How to Get Ian Foley's Vote: A Young Voter Manifesto

As a voter, I find only a handful of issues I believe to be firmly perquisite to a candidate garnering my vote in an election.  I try to take a more world-view and look at issues in a big picture form, to determine what really matters in short term, as well as long term. We live in a nation where the priority of issues is non-static, and thus it is important to understand that weight of an issue is contingent upon this natural priority, rather than personal.  Therefore, I find the following to be necessary an elected official.

Foresight

The ability and willingness to compromise short-term public opinion for long-term national gains or solutions. Self sacrifice of elected office in order to fulfill long term constituent needs, as opposed to short term wants, is an admirable trait.

Fiscal Responsibility

Adjunct to the previously mentioned, an elected official must show the willingness to make tough decisions for national solvency for years to come.  He must not only maintain current bridges, but to build ones he will never cross.

Trustee of Government

Elected official should form own opinion based on voter opinions, then act with the best interests of the constituency and the nation. They should act on the true needs of the constituency, nation, and to the extent of their own knowledge, experience and discretion.

National Solvency

The ability to balance ethics, justice, and sovereignty. While an elected official must work for the betterment of the planet, should not promote or act in any way that leads to the destruction of the nation or constituency. Every effort should be made to defend and extend the economic interests and authority of the nation. A compromise against the nation in view of any other purpose contradicts the art of representative government.

Ian Foley

Communication Studies

Wilkes 2014

We Can Make A Change! (Mock Speech)

Morning Wilkes University! Young Voters! “We CAN make a change!” Today’s laws and legislatures are decided candidates who ignore and chastise us. But not any longer, we must begin to take action today! Register to vote. We do have a voice and we can make a change!

Organizations like “Rock the Vote” have educated young people as well as registered more young people to vote than any other organization or campaign, including more than 2.5 million young voter registrations in 2008. Majority of states are failing young voters: only 15 states scored above 50%. Now is the time to speak on the nations issues that are affecting us; jobs, healthcare, gay marriage, foreign policies and furthermore the countries deficit that has increased gas prices.

There are millions of your out there that are wondering “Well how can my vote help?” and “I doubt it will change anything.” But how do you know if you’ve never taken interest or even registered to vote. Candidates need us to get elected, without the young vote were just giving people who aren’t interested in our issues the chance to prove that they were right and we DON’T matter in this country.

I believe that a voice heard is better than a voice unsung. Barack Obama won among young voters by 27 points in a head-to-head matchup with John McCain, 60-33%. Obama ran strongly with every segment of the youth vote. We were the reasons why he was elected president. Take a stand today and learn the issues that affect us as young people and even as a country. “Again, We Can Make a Change!”

Join organizations like the League of Young Voter and Rock the Vote, show the older generation that we are the next in line and that there decision about who they elect affect us as well. But, also we have the power to change that by casting our vote when the primary comes around. Voting for those candidates who appeal to our wants and desires for a better America. Because “We Can make a Change!”

Joshua Pellew
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2013

21st Century News: The Colbert Report

I watched "The Colbert Report" to document the coverage of the 2012 GOP Presidential candidates. Stephen Colbert's character on the show is that of a conservative Catholic who always has something to say. But this is done in a satirical way that does not push those beliefs onto his viewers. The main audience that Colbert is aiming towards is young college aged adults who would probably watch "The Daily Show" that is on before this program. Although the show is intended for the younger crowd, my 72 year-old grandmother loves to watch his show and actually agrees with some of the points that he makes.

The main premise of the show is to entertain, it is on Comedy Central. It should not be taken as a hard news show that people should get all their information from. But writing it off as total drivel should not be done either. Other television programs try to showcase themselves as unbiased and as a reliable news source, when they are nothing more than opinion. "The Colbert Report" plays off of this idea by presenting the information in a satirical version of these other shows. While other station show only what they believe in, "The Colbert Report" gathers all the clips and shows how silly the other networks are. Over the weeks of watching the program clips from Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN and articles from The New York Post were used to show the slant from those media sources. I think that by incorporating the different views "The Colbert Report" offers a broader view on issues rather than watching only one of the other networks.

Behind every joke there is some truth, and through watching the program I was actually informed about some events happening in the political world. Some of the guests that Colbert had on his program also provided a sense of information and legitimacy like Christiane Amanpour. She is a well traveled reporter who is well respected by most people and yet she went on "The Colbert Report". Another guest that was on the show was Robert Kagan who is a foreign policy advisor to Mitt Romney. Colbert asked Kagan about what the Obama administration had done in foreign policy, like the death of Bin Laden or al-Gaddafi. Now instead of crucifying either side, Kagan conceded that Obama did well even though he works for Romney.

