Posts – Page 40 – Mason Votes

1-on-1 with Mason Votes: GMU College Republicans

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UgDAh2vtt0&feature=g-upl[/youtube]

Mason Votes sat down 1-on-1 with Chair of the George Mason University College Republicans Kristie Colorado. She explained what the GMU College Republicans were doing in preparation for this year’s elections. She also spoke about the enthusiasm level that she has experience when speaking to students, registering people to vote, and canvassing neighborhoods.

More information about the Fairfax Republican party, their candidates, and how you can volunteer can be found at their Fairfax Victory Office. The office is located at 4246 Chainbridge Road. Hours of operation are 9:00 am- 9:00 pm.

Pennsylvania Judge Blocks Controversial Voter ID Law

Photo by| Rick Smith

A Pennsylvania court judge has ruled that a provision of the controversial new state law, requiring a photo ID to vote cannot be enforced until after November’s general election.

Judge Robert Simpson expressed concern that many will not be able to obtain photo identification before the election, depriving them of their constitutional right to vote. His ruling does allow for other facets of the law to be enacted preceding the presidential election. This includes allowing for the continuance of Pennsylvania’s campaign to inform the electorate of the need for a photo ID to vote; and giving election officials permission to ask voters for a photo ID, although they cannot be turned away if they do not comply.

Four other states have implemented photo ID laws in an effort to limit voter fraud. Although, there has been much opposition to such regulation, as it creates a grave disadvantage for minorities, students, elderly, the poor, and the disabled who have the highest probability of not having a photo ID. There has also been much speculation that Republicans are pushing for such laws, as these are groups that tend to vote democratic.

In June, Republican Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai stated that this law “would allow Governor Romney to win Pennsylvania,” while listing his parties accomplishments, revealing his genuine intention for the law to make political gains, rather than the stated desire to eliminate voter fraud. Pennsylvania is a state the Romney campaign is working to win on November 6.

Garbage men now an issue in 2012

It’s normal during the political season to have attack ads and mud slinging, but some ads go beyond the pale and shine a light on the worst among us. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a union that doggedly supports President Obama, came out with an ad that dealt with an issue that has gone unexplored thus far in the 2012 Presidential cycle.

The ad features Mitt Romney’s garbage man. Who says in a 60 second character smear that somehow Romney does not care about him or any working Americans. He says that after loading garbage all his life, his body will be worn down and somehow Mitt Romney “doesn’t care about that”. One might ask how someone could make such an outrageous claim. Your answer is a complete and total misreading of the infamous ‘47 percent’ video.

When Mitt Romney was speaking to that fundraiser, he was talking electoral strategy. Of course both candidates are likely to get at least 47 percent of the vote. The remaining six percent are what always decides elections. So when Romney said he wasn’t going to worry about those people, he meant he’s not going to stump for votes in Harlem. Just like President Obama won’t stump for votes in rural Kansas. It’s just a waste of time and resources.

And while we’re on the topic of insulting a good portion of America, it was actually Barack Obama that four years ago said at a fundraiser of “small towns in the Midwest… They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” That was not said in the context of electoral strategy. Barack Obama literally called the middle of America gun-toting, Bible-thumping, racists. That received far less attention than Romney’s innocent moment of ‘Campaigning 101’ honesty.

It could be media bias. It could be something else. But if the Obama campaign’s new mission is to assassinate Mitt Romney’s character by saying that he lacks empathy, they would be insulting the intelligence of all Americans. So far this year, top Democrats have smeared Ann Romney, an MS and breast cancer survivor, as having an overly privileged life. Now they expect us to believe that a man who has given tens of millions of dollars to charity, that participates regularly in philanthropy for his church, and that is a committed father of five and to his wife of over 40 years, is somehow a heartless, cruel, scoundrel? Give me a break. Mitt Romney should call the President out on this disgraceful line of attack in the debate Wednesday night. He would produce quite a moment if he does.

*The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Debate Watch: Tonight On Campus

Cover Photo Taken by Jasmine Young at the Newseum in D.C.

Tonight, October 3, Mason Votes will be hosting the first of four presidential debate watch parties in the JC Atrium. All students, faculty, and staff are welcome to attend. Leading up to the election it is important for all voters to stay tuned into the debates.

Mason Votes hopes these debate watch parties will help students become aware of the issues, get educated on where each candidate stands, and encourage students to vote on November 6, 2012.

More information about the debate is provided on the 2012 Presidential Election News website:

Topic: Domestic policy
Air Time: 9:00-10:30 p.m. Eastern Time
Location: University of Denver in Denver, Colorado (Tickets)
Sponsor: Commission on Presidential Debates
Participants: President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney
Moderator: Jim Lehrer (Host of NewsHour on PBS)

The debate will focus on domestic policy and be divided into six time segments of approximately 15 minutes each on topics to be selected by the moderator and announced several weeks before the debate.

The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-debate-schedule/2012-presidential-debate-schedule/

The United States Elections Project

Professor Michael McDonald, George Mason University

1-on-1 with Mason Votes: Rep. Tim Ryan

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Xq5zs-iw93I?hd=1[/youtube]

On Sunday September 30, 2012 Mason Votes sat down 1-on-1 with United States Congressman Tim Ryan of the 17^th district of Ohio. Congressman Ryan is a member of both the House Armed Services Committee and the House Budget Committee.

The conversation covered issues regarding to the budget, defense, foreign policy, and the current state of this year’s presidential election. Congressman Ryan also spoke about his new book titled “A Mindful Nation” and why he believes the practices of mindfulness are important and beneficial.

