Game Change- Nuala Brennan

Nuala Brennan

1). Political vetting is important because when somebody becomes a politician they are constantly vulnerable to media attack. All eyes are on them and they have opponents trying to screw them up. It is necessary to vet somebody had give them a thorough background check so that you are sure they have no illegal or controversial past, and if they do, then that way you can plan accordingly for attack.  Palin was not properly vetted, so the campaign suffered.

2). When it comes to national political campaigns I think there is a 50/50 level of importance between career experience and popularity. If you don’t have any experience but are very popular you can do well at first, but then you will get yourself into trouble like Sarah Palin did. If you have a lot of experience, but nobody likes you and you are not charismatic, like Hillary CLinton, then you will also have trouble winning the respect of the public.

3). This question could go both ways. Donald Trump is not highly knowledgeable on many issues and he has help from his staff and it works for him, but Sarah Palin was also not knowledgeable about issues and this did not work for her. If you are manipulative like Trump and you can twist any situation to favor you, then no, you don’t need to be highly knowledgeable, but for pretty much everybody else it is smart and necessary to be knowledgeable.

4). People saw how dumb Palin was so now Trump doesn’t seem as dumb relatively. People are tweaking though, both of them are idiots.

5). Yes, if your state has a more diverse population and deals with larger issues then you are more qualified. This is why a New York or California governor would be more qualified than an Alaska or Oklahoma governor.

6). Yes, people associated the fact that she didn’t know anything with the fact that she was a woman so they expected more from her. Because Reagan was a man, people expected he already knew things.

7). For their own campaign, yes. They should have instead put her on shows that would not have talked about politics, and ones that would talk more about american lifestyle like the today show or ellen.

8). I think Donald Trump has a higher level of knowledge in terms of business because he is a businessman, and I think Mike Pence has more knowledge in more law-based areas because he is a politician in Washington DC and he knows how the system works better. I don’t think it’s a fair comparison but I don’t exactly know why.

9). For holding a position in congress it’s more important to know policy, econ, etc. but for a public role such as the president I think it is also important to know contemporary issues.

10). Why did Palin look like a good candidate from the surface?

Palin looked like a good candidate from the surface because she could relate to the american people. She had many kids, a kid with down's syndrome, a kid in the military, and was a working mother. A more relatable candidate is a more attractive candidate.

Game Change: Reyanna James

1. Why is political vetting so important?

Game Change definitely showed the importance of political vetting. It is incredibly important that a campaign have all the information about a candidate prior to them running. If this is not the case, the campaign can be blindsided and unprepared to recover once this information is leaked to the public. If Sarah Palin had been more thoroughly vetted, perhaps she wouldn’t have been picked to be McCain’s running mate and his campaign wouldn’t have been so destroyed by her lack of knowledge.

2. What is more important: “career politicians” with lots of experience or popularity when it come to national political campaigns?

In my opinion, experience is more important than popularity when it comes to national politics. I believe that a President should be qualified and have a career of working in service to the nation. However, recent political campaigns have shown that popularity is more important to the American people. Take Barack Obama for example-- Clinton and McCain had much more experience in government than him, but his charisma and celebrity allowed him to win the presidency.

Game Change: Elliot Davis

1. Why is political vetting so important?

Political vetting is so important because it allows you to understand your candidate, beyond what is just at face value. For instance, Sarah Palin was supposedly the picture perfect vice president. She was a republican, a mother, a governor with astronomically good approval ratings; everything was flawless. However, they essentially appointed her as a figurehead, rather than a representative. This isn’t to say that they didn’t expect her to take part in policy decisions, but that they appointed her because she looked good. This ended up yielding horrendous consequences, as she basically went rogue and decided to pursue a campaign completely separate from McCain’s. Her radical ideas even forced McCain to denounce many of the things that she said, specifically the ad hominem attacks on Obama. This proves that, without proper vetting, candidates that seem promising often end up being bad choices. Without Palin in the equation, John McCain probably would’ve had a much better chance beating Obama, and maybe even would’ve pulled out with a victory.

