afghanistan. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group in the United States, condemned the alleged desecration of corpses in a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and obtained by Reuters. "Any guilty parties must be punished to the full extent allowed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and by relevant American laws," the letter said.

What ramifications will this have for the U.S. military? How will this effect the mission in Afghanistan?

What impact will incidents like these have on the world view of America?

Were the actions of the soldiers acceptable?

Should the soldiers be punished/prosecuted?

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/12/10131666-deplorable-us-defense-chief-condemns-urinating-marines-video

Religious Groups Given ‘Exception’ to Work Bias Law

2012-01-12T10:42:00.002-05:00

"WASHINGTON — In what may be its most significant religious liberty decision in two decades, the Supreme Court on Wednesday for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference.

“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a decision that was surprising in both its sweep and its unanimity. “But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”

The decision gave only limited guidance about how courts should decide who counts as a minister, saying the court was “reluctant to adopt a rigid formula.” Two concurring opinions offered contrasting proposals.

Whatever its precise scope, the ruling will have concrete consequences for countless people employed by religious groups to perform religious work. In addition to ministers, priests, rabbis and other religious leaders, the decision appears to encompass, for instance, at least those teachers in religious schools with formal religious training who are charged with instructing students about religious matters.

Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia who argued the case on behalf of the defendant, a Lutheran school, said the upshot of the ruling was likely to be that “substantial religious instruction is going to be enough.”

Asked about professors at Catholic universities like Notre Dame, Professor Laycock said: “If he teaches theology, he’s covered. If he teaches English or physics or some clearly secular subjects, he is clearly not covered.”

The case, Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 10-553, was brought by Cheryl Perich, who had been a teacher at a school in Redford, Mich., that was part of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the second-largest Lutheran denomination in the United States. Ms. Perich said she was fired for pursuing an employment discrimination claim based on a disability, narcolepsy.

Ms. Perich had taught mostly secular subjects but also taught religion classes and attended chapel with her class.

“It is true that her religious duties consumed only 45 minutes of each workday,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “and that the rest of her day was devoted to teaching secular subjects.”

“The issue before us, however, is not one that can be resolved with a stopwatch,” he wrote.

Instead, the court looked to several factors. Ms. Perich was a “called” teacher who had completed religious training and whom the school considered a minister. She was fired, the school said, for violating religious doctrine by pursuing litigation rather than trying to resolve her dispute within the church.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Wednesday’s decision could have pernicious consequences, by, for instance, barring suits from pastors who are sexually harassed.

“Blatant discrimination is a social evil we have worked hard to eradicate in the United States,” he said in a statement. “I’m afraid the court’s ruling today will make it harder to combat.”

Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ ad hoc committee for religious liberty, called the ruling “a great day for the First Amendment.”

“This decision,” he said in a statement, “makes resoundingly clear the historical and constitutional importance of keeping internal church affairs off limits to the government — because whoever chooses the minister chooses the message.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/us/supreme-court-recognizes-religious-exception-to-job-discrimination-laws.html?ref=us

Questions:
Is this decision constitutional?
Why is the government so reluctant to challenge the church?
What impact will this have on the Catholic religion, and does this ruling give it too much power?

Vermin Supreme

2012-01-11T22:33:00.001-05:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFXXAuDK1Ao

Anyone who wants to be entertained... please meet Vermin Supreme, presidential candidate 2012

courtesy of Emily Lewson

Judges don't have to screen witnesses, court rules

2012-01-11T18:51:00.003-05:00

WASHINGTON – Judges need not screen potentially unreliable eyewitnesses before they testify as long as the witnesses weren't improperly influenced by police, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 Wednesday.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it suffices to test a witness's reliability through the usual trial procedures of cross-examination, rules of evidence and jury instructions about the fallibility of eyewitness IDs.

The majority rejected a New Hampshire defendant's request to broaden pretrial screening of witnesses beyond what is required when there has been improper police influence, such as when a suspect in a lineup is made to wear distinctive clothes.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented. She emphasized the unreliability of eyewitness IDs and said the court's ruling "enshrines a murky distinction — between suggestive confrontations intentionally orchestrated by the police and, as here, those inadvertently caused by policy actions — that will sow confusion."

Eyewitness accounts have long been a subject of concern. The American Psychological Association told the justices that experiments and studies "have consistently found that the rate of incorrect identifications is approximately 33%."

Do you agree with this court ruling? Do you consider eyewitness IDS to be unreliable? How do you think this decision will affect cases in the future? How undependable is eyewitness testimony?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/story/2012-01-11/supreme-court-witness-screening/52503246/1

Romney Wins G.O.P. Primary in New Hampshire

2012-01-10T21:11:00.002-05:00

Mitt Romney swept to victory in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, turning back a ferocious assault from his Republican rivals who sought to slow his march to the Republican presidential nomination and disqualify him in the eyes of conservatives.

“Tonight we celebrate. Tomorrow we go back to work,” said Mr. Romney, who was so comfortable by the margin of his triumph that he strode onto a stage at Southern New Hampshire University to deliver a victory speech less than 30 minutes after the final polls closed.

A week after winning the Iowa caucuses by just eight votes, Mr. Romney became the first Republican candidate since 1976 to win the first two Republican contests. In accepting victory, he delivered a pointed message to his Republican challengers, urging them not to play into President Obama’s hands by trying to destroy his candidacy as the race moves onto the more challenging terrain of South Carolina.

“In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him,” Mr. Romney said. “This is such a mistake for our party and for our nation. This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy.”

Representative Ron Paul of Texas was trailing Mr. Romney in second place, and former Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr. of Utah was third.

Mr. Romney, who owns a house in the state and spent four years as the governor of neighboring Massachusetts, was considered a favorite son here. The outcome was not only a measure of strength for Mr. Romney, but also a test for challengers seeking a strong performance to propel them into the South Carolina primary.

The New Hampshire contest was critical for Mr. Huntsman, who staked his entire candidacy on the state’s primary. Mr. Paul, whose supporters dominated others in waving signs and banners on street corners throughout the day, was competing with Mr. Huntsman for independent voters, allowed to vote in either primary, who joined Republicans in helping to select a nominee to challenge President Obama.

Mr. Santorum was hoping that his strong finish in Iowa, where he lost to Mr. Romney by eight votes, would give him additional momentum in New Hampshire. And Mr. Gingrich played down his expectations here on Tuesday and was looking ahead to his arrival in South Carolina on Wednesday.

The advantages for Mr. Romney here were abundant, but there was one obstacle that loomed larger than any of his Republican rivals: The inclination of New Hampshire to knock a front-runner down to size. He urged voters to make him the first candidate to win the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

“If I am president of the United States,” he said, “I will not forget New Hampshire.”

