Author: The American Partnership

by

Gingrich Trying to Regain Momentum

by Jocelyn Reinecke

Widener University Student

Gas prices have on the rise and Newt Gingrich is trying to regain momentum in the Republican Presidential Primary. He has begun to do this by promising that he has a plan to make gas prices go back down to $2.50 per gallon.  Although this proposal is going to catch attention among citizens following the campaign closely, a very important question arises: How is one politician going to influence something as big as the price of gas?

It is hard for politicians, such as a presidential candidate, to be able to make promises that will affect our economy not only in the short-term but in the long run as well.  During the Nixon Administration, price controls were created which turned out to be a complete disaster. This proposal is very likely to fail as well. Politicians have little control over how much the price of gas changes.  The only thing they can try and do is lower the tax on gas when it is imported. However the whole price of gasoline per gallon is based on how much a barrel costs and how much gas station owners have to charge to make some type of a profit. If gas prices were always set to the price of $2.50 but the price of the gas barrel was more than that price even with lower taxes on its importation, gas station owners with start to suffer because they will not make any profit. If gas station owners could not make any profit, their businesses would close and no one would have anywhere to go and to get gas even if its only $2.50.

Politicians have little to no control over the price of gas. Gingrich is really trying to just boost his presidential campaign trail because he has lost a lot of momentum. Gas prices being only $2.50 would be great and would really help Americans out, however it is nearly impractical to have the gas prices be that low because there are so many chain effect reactions that could happen and could really hurt our economy even more.

by

Appeal to the Base, Lose Everyone Else

by John Vuotto

Widener University Political Science Major

There have been plenty of televised Republican Presidential debates in this primary season. Usually the main topics are the obvious choices; the economy, jobs, foreign policy, etc. A big portion of Wednesday’s debate and the current GOP race as a whole has been focused on women and contraception.

Surely issues such as abortion and the use of contraception are very important to Conservative Republican voters, but they could get the candidates in trouble. If electability is a main quality that Republican voters are looking for in a candidate, the champion of these issues, Rick Santorum, could find himself in big trouble in a general election.

Santorum has always been openly pro-life and now this is being highlighted in the Republican race. This seems to be a time when all of the candidates are trying to appeal to the base to prove they are the most “Conservative” candidate. Recently, Newt Gingrich, referring to the Obama administration pushing more fuel-efficient cars, said “You can’t put a gun rack in a [Chevy] Volt.”

This kind of rhetoric can certainly hurt whichever candidate comes out of the Republican field. Many voters, women in particular, may be put-off by some of Senator Santorum’s beliefs on the use of contraception and abortion. If the GOP candidates want to win the very important Independent vote, they need to be more careful when trying to appeal to the base. In today’s world of 24 news and cameras everywhere, anything the candidates say can come back to bite them. Senator Santorum is on a hot streak right now but with more talk of his strong positions on contraception, it could cost him.

by

The Perfect Situation: A Return to the Media State of Nature

by John Kyle MacIntyre

Widener University Political Science Major

Media coverage plays a crucial part in the presidential elections that wash over America every four years.  The media is an essential safety-check on political figures and government activities because it provides transparency.  Originally, media coverage in the United States was constructed to inform the people as per the right to free press.  News today is so cluttered that it would be unrecognizable from the news that filled the streets at birth of our country.  News coverage has passed a threshold from informative to damaging.

Philosophers have often used a “state of nature” to explain the evolution of government. The tool is used to show the scenario in which people emerge from a disorganized lawless state to an organized government rooted in a constitution. It would be interesting to return the election process to a “state of nature” to purify the system of media clutter.  In this scenario the media’s part would be limited.  Candidates would campaign much like they do now: by campaigning for a couple of days followed by a candidate debate and then concluding with citizens voting. The media’s role in this scenario would be to provide the people a time and place of rallies or debates.  This strategy would be an attempt to coax voters to show up to candidates’ functions while providing the unique opportunity to form an individual opinion.  Without the outside influences this scenario would provide an interesting look into the true nature of how people vote.  The media has become unimportant with reports like how Romney works-out in the morning, what Newt had for breakfast, or Obama’s singing ability.  Also, this scenario provides an interesting look into the voting habits from state to state.  Overall this situation would present the nature of how people independently develop a candidate that represents them.

by

Worse than the Horserace

by Hope Dean

Widener University Political Science Major

With the public at large growing more disillusioned with Presidential races and the lack of policies talked about in the political sphere it is a wonder that anyone pays attention at all. The foundation for campaigns and electoral goals should be policies and what candidates explicitly plan to do once in office. However, this has not been the case as the media has focused on what is known as the ‘horserace’. News channels and reporters talk about polls and negative ads in an attempt to spark interest in an otherwise dull process for the majority of the public. This has become the norm and despite my disinterest in the horse race I find it to be much better than an alternative I recently found: “Candidate’s Playlist”.