2. Compare Sarah Palin’s level of knowledge to that of Mike Pence or Donald Trump...is it a fair comparison?

I believe that it is a very fair comparison, especially when talking about Donald Trump. Mike Pence is a terrible human being and his policy decisions are horrendous, but that shouldn’t be mixed up with intelligence. Pence is relatively smart, especially when compared to Trump. Trump, on the other hand, has had a rise very similar to Palin’s. Trump had almost no political experience, yet rose to the top of the ranks based on charisma and fear mongering. He didn’t need knowledge about politics because the audience he was appealing too had no knowledge about politics. This is similar to Palin, as she was appealing to those who were uneducated and fearful. The way that she gained supporters was by making illogical and unwarranted claims about Obama that generated terror among the general population. The only reason why Trump was successful and Palin wasn’t was because McCain had a very different audience in mind, and it was almost as if she was running against the candidate whom she represented. That is, Palin essentially attempted to take the presidency away from McCain by reconstructing policy positions, and this basically led the entire campaign to implode. 

Game Change- Zoe Lydon

Political vetting is extremely important while determining whether one is fit to run for office or not. It’s necessary for the sake of winning elections and for the sake of our country as whole. If people that are uneducated, unprepared, and not fit for office are elected to office, our government will not be properly run and our nation will suffer because of it. Political vetting is important for campaigns because if a party does not vet their nominee and the public exposes this, the party will most likely loose the campaign. This was shown when the McCain Campaign chose Sarah Palin to be Vice President without ensuring she is politically knowledgeable. She ended up contributing significantly to John McCain loss in the election. Political vetting is important to make sure the people we elect to office will do their job properly.

A POTUS or VPOTUS should not solely rely on staff for information because they were elected to provide opinions, guidance, and make decisions about political issues, and if they are uneducated on issues they can’t do that properly. It also extremely deceiving  to the public if a nominee pretends to well educated, when really only their staff is. It is morally wrong for someone unfit for office to pretend to be fit. To make logical decisions and represent our nation accurately the president must be able to answer questions and prove their knowledge about political and social issues. Currently our POTUS is unfit for office and should be more knowledgeable rather than rely on his staff.

Game Change- Ethan Hawker

4. The Republican party had high hopes for John McCain, as he was pretty moderate and a war, hero, so he was well liked. Sarah Palin ruined his campaign, and set him up for failure. After Obama won he initially had very positive reviews and the country was in support. Like with most presidents, as time went on he lost much of his support. After 8 years many people on both sides wanted change. Electing Clinton would have meant the same thing for the next 4 years. Good or bad, Donald Trump meant change. Trump promised to fix the problems many believe were created by Obama, (despite whether to not it was actually his fault.) To those who did not like Obama, any change was good change.

3. Although it is important to have a good staff that is well informed and able to prepare you, it is a politician’s job to be informed as well. Using your staff as a reason for not being educated on a matter is no excuse. If you plan on having one of the most important jobs in the country, you should be able to name a supreme court case, know about world conflicts, and understand how the economy works.

Game Change-- Lauren Davis

Question 1: Political vetting is really important because if your candidate doesn't know what they're talking about, they can put you and your campaign in the toilet. This person is also your successor if something goes wrong, so they need to be able to do everything that you can do. Vetting is also important because you need to make sure that you're compatible with the person you'll be working with. You need to be able to agree on certain things and balance each other out.

Question 5: I do think that some states are more qualified because there are some states that simply aren't as involved in foreign policy as others. Washington DC is way different than Montana because their issues are completely different. Someone who was the Governor of a place like Alaska or Wyoming doesn't have the experience, the relations, or the problems that states like New York, DC, Illinois, and California have,

Game Changer-Bronson Engel

1. Political vetting is very important because first of all you need specific requirements in order to run for a government official such as, being a U.S. citizens, living in your district for an x amount of years. All of these requirements are very important and without political vetting then the government would not be able to determine which candidates pass of all the requirements. Second of all we need to do a background check to determine that there are no criminal records against the candidate so we do not have a criminal running a part of the government. Third of all for example the head of education has never had any experience with public schools and therefore through vetting we were able to find that and we should have not let her become that because she is not experienced at all.