The preliminary results of surveys of voters leaving the polls found that nearly half of the primary voters on Tuesday identify themselves as independents — or something else — and half consider themselves Republican.

Half of the voters said they were conservative on most political matters, according to surveys of voters, while one-third said they were moderate. Only one in five voters said they were very conservative, and about one in 10 primary voters characterized themselves as liberal.

In interviews at polling places across the state on Tuesday, voters acknowledged a degree of uncertainty in their choices. Several Republican voters said they were unsure who could accomplish the ultimate goal of winning back the White House.

According to preliminary exit polls, nearly half of New Hampshire voters had made up their minds within the last few days. Two in 10 said they were undecided until Primary Day.

Fiscal conservatives outnumbered social conservatives in New Hampshire’s primary, according to preliminary exit polls, with about two-thirds of voters saying they were conservative on taxes and spending. Only about four in 10 said they were conservative on social issues like gay marriage or abortion.

New Hampshire will also be among the critical battlegrounds in the general election. The independent voters who turned out on Tuesday for the Republican primary will be among those who are courted in the general election by Mr. Obama and the Republican nominee.

Kevin Kobylinski, a manager at a medical company, said he voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 when he lived in California. But he decided to vote for Mr. Romney in the Republican primary here, declaring, “I would like to see a competitive election.”

The New Hampshire secretary of state, William M. Gardner, predicted the turnout would be about 250,000. In 2008, when Senator John McCain of Arizona defeated Mr. Romney, turnout was 239,793. In 2000, the primary turnout was 238,206 when Mr. McCain defeated George W. Bush.

The margin of victory on Tuesday may offer only a partial picture of Mr. Romney’s standing as the contest immediately moved into the first Southern primary. The ferocious attacks on Mr. Romney’s business background, were poised to be dramatically amplified through television advertising, campaign rhetoric and aggressive political tactics in South Carolina.

Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who abandoned his effort in New Hampshire to try to salvage his candidacy in South Carolina, argued at a campaign stop on Tuesday that corporate takeover firms like Mr. Romney’s Bain Capital were “vultures” that pick struggling companies clean and leave local communities to pick up the pieces.

“They’re vultures that are sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick,” Mr. Perry told a crowd in Fort Mill, S.C. “And then they swoop in, they eat the carcass, they leave with that, and they leave the skeleton.”

Even before the ballots were tallied in New Hampshire, the Romney campaign was turning its attention to South Carolina. His advisers were preparing a wave of advertising to respond to criticism of his business credentials from Mr. Perry and Mr. Gingrich. The ferocity of the attacks caught Mr. Romney off guard, aides acknowledged, particularly because they came from his fellow Republicans.

“Free enterprise will be on trial,” Mr. Romney said in the final hours of campaigning here. “I thought it was going to come from the president, from the Democrats, from the left, but instead it’s coming from Speaker Gingrich and apparently others. And, you know, that’s just part of the process. I’m not worried about that.”

But several influential Republicans, including Rush Limbaugh, said they were deeply concerned that the criticism amounted to an assault on American capitalism and called on Mr. Gingrich and others to cool their rhetoric.

“This is not the kind of stuff you want said by Republicans,” Mr. Limbaugh said on his daily radio show. “I mean, even the establishment Republicans don’t go after conservatives this way.”

Questions: How important of a role could these victories play in the rest of Romney’s campaign? After the “I like to fire people” remark that caused Romney to drop in the polls, was anyone surprised by his victory in the New Hampshire primary?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/us/politics/mitt-romney-wins-in-new-hampshire-republican-primary.html?_r=1&hp

Should Voting Be Mandatory?

2012-01-10T10:23:00.000-05:00

After today's discussion in class, I think we can all agree that this is an issue that can be justified either way. Personally, I believe that the idea of getting the participation rate up in major elections is great and that mandatory voting would do that, but it would only be a treatment of a symptom and it violates rights dictated in the constitution. People have the right to remain silent, and that applies to elections as well, making sanctions on not voting blatantly unconstitutional. However, a simple solution to this is putting an option on the ballot that says "none of the above" or something similar. Regardless, there is always the risk that people will just check of random candidates anyway and throw of the results. In addition, some people don't vote because there just isn't enough time in the day. For example, a single mother working two jobs to support her children should not be penalized for not voting because she didn't have time. There are too many factors that go into why some people don't vote. One of the most important reasons why we couldn't make voting mandatory, however, is that there are so many elections and so many people who simply can't vote that it would be impossible to enforce such a law. Some would say that only major elections should be covered by this law, but that only serves to tell the people that local and state elections don't matter.

Like I said earlier, the low voter participation rate is not the problem, it is the symptom of an issue that has steadily increased in the United States for decades: voter apathy. Instead of forcing people to vote, we should make them want to vote by educating them and requiring some level of education in politics or government. If we can make people realize that their vote counts and that voting is a basic responsibility of citizens under a democracy, then they will go back to the booths and voter participation will increase once again.

Vote Result From Disputed Precinct Deemed Official

2012-01-09T21:23:00.000-05:00

Iowa’s Republican chairman said on Saturday that the vote count from a disputed precinct had been deemed official by the Iowa Republican Party, despite multiple accounts of a vote-counting discrepancy that could potentially have made Rick Santorum the winner of the Iowa caucuses.

The disputed precinct is in Appanoose County, which has already submitted its certification forms, the chairman, Matt Strawn, said in a statement to The New York Times.

“Appanoose County has submitted all its required Form E’s for all precincts in Appanoose County,” Mr. Strawn wrote in an e-mail to The Times, referring to the form by which the Republican Party of Iowa certifies its votes on a county-by-county basis. “Now that we have all the county’s forms at Iowa G.O.P. HQ for the two-week certification process, my statement from Thursday night still applies: While we will not comment on specific precinct vote totals during the two-week certification process of 1,774 precincts, the results of the Appanoose County precincts will not change the outcome of Tuesday’s vote.”

The dispute originated when a caucusgoer, Edward True, said in an affidavit that Mitt Romney had been recorded as receiving 22 votes in his precinct, called Washington Wells, when he had in fact received just two votes there on caucus night. Mr. True is a supporter of Representative Ron Paul.  The Des Moines Register reported on Friday that Lyle Brinegar, the chair of the Republican Party in Appanoose County, agreed with Mr. True’s account of the vote count and disputed the total listed by the state party.

A third person, Terri Haub, the precinct secretary, also agreed with Mr. True’s account, The Des Moines Register reported.

The alleged 20-vote discrepancy could have potentially swung the victory to Rick Santorum, who trailed Mr. Romney by eight votes statewide based on the state’s initial count. Mr. Romney’s victory in the caucuses is still not official, because some counties have yet to submit their certification forms. But because Appanoose County is among those counties that had completed their forms, its results are considered official and are not subject to change.

