Gingrich Proposal For Immigration A Bust?

Recently, the campaign of Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich released a ten step plan to handling immigration in the United States.  In sum, the plan addresses how to handle illegals that have entered the nation and lived beyond the law.  Those plans would vary based on the time, criminal history, and careers of those individuals.  Moreover, the plan addresses how to prevent further illegal immigration into the nation in terms of more assertiveness at the border and more options for a legitimate path to citizenship.  "If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out," said Gingrich about in correspondence to his immigration plan.  While this plan may sound like it could work, unfortunately in response to the quote above, this plan may not apply to a large amount of people.  According to CNN, a study released this week by the Pew Hispanic Centers estimates that there are currently 10.2 million unauthorized adult immigrants in the United States, of which two-thirds -- or roughly 6.8 million -- have been in the country for at least 10 years.  Of that 6.8 million, about 3.5 million of them have lived in the United States without authorization for 15 years or more and around 2.8 million have been here between 10 and 14 years.  Interestingly enough, Gingrich's plan would apply to those illegal immigrants who have been here since 1986, the year President Reagan signed the amnesty law, which granted citizenship to 1.7 million people.  There are twice as many illegal immigrants today as compared to when the law was passed.  Moreover, almost half of those illegal immigrants who are undocumented are minors.  Therefore, Gingrich would have to modify his plan if he is to make more than a small difference since the people who may be granted immunity under his plan would make up a minimal percentage of the current population of illegal immigrants.

Cain Suspends His Campaign

In the famous lyrics of the Beatles, "Yesterday...All my troubles seemed so far away."  Why the lyric?  What the hell does it have to do with politics?  The answer, this line can be easily applied to the campaign of smash hit candidate Herman Cain.  Yes, it seemed as though yesterday, tabloids, news channels, and bloggers nationwide were providing information that proved Cain to be doing quite well in the polls.  However, as quickly as Cain's approval ratings soared, they were not strong enough to keep him in the game.  Yes, Cain has been sidelined in the Presidential race.  Like a running back who fumbles, some say Cain "dropped the ball".  However, which time he dropped the ball may be in the eyes of the beholder.  Perhaps, he "dropped the ball" when he accused blacks of being brainwashed.  Maybe it happened when he jokingly suggested building an electric fence in response to being asked how to handle illegal immigration.  However, according to the media, it was not those incidents that placed a stake in the heart of Cain's campaign.  It was allegations of sexual harassment, and a long-term affair that led to the suspension.  This is what Cain had to say:

Cain blames the media however, for "ambushing" him.  I agree, the media ambushed him.  What was the media thinking publishing things about Cain that he said?  Rude.  Perhaps the United States isn't ready for a President who calls the people he is trying to win votes from "racist" and "brainwashed."  Perhaps, we the people just are not ready for a President who jokingly mocks the names of other nations.  Perhaps, Herman Cain, you should pat yourself on the back for Godfather's Pizza and call it a day.  Cain should not feel so horrible though, these things have happened and will probably continue to happen in campaigns.  For example, Grover Cleveland during his campaign was accused of having an illegitimate child.  Gary Hart during his campaign was photographed with a model on a boat called "Monkey Business."  This blog could be a dissertation on political campaign scandals.  However, these things happen.  As long as one intends on being in the public eye, the individual should make it appoint to stay out of trouble ahead of time to avoid these things.  After all, the media is the media, and its function is to dig and tell. 

Video 10/2

David Parker talked from Charlotte, North Carolina, about Democratic Party strategy in the key battleground state of North Carolina in 2012. Charlotte is the site of the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

Video 10/2

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in 2009 relative to the 1965 Federal Voting Rights Act.  The substance of the oral arguments revolved around the inefficiencies of the voting systems in southern states with large populations of minorities.

Video 10/2

Brent Wilkes discusses the impact of Hispanic voters on the Democratic party.  Furthermore, Wilkes discusses the ambivalence of Hispanics in regards to voting.

Cain Ad Analysis 11/20

Telephone lines were open for comments on 2012 Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain's campaign ad featuring a testimonial from his campaign manager Mark Block, who was smoking a cigarette at the end of the message.

