Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button

Don’t Let Apathy Win the 2008 Presidential Election

Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Undecided, or None of the Above. Whether you are pleased or enraged with the current administration. Whether you think your vote will count or not, now is not the time to back away from the campaign and election process. It is time to become involved, but this time it will be different.

The 2008 Presidential election will be the most important and different election we have ever seen in American history. Apart from the issues, promises, and scandals, a new reason has joined the candidates on the stump- its that thing you’re surfing on – the internet.

In the past we have seen websites and maybe a Youtube advertisement or two, but in 2008, the election playing field includes social networking sites, video sharing sites, and blogs.

If you felt the only way to garner support for your particular candidate meant attending a rally with news coverage, may I suggest some new ways to help you spread the message of your chosen candidate:

1. Forums. It’s not just for TV shows and rock bands anymore. Topix.com is a great website with a huge group of forums for everything regarding political parties and candidates. It is a great place to find up-to-the-minute information, as well as find like-minded posters to join in discussions.

2. Social Networking sites. Whether you’re on MySpace, Facebook, or the multitude of other similar sites, it is becoming easier to find friends and groups that share your views. Show your support, and find support from others.

3. Interactive podcasts. Talkshoe.com is a web 2.0 interactive podcast solution that marries a conference call with live, on-screen text chat and a communal way to express yourself and hear from others as well.

So check it out, and interact.

4. Create you own podcast about your candidate. Everyone’s doing it, why not you? Podcast411.com is a great way to get started. In a few steps, you can get your voice heard with the best of them in the podcasting world.

5. Email signature line. It’s where you probably put that funny quote next to your name on emails, but it has many other uses. All email accounts (Gmail, hotmail, etc) have a place for you to add a signature line for every outgoing email. Type in your favorite candidate’s website url, special dates for events, and share it with people you communicate with.

6. Electronically invite others to vote with you. Many people have excuses why they don’t vote, but you can help your candidate by being a voting chauffeur. Evite.com is a fantastic way to gather people for parties and events, but why not use it for a Decision 2008 voting party? On voting day offer to drive yourself and like-minded friends to the polling place. Heck, you can even make it a “Vote and Pick up Lunch Day”, if you like.

7. Leave your thoughts behind. Youtube and other video sharing sites are being used by candidates, so why not leave your feedback for them and others to read. Let your chosen candidate know you care, and you were there.

and finally-

8. Do something. Whether its one of these ideas, or others, don’t slip into apathy. There is still time to get involved with promoting your chosen candidate or issue. Start now, and use the Internet and new technology to help you.

2008 Presidential Election Betting Hits The Online Sportsbook Campaign Trail

Election betting is not new. In fact, Las Vegas oddsmaker Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder gained fame and credibility (which later led to a spot on CBS’ NFL preview show) when, after noting that women did not trust men who wore mustaches, boldly predicted that underdog incumbent President Harry S. Truman would defeat New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey in the race for the Oval Office in 1948. Or so the story goes.

The irony is that Nevada sportsbooks do not accept wagers on elections. The often cited reason is not that, like entertainment award voting such as the Oscars, that someone knows the results of the balloting in advance, but that there is something queasy about mixing gambling and politics.

Yeah, right.

Certainly, most online sportsbooks outside the jurisdiction of the Silver State have little difficulty in posting futures on who will win the next four-year lease at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The process, which should come to a conclusion when delegate-rich states such as California, New York and Florida vote next February, already is underway with 10 Republicans and eight Democrats vying for the prize. Each party field could grow and there also is the possibility for a fusion ticket or an independent candidacy.

Generally, online sportsbooks attack the 2008 election in one of three ways. The simplest way is to post a generic proposition on which party will win the White House. Led by a President with record low approval ratings and saddled with an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, the Republicans are clear underdogs to maintain control in 2008, usually listed as +140 underdogs (bet 0 to win 0). On the other hand, Democrats, with their base more energetic and independent voters tracking in their direction, are quoted as -160 favorites (bet 0 to win 0) to regain control of the Oval Office.

Could someone unaligned with either of the major parties, such as an independent or a third party candidate, win? You can get +5250 on that remote possibility.

Many online sportsbooks also boast separate future books for Democrats and Republicans. Although she voted to authorize the Iraq war, a very unpopular position among party activists, New York Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton heads the list of Democrats, usually at odds around 4/5. Representing a younger generation, Illinois Senator Barack Obama is the clear second choice at 5/2 with former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 5/1, and as yet unannounced candidate, former Vice President Al Gore, offered from a low of 4/1 to a high of 10/1. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who widely is viewed as an ideal vice presidential choice, Senators Chris Dodd (CT) and Joe Biden (DE), former Senator Mike Gravel (Alaska) and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, are longshots.

Despite holding liberal to moderate views on many social issues, such as abortion, gay rights and gun control, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a 7/5 favorite to get the nod of the largely conservative GOP to run for President. Arizona Senator John McCain, who holds an unpopular position on immigration, is the 5/2 second choice with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, whose positions have evolved (his detractors would say “flip-flopped”) is quoted at 4/1 with former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson likely to enter the race in July at about the same odds as Romney.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, would enter the race at about 15/1 should he diced to run, ahead of previously announced candidates such as former Governors Mike Huckabee (AK) and Tommy Thompson WI), Senator Sam Brownback (KS), and Representatives Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo.