On Friday February 10th, CNN’s question of the day during the lunch hour was: ‘What is on the candidates playlist?’. The news casters did not just spend a few minutes on a passing fancy. No, instead they repeatedly brought up the question of the day as to what might be on the candidate’s playlist. I personally cannot understand the justification for airing something so insignificant to the presidential race and to politics in general. Where do we go from here?

by

CRATE GATE: Dogs Against the Haughty Highness

by Hannah Steinke
Widener University Political Science Major 


So this is not a new story, but this story about Romney strapping his dog Seamus (in a crate) for a 12 hour car ride from Massachusetts to Canada is coming back to haunt him. The moral of the story uncovers Romney’s single consistent theme, haughtiness. Out of the myriad of offensive things Romney has said and done to people (i.e. “I’m not concerned about the very poor, uh, we have a safety net there.,” “I like being able to fire people who provide services for me.,” “10,000 dollar bet,” and don’t forget the infamous, “Corporations are people my friend.” See video of many more ‘Romneyisms.’) the way he treats his dog overrules his disdain for humans (listen to full Story about Romney’s dog abuse).  
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” ~Gandhi (1869-1948).
Obama’s campaign communications director’s Twit Pic with caption, “how loving owners transport their pets.”
TWEETED by President Obama's campaign communications director

NPR Quotes

Even conservative Fox News, Chris Wallace, lectured Romney in an interview. Wallace said, “I have a yellow lab named Winston. I would no sooner put him in a kennel on the roof of my car than I would one of my children. Question: What were you thinking?” Romney responded, “This is a completely airtight kennel, mounted on the top of our car. He climbed up there regularly, enjoyed himself, he was in a kennel at home a great deal of the time as well. We loved the dog, it was where he was comfortable and we had five kids inside the car and my guess is he liked it a lot better in his kennel than he would have liked it inside.”

Michael Markarian of the Humane Society Legislative Fund said on NPR that, “Two-thirds of American households have pets. And the pet care industry is a $51 billion a year industry. That’s more than movies, recorded music and video games combined.” Furthermore, he points out that “there are more than 20,000 animal protection groups in the U.S…and they collectively raise about $2 billion a year. It’s an incredible expression of philanthropy from people who care about animals and want to see them protected from harm.”

NPR points out that “many of them won’t vote for someone who they perceive mistreated his dog, regardless of party. About the only good news for Romney and his dog story? Last year President Obama got only a C minus from the Humane Society for his work helping animals.”

by

One Nation Under God Divided By Religion

by Mary Rohweder

Widener University Political Science Major

Throughout American history, politicians have struggled to govern under the establishment cause – separating religion from government – while facing controversial religious issues that become involved with the world of politics. Recently two religious issues have been brought to America’s attention – the overturn of Proposition 8 in California and the controversy with contraception for employees of Catholic institutions. These issues have made media headlines, but I believe it is important to research the stances of the President and Presidential candidates.

In response to the overturn of Proposition 8, which formerly outlawed gay marriage in the state of California, Republican candidates have expressed their disdain and exuded support for the protection of traditional marriage while President Obama has not taken a declarative stance. Mitt Romney released a statement supporting states’ rights to ban gay marriage and for citizens to preserve and protect traditional marriage. He stated that the overturn “underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.” Newt Gingrich commented that this action was a “radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.” Rick Santorum declared, ” For a court, any court, to usurp the power and will of the people in this manner on an issue this fundamental to the foundation of our society is wrong.” President Obama has also been opposed to same sex marriage and states that his views on the issue are “evolving.” However, the Obama administration has taken action on behalf of furthering gay rights by removing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the military.

The contraceptive argument is firmly divided between women’s rights and people’s freedoms. The President has taken a stance on behalf of women’s rights, whereas the Republicans claim freedom of speech and religion. The Obama administration has made a commitment to ensure all women will have access to contraception coverage. President Obama initially proposed that Catholic institutions would be required to provide female employees with contraception, but recently compromised. According to the new compromise, Catholic institutions will not be forced to offer contraception to their employees; instead, insurers must offer full coverage to any women who work at such institutions. Santorum took the most oppositional stance, declaring, “It’s not about contraception….[I]t’s about freedom of speech; it’s about freedom of religion. It’s about government control of your lives and it’s got to stop.”

Overall, Republican candidates have expressed very conservative positions on religion, choosing either to preserve the traditional beliefs of the Church or to call for the protection of citizen rights. President Obama has taken action on certain issues but has compromised, such as not endorsing same-sex marriage and compromising on the contraceptive issue. The culture war of religion has been creating great tension in the Presidential candidates, especially since voters are all watching.