SuperPAC's 11/20

A discussion about the rule of "SUPERPACS" in the upcoming 2012 election.  How funding has played a large part in candidates abilities to attack one another through paid advertisements.

Americans For Cain 11/20

A discussion regarding the campaign of Herman Cain is taking place.  In this midst of this discussion, this clip of an advertisement from a group called Americans For Herman Cain is played to support the idea that he has a strong following.

Romney Gets More Support

On November 19, 2011, CNN released news that New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte will endorse Mitt Romney in the upcoming race for the White House.  "Mitt Romney has proven not only through his prior experience as a successful businessman and governor, but also through his solid campaign and excellent debate performances, that he is that candidate" said Senator Ayotte.  Ayotte is a very popular fist term Senator and her support were definitely help Romney in his endeavors.

Her remarks perhaps raise certain questions.  First, she regards his debate skills as grounds to endorse him.  If this were 60 years ago, if she were not at the debates, what could she endorse him for?  Granted he has handled his debates well, it worries me that a candidate is being endorsed on the grounds that he can debate well.  Such activity only confirms the idea that candidates are being elected more on their personal attributes rather than their political ideologies.  I would have liked to see Romney receive endorsement on behalf of his position on immigration or taxes rather than how he handles himself on a televised debate.  She goes on to say "He will remain vigilant in the fight against al Qaeda and Islamist terrorists, and his national security decisions will be based on advice from our military commanders – not political polls," she said. "With a rising China and persistent nuclear threats from rogue nations, we need Governor Romney's strong, steady leadership to vigorously protect American interests."  Perhaps by this statement she assumes that our country's military decisions have been based more on political poles than on the leadership of the service's commanders? If that was the case, wouldn't we have been out of Iraq a long time ago? Regardless, I am okay with politicians endorsing candidates, I just wish it could be for better reasons.  

Gingrich's Plan For Immigration

"If you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home, period," Gingrich said. "If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out."  This quote coming from Gingrich on Tuesday night's national security debate.  Gingrich on his site outlines a ten point plan involving how he would deal with illegal immigration should he become President.  These ten points rely on a few principals.  First, no plan can be "comprehensive."  Gingrich logic in this principal lies in his opinion that no "comprehensive" approach to immigration has been successful with neither President Bush or Obama.  Moreover, this plan must be done in a process of many steps.  The second principal regarding the ten step plan prioritizes the rights of those who wish to become citizens and have waited patiently without attempting to come in illegally.  Gingrich's rationale in this principal is that those who have taken legal steps to becoming citizens should be prioritized and in no way overstepped by a plan to grant immunity to those who have entered the country illegally.  The third and final principal outlining the ten step plan establishes that those illegals who have deep ties to the country (families, community relations, and time) should have a chance towards "legality but not citizenship," while those illegals who recently entered the country along with those who have committed criminal acts should be deported immediately.  With these three principals in mind, Gingrich's ten step plan is as follows:

1.   Control The Border
2. Create A 21st Century Visa Program
3. "In Source" The Best Brains In The World
4.  Allow foreigners who want to spend money, invest money, and create jobs, to do so.  
5. There has to be a legal guest worker program, but its management must be outsourced to a sophisticated manager of anti-fraud systems such as American Express, Visa, or Mastercard.   
6. Create a path to earned legality for the millions who have lived here outside of the law.
7. Deportation of criminals and gang members should be efficient and fast.
8. Ensure that every new citizen and every young American learn American history and the fundamentals of American Exceptionalism.  
9. English must be the official language of government.  
10. Young non-citizens who came to the country outside of the law should have the same right to join the military and earn citizenship.

Granted that this ten point plan may be efficient if enacted, I believe on several notes, this plan may be too idealistic.  FIrst, in terms of a legal guest worker program, I believe that management by an entity such as American Express will be helpful but not strong enough to tackle the issue of working visas that expire and return home without the owners.  Perhaps a better solution may be similar to how tax payers have to answer to the I.R.S.  Every company who employs visiting workers should be subject to a serious audit quarterly to ensure accountability for those who work for a U.S. company with a working visa.  Second, if every new citizen learns correct and accurate American history, they will hear that the country was founded on immigration.  Telling a foreigner our countries history is necessary but not sufficient to tackling the problem of illegals.  Finally, the military should be ambivalent about giving illegal immigrants opportunity in the military simply for the fact that if those individuals were okay with defying the security and laws of our country to enter illegally, then why should those individuals be trusted with military equipment, information, and etc.?  On some level, I am pickin' up what you're puttin' down Newt, I just think you may have caught a minor case of the "too good to be true blues."