A Conversation About National Debt

Recently, I had the opportunity to sit down and talk about our country’s national debt with Dr. Don Boudreaux, an economics professor here at George Mason University. He is a former chairman of the economics department and was also the president of the Foundation for Economic Freedom. Dr. Boudreaux is considered an expert in his field and has been published in numerous papers and periodicals. During the show we talked about national debt, the problem with it, how it affects the economy, and what solutions we can use to fix the problem. Here’s our full conversation:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBxD7-d_g0A[/youtube]

Take it to the Hill is my new radio show, it’s the only political talk show on WGMU. I broadcast live every Monday at 10PM and Thursday at 10AM. To learn more about Take it to the Hill, click here.

Soros Makes Donation to Priorities USA Action

Photo by: cvrcak1

The New York Times reported that the billionaire businessman, George Soros, is contributing to three democratic super PACs. The announcement was made at an event hosted by the Democratic Alliance. He is giving $1.5 million in total; $1 million going to Obama supporting super PAC, Priorities USA Action and the remaining to two super PACs aimed at helping democratic candidates in congressional races.
This is the first time Mr. Soros will give money to Priorities USA Action. Having been a high profile donor to Obama’s 2008 campaign efforts, there was speculation that Mr. Soros’ lack of financial support in this election cycle meant that he was not satisfied with the President’s first term.

According to the New York Times, Mr. Soros was not personally able to attend the event where the announcement was made, although he sent an email to the other invitees. It explained that it was his displeasure with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Citizen’s United case in 2010, allowing for super PACs that had caused his hesitation to donate, and that he was in support of the President Obama’s re-election.

The Citizen’s United decision ruled that corporations reserve the right to free speech, allowing for anonymous donors to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political action committees. Although super PACs have received much criticism for greatly limiting the transparency of campaign finance, they have been utilized in support of both presidential candidates this election season.

The Obama Narrative on Libyan Attack Collapses

On September 11, 2001 terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 Americans. Eleven years later, Americans were murdered again. But this time, they were murdered half a world away in Benghazi, Libya.

During what was originally characterized as a mob protest of a little known YouTube video mocking Islam, violence erupted and four Americans, including the United States’ ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, was killed. The Obama administration originally dispatched UN ambassador Susan Rice to tell the Chris Wallace, “This was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack.” Almost immediately, this narrative began to unravel. Libya’s President directly contradicted Rice, telling Bob Scheifer, “It was planned, definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their arrival.”

Next came the revelation that Stevens’ own diary warned of the worsening state of security in Libya. The terrorists who ended up killing Stevens had “heavy weapons” that one would think were not just spontaneously lying around. Yesterday, Eli Lake of the Daily Beast reported that U.S. officials knew that the attack was the work of an Al-Qaeda offshoot group operating in Libya just 24 hours after the attack.

This begs the question, why did it take almost three weeks for the Obama administration to admit publicly what they knew all along? The murder of four American diplomats was the work of terrorists, not a mob reacting to a YouTube video. Nearly every national security spokesperson including President Obama himself said this was a spontaneous killing. It is a pretty hefty charge to claim the White House is misleading the American people, but how else do you characterize the PR fallout of this attack? The only other possible excuse is that these officials were completely uninformed, which does not look much better for the Obama White House.

Another uncomfortable question that needs to be asked is why the real reason behind the attacks was blamed on a small online video? What Americans witnessed this past month was the utter implosion of President Obama’s policy toward the Arab Spring that he outlined in his 2009 speech in Cairo. His outstretched hand was not met in kind by the Arab world. Anti-Americanism is still not only prevalent, but it is the default emotion. Egypt is no longer an ally. Libya has slipped into chaos. Maybe by blaming a video it could mitigate the grave political consequences of this security failure. Maybe it is something else. But what began as a massive breakdown in diplomatic security has morphed into a rush to blame shift and deflect responsibility.

Four Americans were killed in an act of terrorism, on September 11 no less. The American people deserve the truth about what happened, what went wrong, and who is responsible. Unfortunately, we are not getting it from the Obama administration.

*The views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

Escape the “Lesser of Two Evils” Mentality

Recently I have been attempting to examine more deeply the presidential candidates of the smaller parties, mostly Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson as well as the Green Party candidate Jill Stein. After reading over online news articles for a few months now, I have come to predict that there will be quite a significant turn out of 3rd party voters this November, something that has received little to no attention in the main stream media. Many voters have attempted to justify their decision for either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama as voting for whoever they believe to be the “lesser of two evils”, and stating that any vote for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote. This made me reflect further and come to the conclusion that the only wasted votes are those of individuals who casts their ballot for a candidate they don’t even agree with.

Third party candidates allow for more niche votes than broader parties like the Republican and Democrat parties, which garner more votes based on their broader appeal. That appeal stems less from ideological consistency and focuses more on what will grow their voting base, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with other platform issues. Many potential voters question the validity of third party candidates due to the lack of coverage by the media before realizing the obvious party biases held by most networks.

I would like to wrap this up by asking if you are one of the many citizens tired of the corruption seen in the two-party system, or perhaps you don’t fit exactly in with the views of either Democrats or Republicans? If you are one of these people, I strongly encourage you to look into candidates outside of the two major parties and educate yourself on the smaller parties’ platforms. Finally, if you like what you see in one of these parties, I urge you to vote your conscience and not be swayed by the “lesser of two evils” argument.