8. When comparing Sarah Palins level of knowledge with that of Donald Trump I believe that they are both intelligent people just like other politicians but how they carry themselves and there levels of finesse are lower than those of other politicians. Any other politician when asked a question that they are not educated about they ask themselves a different question that they know, they answer that then they look intelligent in front of the media. But Sarah Palin and Donald Trump when asked questions that they are not educated about they say whatever comes to their mind and therefore they look uneducated.

Game Change Miles Lynn

Miles Lynn

3/16/17

Ap Gov’t/Politics

Game Change

Why is political vetting so important?

• It is important to do because knowing who you are getting one you hire a candidate is crucial to your election. It is the same reasoning behind doing background checks for job, because people want to know what your history is. When you're running for office your life becomes an open book, and everyone is going to be looking into your past. No one would want someone with a checkered history, so they deny or expect based on the life you’ve lived. Without vetting, all types of people would become candidates for positions, who maybe, have a terrible past and no one would know, until it got uncovered by the media. It would look very bad for everyone in that campaign. That is way vetting is important.

#5

I agree that governors of some states are more “knowledgeable” or “qualified”, because, specifically with Alaska, someone from there is going to be very different for someone in the main 48 states. Different meaning, thinking wise, they are very far away from the mainstream of everything. So someone who lives here, and deals with the problems every day, to someone who lives far away from the area, and doesn’t deal with it much is going to seem less “qualified” or “knowledgeable”. Now I don’t think that means they shouldn’t be taken seriously, all I am saying is someone that lives in Alaska or Hawaii wouldn't necessarily be as qualified or knowledgeable.

Game Changer Ben Baker-Katz

9. It is very important for elected officials to know and understand history, economic policy,
international relations. However, that is not the world and country we live in. The campaign advisor in the movie said that he wished the country would "elect the next Jefferson or Lincoln, but it doesn't work like that." As is evidenced by Donald Trump, all that matters is being in touch popular culture and contemporary issues. Knowing and understanding the important issues is what should matter most, and what everyone should look for when they vote. But unfortunately, that is not the case anymore.

7. Absolutely!! The campaign should never have let her into an interview at all. They knew that she was clueless, but she could memorize speeches really well. If they had just had her do speeches all the time, everyone would have continued loving her the way they did at the beginning. If they had done this, they probably would have put up a much better fight against Obama.

Ethan Mitzen - Game Change Reflection

3. Does a POTUS or VPOTUS need to be highly knowledgeable about all issues associated with their offices or should they rely on the staffs to provide information to answer questions?

A POTUS or VPOTUS does not need to be highly knowledgeable in ALL areas, but they should be fairly knowledgeable in all areas and highly knowledgeable in several key areas, such as economics and international relations. For example, a POTUS or VPOTUS should have a basic idea of how health insurance works, but they do not need to be an expert in healthcare policy since advisors can fill the gaps of their knowledge. However, more pressing and immediate issues such as international relations require a higher amount of knowledge. If a POTUS is meeting with a world leader, they should have a pretty good understanding of how their actions will be viewed by that country and by other countries. Advisors can help with this knowledge, but without a solid basis of knowledge there is too large a possibility for unforced errors with immense consequences.

5. Do you think that governors of certain states are more “qualified” or “knowledgeable” about national politics and foreign policy than others? For example, does Sarah Palin’s career as governor of Alaska make her too far removed from the epicenter of national political activity to be taken seriously?