Senator Chuck Hagel (NE), 30/1, could enter the race as either a Republican or as an independent.

The third way online sportsbooks offer Presidential election futures is to lump all the candidates together in one massive book. The difference between this type of book and the separate party books is the same as the difference between World Series and pennant futures; more risk but more reward in going for the whole enchilada.

Clinton is the favorite in the big book, usually at about 2/1. Giuliani checks in next at odds of 7/2 with Obama at 4/1, McCain at 6/1, Romney and Gore at 8/1.

As the 2008 election draws nearer, many online sportsbooks will add key Senate, House and Governor races to their wagering menu, providing even more options to election betting.

This article was written by Karol Luca for [http://www.thegreek.com-The] Greek Sportsbook & Casino is host to one of the top online sportsbooks offering sports betting on NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and all other major sports. The Greek is a must have sports betting and entertainment portal with one of the largest wagering menus available online. Article reproductions must include a link pointing to http://www.thegreek.com

Presidential elections and stocks

Is an election year good for stocks? Well, let’s look at some data. Keep in mind, it’s only data – and as the old saying goes, past performance is no indication of future results. But the statistics concerning the Dow Jones Industrial Average sure are interesting. It is time to compare and contrast.

The Dow through Election Day. America has now seen 28 presidential elections since the first publication of the DJIA on May 26, 1896. In 20 of those 28 election years, the Dow posted a Y-T-D gain through Election Day. Would that it was true this year. When the market opened on November 4, 2008, the Dow was down 29.71% from its close on the final day of 2007.

The Dow in “election season”. Between Labor Day and Election Day, the Dow rose an average of 1.92% in the 27 election years between 1896 and 2004.

When the incumbent President was a Republican, the Dow’s average gain between Labor Day and Election Day in those election years was approximately +0.6%. This year certainly did not live up to statistical expectation: the Dow closed at 11,543.96 on August 29 (the last market day before Labor Day) and opened at 9,323.89 on the morning of November 4 for a loss of 19.23% over that period.

The Dow immediately after a Presidential election. The short-term statistic is positive: on average, the DJIA has gained 1.90% between Election Day and New Year’s Day in the 27 election years past. Here are two statistics seemingly at odds with each other: when a Republican President is in office during an election year, the DJIA gain has averaged approximately 4.6% between Election Day and New Year’s Day.

But when a Democrat is elected (regardless of what party holds the White House), the Dow has averaged roughly a -0.9% loss between the first Tuesday in November and New Year’s Day.

On Election Day 2008, the Dow gained 305.45 or 3.28%. However, a day later, all the gain had been lost in the wake of troubling indicators.

The Dow after a new President takes office. The DJIA has gained an average of 4.85% during the first year of a presidency. But when a Democrat is elected, that average gain has been approximately 6.0%. Historically, when a Democrat replaces a Republican in the White House, the average gain has been approximately +13.7% – but that statistic is skewed, because the Dow gained 64% in the year after Roosevelt replaced Hoover. Put 1933 aside, and the average such gain is approximately 1.2%.

 

As for the S&P 500 … TheStreet.com columnist Scott Rothbort tracked S&P 500 data going back to 1950 and found that the price-only return of that index in a post-presidential election year has averaged +3.06%. On the other hand, a research report released November 5 by the Zero Alpha Group (an international network of financial advisory firms) indicates that the S&P 500 has gained approximately 15.8% during Democratic administrations (as compared to about 11.2% during Republican administrations).

 

And what about your financial strategy? While the above data is fascinating to consider, the fact is that we can’t foretell the effect a new administration will have on our money. Long-term discipline is the most important factor in an investment strategy, and your financial advisor can help you to practice it.

 

Candidate Families Do Matter in the 2008 US Presidential Election

It’s a cliché to say the world is changing fast but the implications of that change are most relevant in the 2008 US presidential campaign. America’s last presidential election four years ago occurred in a pre-twitter age when America’s war on the rest of the world was a major issue. In the current election, the Republican vice-presidential candidate is a self-described “hockey Mom” with a pro-life, anti-choice platform. That most private decision of a couple impacts heavily on the defining characteristic, by definition, of “family.”

The notion that a candidate’s family is “off limits” to the press is ludicrous to begin with, in view of the fact that families are very much part of the dog-and-pony shows of American political campaigns. But to keep those families in the public eye only when they’re dressed in Sunday best is a deception at the very least.

In an age of twitters and tweets, it is a hoodwinking that feeds a frenzy of curiosity and speculation that mesmerizes attention with the titillation of small town gossip and masks the real issues.

Among the real issues in this election is that of family and family values. It became part of the Republican platform with the choice of an ultraconservative vice presidential candidate chosen to court the ultra-right wing vote able to swing the current election as it did four years ago. Four years later, however, the ultra-conservative icon of the “hockey Mom” presents a family portrait not entirely in conformance with the common understanding of all that “family values” entail.