The main candidates that Colbert talked about were Romney and Gingrich. They were all highlighted and then dragged through the mud over the course of the two weeks. Even Obama was featured on the show as both a positive and a negative. I think that this really showcased what some of the younger Americans think about the presidential race, that it's a joke. An example was when Newt Gingrich was being sued for using The Eye of the Tiger as his theme without getting permission. In retaliation, the original lead singer of Survivor came on and sang Gringrich's book without permission. Colbert then provided that the Washington Post said that 80% of inmates would vote for Gingrich.

Romney was behind Santorum in the polls in Michigan which is Romney's home state. Then the show played an awkward clip of Romney from C-SPAN from campaigning in Michigan. Romney just rambled on about how the trees are the perfect height in Michigan, his love of lakes, and his car knowledge. Colbert then commented on the perfect height of the trees so a person could hang themselves after they lose their home state primary.

Santorum was mentioned less but he was still represented. A "Face the Nation" clip showed Santorum saying that we should be the earth's husband because he claimed that Obama was a radical environmentalist who is a member of a tree hugging theology. Colbert then made a joke about being the earth's husband because we would "be on top as God intended and frack her all night long." Then they played a clip from 2008 of Santorum saying that Satan in attacking the United States alone. Colbert then made an argument that because Satan's eyes are directed only on the US, God must be causes the famines, genocides, and disasters in all the other countries.

In conclusion, I think that "The Colbert Report" presents a more balanced perspective than some other biased media outlets such as Fox News or MSNBC. Young voters have to be exposed to what is happening in the news and if they watch it on a Comedy Central program that is better than being totally uninformed about the world. Now I know that I am extremely cynical and can dissect humor and lies, but others might not and take this show at face value. But there are a lot of people who do the same for other opinion based news shows. Overall I think that the whole political field is a very entertaining arena and Colbert is just capitalizing on it.

Kristina Seiger

Communication Studies

Wilkes 2012

Politico: A Credible Political Blog

For the media watch assignment, I was assigned to Politico. My first observations were that this is a news blog, not a newspaper or proper journalistic source. Yet, Politico is often regarded fairly highly, as if it were an actual news source. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because the news is accurate. However, it is definitely a slanted view that does not offer two sides of an issue. Although they do recognize Mitt Romney as a front runner in the Republican race, they do not necessarily favor him. There were articles that painted him in a negative light, particularly regarding his social policies.

Politico is now included in the list of news sources that send updates to my cell phone. This turned out to be an advantage to me because it was the first source that informed me that President Obama had overturned his stance on mandating birth control from employers and health providers. I think it is important that they were so quick to report on this because it was such a controversial issue at the time. It was controversial for reasons including views on abortion, and bringing the church into issues of government. It was important to be reported factually, and to satisfy the people’s need to know what’s going on in the regard of scandal, which is not always newsworthy, but it is something that people do want to know about. Politico had this story as breaking news before any of the other news sources that I follow which includes CNN, USA Today, ABC, The Associated Press, and my local paper, the Scranton Times.

The website is always set up with a large picture at the top. This picture accompanies their top story for that given moment. For a while, these photos included Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich, in regard to talking about the Republican nomination race. After the primary election day which included Missouri and Minnesota, this shifted. Instead of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum became more important. They started reporting negative articles about Newt Gingrich. For example, on February 14th, a story ran with the headline “No Guarantees for Gingrich in Georgia.” This headline alone leads us to believe that Gingrich will fail in the Georgia primary, even though Georgia is his home state. The article goes on to say that he is still favored there, but for readers who may only read the headlines and not the rest of the article, it is already framed that Gingrich will not do well there. This primary is not set to happen until March 6th, yet a decision has already been made regarding the potential outcome.

As far as the most recent debate was concerned, below is the large picture that ran. It features Rick Santorum holding his finger up to Mitt Romney, as they discuss issues regarding government spending. Harsh language was used in this article, especially in the lead paragraph, which sets the tone for the rest of the article. “Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum tore into each other’s records on government spending, health care, abortion rights and more on Wednesday night, quickly turning the crucial Arizona primary debate into a flurry of charges and counter-charges that reflected the bitter tone of the GOP race. Notice that words such as “harsh” and “bitter” are used right in this first paragraph. This shows that the news may not be reported in a straightforward manner. There is opinion there, and it is important for the audience to know that from the beginning before taking what is said as ultimate truth.