Yes, I think that governors (and other state/local level officials) are more qualified/knowledgeable about national politics/foreign policy than others. The mayor of South Bend or the governor of Kansas have less experience with the way that the majority of the population is. Governors of states with more urban centers (such as California, Illinois, Texas, and Pennsylvania) are more knowledgeable in national policy than governors of states with less urban centers (such as Missouri, Arkansas, Alaska, and Wyoming) because their constituents more closely represent that of the nation as a whole. As far as foreign policy, large industry centers (such as California) have more experience than agricultural states (such as Idaho) because officials from those states have more experience with trade policy. Border states (such as Texas, New York, and Minnesota) give their officials more experience with foreign policy than non-border states (such as Kansas, Tennessee, and Utah) because they feel the effects of other nation’s policies more. While officials from isolated states have less experience, they are not necessarily too far to be taken seriously. For example, Bernie Sanders is from a fairly irrelevant state but he is very knowledgeable in health and tax policy, among other areas. Contrarily, Bruce Rauner is the governor of Illinois, a relevant state, but he is not knowledgeable in any subject areas and therefore is irrelevant.

Real Clear Politics- Dantea Johnson

The Article I read was titled "on capital hill, Trump wins week one", alluding to President-elect Trump's cabinet nominees going under grueling confirmation hearings.  Being that many of Trump's nominations are controversial they seem to be headed toward a smooth confirmation. In this article it discussed seven of Trumps picks Attorney General-designate Jeff Sessions, Homeland Security Secretary-designate John Kelly, Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson, Transportation Secretary-designate Elaine Chao, alongside Defense Secretary-designate James Mattis, Housing and Urban Development Secretary-designate Ben Carson, and lastly CIA Director-designate Mike Pompeo; stood up against Senate committees this week. The 2 most scandalous of the seven confirmation hearings, were that of Attorney General-designate Jeff Sessions, Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson. Attorney General-designate Jeff Sessions was attacked by so many Democrats and how could they resist the moment to indict a Republican of being a racist, but Sessions was so well scripted and prepared that it really didn't scratch his image. Then you have former CEO of Exxon Mobil Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson, showed everyone what they all knew which is he is not qualified for the position. To make matters worse Tillerson had yet to receive a security clearance, and he had barely any answer to a majority of the question asked by the Senate committee.

A Time to Kill response- Dantea Johnson

1. Is What CLH does "justice"?

             Justice is the quality of being just or of moral rightness. In the eyes of the court and many others what Carl Lee Haley did is immoral and even licentious, but yet in the eyes of a man who has put himself in the position that Carl Lee Haley is in it's as simple as an "eye for an eye". For this man's daughter to be raped, and left for dead hanging from a branch that was not strong enough to hold her up, that is enough to say that Carl Lee Haley killing those two boys who raped his daughter is merely justice.

2. Why does CLH commit this crime?

           A mans daughter beaten viciously, raped, deprived of her innocence, and left to die; kills the men who are responsible for committing this inhuman act towards his daughter out of rage and with great indignation. A daughter is a fathers pride and joy, she brings out the warmth and softness of him that no one usually sees. Carl Lee Haley daughter, his pride and joy, his precious innocent child had been stripped of her innocence and when a father's daughter is viciously attacked he will go through great lengths to protect her.

3. What should CLH punishment be? 
     
          In the movie Carl Lee Haley is not guilty and I believe he should have no punishment. "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are"(Benjamin Franklin). I believe when Mr. Brigance made his final statement before the court and the jury, having them imagining Tanya Haley as their own daughter and being in the same predicament that Carl Lee Haley is in, it showed they are no more different then Carl Lee Haley. What Carl Lee Haley did was just and therefore he should serve no punishment. 

4. Are the scales of justice balanced where this story takes place?

          This movie takes place in Canton, Mississippi, around the 80s or 90s, in the south where racism and discrimination are still alive and black people are looked upon as nothing more than dogs. If anything the scale of justice is heavily in favor of the white man and the white community, which made it seem impossible for Carl Lee Haley to be declared anything but guilty. 