Beyond that, while unwed teenage pregnancy is no longer a stigma in 2008 American society, the announcement of that family development in context of a new and premature legitimate family being formed is hypocrisy, political machination or both, especially since the new father- and husband-to-be was trotted out at the Republican Convention.

At the very best, the scenario presents the height of a high-tech shot-gun wedding, which may or may not come off during the two months remaining for the presidential campaigns.

The right to freedom of the young people involved and the impact on the families and the country itself in the event either chooses to exercise that right by deciding not to marry, could impact on votes in November. For that reason and in the interest of fairness, then, all the candidates’ families are now part of the candidate’s candidacy and they are a reflection of the candidate’s performance in decision making, leadership, guidance and overall eligibility for national leadership.

Furthermore, in the twitter age, that new, modern standard for full disclosure of fitness by opening the window onto candidate families is not limited to the “nuclear” family. It extends to siblings, as it did during Bill Clinton’s campaign in 1992. And it also extends to ex-spouses and to the circumstances of divorces for a consideration of how well the unfortunate family break-up was conducted in conformance with family values.

Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty – Presidential Possibilities?

Ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney resigned Thursday as a director of the Marriott Corp. and reportedly hired a pollster and political director, moves that would indicate an early spring kickoff to his second run for President.
The week has brought developments that indicate multiple hats will soon be in the ring as Republicans seek to make Barack Obama a one-term president.
RealClear Politics reported that Romney has hired Rich Beeson as political director, a post he formerly held at the Republican National Committee, and has retained Neil Newhouse as his pollster. Newhouse worked in the upset victory of Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass.
The 2008 Romney campaign was stocked with such talent. The book “Game Change,” an insider’s account of the race, said: “He had hired a squad of A-list consultants, pollsters and media wizards.”
Romney was architect on Massachusetts’ health care plan, and once made moderate Republican noises, declaring in a 1994 Senate bid: “I don’t line up with the NRA” on gun control. “
A second front-rank possibility, ex-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, told McClatchy: “I’m looking at making a decision by the end of February.”
Gingrich has not held public office since late 1998, but is ubiquitous on talk shows and a much-seen pundit on Fox News. He promised to “methodically see if it’s possible” to take the nomination.
A key will be the Palmetto State. “South Carolina has picked the last five Republican presidential nominees,” said Gingrich.
George Bush, Sr., put away Bob Dole and Pat Robertson in the 1988 South Carolina primary. Dole won in 1996, a prelude to Super Tuesday victories. George W. Bush came back from a New Hampshire loss to defeat John McCain in a vicious 2000 contest. McCain beat Mike Huckabee in 2008.
If he runs, Gingrich would be the second thrice-married Republican presidential candidate. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was the first.
Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has launched a bid for national exposure this week with publication of his book “Courage to Stand.” “T-PAW’ has even braved The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
Pawlenty has been a regular on the GOP’s rubber chicken circuit: He was recent guest speaker at Washington State Republicans’ annual dinner. But he is not well known nationally.

Mitt Romney – John Bolton: 2012 Winning Republican Presidential Ticket

The battle amongst a host of Republican candidates with varying degrees of ideology is heating up for the nomination to challenge Barack Obama for the presidency in 2012. Powerhouse names such as Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Mitt Romney are dominating the media.

But as Republicans begin side up and decide who stands the best chance to beat President Obama in 2012, they must keep in mind that the recent sweep into power was not a Republican referendum, but a rejection of the socialist policies of the Obama administration.

Popular Republican candidates such as Jeb Bush and Chris Christie have already emphatically ruled themselves out as challengers in 2012. Of course this has never meant much in politics, but in the case of Bush and Christie, it stands to reason that it is just not the right time for either of them to run.

Chris Christie is undoubtedly a rising Republican star and his time is sure to come, but that time is not now. It is too early in his career and the country is not ready for another untested President. Jeb Bush simply has the wrong last name. It is just too soon for most Americans to stomach another Bush in the White House, and despite being one of the most qualified candidates, would lose on name recognition alone.

Newt Gingrich has been a workhorse in the Republican Party for decades. Sarah Palin is currently the face of Republicans, and the face of everyday Americans. Either one of these two candidates could easily carry the Republican base in the primaries and win the nomination. But winning over the base of conservatives is not going to beat president Obama in 2012.

- J Michael Nelson

 

Newt Gingrich defines what it means to be a conservative and is the leading voice for traditional values with a resemblance to Reagan conservatism. Sarah Palin is a rockstar in the Republican Party and draws crowds by the thousands, but is nationally polarizing to a fault. The problem is the regular folks are just not going to vote for candidates this far to the conservative right.

In addition to attracting new and young voters in 2008, Barack Obama owes his victory in large part to the independent voters who found something in his platitudes of hope and change that they themselves could believe in. If Republicans are going to take the White House back in 2012, they are going to have to focus a message of truth towards the disillusioned independent voter and earn back their trust. Republicans and Democrats alike will always vote with their base, but the independent voters decide elections.

The election in 2012 is not going to come down to Democratic progressivism or Republican conservatism. It will come down to the issues facing everyday Americans around the dinner table. In the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis and a high level of unemployment with future uncertainty, Americans want somebody who can fix the problem and return some sense of security back to their lives.

