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.