5. Does it/should it matter whether Tanya Haley was white or black?

          No it shouldn't matter whether Tanya Haley is white or black, because race shouldn't play a part in justice; sadly in the world we live in it does. In the film up until Mr. Brigance enthralled the jury, they all had no sympathy for Tanya Haley not because they didn't believe what happened but, do to the color of her skin; because they didn't just see a young innocent girl but, they saw a black girl. 

6. Does due process work for CLH like it would any other defendant? 

           Yes in most cases, because he was given a fair trial. Though he had been counted out and seen as guilty from the jump he was submitted a fair trial in front of a jury. His case is tried and later on he was determined not guilty, which clearly shows he had been given his right to a fair trial. 

         

Real Clear Politics EC Reyanna

I read an article from Real Clear Politics titled "Why the Media Lose to Trump". It was a really interesting article and is especially relevant right now, as Trump continues to have very hostile relations with the media. For the entirety of his campaign, Trump has painted himself as a anti-establishment outsider, claiming the system and the media are rigged against him. Regardless of whether this was true or not, his supporters ate it up. Trump painted himself as a victim of a biased, partisan media. So when the media is actually hostile to him, it just feeds into that narrative that he has created and gives truth to his claims. Even when legitimate questions are raised, Trump always turns back to how he is being "treated unfairly." The media really can't win anymore, at least among Trump's supporters.

Eyes on the Prize- Nick Baumann

The scene that had the greatest impact was the one where Emmett Till's mother holds and open casket to the Chicago public. This had a lasting effect on the Civil Rights act because it showed how low the whites would stoop to preserve their way of life. By showing his mangled body, she sickened many and persuaded them to take a stand in the fight for equal rights. It is difficult to imagine how his mother felt, and how she contained her emotions enough to not act irrationally. She had a lot of courage opening her son's casket and presenting it to the public. I think that action made an impact that would help promote the fight for Civil Rights in the South, and around the country.

A Time to Kill Natalie Lovinger

A Time to Kill
1. Is what Carl Lee Haley does "Justice"?
This question is subjective, but I personally don't think what he did was justice. It was completely reasonable for him to be angry and to want them dead. Because he knew that the justice system would fail him and let the men who raped his 10 year old daughter off with only a few years in jail he wanted to take the law into his own hands. I think it was reasonable that he was acquitted because he wasn't thinking clearly, but I don't think that it was justice
2. Carl Lee kills the men because they raped and attempted to murder his 10 year old daughter
3. I think he should have, and was, acquitted. He was acting on his emotions and acting out of insanity because of his fragile state.
4. The scales of justice are not balanced. Carl Lee Haley was a black man being judged by a completely white jury, which would be biased against him. Justice would also not having been given to the two men because they were white and wouldn't have been punished as severely.
5. I think it matters in the south because to them the rape of a black girl is less important than the rape of a white girl, but it shouldn't matter. Tanya should get her justice no matter the color of her skin.
6. No, Carl Lee and his lawyer have to work harder and use unorthodox methods to get their justice.

Real Clear Politics Response - Miles Lynn

Miles Lynn

1/10/17

AP Government and Politics

I read an opinion piece by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a former prime minister of Denmark and former secretary general of NATO. Anders talked about Trump and shared his views on how he feels Trump could positively impact or strengthen America's global leadership. One point Anders makes is that of the people he has appointed in his cabinet, most are “globally respected figures from business and military”. He also goes on to say Trump will be an “outside the box” type of president, and will be able to “look at the global stage with fresh eyes”. After reading I could see the point Anders is trying to make. This author seems like a smart man, he has impressive credentials, so I think I’m going to trust him on his views on Trump in regards to American Leadership, for the most part. Just knowing Trump, who he is and what he is done, it is hard to see him being better at restoring America's global leadership then some of the past presidents. I feel like most of the world will view Trump as a threat and not an ally, making it harder for him to strengthen America's global leadership.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-president-trump-can-restore-americas-global-leadership-2017-01-10?mod=mw_share_twitter