]]>

To this end, the best choice for Republican nominee in 2012 is former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Mitt is a lawyer by education, and has amassed a large personal fortune of more than 0 million. One of Mitt’s greatest achievements was his taking over a financially destitute and corrupt laden Olympic body in 1999. By the 2002 Winter Olympics, Mitt had ended the corruption and turned the Olympics into a financial windfall.

The primary crisis that our country currently faces, and will still face in 2012 is our looming debt and out of control spending. There is no better person to put in the White House to fix the economic crisis than Mitt Romney. He is the most qualified to personally make the best decisions necessary to get the country back on track without the pandering of economic advisors.

In addition to Mitt Romney’s economic expertise, he also has unique experience with the implementation of universal health care in Massachusetts. Although hailed for it at the time, he now looks back at it and sees things he would’ve done differently to avoid the debt crisis it has caused the state. Short of Republicans being able to repeal Obamacare altogether, Mitt would also be the best suited to deal with the crisis.

Finally, what Mitt Romney has that many of the other front-runners do not have is the ability to carry the independent vote. Mitt is seen as a moderate Republican. At times he has even been accused of being a flip flopper because of his positions on abortion and healthcare in the heavily liberal state where he was a Republican governor.

The combination of Mitt Romney being an economic expert in a time of American economic crisis, a universal health care expert in a time of Obamacare crisis, and a moderate Republican who could likely steal back a large number of the independent voters that Barack Obama relied on in 2008, make him unquestionably the most formidable challenger to Barack Obama in 2012.

Generally, the vice presidential pick is more about carrying a state to anything else. But in a time of so many crucial issues facing our nation, maybe it is time to look for a vice president that can actually contribute to the people with real policy influence.

With that in mind, some of the most vulnerable aspects of a Mitt Romney candidacy are a lack of foreign policy experience at a time when the world is on the brink, and his inability to carry the vote from the conservative base. The most highly respected right-leaning conservative that has proven himself time and again as a formidable foreign policy expert that would best compliment a Mitt Romney presidency is John Bolton.

Ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush, John Bolton has recently been positioning himself in a way indicative of a presidential run. The truth is he could not beat Barack Obama on the top of the ticket. His foreign-policy expertise is a much-needed asset in this time of world unrest, but his lack of domestic policy record, especially concerning the economy, could not see him win. In addition to that he would be considered far too conservative to appeal to the independent voter.

Yet, combining the expertise of Mitt Romney and John Bolton on a Republican ticket to challenge Barack Obama in 2012 would be virtually unbeatable in lieu of the current issues facing our nation.

On the top of the ticket you have a man that you can count on to use a moderate approach to fix the debt crisis and the out-of-control spending. Mitt simply knows how to run a business and a businessman is what this country needs right now. In addition, Mitt has all of the qualifications as the former governor of a state to handle the intricate responsibilities of the presidency.

To cover any of Mitt Romney’s vulnerabilities on foreign-policy, national security, and appeasement to the right-leaning base, there is nobody better suited to fill the void as the vice president than John Bolton. Mr. Bolton’s ability to carry the conservative base and have the primary responsibility as vice president of implementing foreign-policy while taking an active role in advising the president makes him the perfect match for a Romney administration.

In 2012 the country will not need politicians. Americans need to elect the right people to prioritize and fix the current problems that are diminishing the United States on a domestic and a foreign stage. This means instead of pulling the handle based on a creative commercial seen on TV, Americans truly need to understand who it is they vote for and what their professional experience can do to restore the greatness of the United States.

Despite all the other options out there, the facts are simple. Based on the needs of our country, the people we need in charge must be economic experts and foreign-policy powerhouses. That administration could be no better than a Mitt Romney – John Bolton ticket for 2012.

The Role of Israeli Lobby in US Presidential Elections

“Bill, I think you’re going to be President someday. I think you’ll do a good job, but there’s one thing above all you must remember: God will never forgive you if you don’t stand by Israel.”

Paster W.O.Vaught to Bill Clinton (Clinton, 2004:353)

While most of the countries of the world – at least apparently -are demanding Israel to change and revise its policies toward Palestine and withdrew from occupied territories, United States still supports Israel strongly. For decades US government has provided Israel with military, financial and diplomatic supports; and both major parties of United States, Republicans and Democrats, unquestionably support Israel. America supports Israel despite the great expanses that this backing imposes on America and Americans.

This excessive support is backed and forced by the exercise of influence of Israeli lobby in America.

Israeli and Jewish lobby are very influential in Americans foreign policy and this influence becomes clearer when it is compared to other ethnic minorities in U.S. such as Arab Lobbies or Armenians. Perhaps three important factors can explain the reason of this unconditional support: Israel’s strategic value, Jewish economic influence and power in various arenas including US presidential election, and the emergence of Evangelical and Christian Zionism.

