This week I read an interesting Op-Ed piece in the New York Times that reminded me of our class. The editorial was called, "Your Brain's Secret Ballot" and discusses the reasons some voters remain undecided until right before election day. Do undecided voter's brains work differently than those who are decided? Decision making in the brain is a two part process of gathering evidence and committing to a choice. Inherent to this process is a trade-off between speed and accuracy. Should you make a quick decision and get it over with or if you wait longer, will you in the end make a wiser and more accurate decision? This inner brain turmoil may suggest that undecided voters require a higher degree of confidence before they commit. The article stated that, "recent research has shown that when undecided voters looked at images of candidates, their brains' emotional centers were often activated."
So what is one to make of all of this? Are undecided voters a result of low confidence and self esteem, are their brains slower, do they need more time to make decisions, all of the above...
I think that it might matter from case to case, but either way I think that it is interesting to think about how one's brain works when making an important decision, and in this case choosing the next president of the United States.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Proposition 8: Discrimination or Preservation?
As some of you may know by my blog profile, I am from California. California is obviously not a swing state like Pennsylvania, so many of my friends were surprised to learn that I did not change my voter registration status to Pennsylvania and instead chose to vote absentee in California. I know, I know my vote "doesn't count" in California cause its already a blue state and I could make a difference by voting in a state like Pennsylvania...
The reason I chose to stay registered in California is Proposition 8.
So what is Proposition 8 you ask? Here is the official description and summary of Proposition 8 as prepared by the California Attorney General :
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
- Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
- Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
- Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.
- In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
So the, why am I so passionate about proposition 8, or rather that it NOT be passed? As a resident of California I think it is completely insane to change the state constitution so it promotes, establishes, and validates discrimination. Proposition 8 has been coined, "The California Marriage Protection Amendment". So allowing gays the right to get married somehow affects other people's marriages? Allowing gay people to marry one another is worse than a "right" that heterosexuals take for granted all the time with drive through weddings in vegas? Is marriage a right, or rather is it a privelidge that is only fit for heterosexuals? I also personally know people who have finally been given the chance to marry their partners after being together for many many years and I refuse to see this right and their happiness stripped from them.
So I decided to take the time to see why people support Proposition 8 and looked at a pro- prop 8 website.
The website I looked at in support of proposition 8 is titled, "Protecting Marriage: Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children"
Supporters of Proposition 8 say that it restores what California voters already agreed on with Proposition 22 by 61% in 2000 which was overturned by "an outrageous" California Supreme Court by allowing marriage between people of the same sex. The California Supreme Court allowed marriage to be defined not solely between a man and a woman this past June and since then over 11,000 gay couples have wed. Proposition 22 is completely identical to the wording (14 words to be exact) of Proposition 8. In addition to restoring Proposition 22, supporters of Proposition 8 want to bring attention to the overturn by what they call an "activist" Supreme Court and thirdly:
"It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs."
While I agree that an overturn of a proposition by the California Supreme Court should be discussed and fought, I think that in this case the CA Supreme Court acted in a way to say that CA does not support discrimination. I do understand how supporters of Proposition 22 would be mad about this. However the last point of "protecting" children from being taught that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage is really concerning to me. What is there to protect children from? How does gay marriage affect all of the heterosexual marriages in the world? My parents are heterosexual and the fact that gays and lesbians are allowed to marry doesn't make my parents love each other more or less or take away from what their marriage means to them. With statistics saying that 50% of heterosexual marriages end up in divorce, don't you think it could be argued that heterosexuals are abusing the "sanctity of marriage" by not taking it as a serious commitment?
The fact that Proposition 8 supporters say that this will force Californians to be tolerant of gay lifestyles and basically that they must treat gay people and couples the same as heterosexuals is what makes this proposition more than just an issue that will fiscally or socially affect Californians; Proposition 8 states that Californians stand for discrimination and hate just like many southern states showed before the Civil Rights Act. To deny any person a right that is allowed to others is not only wrong on a moral level, but NOT what the United States Constitution supports. ALSO it is complete fiction that proposition 8 has ANYTHING to do with educating children about marriage, gay or not, in schools. Not ONE word in Proposition 8 mentions education and, "no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it." Therefore it is no surprise that many top educators, California teachers, and the CA Superintendent of schools are voting NO on Proposition 8.