“The Form E’s are the official record of the presidential preference vote for each of the 1,774 precincts,” Mr. Strawn said in the e-mail. “The Form E is signed and verified by the precinct chair and precinct secretary, while presidential campaign representatives on-site have the ability to observe and witness this process. The final, certified vote totals will be based on the Form E’s.”

Mr. Strawn would not say what determination the party had come to about the specific dispute; his statement implies that changes from Appanoose County as a whole would not be enough to change the outcome.

Iowa’s caucus rules are set by the state parties, and there is no provision for a recount.

Mr. Santorum said he had little interest in pursuing a debate about the official totals when interviewed by The Times on Thursday. A spokesman for Mr. Santorum, Hogan Gidley, said on Saturday that the campaign was extremely satisfied with the results in Iowa.

“We’re following it,” Mr. Gidley said of the vote-counting dispute. “But we spent $30,000 on ads in Iowa. Five votes, eight votes, 20 votes, we consider it a win.”

Questions: What are the chances that Mr. True’s account is true? Is anyone frustrated that because the certification forms are completed, the results cannot be looked into?

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/iowa-will-not-change-caucus-result-from-disputed-precinct/?ref=politics

“Super PACs Alter the Dynamics of Fundraising”

2012-01-09T10:32:00.001-05:00

Well-established candidates have always had the edge in fundraising, but under the new rules governing money in politics, it looks as if the rich are just getting richer.
The vast majority of the $14 million in spending from “super PACs,” a new type of political group, has been spent on behalf of three candidates: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman Jr., federal records show. Those are the same three candidates already most reliant on money from large donors.
“It’s just proven to be a vehicle for getting around contribution limits,” said Michael Malbin, a scholar at the Campaign Finance Institute, which advocates for regulations encouraging small donors. “It’s made for people who’ve already maxed out.”
Two years after the Supreme Court decided the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, it is becoming clear that the super PACs created under the new rules will act as a counterweight to a rise in online grass-roots fundraising. The online efforts, which tend to attract small donations, have been driving unconventional contenders in the GOP field, including Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.). (Bachmann dropped out of the race last week after a sixth-place finish in Iowa.)
By contrast, super PACs, because they can pull in donations well above the $2,500 limit on donations to campaigns, are boosting establishment candidates who already rely on rich donors.
The Citizens United decision created a cascade of lower-court rulings, allowing for the creation of super PACs that can accept huge donations from individuals and corporations. Several of the groups active in this year’s race have already accepted many donations over $1 million from one person.
The advantage is likely to grow as the candidates move to the next round of primaries and caucuses, where they will be competing in bigger states and relying more on television advertising to reach voters.
Spending on television ads by groups independent of the campaigns is already five times what it was during the entire Republican primary season four years ago, according to estimates from Kantar Media/CMAG.
Romney has received $5 million in help from the super PAC founded by three former aides from his 2008 bid.
A group aiding Perry has spent $3.8 million on ads backing him, and Huntsman has benefited from $2.5 million worth of ads from a super PAC.
Combined, those three candidates are receiving 80 percent of all super PAC spending.
The super PACs helping Romney and Perry have spent more on television ads than the candidates themselves in recent weeks, according to Kantar’s estimates. Huntsman’s campaign just launched his first ad.
Paul and Bachmann received more than 60 percent of their money from donors giving less than $200. A super PAC helping Paul has spent $735,000 on Internet advertising. And a group that initially announced it was helping Bachmann went on to run $500,000 in ads for Romney.
While Newt Gingrich’s campaign was struggling in the summer, he relied more on smaller donors. As he gained steam, he received help from a super PAC founded by former aides. But the group’s late start appears to have been a problem: It has reported $1 million in spending so far.
Rick Santorum has benefited from about $755,000 in spending from two super PACs backing him.
Just as the Internet allowed candidates to raise money from small donors faster than they had through direct mail, the same is true for super PACs.
“You make a phone call and get a million dollars,” Malbin said.
The new wave of spending has also allowed some candidates to benefit from negative advertising while avoiding the blame for attacking fellow Republicans.
Campaign finance regulations passed by Congress in 2002 have a “stand by your ad” provision requiring candidates to appear on screen stating their approval of the spot. But rules prevent super PACs from coordinating the campaign operations, allowing candidates to say the ads are out of their control.
“It changes the dynamic for candidates who are more reliant on small donors,” said a Paul strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to talk freely. “You have two tiers of candidates: those with super PACs that can have negative messaging without having to take the heat for it, and those who have to do it themselves.”
We have learned all about campaign financing and the impacts of PACs on elections. How do you think this “vehicle” to get around finance limits will impact the success of certain candidates? Is it good or bad that these candidates can deny any control over PAC run adds?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/super-pacs-alter-the-dynamics-of-fundraising/2012/01/05/gIQAH3dzjP_print.html

“Iran Court Sentences Americans to Death”

2012-01-09T10:22:00.001-05:00

TEHRAN — An Iranian court on Monday convicted an American man of working for the CIA and sentenced him to death, state media reported.
Iranian authorities allege that Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, a former U.S. Marine, received special training at U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan before being dispatched on a spy mission in Iran. Mirzaei, 28, was born in Arizona but holds dual citizenship.
Mirzaei has 20 days to appeal the court’s decision, which comes at a time of increasing tensions between Tehran and Washington. The U.S. is pursuing tough sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, and a series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and mysterious explosions at military and industrial sites have prompted Iran to keep closer tabs on dual nationals visiting the country.
Precisely when and where Mirzaei was arrested is unclear. Iranian news reports have said he was detained in late August or early September, according to the Associated Press. Mirzaei’s family members, who live in Michigan, have reportedly said he was in Iran to visit his grandmother.
Mirzaei appeared on Iranian state television in December and purportedly confessed to working for the CIA. It is unclear whether the statements were made under duress.
Iranian media have reported that Mirzaei was spotted by Iranian intelligence operatives while visiting Bagram Airfield near Kabul.
During Mirzaei’s trial, the state prosecutor demanded “the most severe punishment” in retaliation for increased spy activities by the U.S., the semi-official Fars news agency reported.
Mirzaei, who is considered an Iranian because the country does not recognize dual citizenship, was convicted of working with a hostile country, belonging to the CIA and trying to accuse Iran of involvement in terrorism, Fars reported.
He was described by the court as a “mohareb,” an Islamic legal term meaning he “waged war against god,” and a “Mofsed,” or someone who “spreads corruption on the earth,” the AP reported.
The judge, Abolghassem Salavati, has presided over mass trials against activists before, sentencing at least three people to death after having given them similar labels.
The U.S. government has demanded that Mirzaei be released and called on Iranian authorities to grant Swiss diplomats access to him in prison, AP reported. The Swiss government represents U.S. interests in Iran because the two countries don’t have diplomatic relations.
Trying to take the focus away from the election for the moment, this article deals with politics relating to U.S. foreign relations. With the death sentence of Mirzaei, the stress in the relationship between Iran and the U.S. seems ever increasing. Mirzaei was allegedly working undercover for the CIA, trying to gain information about Iran’s nuclear arms program. Do you think their arms program is important enough to us that we need to risk American lives to learn more about it? Do you think, especially after an event like this, that Iran has become a threat to our security and that maybe military action seems like a future step?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-court-sentences-american-to-death/2012/01/09/gIQA3T8GlP_print.html

