The debate and subsequent election is an ongoing story that will deepen as we approach U.S. election time.
What are the topics that are being mentioned? How do the policies differ?
What are the backgrounds of these people running for office?
Another idea:
How does coverage of this election vary in different countries? (i.e. compare two or three different media outlets in different world regions reporting on the same event on the same day)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is my weekly post:
ReplyDeleteBig Bird has joined Barack Obama’s campaign team as an effort to save the PBS network. Obama’s competition, Mitt Romney, said he’d cut tax money that flows into the Public Broadcasting System from the federal budget to help curb deficits. Then he got specific with moderator Jim Lehrer, a PBS star. According to the latest financial disclosure that Sesame Workshop has made public, its total revenue for 2009 was about $130 million. Of that, about $7.9 million came directly from government grants. Though Given that this year’s federal deficit is $1.1 trillion, Big Bird is nothing but a speck of dust. It’s also not just about the absolute dollar value of the money. Conservatives have long decried federal subsidies to public broadcasting because they consider it a blatant waste. Some argue Romney would need to cut PBS more than 1,000 times to fill the hole of his debate promises.
Whether or not I think this was a valuable tactic for Obama, I believe this close to the election more important things should be discussed other than the funding of this network. Obama had quoted: "If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things." Twitter also reported that shortly after Romney's remarks, users were posting 17,000 tweets per minute mentioning Big Bird, so you never know, this may eventually work in his favor.
Some other topics mentioned were Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. One idea under discussion is to change the way Social Security’s annual cost-of-living benefits are calculated as a way of saving the program money. Some economists say that could eventually cut annual Social Security benefits by as much as $1,000 for people over the age of 85. Obama appears to be laying the groundwork for a possible post-election with Congress to keep Social Security solvent. While it’s true that Obamacare would cut reimbursements to Medicare Advantage plans, it's also uncertain that many hospitals and doctors will turn away Medicare patients under Obamacare. Surveys have shown that more than 90 percent of people on Medicare say they’ve had no problem finding a doctor.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/09/team-romney-word-on-the-street-for-big-bird-tactics-troubling/
http://www.denverpost.com/politics-national/?third_party=presidential-debate-obama-romney-need-different-tactics
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2012/October/Romney-Obama-Big-Bird-Ad-a-Diversionary-Tactic-/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis is my weekly post:
ReplyDeleteThe first presidential debate between senator Mitt Romney and president Barack Obama addressed many of America's ever present issues such as jobs, government funding, healthcare, the role of the government and military. The views of the candidates vary quite profusely, but the main goal of both of them is to win. Before watching the debate, I thought Mitt Romney's attack against big bird was hostile and irrational, but after watching the debate I realize it wasn't that big of a deal. Though cutting funding to PBS would be a cruel thing to do, Romney does raise a good point. If they cut funding to a channel that no one really watches, the money could be used in other productive ways. If Romney had attacked a different channel maybe he would have had more positive feedback.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/romney-big-bird-attack-us-jobs_n_1939766.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhAwj3CWNw
This is my weekly post:
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's campaigns, they are actually a little similar. They have both mentioned wanting to make education better and more accessible, wanting to make the U.S less dependent on energy, along with making their own energy, and bringing more jobs into the U.S.(1,2 &4). However, Romney seems to be more focused on America's ties with the world than the people themselves. A lot of the issues outlined on his website consisted of countries that American is involved with such as, Iran, China, Russia, Israel, Latin American and Afghanistan. He wants to fix the ties with these countries that are being threatened, or have been destroyed from recent events. (3). Obama, on the other hand, only seems to be talking about the war in Afghanistan and how he wants to end them. Other than that, he is not really bothering with the world. He is more concerned with fixing American from the inside out, and worrying about his own people. For example, he mentions equal rights, woman's rights, and rights for seniors (5). Two other big differences between the two are health care and woman's rights. (1&5).
The biggest issue that the American people seem to be focused on though, is woman's rights. It is said that Romney wants to overthrow the Roe vs. Wade legislative, which allows woman to have abortions in early pregnancy. He is said to also want to restrict birth control. It is these two facts that are pushing many women away from Romney (6). Obama has actually now made woman's rights apart of his campaign and promises that he will keep woman's rights they way they are. He says that abortion will be kept legal, without government interference (5). This is pushing many women towards Obama, or keeping them on the fence as to who their vote will go to. Personally, I feel Obama is making a smart decision by adding woman’s rights to his campaigns, because women fought hard for their rights and they are not going to want to lose them. I believe this will work for Obama, and perhaps even be a hard part of why he wins, if he does so.
Aside from woman's rights, another large issue that seems to be focused on more so than most, is health care. Right now Obama is working on a health care reform, which makes health care more accessible and more affordable. He will be doing this by making it illegal for insurance companies to drop your insurance once you get sick and by making Medicare stronger. This will allow people to save money for the care they do pay for (3). Mitt's plan for health care is to allow each state to decide what plan for health care they want to make, based on what is best for its own citizens. There is a lot of controversy over what health care plan would be better. Many for Obama's health plan say that if Romney wins, many of American's will again die as a result of not being able to afford insurance and health care (5). People against Obama's health care say it is because it violates a person's liberty by not letting them choose if they want to buy insurance or not (6).
