The next Installment of 68 for '16

It's the Regional Semifinals, so naturally it's a very intense time! The first match-up is Biden vs. Gillibrand (two awesome people, each of whom I love in their own unique ways) and Bloomberg vs. Christie. A special shout-out to Elizabeth Bixler's blog for informing me on the qualifications of the candidates not researched in my previous posts.


Biden vs. Gillibrand

Check out these cool kids!!! How will I choose?!?!

       Well, this is a toughie. I don't think a president's personality should play into whether or not I vote for them. Regardless of whether or not I like the president's personality, I want them to run the country well. In the case of Biden vs. Gillibrand, I agree with both of their liberal policies, and therefore shall revert more to their personalities. Although i will note that I appreciate the fact that Gillibrand has taken a stance against rape in the military, while Biden has not made these views as clear. From my observations Biden, even though he was a Senator for more then 30 years, has been unable to sway Congress into agreement with President Obama. I believe that Biden's association with Obama could hurt him as a president because with a familiar face they were working against before, they might not make any new attempts to work with him. I think there is a higher likelihood, because Gillibrand would be new to the presidency, for he to make some progress with Congress. Since she's never been in the White House before, the split Congress might be more willing to work with her and compromise. It is vital to have a functioning and productive Congress because they influence what sort of legislation is passed. I would vote for Gillibrand because I think her experience in both Houses would provide her with some leverage to get stuff done.

Bloomberg vs. Christie

If these two candidates' animal spirits were running straight at me from both sides I would be extremely scared...

          I'm not a fan of the foreign experience either of these candidates have. I don't think either of them could be exemplary as president because they both lack experience working with Congress and the scale at which the U.S. runs. I would rather vote though, then abstain for this particular mash up because I am more aligned with Bloomberg's ideologies then I am with Christie's. Bloomberg is pro-same sex marriage and other liberal stances which I support. Christie, on the other hand, is a stark conservative. Christie was able to reach across the aisle to work with Obama, which shows he can work with the other party when he tries, but I'm still not a fan of his temperament. Bloomberg has shown , in some ways, that he can reach across the aisle because he has been part of three different parties! I'm suspicious of his motivations to change parties so frequently, but this could be helpful when dealing with a divided Congress.

68 for '16 Chris Christie fist pumping

Pat Toomey: 

This guy is still doing his thing, being a Senator to Pennsylvania (refer to earlier post for more information).

Chris Christie:

Party Affiliation: Republican
Political Ideology: The louder person who can shout over another person should get what they want.
Informal/Formal Qualifications: Christie is the governor of New Jersey. Before he was governor he worked in a law firm and worked his way up to becoming a partner of the law firm. After he worked as a lawyer, but before he was governor he was a legislator for Morris County and then a United States Attorney for New Jersey.
Assets/Liabilities: Christie has had a lot of media attention, sometimes in a beneficial way and sometimes not. His temperament when portrayed on the media is usually hot tempered and rash. He usually talks over reporters, along with the citizens who ask him questions (see video below). In the past he has campaigned for both Bush Jr. and Bush Sn., this could help him if the majority of people liked those presidents, however they don't and therefore this relationship is seen as a liability.
Electability: Christie has been in the media in good and bad light. When Sandy came through the shore last year Christie received a positive light from the media for looking out for his state and getting help. He was able to cross party lines and work with Obama in order to come up with aid. This could also been seen as a little hypocritical because he also thinks Congress should cut programs for people who need assistance. With the whole bridge scandal, regardless of whether or not he knew about it, he doesn't have the squeaky clean track record he needs in order to run for president.

Who I'd vote for: Probably neither. I don't think Christie has the experience nor temperament to be an effective foreign leader. He can easily be angered and cannot control his temper under stressful situation, rather he gets mad and irrational. It is extremely important that the president be able to effectively communicate with other countries so that the U.S. has a good relationship with them. A president cannot be rash and upsetting everyone around he or she, just because he or she is upset. Although Christie's personality might be able to get more stuff done internally, and whip Congress into shape, he just can't handle foreign affairs. That being said I agree with very few of Toomey's objectives and therefore he too is not my choice for president.

Next Bracket 68 for '16 this time with Andrew Cuomo

Kirsten Gillibrand

My hommie G, Gillibrand is still in the running! She is still awesome and taking care of business.