1992: Commission On Presidential Debates Talk Analysis

In 1992, Co-Chairman of the Commission of Presidential Debates Paul Kirk spoke about that years Presidential debates.  Specifically in this clip, Kirk explains that years election as a landmark year due to its unique organization of debates including the first televised events of three Presidential debates and one Vice Presidential debate.  Moreover, Kirk explains briefly the impact of debates on voters according to the statistics of that year. 

1984 Presidential Debate: Reagan Vs. Mondale

On 10/7/1984, President Reagan squared off against Mr. Mondale in a Presidential debate.  This clip of that debate covers a question asked to President Reagan about his religious beliefs and practice, and their role in his policy making.  Reagen responded by explaining he prefers to keep his faith separate from his Presidential duties. 

1976 Presidential Debate: Ford Vs. Carter

Presidential Debate in 1976 between President Ford and Governer Jimmy Carter.  In this segment of the debate, President Ford receives questions about his choice to grant Richard Nixon a pardon after the Watergate scandal and his program for granting immunity to draft and active duty deserters.

How Have Presidential Debates Changed Over Time?

Overtime, there have been obvious changes in the Presidential debates.  However, there are specific debates that may have paved the way for change in the debates.  For example, when looking at the very first Presidential debate between Lincoln and Douglas, it is obvious that there were no televisions view such debates.  What transpired in the debate included twenty-one hours of debate in Illinois broken up into seven separate debates.  Historically, these debates led to Lincoln becoming President (www.USPOLITICS.about.com).  The next major election debate that would change the way elections took place was the Kennedy/Nixon debates in 1960.  These debates though important like every other debates, were special because they were the first televised debates.  See the following clip.

These debates were the nation's first opportunity to see the candidates go at it from all across the nation.  However, while informative, and pioneering in elections, did the televising of these debates change the way America votes for its candidates?  Essentially, now that the country is able to see these debates from every state on public television, it has enabled viewers to look past the issues and see into the personality of the candidates.  With that being said, perhaps the televising of debates has enabled Americans to make their choices based on a larger percentage of personality approval and a less percentage of policy platform approval than before.  In viewing several debates since the first televised debates, it appears to me that there has been a slight shift of candidates attacking opposing policies to candidates attacking the character of opposing candidates.  See the following video.  

Perhaps the debates have always been this way on some level or another, but now that the mass media is so powerful, we are able to see it.  However, in viewing the two debates, I believe there is a very transparent difference in the body language, attitudes, and overall agenda of the debates.  Thus, my opinion that while the media has evolved, election debates have evolved with it and there has been a shift.  I urge voters to vote for sure.  However, I urge viewers to attempt to vote less according to character flaws or qualities and more so about the policies.  

Does Herman Cain Have What It Takes To Win A Presidential Debate?

With the elections coming up in just a year, it is no surprise that many Americans are looking at the Republican candidates and their stances in an effort to picture what the national debates will be like.  In doing so, many Americans have also become, like myself, much infatuated with Herman Cain.  While Cain may be receiving much media attention and support from other Conservatives, I wonder, can Herman Cain win a debate against President Obama?  According to Rush Limbaugh, Cain is more than qualified not only to beat Obama in the race, but to be a more effective leader than Obama as well.  According to Rush's website, a lot can be said about Cain granted how he's handled media scrutiny lately.  See the following website for a full transcript of what Rush said regarding Cain versus Obama (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/10/comparing_the_experience_of_obama_and_cain).  Now that you have read this website, see the following video of Mike Tyson parodying Herman Cain just because its funny as hell.