Many books and articles are written about the influence of Jewish and Israeli lobbyist in the process of American decision making. While some observers believe that Jews play a very important role in American policy, others maintain that this influence is exaggerated. This is the case in the issue of U.S. presidential election: some observers argue that the U.S.

presidents have to give special interest after their election due to the financial helps they receive from Jewish contributors in their presidential campaigns; also Jews have a high rate of turnout in presidential election compared to non-Jew Americans. Others believe that the amount of Jew’s financial contribution is not that much significant, on the other hand Jews make only 3 percent of American population.

The question is that is Jew’s financial contribution in form of campaign donation, and high rate of turn out the only reason for the U.S. president’s support for Israel or as it was mentioned there are other reasons responsible for this unconditional support.

The theory used in this paper is political theory of Pluralism; based on this theory the political power in the society is not limited to the governments, the electorate or a small group of elite, but it is distributed among a wide number of groups including interested groups- here Israeli lobby which plays an important role in American foreign policy as the most influential minority group in the U.S. This concept versus the idea that the power is mostly concentrated in the governments.

The method of this research is content analysis: the research tries to clarify the point and illustrate this relationship with providing some data and statistics about the amount of Jew’s financial contribution to the process of presidential election, as well as some extracts of Clinton and Bush speeches which is addressed to support this influential ethnic group. The method of data collection is use of books and primary documents (speeches) and the internet.

U.S Presidential Candidates and Support for Israel

In U.S. presidential campaigns all the candidates, no matter whether they are Republican or Democrats, have one commonality and a subject that they all agree, at least publicly, and that is U.S. relation and support of Israel. Though there is a controversy about extend of the support in major parties (Republicans and Democrats); some believe that Democrats are more intense in their support of Israel, others argue that Evangelical Christians who vote heavily for Republicans are stronger in their support for Israel. Nevertheless American Jews vote more to democratic candidates, and it is said that only 25% of Jews voted for George Bush in 2004. This table shows the relationship between party affiliation and religious identification:

As the table suggest the Jews tend to be more democrats than republican.

Nevertheless the republicans, and in this case George Bush defends Israel and its policies. in his speech addressed to American Jewish committee in may 2001 he said that his top foreign policy priority is the safety and security of Israel, and that his administration would support Israel against terrorism and violence steadfastly:

“By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you’re also serving the cause of America. Our nation is stronger and safer because we have a true and dependable ally in Israel” (Bush’s Address to the AIPAC Policy Conference, May 8, 2004)

George W. Bush made his first trip to Israel before deciding to run for Presidential campaigns.

Bill Clinton nominated two Supreme Court Justices, both Jewish. In his first term, he had two Jewish Cabinet members and dozens of Jews held other key Administration posts. Clinton’s reply after Israeli Ambassador Shoval presented his credentials. In September 10, 1998 he said that America and Israel share special bond and that American and Israeli relation are unique: “Like America, Israel is a strong democracy, as a symbol of freedom, and an oasis of liberty, a home to the oppressed and persecuted.” (September 10, 1998).

After his presidency, Clinton at a Jewish fund-raiser in Toronto said that: If Iraq came across the Jordan River, I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die.” It is while Clinton had avoided serving in Vietnam. In 1995 when all 14 members of U.N. Security Council called on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in Jerusalem, Clinton vetoed it.

What is the reason for this unconditional support? It is said that presidential candidates must support Israel to increase their chance of presidency. By supporting Israel they will have the support of the Jewish minority in presidential election both in voting and campaign donation and the media which plays a very important role in public opinion. The candidates promise material and diplomatic support and none of them criticize Israel policies. First of all it is better to have some information about the American Jewish population and demography.

American Jewish population and demography

Jewish population in America has high turnout rate in presidential election compared to non- Jew Americans and other ethnic minorities; at the same time most of the Jewish voters, near 89 percent, are inhabited in key states like: California, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida. While it is argued that the low percentage of Jews cannot be that much influential in the result of the election, but the electoral college system is in such a way that even few number of voters can have significant influence on the final result, esp. in this case where the Jewish population is concentrated in important states as it was mentioned.

Another important point is the Evangelical Christians with much greater population compared to Jews and they play an important role in the outcome of the election, this would be described later in the paper.

Jew’s Campaign Donations

It is said that Jewish individuals are nearly 25% of the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans, though this number is not exact and some believe that the number for the rich Jewish Americans is more or less than this rate. Considering the Jewish population (2% to 3% of whole population), 25% is significant. It is believed that this wealthy Jews play a very important role generally in U.S. policy toward Israel and specifically in U.S. presidential election: The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) declared that pro-Israeli groups and individuals have donated more than $ 845,000 to presidential candidates in 2008. In 2004 presidential campaign pro- Israeli interests contributed at least $ 6.1 million to federal candidates and parties. Washington post had concluded that about $ 56.8 million have been contributed by pro-Israel individual and groups since 1990.

But here a question will arise: $ 845,000 or $ 6.1 or even $ 56.8 million in 15 or 16 years is not that significant at all if we compare it with the total campaign expanse which is dozens of millions of dollars and the candidates have to raise enormous amount of money to finance their campaigns. These tables illustrate the amount of money contributed by PACs and individuals in both republican and democrat parties: (the tables are taken from Jewish virtual library which should be taken into consideration, the title is pro-Israel contribution).