Andrew Cuomo

Party Affiliation: Democratic
Political Ideology: Performance, Integrity, Pride. He wants to protect the taxpayers and restore trust in the government. He also believes in LGBT and women's rights.
Informal/Formal Qualifications: Cuomo has been the governor of New York since 2010. Before this he served for 4 years as the Attorney General for New York. In 1997 Clinton himself appointed Cuomo to serve as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
Assets/Liabilities: He has brought reform to the student loan industry. He has also epically battled Wall Street by leading many investigations. His father, Mario Cuomo, used to be governor of New York. He has had a divorce, this could be seen as an asset or a liability. Some will question his judgement for getting a divorce, some will relate to him, and some will not care at all.
Electability: Over the years Cuomo has made some impressive connections. His relationship with Clinton could definitely give him an edge during the election, or Clinton would disregard these ties if his wife was running. Cuomo also has a sort of legacy in office with his father. He could use the friendships and alliances his father has formed to fundraise and get endorsements. His brother, Chris Cuomo, is a relatively famous news anchor which would help with his media image.

Who I'd vote for: I'd vote for Kirsten, she is the bomb.com! She's got the experience in the White House a president really needs in order to get anything done. She is willing to compromise and reach across party lines, and has a record that proves she's capable of doing this. Cuomo is aight. He gets stuff done in New York, but I'm not sure if he could handle the scope of presidency.

68 for '16 More Candidates!

Kirsten Gillibrand (5) 

Party Affiliation: Democratic
Political Ideology: She strives for an open and honest government. She wanted her administration to be transparent and her post accessible. She has supported gay rights by fighting to repeal "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Her priority is to rebuild the American economy.
Informal/Formal Qualifications: She was sworn into her Senator seat for New York in January 2009. Before she was a member of the Senate, she was a Representative for New York's 20th district. She was named one of "1500 Women Who Shake the World" by Newsweek/The Daily Beast. She has sat on several committees including the Agriculture, Armed Services and Aging Committee. Before she joined Congress she was an attorney and served as Special Counsel to United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under the Clinton Administration.
Assets/Liabilities: She keeps to her word, following through with her wish to be transparent, she was the first to post her official public schedule and personal financial disclosure, and federal earmark requests online. She was also the first to publish her personal tax returns, showing she has nothing to hide. She pushed for the STOCK Act that banned insider trading by members of Congress.
Electability: Medium. Gillirand has experience and has worked her way up through Congress. Her strives in Congress with certain legislature, as well as her affiliation to the Clinton Administration are helpful. She might not have the financial backing or media recognition to gain presidency. 

Cory Booker (12)

Party Affiliation: Democrat
Political Ideology: Booker strives to decrease violence, returning business to Newark, and increasing its tax base as well as improving education.
Informal/Formal Qualifications: Booker has led legal clinics in New Haven, CT. Afterwards he became  mayor of Newark, NG in 2006. He went to Stanford, Oxford and Yale.
Assets/Liabilities: Apparently he turned Newark from an ish show to "its biggest period of economic growth since the 1960s", so a big deal. 
Electability: Medium-high. On Booker's website there are three main tabs at the bottom of the page that don't go way (volunteer, shop, contribute), this shows his goal of raising money and volunteers to help with campaigning. He also has a certain level of handsomeness that might sway some.

Who I'd go for:

Kirsten Gillibrand rocks the socks off my feet! I kind of started off annoyed with Cory Booker, because just by judging by his website one of his main focuses seems to be on fundraising. I get that he's done a lot of great stuff for Newark, and he's gotten rid of a lot of New Jersey corruption, but I don't see him as president. Kirsten Gillibrand was uber sweet in the video above and seems like she'd kick ass. Her website wasn't obnoxious and pushy for funding. She wants women to be proportionately represented in Congress. She wants to make the voices of those who have been raped in the military heard, and push through legislation that will prevent this egregious act in the future.

68 for '16 Candidate Research

Kelly Ayotte (7)

Party Affiliation: Republican

Political Ideology: No bloated budget bills, especially bills that include money for programs we don’t need and can’t afford. She is an advocate for “common sense budget reforms”, especially a ban on earmarks and strict spending caps.

Informal/Formal Qualifications: She was a long-time prosecutor and in 2010 became a Senator. She serves on a variety of committees including the Armed Services, Budget, Commerce, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Aging Committees.

Assets/Liabilities: Native to New Hampshire. She is the Ranking Member on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation Operations. This shows leadership qualities, however only on a small scale. She has not yet shown much leadership in Congress and this might hurt her in the call for Presidency.

Electability: Medium to Low. She has limited experience in Congress and little media coverage.

Pat Toomey (10)

Political Affiliation: Republican

Political Ideology: Toomey strives to be an leader on economic, financial services, and budget issues.