Huntsman, Out of Options, Bets It All on New Hampshire

2012-01-08T19:28:00.002-05:00

NEWPORT, N.H. — Jon M. Huntsman Jr. was in jeopardy of arriving late to his own rally here the other night. But his wife’s desperate need for caffeine forced them to stop for gas-station blend at the Bradford Market, where an admiring clerk added to their delay.

“You have a working knowledge of China,” the clerk, Jason Reid, told Mr. Huntsman, the ambassador to China until last spring. Mr. Reid said he would vote Huntsman in the Republican presidential primary on Tuesday. But, calling himself “a realist,” he added, “Say Romney does get the nomination or something like that: could you see yourself working in an executive position for him in some capacity?”

Pausing for a moment, Mr. Huntsman pursed his lips and said as politely as he could, “Don’t want to even contemplate that.”

For good or for bad, this is Mr. Huntsman’s moment. An early favorite of the pundit classes in Washington and New York — invited for cameos on “The Colbert Report” and“Saturday Night Live” — Mr. Huntsman, out of other options, has bet it all on New Hampshire.

Glimmers of promise appeared for him last week: an endorsement from The Boston Globe, the unveiling of his first television advertisement Friday morning, and the taste of possibility implicit in Rick Santorum’s come-from-behind showing in Iowa against Mitt Romney. But there have also been challenges, including Mr. Romney’s solid lead in polls and new strength from Mr. Santorum and Ron Paul. And he was only a secondary presence at Saturday’s night Republican debate in New Hampshire, barely attacking his rivals.

But nothing has quite threatened his candidacy like his own relatively minuscule campaign bank account, which constrains his ability to carry on even if he does well here in New Hampshire. It is one of the great incongruities of the year: that a race being run by the son of one of the richest men in the world — the chemical magnate Jon M. Huntsman Sr. — could fail because of a lack of money.

Aides predicated the building of Mr. Huntsman’s campaign upon the idea that he would tap his father’s resources and connections to have one of the best-financed operations in the Republican presidential field. But through a complicated father-son dynamic — Mr. Huntsman, 51, a former governor of Utah, has spent much of his life trying to balance the benefits of being a Huntsman against a drive to make a mark on his own — he told advisers and even reporters that he would not accept extensive help.

Still, it is an outside group financed in part by his father that has kept him in the running, putting advertising on television here when he could not afford to. Barring a first- or second-place showing here, Mr. Huntsman will most likely require the sort of quick infusion only his father could offer to carry out the never-say-die plan his aides have hatched for the weeks ahead: to muddle through the next few contests doing just well enough to survive, and then make a bigger stand against Mr. Romney as the rest of the field presumably drops away.

“If he doesn’t prevail, it’s going to be for lack of resources,” said a close supporter, who would speak about Mr. Huntsman’s financial situation only on the condition of anonymity. “And this is from one of the great wealthy families of America.”

Of course, there are other significant factors at play. Analysts, rivals and even some former aides have wondered aloud in interviews whether he was not his own worst liability, unwilling to run the kind of rock-ribbed conservative campaign that his rivals are using to show their toughness against President Obama — who until 10 months ago was his boss.

And in a climate where the loudest, pithiest voices stand out, he is soft-spoken, given to detailed policy lectures about China, the “trust deficit” in Washington, or his calls to limit the size of banks.

From the start, Mr. Huntsman’s father was prepared to press his network of high-flying associates — and underlings — into the service of raising money for the campaign, two people with knowledge of the early operation said.

Questions:

1.) Do you agree with Huntsman's strategy to not campaign in Iowa?

2.) If he wins New Hampshire, do you believe he will gain enough momentum to continue?

3.) Does not asking for aide from his father create a positive or negative effect on his campaign?

Romney faces more attacks from GOP rivals in latest debate

2012-01-08T15:43:00.003-05:00

CONCORD, N.H. – Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney faced a barrage of criticism from his rivals about his record, his honesty, his conservatism and his ability to defeat President Obama in a combative debate Sunday just 48 hours before a New Hampshire primary that could redefine the GOP's presidential race.

By Charles Krupa, AP
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, left, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former House speaker Newt Gingrich take part in Sunday morning's GOP presidential debate in Concord, N.H.

Enlarge

By Charles Krupa, AP

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, left, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former House speaker Newt Gingrich take part in Sunday morning's GOP presidential debate in Concord, N.H.

"Can we drop a little bit of the pious baloney?" former House speaker Newt Gingrich asked after Romney decried career politicians who repeatedly run for office. "You ran and you lost" for the U.S. Senate and for the 2008 presidential nomination. "You've been running since at least the 1990s."

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum accused Romney of backing away from what would have been a difficult re-election fight as governor in 2006. "If his record was so great as governor of Massachusetts, why didn't he run for re-election?" Santorum demanded. "We want someone who won't bail out and won't run."

For his part, Romney said voters in neighboring New Hampshire knew that he was "a solid conservative" who "brought important change to Massachusetts." In a subtle dig at Gingrich, who served as speaker nearly two decades ago, Romney said that "leading conservatives in today's world who are fighting the conservatives battles of today" had endorsed him, including New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Both have been campaigning with him here.

The tone of the debate — sponsored by NBC's Meet the Press, the New Hampshire Union Leader and Facebook — was strikingly different from the one that had finished just 10 hours earlier, sponsored by ABC, WMUR-TV and Yahoo!. On Saturday night, Romney had generally sailed above the fray while Gingrich, Santorum and Texas Rep.Ron Paul sparred with one another in an apparent battle for second place.

On Sunday morning, however, the front-runner was under fire from the start. Romney was the more consistent target than in any of the previous 14 nationally televised debates. Romney, who was declared the narrow winner of last week's Iowa caucuses, continues to have a wide lead in Granite State surveys. But his standing has drifted down, to 35% Sunday in a daily tracking poll sponsored by the Suffolk University Political Research Center.