(1) http://www.mittromney.com/issues
(2) http://www.mittromney.com/JobsPlan
(3) http://www.barackobama.com/issues?source=primary-nav-see-more
(4) http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/in-ohio-women-weigh-mitt-romney-s-record-on-rights-278249
(5) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-townsend/romney-health-insurance_b_1962465.html
(6) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/obamacare-and-the-individual-mandate-violating-personal-liberty-and-federalism
This is my weekly post
ReplyDeleteThe Presidential election has gotten a lot of coverage here in Canada, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all Canadians care. I’ll admit that I rarely paid attention to this election. I had heard the occasionally story on what each candidate is doing on this issue and why they both believe the other one is wrong. Because of that, I had formed my opinion that Obama should be re elected. I had heard, before Romney was elected the leader, that the Republican Party was against gay marriage and abortion, and because I completely disagree with that, I was against the party and therefore Romney.
Mitt Romney’s platform covers a lot of issues he believes need to be addressed. (1) Some of his main plan’s are: assessing the troops in Afghanistan and determining whether or not they need to be pulled out, he wants to help the education system by getting more funding and giving students more diverse and affordable options for higher education, he, like most of the country, does not believe that there needs to be more restrictions on gun laws, he wants to immediately get rid of Obamacare and then allow for each state to create their own healthcare laws, he is pro life and believes that life begins at conception and the supports the Hyde amendment which says that federal funds are not used for abortions, and finally he is against gay marriage and wants to instill that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.
Here are some of the issues on Obama’s platform: (2) he created Obamacare to help prevent insurance companies from taking advantage of their clients, he has fought to keep the tuition and tax rates lower for students and he has created the Race to the Top initiative which has helped 46 states raise their education standards, and he signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair pay act to help women fight to earn the same wages as men in the same jobs.
After doing the research, I’m still on the side of Obama. As a Canadian, where gay marriage is legal in every province, and has been for some time, I can’t side with Mitt Romney. Also, I think that the things Obama has done while in office aren’t as bad as some Americans like to believe. But I still don’t think that either of them are the best choice to run a country, nonetheless a powerful one like the States. Romney refuses to change their relatively mild gun laws. I mean, after all the terrible incidences with shootings, like Columbine and the horrible shooting in Aurora, Colorado, they still think it’s safe for the people of the country to have such easy access to weapons. Obama didn’t state and opinion on either of these issues, but I don’t believe that he one hundred percent opposes Romney’s views.
1. http://www.mittromney.com/issues
2. http://www.barackobama.com/
This is my post for this week...
ReplyDeleteI'm going to first start by saying that no matter how much you use "IT'S ALL JUST GOVERNMENT" Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are nothing alike. Their ideologies and morals differ greatly, their love for the country is what is comparable. When someone takes a comparison of Romney and Obama, it's the democratic view vs. the republican view and this is where their leadership shows distinct differences. For example, Barack Obama believes in helping small businesses and unfortunate peoples (ie. unemployed, lower income, etc.); he is a forefront warrior for taxing the extremely rich (during the debates he references himself as someone who should be taxed higher); he believes in protectionism and advocates it. Mitt Romney believes in business. As a HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL businessman, he believes in low taxes, out sourcing manufacturing and maximizing profit. This is, in essence, capitalism at its best. Barack Obama's stance on women is a pro-choice mentality, that women can choose what they want to do with their bodies. Mitt Romney still believes in the biblical philosophy that abortion is murder. Fundamentally, the difference between them is that Obama believes in socialism and that society must be active in helping its people, but the government is responsible for helping and the more fortunate need to extend courtesy to the less fortunate; Romney's philosophy is that everyone is given the opportunity to be successful and that people decide what they do with it. In Romney's opinion, a laissez-faire attitude is in America's best interest. Their foreign policies differ and so do their ideas on the war in Afghanistan. Romney believes that it's important to remain in the Middle east to ensure that people recognize the strength of the US. Obama wants out, he believes the job has been completed.
A year before the presidential election (November 2012) a race for the republican electoral candidate began (primaries 2011). It's important to understand that all of these debates were televised, documented in papers and magazines, on the radio, on Youtube; the media coverage was endless. Due to the access of media, people all over the world knew exactly what was happening inside the political arena of the USA.
Focusing on the Big Bird situation, it's really sad that if you agree with him you're ready to FIRE an icon to our generation, and the one before us, just because of money. It's a comfort to the less privileged people who can't afford 500 channels that their kids can watch good TV without worry. Wake up, Public Broadcasting costs $445 mil. a year(1). That is literally a piece of hay in the hay stack of money the US government spends; compared to the $664.84 billion they use on "defense budgets"(2).
(1)http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2012/1009/Presidential-debate-101-How-much-would-US-save-by-cutting-off-Big-Bird
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States