I understand that people have different values, opinions, and religious views but as a Californian with values, strong opinions, and personal religious views I refuse to allow myself to be associated with what is nothing less than discrimination. This is not about religious discrimination or the protection of children-Democracy is about dissent and challenging government, but NOT about taking personal beliefs that discriminate against others and writing them into law, or even worse, into the California State Constitution.
So if you are a CA voter or know someone who is, take the time to talk to them about this proposition and what it really is all about!
One of my favorite NO on prop 8 ads:
This video is in SUPPORT of Proposition 8 and personally scares me: (It shows why and how young people support prop 8)
The reason I chose to stay registered in California is Proposition 8.
So what is Proposition 8 you ask? Here is the official description and summary of Proposition 8 as prepared by the California Attorney General :
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
- Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
- Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
- Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.
- In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
So the, why am I so passionate about proposition 8, or rather that it NOT be passed? As a resident of California I think it is completely insane to change the state constitution so it promotes, establishes, and validates discrimination. Proposition 8 has been coined, "The California Marriage Protection Amendment". So allowing gays the right to get married somehow affects other people's marriages? Allowing gay people to marry one another is worse than a "right" that heterosexuals take for granted all the time with drive through weddings in vegas? Is marriage a right, or rather is it a privelidge that is only fit for heterosexuals? I also personally know people who have finally been given the chance to marry their partners after being together for many many years and I refuse to see this right and their happiness stripped from them.
So I decided to take the time to see why people support Proposition 8 and looked at a pro- prop 8 website.
The website I looked at in support of proposition 8 is titled, "Protecting Marriage: Restoring Marriage and Protecting California Children"
Supporters of Proposition 8 say that it restores what California voters already agreed on with Proposition 22 by 61% in 2000 which was overturned by "an outrageous" California Supreme Court by allowing marriage between people of the same sex. The California Supreme Court allowed marriage to be defined not solely between a man and a woman this past June and since then over 11,000 gay couples have wed. Proposition 22 is completely identical to the wording (14 words to be exact) of Proposition 8. In addition to restoring Proposition 22, supporters of Proposition 8 want to bring attention to the overturn by what they call an "activist" Supreme Court and thirdly:
"It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs."
While I agree that an overturn of a proposition by the California Supreme Court should be discussed and fought, I think that in this case the CA Supreme Court acted in a way to say that CA does not support discrimination. I do understand how supporters of Proposition 22 would be mad about this. However the last point of "protecting" children from being taught that same-sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage is really concerning to me. What is there to protect children from? How does gay marriage affect all of the heterosexual marriages in the world? My parents are heterosexual and the fact that gays and lesbians are allowed to marry doesn't make my parents love each other more or less or take away from what their marriage means to them. With statistics saying that 50% of heterosexual marriages end up in divorce, don't you think it could be argued that heterosexuals are abusing the "sanctity of marriage" by not taking it as a serious commitment?
The fact that Proposition 8 supporters say that this will force Californians to be tolerant of gay lifestyles and basically that they must treat gay people and couples the same as heterosexuals is what makes this proposition more than just an issue that will fiscally or socially affect Californians; Proposition 8 states that Californians stand for discrimination and hate just like many southern states showed before the Civil Rights Act. To deny any person a right that is allowed to others is not only wrong on a moral level, but NOT what the United States Constitution supports. ALSO it is complete fiction that proposition 8 has ANYTHING to do with educating children about marriage, gay or not, in schools. Not ONE word in Proposition 8 mentions education and, "no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it." Therefore it is no surprise that many top educators, California teachers, and the CA Superintendent of schools are voting NO on Proposition 8.
I understand that people have different values, opinions, and religious views but as a Californian with values, strong opinions, and personal religious views I refuse to allow myself to be associated with what is nothing less than discrimination. This is not about religious discrimination or the protection of children-Democracy is about dissent and challenging government, but NOT about taking personal beliefs that discriminate against others and writing them into law, or even worse, into the California State Constitution.
