Effort for Liberal Balance to G.O.P. Groups Begins

In class we have discussed how important the media is in an election but it also plays a major role in politics. Now that the House is controlled by the Republicans they have the upper hand in the air waves. In order to insure that the Democrats also have a pieces of the air waves too, David Brook and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend have teamed together to create the American Bridge. This group allows leading democratic figures to donate to this group. Figures like “Rob McKay, heir to the Taco Bell fortune and chairman of the Democracy Alliance” and “other wealthy liberal donors like Robert Dyson, who heads Dyson-Kissner-Moran a takeover and acquisitions firm in New York City; and Marcia L. Carsey, a television producer who gave $ 1 million” to outside Democratic groups in 2004.

In order to make this group legal Brock’s plans to file papers to the Federal Election Commissions on Tuesday. This step will allow American Bridge to be known as an “independent-expenditure-only political action committee” allowing the group to except “contributions of unlimited size from individuals and corporations but must regularly disclose its donors.”

The problem with Brock’s idea is that his new organization will fundraise for Democratic oriented media as well as his other outside organizations like the Media Matters Actions Network. His network is being scrutinized for not disclosing each donator’s donations.

Various members of the Media Matters Actions Network has risen in combine $23 million this year. Some of his donators include George Soros a billionaire who recently “announced he had given $1 million to the group,” Peter B. Lewis a billionaire “chairman of Progressive Insurance” who “gave more than $20 million to Democratic-oriented groups in 2004,” and the Hollywood producer Steve Bing. Brock’s claims that all his donators are known for their major contributions and have no problems contributing all they need, is to be asked. 

The Obama attitude toward outside groups has changed since the 2008 election. President Obama’s administration in the 2012 election would not object to Democratic-leaning outside groups getting involved except that they would like that all the names of the donors be disclosed. One of the major talks amongst the Democrats was the non discloser amongst the Republican outside groups.

So what do you think is it ok for parties to have outside organizations to help fund their needs like media and advertisement during campaigns? And do you think it is a necessity for them to disclose the names for those donating? I personally think that… hey if it means a lot to the rest of the world sure why not names can do them no harm unless they are double dealing or involved in something illegal,  I think the amounts should be counseled. Honestly if they are being recognized for donating, they must be contributing a lot and by a lot I mean millions. So my $1 dollar would not gain me any reorganization but that does not mean I won’t contribute it.            
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/23/us/politics/23money.html?_r=1

Female Candidate Finds Tough Audience: Women

This article incorporates both media and politics. The media aspect is advertisement and the politic aspect is Ms. McMahon nominee for Senate.  Her nominee for Senate raises many questions like woman’s portrayal in the media and how the public might view her last job as executive of the World Wrestling Entertainment. But even though she might be having trouble gaining support her Democratic opponent Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is also having trouble gaining support. So some of the people of Connecticut find that instead of the two candidates actually gaining ground amongst there voters their voters seem to have to “choosing between two flawed candidates.”

Since the moment that Ms. McMahon considered running for Senate McMahon has been advertised through the WWE.  Some of the advertisement includes included in the news article is a small video skit between Ms. McMahon and her daughter in a wrestling ring in which her daughter smacks her. And this does not still well with Stacey Smith, age 32 and a manager at a nonprofit organization in Stamford, she finds it hard to take Ms. McMahon seriously. She does not see how Ms. McMahon “‘can [you] claim to be a political figure when you are on stage wrestling with your own daughter?’”… Smith says “‘she turns me off,’” and she also says “‘I [Smith] think she is totally buying the seat.’” Many other female voters have also spoken against Ms. McMahon because of her past executive position in the wrestling industry.

There was even one response in the article that  aimed to her past wrestling industry career and it goes something like this: two women in a car one says she likes what Ms. McMahon has to say, her friend asks the women  about her feeling about toward McMahon’s wrestling industry, and the first woman says “Not exactly my cup of tea”, the message ends with the friend stating “Look, she tamed the traveling show world of professional wrestling, turned it into a global company, and created 500 jobs here in Connecticut.” The ad proves that her industry has created jobs. But some voters claim that there decision has nothing to do with her affiliation to the WWE. A democrat and a lawyer Donna Candella says WWE is entertainment and that the women who work in the wrestling profession have a choice they are not forced.

The article points out that Ms. McMahon her wrestling advertisement campaign has also tried to “soften her image” with advertisement featuring Governor M. Jodi Rell who tells the public how much of a good person Ms. McMahon is and through an ad entitled “She Has Lived It” which features her “cradling a baby, smiling at schoolchildren with backpacks and speaking with female workers.” I think that Ms. McMahon’s past affiliation with the wrestling industry will be her down fall in the election. I also think that because she was labeled before she got the opportunity to actually prove herself to her constitutions it will make it hard for her to actually gain support has the rest of the midterm election continues. But I think in general woman candidates have a harder time in campaigns because they either come off to the audience to strong or too soft they never seem to be just right.      

Democrats Unleash Ads Focusing on Rival’s Pasts

The article makes the claim the Democrat’s are becoming fiercer with their use of the media and that the use of negative ads is to “localize the races.” I think this claim is correct, because the term “localize the races” is to get the candidate to become more familiar with in their community. Because at the end of the day they have to vote. So sometimes getting to know a candidate becomes more then there history with the government or schooling back ground it becomes personal. What they like to eat, what they watch on television or what they like to do on Saturdays with their family.  Democratic consultant Steve McMahon says “when you’re talking about whether an individual really belongs in Congress, you’re not talking about the national issues.” And this is exactly what the Democrat’s are focused on not their opponent’s positions on national policies. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spent the last year digging into the background of the penitential Republican candidates. Anything dealing with public record was fair game like “lawsuits, tax filing, reports from the Better Business Bureau and divorces.”

Do you think the Democrat’s can be any fiercer? This is what the Democrats’ found about their Republican opponents “dishonest used-car salesman”, four hundred times for fraud, lying, and discrimination to costumers about repairs. Countless times of overcharging for services while endangering people’s safety. Giving new meaning to the phrase ‘“buyer[s] bewares!”’ and countless out findings involving “predatory real estate” and three hundred forecloses sending homeowners out on the street because they cannot pay mortgage.  And other candidates who ‘“got rich while there construction company overcharged taxpayers thousands, was sued three times for injuries caused by faulty construction and was cited 12 times for health and safety violations.”’ But while the Democrat’s are using negative ads what is the Republican’s party’s comeback?

The ads are having a negative effect on the candidates because many of the Republican candidates do not have name recognition with their constitutions. The Republican’s need 39 seats in the House to have a majority and many of their nominees have never run for office before they all have a business background which often includes a “trail of documents.”

            Although all the evidence seems to be in the favor of the Democratic Party will they are able to remain in power. Because not for nothing sometimes change can work as a benefit and really no matter how much background information is dug up on a specific person the outcome of the election rest on the people. And just like the Democrats’ are digging up dirt on the Republican opponents you can only assume that the Republicans’ are also digging up dirt on their Democratic opponent.  

            If the Democrats happen to lose the House this will most defiantly affect policy making in the Congress because we will have a split Congress. And history has proof that a split Congress will most likely cause stalemate. But because the midterm elections is not for another month new will all have to wait and see what happens.

  

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/26/us/politics/26dems.html?ref=jeff_zeleny