Paul was second at 20% and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who has based his campaign in New Hampshire, was third at 11%. The rest were in single digits: Gingrich at 9%, Santorum at 8% and Texas Gov.Rick Perry at 1%. After a disappointing showing in Iowa, Perry has moved straight to South Carolina, which holds the following primary on Jan. 21.

Do you agree with Santorum when he said that Romney "bailed out" of the 2006 election for governor? How do you think the criticisms in this debate will affect Romney's lead? Do you think the criticisms made by the candidates will cause Americans to view them differently?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-08/GOP-debate09/52451080/1

Santorum Continues to Focus on Gay Marriage

2012-01-08T09:34:00.003-05:00

This past Friday, Rick Santorum spoke to an audience of students grades 9-12 and local residents at a boarding school in New Hampshire. He once again discussed the subject of gay marriage, this time emphasizing his belief that having two gay parents is worse than having a parent who is in prison. Specifically, Santorum cited an unnamed anti-poverty expert, claiming that "fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children's lives."

He went on further to say that allowing children to be raised by a same-sex couple amounts to "robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to." He also vehemently argued that "marriage is not a right. It's a privilege given to society by society for a reason...We want to encourage what is best for the children."

Santorum's comments were received with snorts and applause. It is also worth noting that three students in the audience had gay parents.

Do you agree or disagree with Santorum's comments?
How do you think this speech will impact his campaign, if at all? Will this cause him to lose or gain follower?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign-20120107,0,4461003.story

Obama Testing 2-Tier Strategy for Re-election

2012-01-06T01:48:00.002-05:00

"Just three hours after President Obama announced that he was defying Congressional Republicans to fill a high-level regulatory position while lawmakers were out of town, Mitt Romney sent out the obligatory news release ripping the president. “Chicago-style politics at its worst,” Mr. Romney fumed, accusing the president of “circumventing Congress.”
The statement was just what the White House wanted. It put the Republican presidential front-runner squarely on the side of the Republicans in Congress, a group with toxic poll numbers that the president’s campaign hopes will hurt his rivals for the White House.
“Our presidential election campaign is not a campaign against Congress,” a senior administration official said on Thursday. “We know we’ll run against a person.” But insofar as Mr. Obama has decided to target Republicans in Congress — a body with historically low approval ratings after a year of jousting with the president — he will also be seeking to twin his opponent, to any extent he can, with the 112th Congress.
Upon the president’s return from Hawaii, the Obama campaign this week unleashed a carefully scripted and deliberately aggressive strategy that showed a White House in combative re-election mode as the president and his advisers sought to ensure that the Republicans did not get all the political limelight. Mr. Obama inserted himself into the media blitz of what was supposed to be an all-Republican show, the Iowa caucuses, when his campaign took out a huge advertisement on the home page of The Des Moines Register on caucus day and he spoke by video conference to Democrats gathered in the state.
“The Republican candidates are leaving Iowa. But their terrible plans are here to stay,” was the declaration that greeted readers who went to the newspaper’s Web site to get caucus updates.
On Wednesday, after waiting until the dust in Iowa had settled, clearing out space in newspapers and on television, Mr. Obama delivered another jab, announcing four recess appointments, including that of Richard Cordray as head of a new consumer protection agency, despite Republican opposition. On Thursday, the president went to the Pentagon and outlined a new military strategy that embraces hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to what is a Republican sacred cow, and made it clear that American ground forces would no longer be large enough to conduct prolonged, large-scale counterinsurgency campaigns like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Friday, he will take a victory lap with Mr. Cordray in a visit with the staff of the new Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.
White House and administration officials insist that all of Mr. Obama’s actions this week — with the exception of the advertisement — are policy decisions made for the good of the country. But from Marine One — the helicopter where Mr. Obama and Mr. Cordray revved up on Wednesday for the forthcoming fight — to the West Wing corridors to his campaign offices in Chicago, the president’s battle for re-election is quickly escalating as he sets out to use the advantages of his office to full effect.
The president’s move last fall to take his jobs plan on the road to try to sell it to the American public, an effort that culminated in the payroll tax extension battle that is now widely perceived as a win for Mr. Obama and a debacle for Congressional Republicans, was just the beginning, administration officials and Mr. Obama’s advisers say.
David Plouffe, one of Mr. Obama’s senior political advisers, has argued in meetings at the White House that Republicans will overreach in their efforts to oppose the president’s initiatives. And administration officials believe that is what House conservatives did in the case of the payroll tax cut, with the Tea Party wing of House Republicans initially balking at a compromise deal that Senate Republicans had signed on to and sparking a backlash in the public. The refusal of Senate Republicans to allow many of Mr. Obama’s nominees to be confirmed, White House officials believe, could also end up hurting the Republicans, if it feeds the notion that they are standing in the way of the business of government. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/politics/president-obama-unveils-aggressive-re-election-strategy-against-gop-rivals.html?ref=us

What do you think of President Obama's recess appointments?
Do you think his technique of associating the Republican candidates with congress' lack of success will be successful?
What do you think his chances are of reelection?

Republican Sparing

2012-01-06T01:14:00.001-05:00

With GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney feelingcomfortable enough to campaign in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich and RickSantorum on Thursday scoured New Hampshire for votes and hammered away at eachother's congressional record.

Gingrich, who got a boost from the state's top newspaper,knocked Santorum's role in Congress, suggesting the former Pennsylvania senatorwas a "junior partner" in the 1990s Republican revolution inWashington.

"He clearly in historical experience would have beenthe junior partner," Gingrich said, reminding voters which Republican wasreally behind the Contract With America.

Santorum noted his role in the "Gang of Seven,"a group of freshman Republican lawmakers who exposed a scandal at the Housebank in the early 1990s, before Gingrich rose to power as speaker.

"I was no junior partner in that. Newt was notinvolved in that revolution when it came to the corruption and the scandals. Hesat on the sidelines," Santorum said.

Romney faced a fresh round of conservative criticism whena newspaper resurrected claims that the former Massachusetts governor helpedpave the way for President Barack Obama's health-care reforms.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, meanwhile, won theendorsement of the Boston Globe, which said only he and Romney were "trulypresidential."

Gingrich, stumping for votes in Plymouth, tried todistinguish himself from Romney by telling supporters that "there is avery big difference in our two sets of values. I don't believe a Massachusettsmoderate is in a very good position to debate Barack Obama, and I think itwould be very hard to win the general election because I think it just blurseverything."

Romney, campaigning in nearby Salem, continued hisstrategy of looking ahead to the general election, blasting Obama forappointing "labor stooges" to the National Labor Relations Board -- afrequent target of Republicans who accuse it of a pro-union bias.