So if you are a CA voter or know someone who is, take the time to talk to them about this proposition and what it really is all about!
One of my favorite NO on prop 8 ads:
This video is in SUPPORT of Proposition 8 and personally scares me: (It shows why and how young people support prop 8)
Monday, October 20, 2008
Election 2008 and the Lehigh Community
This afternoon I attended a panel discussion here at Lehigh on the 2008 Presidential Election. The Panel included the presidents of the College Republicans and College Democrats, Rita Jones - The direction of the women's center, Ted Morgan- Professor of Political Science, the University Chaplain (as moderator), Seth Boran- a Rabbi and attorney, and Al Wurth- Professor of Political Science. Each panelist was asked an assortment of general questions before speaking including: What direction will we be going in with this election? What does the Lehigh community think about the election? What specific issues have affected the race positively or negatively?
Each of the panelists spoke for 5 minutes and then there was a general discussion.
Topics included the environment, the credentials of the candidates, the role of religion, religious voters, political strategy and campaign tactics, social/lifestyle issues, women and family policies, education, and the youth vote.
It was a great discussion but I would like to delve deeper into the conversations that the group had on a few of these issues:
1. The Credentials of the Candidates
Professor Wurth brought this topic up questioning why the credentials the public expects of the candidates are different than the credentials people use for those being hired for a job and that are stressed in an interview. There are different emphasis made on the credentials as well as different claims of expertise. It is interesting to note that people would rather vote for someone that they feel comfortable sitting down and having a beer with, instead of someone who has the skills and the credentials for running a successful government and positively representing America around the world. Why are so many Americans prone to vote for someone because they seem like "an average joe" instead of someone who is qualified and also shares the "values" of mr. joe? I think that this is something that really shocks me and many across the world. Why are we willing to settle for some average joe instead of someone great for our great nation?
2. Religion Religion Religion
We discussed many aspects of religion in the panel. Firstly the question of how white evangelical christians and Jewish voters will vote was brought up. Is there a shift in evangelical christians towards the Democratic party? Also what role will the overriding social issues of gay marriage and abortion have in this election in terms of religious voters? In terms of Jewish voters we discussed their geographical location in terms of electoral votes and whether or not they place a significant role in the election. The "Great Schlep" was brought up as well!
We also talked about the demonization of religion in this campaign season. This demonization comes from both parties. Firstly Rabbi Boran talked about how during the primary season how the fact that Mitt Romney (former candidate for the GOP ticket) is a Morman played into questioning whether or not he was fit to be a legitimate candidate for the White House. However most recently, how many news anchors, and others claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim and how this is some sort of indicator that he is not fit to run the White House either. We all know that Obama is NOT a Muslim, and has been a Christian his entire life. However, what if he was a Muslim? Why does his religion matter in questioning his credentials? This demonization shows people of those faiths that the American people in a way find their religions illegitimate or bad in some way. If we live in a country that supports freedom, then why are we putting down religion in such a horrific manner?
3. Negative campaigning
We discussed how negative campaigning is everywhere and asked why this is the case. Simply, negative campaigning and negative advertisements are what stick in most people's minds, proving to be more effective. Also, there is little fact checking that goes into many of the negative claims on the campaign trail and therefore no one is held accountable. Many people use the internet as a source of information, but what information is true and what information is false? The Internet is not only empowering, but dangerous in terms of anonyminity. Also, people only look up the information that supports their own opinions and ideologies. Negative campaigning is nothing new, and most likely won't go away.
4. Black or Arab?
The last point that we made in the discussion was in regards to many of the angry claims that supporters of McCain have been making at rallies lately that have gained lots of media attention. There was one woman who said that she didn't support or trust Obama because he was an Arab. The panel suggested that she may or may not have been making a reference to Obama's race. The panel said that it may be more "socially acceptable" to question whether or not someone is an Arab and qualified rather than if someone is Black and qualified especially because of 9/11, and the wars in the middle east. Do we not want to talk about this issue because we are uncomfortable? The panel says yes. Also, will the current economic situation trump the issues of race and religion in terms of the candidates?