Informal/Formal Qualifications: He has served on the Finance, Banking, Budget, and Joint Economic Committees. He is the chairman of the Senate Steering Committee (a caucus of Republicans who advocate for conservative policies in an innovative way).

Assets/Liabilities: He is seen to be “champion of fiscal responsibility”. He helped write and enact the bipartisan JOBS Act, which helped small and medium-sized businesses. As a Senator for Pennsylvania, Toomey would have an advantage for swinging a state that has very mixed ideologies.

Electability: Medium-Low. Toomey’s ideologies are too focused in the Republican sphere that he probably wouldn’t be able to win over the whole country or voters in the middle.

Who would you vote for and why?

I would vote for neither. I want a president with the experience of working across party lines to improve the lives of the people in the U.S. I think the government needs a lot of reform, but neither candidates focus on the reform I want to see in the spheres environmental, immigration, army, and education.

Description of ANWR & the Pro-Drilling View

ANWR= Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

            The ARNWR is located in Alaska. Animals such as caribou herds, polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, dall sheep, wolves, and many different types of birds. It provides recreational activities and natural resources. This piece of land was established in 1960 and expanded in 1980, it is currently 30,136 sq miles. On the "Fish & Wildlife Service" website run by the U.S. government, the description said "the refuge continues to be valued... as a symbol of America's vast and remote wilderness - a place of inspiration and beauty". The ANWR space also provides space for Eskimo and Gwich'in Indian cultures to be sustained.
            The controversy encircling ANWR is whether or not to extract the natural resources located on its grounds. The pictures below depicts the specific areas in which resources were found and the proportion to the entirety of ANWR and to Alaska.

              The argument for allowing the company Shell to drill in ANWR is that it is a "local" source of energy. Getting energy from our Alaska, rather then from turbulent countries in the Middle East, increases our national security. With America less involved in the Middle East we may be less meddle some in their affairs creating a better relationship between us. Energy harvested on our own lands is also significantly cheaper because money needs to be paid to foreign governments for rights and less energy is needed to transport the resources. The drilling will also create jobs and stimulate the economy.  Below are a some cartoons that reiterate the pro-drilling in ANWR view.

The first comic argues that the amount of space the drilling would take up is minimal compared to the expansiveness of ANWR. It argues that this little point will have no grand or disastrous effect on the rest of the refuge.

This second comic is making a jab at environmentalists and conversationalists. It's saying that they are too concerned with caribou and other endangered species when they will be just fine when a little bit of space is taken away from them in order to benefit the economy. The comic also argues that the piece of land conversationalists are trying to save is not really worth protecting because it's a "barren ice field".

A preview of my next blog post:

Resources:
(pro drilling website) http://www.anwr.org/
(government's site for ANWR) http://www.fws.gov/alaska/nwr/arctic/

(article about drilling in ANWR) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/science/earth/shell-arctic-ocean-drilling-stands-to-open-new-oil-frontier.html?_r=0

A Reflection on Immigration

           In preparation for the guest speaker coming on International day, I did some research about a current immigration bill along with a reflection on my own opinions on immigration. I used this nytimes article to learn about an immigration bill created by 4 democrats and 4 republicans. This bill will provide a 13 year path to citizenry for illegal immigrants in the United States. To offset Republican backlash for making it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens, the bill also offers an increase in funding for boarder patrol. A new segment of the bill also includes merit based citizenship. This segment splits the number of new immigrants between people with family ties and people with advanced education.
            I think this bill is a step in the right direction, but I don't see how it will address the root causes of illegal immigration and the lack of rights they posses. I had a teacher who describes the boarder between the U.S. and Mexico as a house next to a house on fire. My teacher's opinion was that the U.S. should put out the fire out next door and this would solve the illegal immigration crisis in the U.S. I agree on some level that the U.S. has a responsibility to help out other countries, plus helping to decrease crime and disempower drug lords would also benefit the U.S. I think the U.S. also has the responsibility to help those who have immigrated due to conflict in their home countries.
         One injustice I have heard about concerning immigration is the deportation of illegal immigrants. In some cases immigrants are put in jail for minor offenses and deported, without any word to their families. This is unacceptable because people who have made the journey to the U.S. and have created a life here should not be treated this way. Deportees are sent back to a country in disorder which they haven't been to in years and expected to settle down in a new place and adjust all over again.
       
          The political cartoons below show the paradox that illegal immigrants encompass in the U.S. On the one hand illegal immigrants provide cheap labor and make products cheaper, on the other hand they may be receiving certain services paid for by tax-paying citizens.