McCain endorsed Romney on Wednesday, one day after thelatter's razor-thin victory in the Iowa caucuses. Romney waged a tough primarycampaign in 2008 against McCain, the party's eventual presidential nominee thatyear.

McCain traveled Thursday with Romney to Charleston, SouthCarolina. The senator attacked Santorum's record of securing earmarks.

"Earmark spending is the gateway to corruption, andthat was practiced when Republicans were in the majority," McCain said,flanked by Romney and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Romney's leading backerin the Palmetto State.

Santorum has come under fire from his GOP foes for hisunapologetic defense of the earmarking process, which he says is simply a powergranted to Congress under the Constitution.

Santorum will officially purchase a major ad buy in South Carolinaon Friday, CNN has learned.

The former senator tangled with proponents of same-sexmarriage at a convention of college Republicans in Concord, New Hampshire.

"Are we saying everybody has the right tomarry?" Santorum asked the crowd.

"Yes, yes," shouted several members in thecrowd.

Santorum later equated same sex marriage with polygamy.

Huntsman, meanwhile, touted poll results showing he isrunning ahead of Gingrich in the state and predicted his decision to skip Iowaand focus on New Hampshire would pay off.

"We're doing to do well. We're going to exceed marketexpectations," the candidate told CNN's "John King, USA."

Huntsman earlier said Santorum's emphasis on grass-rootscampaigning in Iowa led to him coming within a hair's breadth of beatingRomney, and Huntsman's efforts would produce similar results.

For his part, Santorum is trying to capitalize on themomentum from his late surge in Iowa, where he came within eight votes ofbeating Romney. But his sudden visibility has put him in the crosshairs of hisopponents and led to more scrutiny from reporters.

The heads of both the NAACP and the National Urban Leagueblasted Santorum this week after he was reported to have told an Iowa audience,"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them someone'smoney. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

The officials said Santorum was "singling out"African-Americans as poor.

Santorum said Wednesday that he didn't recall saying"black," telling CNN's "John King USA" that "It wasprobably a tongue-tied moment as opposed to something that wasdeliberate."

"I started to say a word and sort of mumbled it andchanged my thought. I don't recall saying black. No one in that audience heardme say that," he said.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, meanwhile, used his close third-placeshowing in Iowa as fuel for his libertarian anti-establishment message, whileTexas Gov. Rick Perry said he would press on to "places where they haveactual primaries" after his fifth-place finish Tuesday night.

To me it seems, and probably many of you too, that theprimary and caucus system is horribly flawed and broken, not because of the influencemoney or media coverage has, but how all of these candidates are trying to winthe nomination of the Republican party, which should be something of an honorabletask, yet it has degraded to name-calling, finger pointing, etc. It’s not “maythe best man win” but, “may the one who can portray his opponent (yet fellow Republicanwith same goals) in the worst light and have the people believe it”. It’s attimes like this I look upon American politics with feelings of terrible disdainand hopelessness for how can this ever change?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/politics/gop-presidential-race/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Study Says Looks Matter as TV Covers Congress

2012-01-06T00:10:00.003-05:00

The media has definitely altered politics. In some cases, the media seems advantageous, serving as a linkage institution between the electorate and those in office, but in other cases, the media seems inconvenient, introducing vanity to the political world. Many believe that Richard Nixon lost to JFK because the latter was more attractive during televised debates. Nixon looked pale and sickly, with a five o' clock shadow, while JFK looked tan and handsome, in the peak of his youth.

During a recent study, two professors conducted a survey in which students ranked members of Congress according to level of attractiveness. After determining survey results, the professors then monitored how much each congressman was covered through air-time, radio-time, and newspaper-inchage.

When reviewing the results, the professors were amused to find that the top congressmen covered in the media paralleled the list of most attractive congressmen generated by students. At first, the statisticians were reluctant to draw conclusions. Would the media really stoop so low as to show only attractive members of Congress?

Ultimately, the professors compared three sets of data: most frequent congress members covered on TV, on the radio, and in newspapers. Both newspaper and radio coverage yielded similar results, but TV-coverage exhibited a significant difference. For example, in "NPR and in USA Today, [they] found no correlation between the so-called attractiveness effect and coverage in those outlets." On primary TV stations, however, a high correlation existed.

After further research, professors Waismel-Manor and Tsfati found "other factors," aside from level of attractiveness, which influence media coverage, including size of the Congress member's state, and the Congress member's gender, ideology, and race. Looking mostly at Congressmen portrayed via television, the professors determined the media's ideal Congress member and media recipient; statistically, those who ranked higher on the "attractive scale," "hailed from large states," were black males, and were Republican extremists most frequently appeared on television.

At first...I was skeptical of this study, but amused by its subject. I thought that a "level of attractiveness" survey was hardly the basis for an in-depth study. After all, beauty is subjective, and the survey was only administered to college students. Also, from a statistical standpoint...just because more attractive Congress members appear on the media does not mean they appear on the media BECAUSE of their level of attractiveness. (Correlation does not imply causation...in other words, if one's media coverage increases when one's attractiveness increases, one factor does not cause the other to occur). Other lurking variables could exist, (aside from physical beauty).

What do you think of this study? In your opinion, is it valid? Is the difference between media mediums (newspaper-coverage, TV-coverage, and radio-coverage), enough to suggest that level of attractiveness is a primary factor in a Congressman's airtime? Is vanity more important in presidential elections? If so, how significant a role do you think vanity will play in the 2012 election?

Source of original article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/politics/study-says-looks-matter-as-tv-covers-congress.html?ref=us

The March of the Non-Mitts

2012-01-05T23:26:00.002-05:00

“This is the New Hampshire primary! This is a big deal! I can’t even believe I’m standing here!” cried Jon Huntsman, who yearns to be the Rick Santorum of New Hampshire.

That’s what it’s come to. Do you think this is what Huntsman told himself when he quit his distinguished post as ambassador to China? (“Diplomacy is all well and good, but I believe I was meant for greater things. Like being the Rick Santorum of New Hampshire.”)

Santorum, of course, was the man of the hour when he sort-of-almost-nearly came in first in the Iowa caucuses on Tuesday. Actually, Mitt Romney won. (Eight Republicans can’t be wrong!) But Santorum has the momentum. His strategy of spending his entire life going from one Iowa Pizza Ranch to another paid off.

McCain’s old loathing of Romney has now been totally overshadowed by his hatred of President Obama. “You can’t hide from your record of making this country bankrupt, from destroying our national security and making this nation one that we have to restore with Mitt Romney as president of the United States of America!” McCain snarled into the mic. It was an endorsement, but not the feel-good moment we were sort of looking for. Fortunately, they did play the new Kid Rock theme song that implicitly compares Romney to a wild stallion.