This is a lot to think about, but if you have any comments, please share!
Each of the panelists spoke for 5 minutes and then there was a general discussion.
Topics included the environment, the credentials of the candidates, the role of religion, religious voters, political strategy and campaign tactics, social/lifestyle issues, women and family policies, education, and the youth vote.
It was a great discussion but I would like to delve deeper into the conversations that the group had on a few of these issues:
1. The Credentials of the Candidates
Professor Wurth brought this topic up questioning why the credentials the public expects of the candidates are different than the credentials people use for those being hired for a job and that are stressed in an interview. There are different emphasis made on the credentials as well as different claims of expertise. It is interesting to note that people would rather vote for someone that they feel comfortable sitting down and having a beer with, instead of someone who has the skills and the credentials for running a successful government and positively representing America around the world. Why are so many Americans prone to vote for someone because they seem like "an average joe" instead of someone who is qualified and also shares the "values" of mr. joe? I think that this is something that really shocks me and many across the world. Why are we willing to settle for some average joe instead of someone great for our great nation?
2. Religion Religion Religion
We discussed many aspects of religion in the panel. Firstly the question of how white evangelical christians and Jewish voters will vote was brought up. Is there a shift in evangelical christians towards the Democratic party? Also what role will the overriding social issues of gay marriage and abortion have in this election in terms of religious voters? In terms of Jewish voters we discussed their geographical location in terms of electoral votes and whether or not they place a significant role in the election. The "Great Schlep" was brought up as well!
We also talked about the demonization of religion in this campaign season. This demonization comes from both parties. Firstly Rabbi Boran talked about how during the primary season how the fact that Mitt Romney (former candidate for the GOP ticket) is a Morman played into questioning whether or not he was fit to be a legitimate candidate for the White House. However most recently, how many news anchors, and others claim that Barack Obama is a Muslim and how this is some sort of indicator that he is not fit to run the White House either. We all know that Obama is NOT a Muslim, and has been a Christian his entire life. However, what if he was a Muslim? Why does his religion matter in questioning his credentials? This demonization shows people of those faiths that the American people in a way find their religions illegitimate or bad in some way. If we live in a country that supports freedom, then why are we putting down religion in such a horrific manner?
3. Negative campaigning
We discussed how negative campaigning is everywhere and asked why this is the case. Simply, negative campaigning and negative advertisements are what stick in most people's minds, proving to be more effective. Also, there is little fact checking that goes into many of the negative claims on the campaign trail and therefore no one is held accountable. Many people use the internet as a source of information, but what information is true and what information is false? The Internet is not only empowering, but dangerous in terms of anonyminity. Also, people only look up the information that supports their own opinions and ideologies. Negative campaigning is nothing new, and most likely won't go away.
4. Black or Arab?
The last point that we made in the discussion was in regards to many of the angry claims that supporters of McCain have been making at rallies lately that have gained lots of media attention. There was one woman who said that she didn't support or trust Obama because he was an Arab. The panel suggested that she may or may not have been making a reference to Obama's race. The panel said that it may be more "socially acceptable" to question whether or not someone is an Arab and qualified rather than if someone is Black and qualified especially because of 9/11, and the wars in the middle east. Do we not want to talk about this issue because we are uncomfortable? The panel says yes. Also, will the current economic situation trump the issues of race and religion in terms of the candidates?
This is a lot to think about, but if you have any comments, please share!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Endorsements: Do they matter?
Endorsements are made all the same supporting political candidates, especially during the presidential race. Actors, politicians, newspapers, activists, etc. all state publicly who they intend to vote for for president. Most of these endorsements don't really have an affect on have the general public will vote, but sometimes an endorsement comes along that has a powerful pull in influencing public opinion.
