By Andrea Stickley
Widener University Political Science Student

With President Obama blazing a campaign trail across the country, and the race between Romney and Gingrich boiling up, a new topic has become the focus of speeches. For awhile now, debate has arisen concerning the possible expansion of the Canadian Pipeline, Keystone. President Obama has refused to expand the pipeline down through America, while Gingrich has adamently stated that that would be one of the first legislation on his agenda if elected. President Obama has instead been talking about leasing out options for more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Something about these two scenarios don’t add up.

Has President Obama not learned from past mistakes that drilling in the Gulf has severe consequences? The damages suffered after the April 2010 BP Oil spill is still affecting fishing industries and the people living by the Gulf of Mexico. Since this is the case, why is President Obama contemplating the idea of setting us up for another oil disaster. Oil spills have consequences far reaching than just the initial clean up. It impacts people for years and makes the economy suffer.

The Keystone Pipeline idea isn’t any better. Expanding that pipeline down through central United States would cause problems for aquifers in that section of the country and the water that they supply to people. It also causes destruction to the environment which is never a benefit. Yes, it would create many jobs and boost the economy, but at what cost to the environment and people living in those areas?

I don’t know if these nominees have forgotten, but this is the 21st century. It’s the era where we’re supposed to be concern about the environment and start using sustainable resources. We’re not supposed to continue relying on the old sources of oil because it’s not going to last forever and the impacts it has on the environment isn’t positive. So, why then have these issues about oil become a focus in campaigns if soon enough we’re going to have to find other sources of energy?

by Craig Ricks

Widener University Political Science Minor

So I was cruising through Facebook earlier this week, and I noticed a status update from one of my good friends.  It read, “I don’t understand how we have this whole argument over the 99% vs. the 1%, and then people go and vote for Mitt Romney.”  On the surface, many people will say that the Occupy protestors are a bunch of bums, losers, and people unwilling to work for their pay.  Those who disagree with my friend’s status would say that those protestors are mostly liberal, so the “99% vs. 1%” argument wouldn’t have any effect on the Republican primaries.  But I have a different theory.  While only a small populous is actually protesting, their message is in the minds of millions of Americans, Republican and Democrat alike.  I’ll be the first to admit that I’m more conservative, and while I wouldn’t quit my job or school to protest, I understand their message.

I agree with my friend.  Many of the people voting for Romney are doing so blindly.  A reply to his status said, “because he is electable.”  Is that what we vote on now?  We vote on who can say the right thing instead of who will do the right thing.  Our minds are swayed by the media who should win the election.  Instead of listening to what everyone else tells us, we need to vote based on principle.  Sure Romney is electable, but does he really stand for the 99%?  We’re tired of millionaires and billionaires paying lower tax rates.  I’m not saying that they aren’t paying their “fair share,” but something needs to be done.  The way our entire system is set up allows for those at the top to keep rising, and it’s harder and harder for the 99% to make ends meet.  We need someone who’s going to step in and stand up for the entire country, not just a select few.  Until we start voting on principle, nothing in this country is going to significantly change.

by Katrina Kelly

 Widener University Political Science Major

In recent years, the clash between finding alternative resources of energy and creating a sustainable economy has become one of the primary focuses of our political culture.  One public policy solution is to use natural gas as an alternative to gasoline: however, the affects of using natural gas is potentially hazardous to health, economic and environmental security.

Last Tuesday President Obama gave a State of the Union speech wanting America to be more energy independent and utilize more natural resources. The Energy Crisis is at a critical stage and government officials are scrambling to find alternative sources of energy to combat the dwindling availability of crude oil. The use of natural gas and oil are the main sources of energy to heat our houses and fuel our cars. Currently, natural gas provides almost 25% of energy for the United States and has the potential to provide 50% of energy by 2035. President Obama would like to see even more natural gas utilized as a main energy resource. The natural gas companies are not currently regulated by the EPA and have the ability to extract natural gas on private and public land without disclosing the chemicals they use in the process of hydraulic fracturing. Obama mentioned he would like the gas companies to have to disclose those chemicals used on private lands to be known. If there was a bill passed like the FRAC Act which requires gas companies to give out the chemical information on private and public lands for health information, it would be a miracle. President Obama even conceded the problems with shale drilling, “Our experience with shale gas, our experience with natural gas, shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail.” Are the payoffs worth the risks and even worth trying if they are another non-renewable resource that will run out in the next century?

President Obama said, “The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.” There has always been a zero-sum game between the environment and the economy, and in this current economic crisis and election year there is only one clear winner that Congress will chose: the economy. Natural gas does not solve the energy crisis for Americans nor protect their economic safety. Natural gas is a non-renewable resource just like petroleum. Once we use up all of the natural gas in the United States, we will be forced to look to other countries to support our energy. President Obama said that we have enough natural gas on our shore to sustain us for the next 100 years. Once we use up the natural gas in the next century, what will we do then? In some ways, the use of natural gas a main source of energy is just as if not more dangerous to economic security as oil, and even more hazardous to the environment and our health. In order to close the energy crisis, we must look for other renewable resources of energy.

Mary Rohweder

Widener University Political Science Major

President Obama has started to share details of his plan to make college more affordable for students – a political move that is likely to attract the attention of young voters and possibly mobilize them to vote if the topic becomes powerful enough during these crucial next months. Although much media attention has been on the Republican candidates who will face Obama in the general election, we still need to pay attention to the fact that President Obama is maintaining his own campaign in his endeavor to be re-elected.

The plan outlines many changes such as maintaining a set interest rate, doubling the number of work-study opportunities, increasing the amounts for federal loans and grants to be available, and rewarding higher education institutions who strive to improve affordability for students within their own financial aid programs. There are concerns about the proposal: for example, it may be challenging for certain institutions to lower tuition in the face of state budget cuts without compromising on what the school has to offer its students. The financial effect of this plan is also an issue, since it is unclear at this point whether increased taxes will fund the changes. However, this strategy will definitely be something that young voters will have personal interest in, which may result in political engagement. The Obama campaign has relied upon youth voters for its political success and has made education a priority in the administration.

By Craig Ricks

Widener University Student

Last week in his post-debate speech, Ron Paul commented on how the media and political pundits describe his campaign as dangerous.  “We are dangerous to the status quo of this country,” were his exact words, followed by chants of “President Paul” from the crowd.  However, with candidates dropping like flies, it could only be a matter of weeks until Paul also steps down.  But his campaign could still remain dangerous, only to the Republican Party rather than the status quo.  In fact, his Presidential aspirations just may continue the status quo for another four years.

Between now and Super Tuesday, which is March 6th, it is very possible that Mitt Romney will have won enough primaries to lock up the Republican nomination.  However, many Republican voters who are fed up with the establishment may not be willing to vote for Romney in November.  Does this mean their votes go to President Obama? Absolutely not.  The moment Ron Paul becomes dangerous is when he splits himself from the establishment and runs as a third party candidate, most likely the Libertarian Party.  It happened back in the 1988 Presidential election.  In that election, he received a miniscule 0.47% of the vote.  This time around, however, he would almost certainly receive a much higher percentage of the vote.  Those votes wouldn’t be coming from the left side of the aisle, and that is what is dangerous for Republicans.  Many of those dissatisfied Republicans would vote for Paul in November, taking votes almost exclusively away from Romney.  This could spell the end to a red victory and ensure another four years for President Obama and the “status quo.”