Now that we have seen what Rush and Mike Tyson think of Herman Cain, it begs the question again:  can Herman Cain win a debate against President Obama?  While it is completely entertaining and laughable some of the things that Cain has said, it is also scary.  The country is not looking for entertainment, the country is looking for leadership.  With the primaries happening now and the nomination and national debate coming around the corner, it is my professional opinion that Cain can only play the crazy card for so long.  We have a President who is currently under much scrutiny and criticism and should Cain win the Republican nomination, we will have a debate amongst two people who are privy to having shots taken at them by the media.  However, Obama has shown to be a very charismatic and well-spoken speaker, while I could write a dissertation on what has been said about Cain's public speaking, I will simply say he has work to do.  Given that over 53 million people watched Obama and McCain debate for the first time, Cain should be preparing in the off chance he wins the nomination to answer to the nation officially on a national debate level.  

The world is a crazy place, and it just may be crazy enough to nominate who I think is the craziest candidate I have ever seen.  Herman Cain, you entertain me.  My request to you, is to censor yourself just a bit.  Maybe take it down a notch so I can write about someone else.  Until you do so, while you continue charming America one comment at a time, I have no choice but to continue writing about you.  God bless America, and God bless you Herm.    

Romney Makes A Powerful Promise For 2016

 In Washington at the "Defending the American Dream Summit," Presidential candidate Mitt Romney made a very steep promise.  In what looks like a continuous effort to shrink the government, Romney promises that should he become President, by the end of his term in 2016 he will have reduced the spending levels to 20% of GDP.  Romney explained that to meet that goal, the government must find $500 billion in annual savings.

According to CNN, in an effort to fulfill this promise, Romney explained that the biggest money saver in this plan would be to place the control of medicaid into the hands of the states, and limiting the company's growth to the consumer price index.  Moreover, he included plans to slice budgeting from other sources that would specifically benefit the conservative platform such as Planned Parenthood.  He also suggested the following proposals:

- Re-structuring Social Security and Medicare, including letting seniors choose between federal coverage and private health insurance plans

- Reducing foreign aid to countries that don't need it and countries "that oppose American interests."

- Cutting the size of the federal workforce and linking government salaries to private sector salaries

- Combining wasteful government agencies

The Democratic party has already contested this proposal. In a memo from the Obama election campaign, said the Romney plan would destroy Medicare and Medicaid, enact cuts that would hurt the middle class and provide tax breaks to corporations. Moreover, "He would return American families to the failed economic policies that contributed to the years of rising inequality, stagnant wages, and eroding middle-class security," the memo said. While the constant disputes over campaign promises will continue to occur, it will be interested to see if Romney's plan is realistic or idealistic. In regards to this promise, one thing may be depended on, and that is the advancement of one party, and the disappointment of another.

Cain Vs. The Media: Round 102938545849304

It seems as though every week, one can expect that when the name "Herman Cain" is entered on any Internet search engine, the results may very well yield controversy.  But this week, the controversy is not about being pro-choice or pro-life, tax reform, health care, or unemployment.  It is about a strong presidential candidate, and sexual harassment.  In the late 1990's, Herman Cain was allegedly involved in acts of sexual harassment during an era when he headed the National Restaurant Association.  While no specific details have come to surface yet, this issue has sparked many responses and quite frankly has trumped much of the talk this week regarding politics in the U.S.

Perhaps one question should be considered in regards to this weeks latest Cain coverage.  Should this incident trump the media coverage and discussion of the election when such issues as abortion, taxes, unemployment, and health insurance exist?  While such issues are the reality of Americans, much of what media outlets and other politicians are discussing are this alleged event.  Cain has refused to acknowledge this issue amongst the media.  However, many opposing candidates and other politicians who are opposed to Cain in general have said that he should speak up to bury the issue.  For example, former Utah Governor and competing candidate Jon Huntsman has called for Cain to speak up so that his issues can stop "taking the bandwidth out of the discussion of issues that should be discussed."  Oppositely, Sen.  Kay Bailey-Hutchison says "until something concrete is proven, its just politics as usual."  Below is Jon Huntsman on "Meet the Press" where Cain's issue of sexual harassment is discussed.

In the eyes of many individuals who partake in politics, bringing up the past is purely political strategy.  In knowing that, perhaps Cain should come out and speak publicly about these allegations.  It may be in his interest given his controversial quotes and comments, that have earned him a number of opposers.

Does the Media Help Discern Votes?