Today, Colin Powell, former secretary of state under President Bush and long-time Republican, officially endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President on the MSNBC show Meet the Press. This is said to be a major boost to the Obama campaign and a major blow to the McCain campaign. Powell has knows McCain for two decades and Obama for only two years, but verbalized that he believed that Obama would be best to lead the country in this economic crisis and represent the "new generation".
Powell said, "I strongly believe that at this point in America's history we need a president that will not just continue … the policies that we have been following in recent years. We need a transformational figure." Powell continued saying that McCain, "was a little unsure as to how to deal with the economic problems we've been having. … That concerned me."
Other reasons Powell endorsed Obama:
- His steadiness, and intellectual curiosity
- His readiness to be president on Day One
Powell expressed concern about McCain's VP pick saying," I don't think she's ready to be president of the United States. ... That raised some questions as to the judgement that Senator McCain made." Also, Powell mentioned Palin's personal attacks on Obama as "troubling" appeals to the far right.
Is this endorsement a "nail in the coffin", as Democrats are stating, or is this endorsement really no big deal? I think the fact that Colin Powell is such a respected, qualified, and experienced man in Washington makes him extremely influential when it comes to swaying the audience. I think that the timing of this announcement is also important, especially since there are less than 3 weeks left in the campaign. This is NOT the type of news that McCain needed now since he is down in the polls and needed some sort of push during these last days of a very long campaign season. I think it is also noteworthy because of the fact that Powell worked in the Bush Administration (2001-2005) and has close ties with the Republican party. This endorsement shows that Powell, who is well respected in the world of politics, is endorsing Obama not because of his partisan politics but for rational reasons and unbiased reasons.
While the McCain campaign continues to advertise Joe the Plumber's endorsement, I think that I personally respect what Colin Powell has to say. Sorry Joe...
Colin Powell endorses Obama on Meet The Press (10/19) :
Here is the Washington Post's endorsement. I included it cause I think it is a good read!
Today, Colin Powell, former secretary of state under President Bush and long-time Republican, officially endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President on the MSNBC show Meet the Press. This is said to be a major boost to the Obama campaign and a major blow to the McCain campaign. Powell has knows McCain for two decades and Obama for only two years, but verbalized that he believed that Obama would be best to lead the country in this economic crisis and represent the "new generation".
Powell said, "I strongly believe that at this point in America's history we need a president that will not just continue … the policies that we have been following in recent years. We need a transformational figure." Powell continued saying that McCain, "was a little unsure as to how to deal with the economic problems we've been having. … That concerned me."
Other reasons Powell endorsed Obama:
- His steadiness, and intellectual curiosity
- His readiness to be president on Day One
Powell expressed concern about McCain's VP pick saying," I don't think she's ready to be president of the United States. ... That raised some questions as to the judgement that Senator McCain made." Also, Powell mentioned Palin's personal attacks on Obama as "troubling" appeals to the far right.
Is this endorsement a "nail in the coffin", as Democrats are stating, or is this endorsement really no big deal? I think the fact that Colin Powell is such a respected, qualified, and experienced man in Washington makes him extremely influential when it comes to swaying the audience. I think that the timing of this announcement is also important, especially since there are less than 3 weeks left in the campaign. This is NOT the type of news that McCain needed now since he is down in the polls and needed some sort of push during these last days of a very long campaign season. I think it is also noteworthy because of the fact that Powell worked in the Bush Administration (2001-2005) and has close ties with the Republican party. This endorsement shows that Powell, who is well respected in the world of politics, is endorsing Obama not because of his partisan politics but for rational reasons and unbiased reasons.
While the McCain campaign continues to advertise Joe the Plumber's endorsement, I think that I personally respect what Colin Powell has to say. Sorry Joe...
Colin Powell endorses Obama on Meet The Press (10/19) :
Here is the Washington Post's endorsement. I included it cause I think it is a good read!
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Joe the Plumber- Does he relate to you?
By now, Joe the Plumber is probably wondering when his fifteen minutes of fame will be over. Who knew that a plumber from Ohio named Joe would be such an important talking point at the last presidential debate of the 2008 Election season.
Who is Joe the Plumber you ask?