Analysis

One the most important problem that the researcher of this paper faced was lack of authentic evidence and information; the tables and statistics had significant discrepancy when they were compared. The reason for this discrepancy and contradictions is that these sorts of information are dependent on the writer’s affiliation and tendencies and making distinction between the fake and genuine statistics and information is difficult.

As it was mentioned nearly 25% of the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans are Jews, and this rate is significant if it is compared the Jew’s total population in America. It can be said that wealthy Jews are very influential in American economy and many important cooperation and companies are dominated by them. The Jews are also very influential in American media including CNN, CBS, ABC, Newsweek and Time magazine due to their wealth and power. In one of the most recent polls reported by Gallup in Feb. 2007, 58% of Americans sympathies with Israeli and 20% with Palestinians, which shows the great influence of what is propagated by media. This influence is seen in other important arenas such as academia and think thanks which shape the public opinion. So, it can be argued that American people are growing up in an atmosphere that is highly sympathetic toward Israeli and Jews; and their perception about the Jews is manipulated and biased, and any critic is silenced or charged as anti-Semitist. Jimmy Carter has written about this reluctance to criticize Israel policy:

The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations – but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices. …

A Biblical Israel

Another important point is the emergence of the power of Evangelical Christianity or Christian Zionism in America. Evangelists feel an ideological attachment to the Jews and esp. Israel. A recent Poll found 59% of U.S. evangelicals believe Israel is fulfillment of Bible’s prophecy; The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs estimates 85 million evangelicals believe God tells them to support Israel — more than six times the world’s Jewish population (God’s Warriors, Christiane Amanpour), this great population can be crucial for the outcome of the election. They also raise money to support Jewish settlements in Israel. Evangelist Americans are becoming more powerful in recent years and many of them are active members in The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Many important political figures in America including George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John McCain, and Barack Obama… had attained and address in their conferences.

Conclusion

It is a common belief that the wealthy Jews are playing a very important and influential role in U.S. policy but this financial helps are not unilateral: “total direct U.S. aid to Israel amounts to well over $ 140 billion in 2003 dollars.” (Greenbook website). Or “Israel receives about billion Dollars annually and is one the largest recipient of American aids since World War II.” (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2006). So the relationship between Israel and America is a symbiotic one in which the two parties gain some advantages, though there are lots of debates about who benefits more.

Many observers maintain that the Jews are playing an important role in the executive branch due to their financial contribution to presidential campaigns and their high rate of turn out in elections.

But can we argue that the only reason for American President’s support for Israel is Jews financial contribution? As it was illustrated by tables and statistics the amount of money which is donated by pro-Israeli groups are not significant when it is compared with the total sum; on the other hand the sum of money contributed by these groups are not very authentic or exact, so it makes it very difficult to draw a conclusion based on the released data and statistics.

As it was mentioned 25% of the Forbes 400 lists of richest Americans are Jews, which is significant compared to Jew’s 3% population. These wealthy Jews can be very influential in important companies and co operations, in mass media and academic centers. What Bill Clinton said about fighting and dying for Israel was said after his two- term presidency, or what his paster told him as a young man was long before that. Clinton, Bush and other American politicians were grown up in the society which was and is under the influence of Jews hegemony: this is the media that teaches and influences ordinary Americans, and this academia that educates the elites. And no voice can be heard when there is any critic about the Israel policy, so it is very natural that ordinary Americans or even the more educated or the elites feel more sympathy with the Israel than the Arab Palestinians. Perhaps it can be said that the Evangelical Christian or Christian Zionists are the result of these sort of teaching and educating; “There are a lot more Christian Zionists in America than Jewish Zionists,” the former Democratic vice presidential candidate said. “The support of Christian Zionists today is critical to Israel’s security and strength and to America’s security and strength.” (God’s Warriors, Christiane Amanpour).

As the researcher of this paper I personally believe that the only reason for Americans support for Israel can not be just the financial power of the Jews; there is a high moral commitment and ideological attachment in American political leaders toward Israel. But it can be argued that indirectly again this is the money who talks: this is the money that can dominate the media, education and the academia and will educate the future leaders of Americas the way it wants.

About 2.5% up to 3% of Americans are Jews, which is near to 5 to 6 million people of the American population. The American Jews do not have the same religious affiliation and they are not homogenous: their population consists of Orthodoxies, Conservatives and Reformists. So as it is clear all Jews are not considered to be extremist. But a poll in 2005 showed that 82% of American Jews supported Israel and 63% said that they support it “strongly”. These strong supporters tend to support division of Jerusalem and building a security fence, and naturally the same people would support a president with high commitment to Israeli affairs.

“Bill, I think you’re going to be President someday. I think you’ll do a good job, but there’s one thing above all you must remember: God will never forgive you if you don’t stand by Israel.”

Never in the time that I led the American negotiations on the Middle East peace process did we take a step because ‘the lobby’ wanted us to. Nor did we shy away from one because ‘the lobby’ opposed it. That is not to say that AIPAC and others have no influence. They do. But they don’t distort U.S. policy or undermine American interests. (Denis B. Ross former U.S. ambassador and peace negotiator under Bill Clinton.)