Can’t wait to see what the Republicans do next. You have to admit they’re desperate. Rick Santorum. Geesh.

Did I ever mention that Romney once drove to Canada with the family Irish setter strapped to the roof of the car? The dog’s name was Seamus. New Hampshire Republicans, if you can’t think of anybody to vote for on Tuesday, consider writing in the name Seamus when you go to the polls. Maybe we can start a boomlet.

Makes as much sense as the Newt Gingrich moment.

We discussed the importance of momentum and money, which is more impartant now? As we get closer to the election day, is it the people with money for ads that will pull away or is it the lesser known with the money that will?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/collins-the-march-of-the-non-mitts.html?_r=1

Obama's New Defense Strategy Boots the "Boots on the Ground"

2012-01-05T21:01:00.002-05:00

In his speech given at the Pentagon this week, Obama said, "The tide of war is receding.... We have the opportunity, and the responsibility, go look ahead to the force we are going to need in the future." Obama feels that this force that will be needed in future defense/warfare is not ground troops, but technology that will allow "intelligence gathering, remote surveillance and reconnaissance, countering weapons of mass destruction, penetrating enemy-held territory with missiles or bombers, and counterterrorism operations by special forces". This leaves the 2.5 million "boots on the ground" of the military without jobs. However, Obama's new plan has two things in mind: the preparation for the future, as previously mentioned, and the economy. According to the article "Grunt are expensive"; their pay and personal costs accounting for $154 million, or 1/4, of the defense budget.

Obama warns Americans that history cannot repeat itself. Many times in the past, Americans have won a war, cut grunts from the military, then been thrust back into war with insufficient numbers of soldiers. (Take after WWII then going into Vietnam for instance--during WWII there were 8.2 million active-duty soldiers, but once the war was over only 593,000. Then Truman sent 400 poorly trained soldiers with minimal supplies to Vietnam and almost all of them were slaughtered.)

Do you think Obama's choice to cut "grunts" from the defense budget was wise?

Do you think his decision could potentially cause history to repeat itself?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/obama-defense-strategy-troops-budget-cuts_n_1186970.html

New Hampshire Students Jeer Santorum

2012-01-05T20:59:00.002-05:00

Rick Santorum's views on specific social issues such as same-sex marriage were challenged in New Hampshire. A midday event in front of a gathering of college students here turned into a testy exchange in which Mr. Santorum compared allowing gay couples to marry to polygamy. He implied the two were equally undesirable. “If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?” he asked.

The students booed Mr. Santorum during the 10-minute exchange and loudly booed when he left the room. The students were part of College Convention 2012, a forum organized by New England College and open to students from all over the state, regardless of political party.

The exchanges about social issues came as Mr. Santorum campaigned across New Hampshire on Thursday, telling voters that they needed a candidate with “core convictions.” However Santorum has been accused of not sticking to his own convictions. His standing on same-sex marriage has only been made clear on a few occasions. In 2003 he stated that "In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality," however he stated in that same interview that he did not mean "to pick on homosexuality." What does this 'flip-flopping' of opinion show about his character? How can he tell voters that they need a candidate with core convictions, when he has none that he is willing to stand by?

Rick Santorum has clearly made a poor impression on the young people of New Hampshire. How will this impact his success in the New Hampshire primary?

What chance will Santorum have of winning the nomination if he loses the New Hampshire primary, given his success in Iowa?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/politics/students-jeer-santorum-on-new-hampshire-blitz.html?ref=politics

Bachmann Says She Will Not Continue in the Race

2012-01-05T20:55:00.001-05:00

"On the morning before Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucuses, Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota said she was counting on a “miracle” to resurrect her faltering campaign. On the morning after, she acknowledged that it was beyond saving.

Mrs. Bachmann said on Wednesday morning that she would not continue her campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

“Last night, the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice, and so I have decided to stand aside,” Mrs. Bachmann said at a news conference in West Des Moines.

In her comments, she continued her criticism of President Obama and his policies, particularly his health care program and the Dodd-Frank bill that provided more oversight of the financial industry. “I will continue to fight to defeat the president’s agenda of socialism,” she said.

Surrounded by her family, Mrs. Bachmann invoked her faith frequently. “I look forward to the next chapter in God’s plan,” she said. “He has one for each of us, you know.”

But two questions about Mrs. Bachmann’s future remain.

She did not say whether she would endorse one of her former rivals in the bid for the Republican nomination or whether she would run for re-election in Congress. She suspended her House campaign after announcing her presidential bid and her Sixth Congressional District in Minnesota could be redrawn to her disadvantage.

Although Mrs. Bachmann did not have enough money to aggressively compete in the Iowa advertising contest, Ms. Stewart said the campaign was “in perfect shape to go” financially, noting that the candidate had a full slate of events booked in South Carolina and had planned to participate in weekend debates in New Hampshire.

Ms. Stewart also rejected suggestions that Mrs. Bachmann’s decision was swayed by recent calls from Sarah Palin and evangelical leaders for her to drop out of the race and join forces with a different social conservative. Nonetheless, the success of Rick Santorum showed that “the faith community did coalesce around one person,” Ms. Stewart said.

Of the six candidates who seriously competed in the Iowa caucuses, Mrs. Bachmann came in last, winning only 5 percent of the vote. She had signaled that she would stay in the race during a speech to supporters on Tuesday night saying, “There are many more chapters to be written on our path to the nomination.”

The rise and fall of Mrs. Bachmann’s campaign foretold similar narratives for the other Republicans who sought to run as alternatives to Mitt Romney. Her passion and forceful debate performances helped her win the Iowa straw poll in late summer, only to have it overshadowed by Gov. Rick Perry’s entry into the race. Mr. Perry, who placed fifth, said late Tuesday night that he would return to Texas to “assess” his candidacy, but he is apparently not dropping out, at least for now."

1. Do you think her lack of campaign finances caused her decline? Was there a specific turning point where her campaign went astray?

2. Why did she go from 1st in an Iowa poll just a few months before to dead last in the caucus?

3. Will her presidential-run prevent her from being re-elected in Congress?

Santorum Has Testy Exchange on Same-Sex Marriage

2012-01-05T20:52:00.002-05:00

"Rick Santorum engaged in an extended and sometimes testy exchange over same-sex marriage with a group of college students during a campaign appearance on Thursday.

Mr. Santorum was speaking at the College Convention 2012, a forum organized by New England College and open to students from all over the state, regardless of political party. A press release from the college describes it as “a unique opportunity for students to participate in this important dialogue.”

One student started the conversation by asking Mr. Santorum — a fervent opponent of same-sex marriage — why he did not think that equality required allowing members of the same gender to marry.