Joe the Plumber, real name Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo, Ohio. While Obama was campaigning in the area, Joe asked him a question about taxes which was caught on camera. The McCain campaign used this little story to say that Joe asked Obama a tough question on taxes and that he ruined a photo op with Obama. McCain used this story to represent the common working man, most famously in the past debate. Now the McCain campaign is saying that Obama is attacking "Joe" and millions of small businesses by raising their taxes and not having their best interest in mind. I think that maybe this campaign tactic could have worked in the campaign back a couple of months ago, but with so little time left in the election, stories and attacks like this turn off the voting public instead of make them want to give McCain their vote. During the debate, CNN has independent voters who have clickers who while watching the debate rank whether or not what the candidates are saying makes them react positively or negatively. Interestingly enough, whenever Joe the Plumber came into the conversation, the independent viewers reacted more negatively than positively. Whether or not Americans feel an attachment and association to joe, I think that the entire Joe the Plumber story in the debate was extremely over used and it may have seemed like a good tactic, but it may have backfired. I know that personally it annoyed me more than made me think, ok he is trying to reach out to the average small business owner. I do not personally have any ties to a joe plumber type in my life nor do I know any joe the plumbers, but I am also just one voter in a sea of many.
So I guess we have to wonder, will all the Joe the Plumbers and Joe Six Packs in American go and vote on election day and pull out a victory for the McCain campaign? I guess we will have to wait and see if this is a success...
Who is Joe the Plumber you ask?
Joe the Plumber, real name Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo, Ohio. While Obama was campaigning in the area, Joe asked him a question about taxes which was caught on camera. The McCain campaign used this little story to say that Joe asked Obama a tough question on taxes and that he ruined a photo op with Obama. McCain used this story to represent the common working man, most famously in the past debate. Now the McCain campaign is saying that Obama is attacking "Joe" and millions of small businesses by raising their taxes and not having their best interest in mind. I think that maybe this campaign tactic could have worked in the campaign back a couple of months ago, but with so little time left in the election, stories and attacks like this turn off the voting public instead of make them want to give McCain their vote. During the debate, CNN has independent voters who have clickers who while watching the debate rank whether or not what the candidates are saying makes them react positively or negatively. Interestingly enough, whenever Joe the Plumber came into the conversation, the independent viewers reacted more negatively than positively. Whether or not Americans feel an attachment and association to joe, I think that the entire Joe the Plumber story in the debate was extremely over used and it may have seemed like a good tactic, but it may have backfired. I know that personally it annoyed me more than made me think, ok he is trying to reach out to the average small business owner. I do not personally have any ties to a joe plumber type in my life nor do I know any joe the plumbers, but I am also just one voter in a sea of many.
So I guess we have to wonder, will all the Joe the Plumbers and Joe Six Packs in American go and vote on election day and pull out a victory for the McCain campaign? I guess we will have to wait and see if this is a success...
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Talk to your parents about McCain: Advice from Gossip Girl???
MoveOn organizations are comprised of nonprofits and a Political Action Committee focusing on education and advocacy on important national issues. They state that they mobilize people across the country to fight important battles in Congress and help elect candidates who reflect their values.
MoveOn.org has launched a campaign urging young Americans who support Obama to get their parents to also support and vote for Obama as well. The campaign that they have launched resembles a public service advertisement like those encouraging parents to talk to their children about drugs or sex, but in this case young Americans are urged to talk to their parents about John McCain.
They include "warning signs" like:
3 out of 5 parents may be considering voting for McCain
Talking to your parents about difficult topics like McCain shows you care
Even though it might be awkward, your parents will listen to you.
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
The website includes a list of "how to talk to your parents about John McCain" or how to have "the talk".
However MoveOn.org has uploaded a video on their website, their public service announcement, that includes actors from the popular series "Gossip GIrl", which is popular among young people. Their partnership for a "McCain free white house" .
Here is the ad:
It is definitely funny to watch, with the "drill baby drill" hat, but is this tactic effective? Do you think that young people will go to the website and take the time to not only know the facts, but also talk to their parents? Also, if they do choose to talk to their parents, will their parents listen or take them seriously? As a young person, it is usually hard for people to listen to you or take you seriously, even if you are talking about an important topic such as the presidential election.