Astrology & The 2008 US Presidential Election – 1952 Deja Vu?

There is a spiritual hunger in the world today – and it cannot be satisfied by better cars on longer credit terms. – Adlai E. Stevenson (1952 / Democratic Presidential Candidate)

I despise people who go to the gutter on either the right or the left and hurl rocks at those in the center.

- Dwight D. Eisenhower (1952 / Republican Presidential Candidate)

Can you imagine Barack Obama uttering the first quote? What about John McCain as the deliverer of the second? Neither is a stretch, is it?

A recent business event at which gifted political pundits Tucker Carlson and James Carville squared off for some lively chat about the upcoming election brought this thought to light. It was Carville, a Hillary supporter who now puts her prospects of becoming the Democratic nominee as akin to drawing to a 16 in blackjack, who noted that an Obama – McCain duel resonates with nothing so much as the Stevenson vs.

Eisenhower election of 1952. Certainly there are some mammoth differences—most significantly, at the earlier election the Democrats had controlled the presidency for two straight decades—but one gets the gist of Carville’s observation in the elevated populism of the highly educated Obama and the iconoclastic centrist tendencies of former military-man McCain.

True political history fans will note a number of nifty in-fighting parallels in the respective nomination processes of Stevenson/Obama and Eisenhower/McCain, but there are certainly far more compelling cultural kinship ties between 1952 and 2008. One can see the correspondences in the entropic drag of unpopular ideology-driven wars (Korea, Iraq) and in the bullying domination of ‘right-thinking’ political forces (McCarthyism, The Patriot Act). And surely the bogeyman of terrorist attack that is paraded before us on a daily basis today is somewhat resonant with America’s first test detonation of a hydrogen bomb, 30 more times more powerful than the Hiroshima A-bomb, in November of 1952.

Quite thrillingly (if one is an astrologer) the strongest cosmic tie between the two years is to be found in the identical placement of the nodes of the moon. Now as much as I’d like to get all astro-pedantic here, suffice it to say that the moon’s nodes, which astronomically have to do with orbital inclination and intersection, are an essential calculation in any horoscope cast by a reputable astrologer. These extremely powerful points are said to deal with evolutionary direction, from the south node (where we have been, what we know, and where we are most comfortable) to the north node (where we must go, what we must learn, and where we are challenged to grow).

Right now, as in 1952, the nodes are suggesting that mankind is confronted with a choice on a path between a south node Leo foundation and a north node Aquarian destiny. Without intending this to sound judgmental, one may think of Leo as representing every human endeavor that grants preeminence to personal predilection and self-satisfaction. Aquarius, the diametric opposite of Leo, is emblematic of selfless social consideration and preeminence granted to the requirements of the collective.

Now it has rarely been a smart bet to push all of one’s chips onto the self-sacrificing community-mindedness square of the humanity craps table. This is especially true at an astro-historical moment that emphasizes how familiar and comfortable (south node) it feels for humanity to be selfish. When one factors in the sheer anxiety of the times, how can anyone be blamed for worrying about numero uno?

The answer in 1952 was, of course, to go on a frenzy of production and consumption and baby making…and to elect as president a retired general who history suggests would rather golf than govern (although some historians celebrate the generally laissez-faire Eisenhower for not breaking anything, including the peace). It is now fashionable to disparage the values formed with the advent of Ike’s election as selfish but, dammit, everybody was war-weary, anxious, and ready for the pay-off promised by victory in WWII – The Big One. It was about time for life to provide a nice car, and a decent payment schedule, and an interstate highway system to facilitate suburban living and personal adventure.

So where do we go this time around? Does a less promising environment for economic growth force our hands? Do we have to become socially-concerned citizens because we’ve run out of stuff…or maybe even the desire for stuff? Is social concern where we have to go inevitably, whether we want to go there or not?

Now a truly wise person might suggest that the issue of the nodes is not a case of either/or but, rather, one of both. May we not simultaneously be wise stewards of our personal desires and our social obligations? Is the hybrid car a sort of religious object?

Anyway, the suggestion here is that McGovern may be best understood as a symbolic step back towards Leo, and that Obama may be a symbolic step towards Aquarius. But don’t count out Hillary just yet. As Tucker Carlson was prepared to concede, “Hillary Clinton is the toughest person who has ever lived…she’s been attacked for everything since 1978 and she’s still a game fighter who expects to win.”

What else would you expect from a Scorpio?

Student Unions Compared with Presidential Election

If a person is ambitious and his/her leadership competences are obvious and this student should find some way to realize the potential, it is possible to become a member of the student union. Contemporary society is full of various formal and informal organizations with specific aims and approaches. Students are young people that have their own vision of the future and ways to attain their goals. A student union is an organization that unites many people that have some common interests and purposes.

You may become the President of the student union if you demonstrate analytical skills as well as intellectual ones. Moreover, you should be objective while making decisions that are likely to influence the whole student community or your student union in particular. The work of a student union is similar to the one of the President Administration. Let us compare:

]]>

1.Both organizations are formal and have a certain head. The President of a student union is the main individual in the organization; he/she has many assistants responsible for various sectors of the organization’s activities. The President of the country has the Administration that consists mainly of his supporters.