In 2008, widely respected columnist Stuart Taylor writes: "one reason that candidates get away with dishonest campaign ads and speeches may be that it is so hard for undecided voters like me to discern which charges are true, which are exaggerated, and which are false. Most people can't spend hours every day cross-checking diverse sources of information to verify the accuracy of slanted stories and broadcasts." Perhaps it is true that slanted stories and broadcasts do exist, and indeed those instances provide great difficulty in discerning who to vote for.  However, one must take into account that while the media is the direct liaison between the government and the people, there are three sides to every story.  In this case, its the media's story, the government's story, and the truth.  See this video on various coverage of political issues covered by various media sources.  

Some may view the media as a paper shredder in the way that the flow of information is parallel to a sheet of paper, that paper is sent through the shredder (the media in this case) and fed in pieces to the public.  However, some may view the media as a phenomenon that involves human beings; human beings who have their own political beliefs.  There is no doubt that some outlets of media are more or less conservative than others.  However, what comes into question is how much the media should be relied upon in deciding the elections by way of the popular vote.  

In viewing this graph, specifically looking at Rick Perry, between positive and negative feedback, 52% of viewers expressed feedback to him based on news coverage from May-October.  If this graph is completely true, in viewing the statistics of all of the major candidates (those who have higher poll ratings), the news alone is a major player in the tone people have for the candidates.  With so much influence on the public, it is no wonder that so many are skeptical of the news.  Perhaps it is beneficial to do research and finding graphs and videos such as those above in this blog in an effort to fact check and find the most accurate information as possible.  While it is widely believed there is no way to tell what is happening within the hierarchy of the government without being within the hierarchy of the government,   as a democratic nation we must vote.  If it is the media that provides us with the most tools to find the preferred candidate, it becomes our duty as citizens to discern the coverage we believe to be true over the false ones in order to discern our vote for the best Presidential candidate.  

Perry's Struggle With The Media

Presidential Candidate Rick Perry like many of the current and past Presidential candidates has come under fire by way of the media.  According to Maggie Haberman of Politico.com, in an effort to win the Republican nomination, Perry has had to defend himself for not being conservative enough to the conservative media.  He has been accused of being soft on immigration issues and that is enough to have deprived him of the title of "the most right-winged" candidate in the race.  This video below will include a brief discussion of these accusations, specifically about immigrations office, as well as provided a small clip of Perry defending himself against such claims.

Perry, along with the conservative media, have called his remarks in debates regarding issues of immigration "over-compassionate."  Perry was sure to defend himself by recognizing his blatant over-compassion on such an issue.  Being compassionate has proven to be a weakening factor in Republican debates and justifiably so.  Really, does America really want a compassionate leader?

Perhaps Perry has read the history books regarding past Presidential candidates and their struggles with the media and he just may be trying to learn from them.  For example, another candidate aiming for the White House who was under fire for by the media was Richard Nixon.  Nixon ran unsuccessfully for President in 1960 losing by a small margin to John F. Kennedy, and than ran unsuccessfully for Governor of California in 1962.  After two consecutive losses, Nixon at that time bitterly announced his exit from politics.  Specifically addressing the media, Nixon shouted "...you won't have a Nixon to kick around anymore."  That was true for a short time until the Watergate scandal.  Point and case, Nixon and the media did not exactly have a "lackluster" relationship.  In regards to the media, perhaps Perry is under the impression that if he can't beat them, he may as well be with them.  In the overall grand scheme of the road to the White House, perhaps Perry is just playing his cards correctly in a game that requires much strategy.  The obvious strategy here would be influencing the media to emphasize his "right wingedness" in an effort to influence the people to vote for him.  Granted the media may place a spin on things, and can at times distribute "questionable" material, perhaps this story should end with a campaign ad from Rick Perry.  Established, said, and paid for by Rick Perry and his people, perhaps this piece of cinematic magic will be efficient enough in showing the people who the ultimate right wing candidate is.

Jon Huntsman on Foreign Policy

Former Utah Governer and Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman takes his stance on foreign policy. He explains a 5-prong foreign policy plan.  This includes rebuilding the U.S. economy, expansion of trade agreetments, increased counter-terrorism efforts, strengthening of relations with major world powers, and decreasing drug violence in Mexico and Latin America.