I think that the ad may be effective in some aspects, however I do not know if young people will now how to effectively take the information and present it to their parents in an effective way or not. What do you think?
MoveOn.org has launched a campaign urging young Americans who support Obama to get their parents to also support and vote for Obama as well. The campaign that they have launched resembles a public service advertisement like those encouraging parents to talk to their children about drugs or sex, but in this case young Americans are urged to talk to their parents about John McCain.
They include "warning signs" like:
3 out of 5 parents may be considering voting for McCain
Talking to your parents about difficult topics like McCain shows you care
Even though it might be awkward, your parents will listen to you.
Sounds familiar doesn't it?
The website includes a list of "how to talk to your parents about John McCain" or how to have "the talk".
However MoveOn.org has uploaded a video on their website, their public service announcement, that includes actors from the popular series "Gossip GIrl", which is popular among young people. Their partnership for a "McCain free white house" .
Here is the ad:
It is definitely funny to watch, with the "drill baby drill" hat, but is this tactic effective? Do you think that young people will go to the website and take the time to not only know the facts, but also talk to their parents? Also, if they do choose to talk to their parents, will their parents listen or take them seriously? As a young person, it is usually hard for people to listen to you or take you seriously, even if you are talking about an important topic such as the presidential election.
I think that the ad may be effective in some aspects, however I do not know if young people will now how to effectively take the information and present it to their parents in an effective way or not. What do you think?
Calling all Schleppers!
Schlep?
For those of us who are not completely familiar with Yiddish, Schlep is a Yiddish word meaning to pull or tug. Schlepping is what many (mostly young) Obama supporting Jews are doing by dropping their lives for a couple of days and flying to Florida, land of the old and a state with a large Jewish population. These schleppers are migrating to Florida to convince their elderly grandparents to support and vote for Barack Obama on election day and to convince them that Obama supports those issues important to Jewish voters like Israel and to quell their fears of the fact that he is black. The Great Schlep occurred over pacing break so if any of you took part in the Great Schlep I'd
thegreatschlep.com states:
"The Great Schlep aims to have Jewish grandchildren visit their grandparents in Florida, educate them about Obama, and therefore swing the crucial Florida vote in his favor. Don’t have grandparents in Florida? Not Jewish? No problem! You can still become a schlepper and make change happen in 2008, simply by talking to your relatives about Obama."
The website includes a funny (it includes some bad language, but its a fun intro) video from comedian Sarah Silverman as well!
The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.
The website, besides including funny Sarah Silverman includes talking points for jewish grandchildren to talk to their grandparents about to get them to support Obama, basic info, as well as how to donate and get involved.
Some people may think this is silly, but I think its an amazing campaign tactic! What is better than having your grandkids visit you and having them passionate about something!? Also, you obviously dont have to be Jewish to be a Schlepper. Most of us have grandparents and if we can't schlep over to where they live, pick up the phone and call them. Even if they don't change their mind, I bet that they will really appreciate a call from their grandchild! Unfortunately my grandmother is extremely Republican and loves Bill O'Reilly and thinks that Obama is in fact a Muslim, cause good old Bill told her so, but I still called her and told her I loved her anyways. She definitely didn't change her mind, but she definitely appreciated the call!
To read a news story about the GREAT SCHLEP click HERE!
For those of us who are not completely familiar with Yiddish, Schlep is a Yiddish word meaning to pull or tug. Schlepping is what many (mostly young) Obama supporting Jews are doing by dropping their lives for a couple of days and flying to Florida, land of the old and a state with a large Jewish population. These schleppers are migrating to Florida to convince their elderly grandparents to support and vote for Barack Obama on election day and to convince them that Obama supports those issues important to Jewish voters like Israel and to quell their fears of the fact that he is black. The Great Schlep occurred over pacing break so if any of you took part in the Great Schlep I'd
thegreatschlep.com states:
"The Great Schlep aims to have Jewish grandchildren visit their grandparents in Florida, educate them about Obama, and therefore swing the crucial Florida vote in his favor. Don’t have grandparents in Florida? Not Jewish? No problem! You can still become a schlepper and make change happen in 2008, simply by talking to your relatives about Obama."