Instead of offering a quick answer and moving on to another subject, Mr. Santorum began a Socratic lecture about changing the laws on marriage, repeatedly asking the students questions.

“Don’t you have to make the positive argument why the law should be changed?” he asked several of them.

As the students pressed him on the morality of letting gay men and lesbians marry, Mr. Santorum engaged them even further.

First, he compared changing marriage laws to building a bridge. You have to have a reason to build the bridge, he said. He then said that many of the things that same-sex marriage advocates want — like the ability to visit loved ones in hospitals — can be accomplish through contract law.

“Can that right be legally done right now through contract?” he asked. “Yes it can.”

But the testiest part of the exchange came when an audience member suggested that gay people should be allowed to marry because they have a right to happiness.

In response, Mr. Santorum asked whether she thought that more than two people should be allowed to marry, apparently trying to suggest that the questioner was advocating an extreme position.

“If you’re not happy unless you’re married to five other people, is that O.K.?” he asked.

That angered the audience, which booed his answer.

“I’m happy to engage in a discussion,” he continued, saying that he wanted to “give people a chance to answer, but we’re going to have a civil discussion.”

The woman who had asked the first question then persisted, saying that the question about bigamy was “irrelevant.”

“In my personal opinion, go for it,” she said. “But when two men want to marry … ”

Mr. Santorum interrupted, “What about three men?”

“That’s not what I’m talking about,” the woman said to Mr. Santorum, who spent close to an hour and a half before the crowd.

The session ended with many of the students booing Mr. Santorum as he left for his next event."

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/santorum-gets-into-testy-debate-on-gay-marriage/?src=me&ref=us

Questions:

1. Do you think this campaign appearance will affect Santorum's campaign/cause him to lose followers?

2. Did Santorum handle the question the right way, and if not then how should he have approached it?

Manufacturing Helps Improve US Economy

2012-01-05T20:28:00.002-05:00

"For the first time in many years, manufacturing stands out as an area of strength in the American economy.

When the Labor Department reports December employment numbers on Friday, it is expected that manufacturing companies will have added jobs in two consecutive years. Until last year, there had not been a single year when manufacturing employment rose since 1997.

And this week the Institute for Supply Management, which has been surveying American manufacturers since 1948, reported that its employment index for December was 55.1, the highest reading since June. Any number above 50 indicates that more companies say they are hiring than say they are reducing employment.

As stores have filled with inexpensive imports from China and other Asian countries, the perception has risen that the United States no longer makes much of anything. Certainly there has been a long decline in manufacturing employment, which peaked in 1979 at 19.6 million workers.

But those numbers obscure the fact that the United States remains a manufacturing power, albeit one that has been forced to specialize in higher-value items because its labor costs are far above those in Asia. The value of American manufactured exports over a 12-month period peaked at $1.095 trillion in the summer of 2008, just before the credit crisis caused world trade volumes to plunge. At the low, the 12-month figure fell below $800 billion, but it has since climbed back to $1.074 trillion. Those figures are not adjusted for inflation.

In total exports, including manufactured goods as well as other commodities like agricultural products, the United States ranked second in the world in 2010, behind China but just ahead of Germany. For the first 10 months of 2011, Germany is slightly ahead of the United States.

The United States is particularly strong in machinery, chemicals and transportation equipment, which together make up nearly half of the exports. Exports of computers and electronic products are growing, but are well below their precrisis levels. Production of cheaper computers and parts shifted to Asia long ago.

The strong exports provide a stark reminder of how vulnerable this country could be to protectionist trade wars. Last month China imposed punitive duties on imports of American large cars and sport utility vehicles, which total about $4 billion a year.

Since employment in the United States hit its recent low, in February 2010, the economy has added 2.4 million jobs through November, of which 302,000 were in manufacturing. With government payrolls shrinking, and financial services jobs also fewer, manufacturing employment has played an important role in keeping the economy growing. It also is helping that construction employment appears to have hit bottom. In the first 11 months of 2011, it is up a small amount.

To be sure, the gains in manufacturing employment and exports have come after sharp declines during the recession and credit crisis. There are still 6 percent fewer manufacturing jobs than there were when President Obama took office at the beginning of 2009, and it seems very unlikely that he will be the first president since Bill Clinton, in his first term, to preside over growing manufacturing employment during a four-year term.

In an economy where there is widespread concern over consumer spending, and in which government spending and payrolls are under heavy pressure, manufacturing has become a bright spot. It is not enough to produce a strong rebound, and it remains vulnerable to weakness overseas. But it has helped to keep a weak economic recovery from turning into a new recession."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/business/us-manufacturing-is-a-bright-spot-for-the-economy.html?_r=1&hp

Questions:

1. Is the future of the U.S. as a manufacturing country worth establishing?

2. Knowing the negative environmental impact, is manufacturing a good long term solution to creating jobs?

3. How can the U.S. establish itself as an important manufacturing company, and compete with countries such as China?

Obama's New Military Strategy

2012-01-05T18:15:00.003-05:00

President Obama outlined a broad new military strategy that refocuses the armed forces on threats in Asia and the Pacific, a continued presence in the Middle East, however there will not be enough ground forces to conduct a prolonged campaign. President Obama wants to continue to invest in counterterrorism, intelligence gather, cyberwarfare, and countering the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Obama's new strategy also adopts hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to the military. The decision to cut funds has the chance to make the his uneasy relationship with the military worse. Obama stated that he wanted to "put our fiscal house in order here at home and renew our long-term economic strength" instead. However, during an election year where the Republican presidential candidates haves been attacking him for his cuts in the military budget and what they are calling "his weak response to Iranian threats," his new plan may only add fuel to the fire.

The new military plan is driven by at least $450 billion in Pentagon budget cuts over the next decade and possibly more depending on Congress' decision. According to the new strategy, Pentagon officials and military analysts say the Army would have to shrink below current targets, dropping to 490,000 over the next few years, while still keeping all eleven aircraft carriers. In addition to cutting back the troops, delays in purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet, would be expected. One problem with troop reductions is that veterans may wind up flooding into a tough employment market and military families could feel that the government is breaking trust after a decade of sacrifice. Further cuts would be made to future retirement benefits and fees for heath care offered to Defense Department retirees.

When it comes to fighting multiply wars at a time, the new plan would but an end to that. The military would have to fight and win a war, spoil the military aspirations of another adversary in different regions, and continue to conduct humanitarian relief operations and other contingencies.

Do you think that the timing of this strategy will affect President Obama in the upcoming election? If so, how?

Do you agree or disagree with the new strategy, and why?

How do you think other countries could possible react to America decreasing the size of their military?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/us/obama-at-pentagon-to-outline-cuts-and-strategic-shifts.html?_r=1&hp