2.The process of elections does not differ greatly, except for the number of voters.

3.The head of the student union should establish a set of reforms and rules to follow by all members. The President of the country presents a set of reforms before elections for voters to see what he/she plans; after having won the elections, the President can negotiate with other parties in order to make a compromise.

You should make an effort to become the President of a student union if you feel like winning. This opportunity can play a crucial role in your future political career.

How Everyone Can Win From America’s Presidential Election

Do you know how much money has been spent in today’s ongoing America presidential elections?

Here’s a rough guide: By April 21, 2008, Senator Barrack Obama had spent US8.5 million. Senator Hillary Clinton expended US0.7 million. Candidate John McCain disbursed US.4 million.

On the other hand, according to the Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific 2008, chronic neglect of the agricultural sector in Asia and the Pacific is condemning 218 million people to continuing extreme poverty, and widening the gap between the region’s rich and poor.

Climate change is emerging as the latest threat to the world’s dwindling fish stocks a new report by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests. At least three quarters of the globe’s key fishing grounds may become seriously impacted by changes in circulation as a result of the ocean’s natural pumping systems fading and falling they suggest.

In striking contrast, during every presidential election American candidates spend a large sum not to solve current pressing problems as such, but on self-promotion and advertising purposes instead.

There is one question – Is there any way the election expenditure can be utilized more efficiently? In view of the world’s current pressing problems such as poverty and climate change, is America spending too much on the elections? As the big brother of the world, America’s presidential elections at the least should showcase two points to the world:

1.

Election expenditure by the candidates is maximized to the fullest in terms of campaigning and advertising.Not a single cent has been wasted.

2. While conducting the election, it will be ideal if it could benefit the world directly at the same time.

How can we achieve these two goals?

What is proposed?

A new proposed alternative would be in future, to cap the candidate’s election budget at a minimum amount.

This will have three direct implications on future elections.

First, if the proposal was implemented, in the future no candidate will ever be handicapped by financial difficulty while trying to run a campaign. Since the independent committee in charge has taken into consideration the current financial status of each presidential candidate and the size of their financial base of supporters before deciding the maximum election expenditure, thus no candidate need to worry about financial difficulties.

Second, a cap on the election expenditure for each candidate will give hopeful presidential candidates the incentive to seek out more efficient ways of campaigning and advertising. Since all candidates are campaigning with the same financial resources, thus each will be encouraged by the restriction to maximize the spending power of their expenditure. Thus wastage of expenditure is minimized.

Maximum expenditure not equal to budget capped

Critics of the new proposal may argue that since election expenditure is to be capped, this will then discourage presidential candidates from aggressively seeking out financial support from the American population.

This is where the crux of the proposed alternative, or the third implication lies: There is no cap on how much financial support and resources that each candidate can raise on their own, but the remaining balance of their budget (after taking into account the maximum amount they can spend) will then be disclosed to the public, thereafter donated equally to two entities: The US treasury, selected charities and non-government organizations (NGOs) devoted to world problems.

There will still be incentive for presidential candidates to reach out to the maximum number of financial supporters, because a leader who can raise the largest amount can convincingly argue that this is so because he has the charisma and leadership capability to gain the confidence from the American population.

Second, any candidate who wishes to be president must also have a well-defined plan in coping with the economy. For someone who is able to raise the highest election budget within a short time, it can be argued that he is perceived as financially sound and prudent so supporters have faith to lend their reserves to him.

Long-term implications

Future candidates will not be at a disadvantage if the maximum expenditure rule was implemented. In fact, it may even help them, because since no one is held back by financial woes, they will be encouraged to speak up even more so as to present themselves as a better candidate than the rest. As a result, the American population can judge the candidates more factually based on the clarity of their proposed policies and their characters. In short, just because candidates have less money to spend does not translate into less support from the American population.

If readers feel that the candidates are spending very prudently, then there is no basis for the proposed alternative. But, if you think America can further minimize wastage of resources during the elections, why not give this proposal a second thought?

Summary

In short, below is the simplified version of the new proposed alternative.

Enforce a legal cap on the total election expenditure by each presidential candidate (i.e. a maximum sum)

There is no cap on how much financial support and resources that each candidate can raise on their own, but the remaining balance of their budget (after taking into account the maximum amount they can spend) will then be disclosed to the public, thereafter donated equally to two entities: The US treasury and selected charities and non-government organisations (NGOs).

An independent committee comprising of three selected members will take into consideration the current financial status of each presidential candidate, the size of their financial base of supporters and other related factors before agreeing on the value of the capped amount. The three members are to arrive on an impartial and sound judgement regarding the minimum sum.

The election expenditure of each candidate will be monitored closely to ensure there is no suspected case of election fraud or corruption, which will taint the reputation of future America’s Presidential elections to come.

Sources/Citations:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/finances/map/index.html“>http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/finances/map/index.html

http://www.fec.gov/

http://www.unescap.org/survey2008/press/g11_neglect_agriculture.asp

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=528&ArticleID=5751&l=en