The website includes a funny (it includes some bad language, but its a fun intro) video from comedian Sarah Silverman as well!
The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.
The website, besides including funny Sarah Silverman includes talking points for jewish grandchildren to talk to their grandparents about to get them to support Obama, basic info, as well as how to donate and get involved.
Some people may think this is silly, but I think its an amazing campaign tactic! What is better than having your grandkids visit you and having them passionate about something!? Also, you obviously dont have to be Jewish to be a Schlepper. Most of us have grandparents and if we can't schlep over to where they live, pick up the phone and call them. Even if they don't change their mind, I bet that they will really appreciate a call from their grandchild! Unfortunately my grandmother is extremely Republican and loves Bill O'Reilly and thinks that Obama is in fact a Muslim, cause good old Bill told her so, but I still called her and told her I loved her anyways. She definitely didn't change her mind, but she definitely appreciated the call!
To read a news story about the GREAT SCHLEP click HERE!
Are McCain supporter's "true colors" coming out under the pressure?
So I am sure that all of you who have been following the campaign (which i assume is all of you) have noticed the recent angry and frightening remarks from McCain/Palin supporters at political rallies across the country. This new and evident rage from supporters on the campaign trail has not only shown their frustrations with the way that the campaign is going, but has led to many inappropriate, false, and dirty remarks and attacks against Barack Obama. The first couple instances of this rage were followed by applause and cheers and "USA" chants from the crowd in attendance, but as time went on and more and more people in the media are noting this rage, McCain is finally taking a stand and telling his supporters not to fight this way and make these remarks. I completely understand being frustrated when it comes to politics; politicians (who i like) make mistakes and say things that frustrate and anger me or when they are behind in the race I get discouraged and upset, but to make death threats to the opponent... that is completely ridiculous and uncalled for, as well as makes the opposing campaign and party look unprofessional, uneducated, and not ready to lead.
Shouts claiming that Obama is an Arab, a Muslim, a terrorist are not only ludicrous but this type of rage I believe shows the true colors of the supporters of the McCain/Palin ticket in a time where their candidate is behind. I think that it is extremely upsetting and scary when comments like, "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab" are spewed across the political scene, especially in these last crucial weeks of the campaign. It is even more troublesome that when McCain tried to correctly inform his supporters and saying that Obama, "is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States." This comment was met by a wave of boos from a crowd at a recent rally. This type of anger and rage has not been as evident on the side of Barack Obama.
So I ask you, Is this a reflection of the candidate or a reflection of the political party and the type of people that make it up? Or, is it neither and is there something else behind this? And how should the candidate (in this case McCain) handle this type of situation?
A fall in the polls makes anyone discouraged, but should it really lead to this: ???
* this is an update*:
I just found THIS on youtube... I think you get the point.
Shouts claiming that Obama is an Arab, a Muslim, a terrorist are not only ludicrous but this type of rage I believe shows the true colors of the supporters of the McCain/Palin ticket in a time where their candidate is behind. I think that it is extremely upsetting and scary when comments like, "I don't trust Obama. I have read about him and he's an Arab" are spewed across the political scene, especially in these last crucial weeks of the campaign. It is even more troublesome that when McCain tried to correctly inform his supporters and saying that Obama, "is a decent person, and a person that you do not have to be scared as President of the United States." This comment was met by a wave of boos from a crowd at a recent rally. This type of anger and rage has not been as evident on the side of Barack Obama.
So I ask you, Is this a reflection of the candidate or a reflection of the political party and the type of people that make it up? Or, is it neither and is there something else behind this? And how should the candidate (in this case McCain) handle this type of situation?
A fall in the polls makes anyone discouraged, but should it really lead to this: ???
* this is an update*:
I just found THIS on youtube... I think you get the point.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)