I read an opinion piece by John Kass, a writer for the Chicago Tribune, with an article title of “Before the president from Chicago says farewell, there’s disappointment”. Before even reading the article, based off the title, I thought he’d talk about how Obama saying good bye and having Trump as the next president would be a huge disappointment. But instead I read an opinion piece that was a full of ridiculous opinions on our (soon to be former president) Obama. Kass talks about how Obama is leaving after 8 year, and leaving the American people and his legacy with disappointment. He went on to say Obama in his 8 years failed to make a great, and not even a good, legacy with failed policies and promises. Going on to say that Obama was built up by the media to be this “messiah” and that he was nowhere close to being a messiah or Jesus. Then going on to say how whatever parts would be considered his legacy will be undone (Obama Care and other policies). Now after reading I couldn't help but disagree. Now I was not following his presidency back in 2008-2012 because I was only 8-12 years old. But as I have grown into my older teenage years I followed it and saw it was pretty successful, and like all presidents there was some failure. But a lot of good came out of Obama presidency. And I believe no matter what of Obama's policies get repealed, he will still have the legacy of becoming the first African-American president of the United States.

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-obama-farewell-speech-kass-0111-20170110-column.html

A Time to Kill Response - Miles Lynn

Miles Lynn

1/10/17

AP Government and Politics

A TIme to Kill

1. Is what Carl Lee Haley does “Justice”?

It is really hard to say, because on one hand if he hadn’t killed those two men, they most likely would have got away with the rape and almost murder of Carl’s daughter. But then again, you can’t really say they were going to be acquitted because no one can see the future. In my opinion though, I feel under the circumstances it was just. Given the time period, and location of the trail, it is a safe bet those two men would have been set free. The only way to bring justice was to take matters into one's own hands.

2. Why does CLH commit this crime?

The reason he committed this crime was really for what I said above, it wasn’t going to be a just trial. Justice is supposed to be blind, but if the trial for that little girls rape was held, it is a very good chance that the trial wouldn’t be blind. Carl knew this, and he couldn’t just let these men get away with such a terrible offense. He could not see the men who raped his 10 year old daughter get away with no punishment. Carl felt the two men should die for what they did, so he did what he felt was right in his mind and took their life.

3. What should CLH punishment be?

I think Carl should serve some amount of jail time. I’m not saying life in prison, but maybe in between 10-30 years. What Carl did is not a crime that can be overlooked, he took the life of two fellow human beings, even if they were terrible people. But I feel what occurred to cause Carl to kill the two men should be taken into effect. If you are a parent and you have a 10 year old daughter and she got raped and left to die, I can guarantee 9 out of 10 parents would want the criminal dead and if not dead locked up for life. So I would say a punishment of 10-30 years in prison.

4. Are the scales of “Justice” balanced where this story takes place?

The answer to that is no. This movie takes place in the south in the 1980s, that right there tells you there is racism. Not only that, but the KKK plays a semi big role in the film, alluding to what type of town it is, what the feel is towards African Americans. The jury during the trial is an all white jury, that can’t be fair especially if an African American man is in the trial. The judge is white too, so how can it be balanced if it is an all white town, with a white judge and jury, and the KKK trying to harm everyone involved with the case on the CLH side.

5. Does it/should it matter whether Tanya Haley is black or white?

I feel like should it matter no, but in this case I think it matters. With an all white jury, they wouldn’t care for some random African American child. Most of the town is against blacks anyway, why would it be different with this child. Now compare it to a little white girl, with an all white jury and there would be no debate. The rapist would be charged quickly without debate.

6. Does due process work for CLH like it would any other defendant?

I don’t really think so, CLH is in a white environment, in a town that already doesn't really like African American, and he is now an trial for killing two white men with an all white jury. That is almost like the most unideal situation for due process, he has the right to a fair trial, but he isn’t getting one where he is at right now. And probably won’t get one because the trial is staying in that town and there is just now way it could be fair given the circumstances and all that has happened.