Gillyan Gowarty
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2013

Barack Obama’s “War on Religion"

Answer this question: As Americans, do we live in a country where we are encouraged to make choices based on our own interests? I would have to argue that the answer is yes. Why am I asking this question? I believe that requires a little background information. Currently, the country is in the middle of a political storm because President Barack Obama signed a bill that would make Catholic hospitals, educational institutions, and other Catholic facilities to purchase health insurance that covers contraceptives and “morning after” pills. If anybody has any sort of background knowledge about Catholics, they know that they believe they are to have as many children as God wants them to have, and therefore ban the use of contraceptives and morning after pills. In other words, the Catholic Church now believes that Barack Obama is attacking their religious rights by forcing them to carry contraceptives and thereby taking away their ability to choose to not promote these types of things.

There are two problems with this situation. The first issue is that President Obama should not be forcing this upon Catholic institutions. While this is not a malicious attack on Christianity, this issue does indeed infringe upon Catholic beliefs. It is the Catholic Church’s right to not carry things they are so strongly opposed to. It could be the equivalent instituting a time for prayer in public schools. The students could choose not have to pray, but there are people that would be offended because religion would be in the schools. In this instance, the students at the universities and people at the hospitals would not have to accept the contraceptives, but would be offended that they are being offered.

While President Obama is wrong, the Catholic Church is also wrong for furthering what some call Barack Obama’s “war on religion.” Right wing media outlets, such as Fox News, are claiming that Barack Obama wants to take away “religious freedom” from Christians. One Fox News correspondent even stated, “This (in reference to the bill), of course, is going over about as well as a BBQ joint in a Hasidic neighborhood.” President Obama is doing this to help people who are in times of their lives when they do not want children.. This legislation comes from a good place. Furthermore, while Obama is forcing the Catholic institutions to carry contraceptives, he is not forcing people to take the contraceptives and morning after pills. If the Catholic universities are doing a good job at instilling its morals into their students, then the students will not take the pills. Barack Obama may not give the Catholics a choice in the matter, but it is ultimately the choice of the people whether to use the contraceptives or not.

After stating all of this, the fact of the matter is everyone involved in this is wrong. President Obama is wrong for forcing this upon people with such strict beliefs pertaining to contraceptives. The Catholic Church is also wrong because President Obama is not attacking religion. His motives are to encourage more people to use birth control.

People get themselves into problems all the time due to unintentional conception. Therefore, if more people use birth control, the problem would be lessened. It truly comes down to whether Catholics at hospitals and universities choose to take the contraceptives.

Days after this whole debacle occurred, President Obama decided that the insurance Catholic institutions would have to purchase would not cover contraceptives and morning after pills, but these things would instead be given to them for free. The right wing is still claiming this is his “war on religion,” but this is really a sign that President Obama acknowledges concerns, but will not back down. I am sure that this issue is certainly not over.

Trevor Kurtz
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2013

Brittany Battista's Opinion: South Carolina GOP Debate

Many of the questions asked early in the debate were not high priority topics in my book. They were clearly set for the particular South Carolina audience. I would set three or four key issues that America faces and give a detailed plan of how current plans can be changed, improved or accomplished. I would keep other issues to the side, abortion as one example, all while stating that they are important, but many other changes are needed as well.

As a voter, I find it interesting how Romney adds in how long he’s been married for to sway the voters by pointing out their values. “Only US vet on stage tonight,” was said by Ron Paul purposely. I think Gingrich freaking out and personally attacking CNN’s John King for opening a debate with that question was taking it too far too soon. I agree it shouldn’t have been the first question he asked. I believe Americans will tend to vote for someone who has the same values as their own. Therefore I think it should be a topic that needs to be discussed but not the first question.

I also do not agree with blaming the media for negativity towards them. In a perfect world and if they didn’t react in a negative way to things there would not be any bad press. Charging the media with twisting their words and actions, which I know happens, is a safe loophole that they are using. Within the first 15 minutes there was nothing asked that I really would have liked to hear about. The candidates were asked one question about jobs before they were asked about Romney’s faults as the CEO of a company. They need to be asked the important issues first like jobs, education, healthcare and immigration. Other issues are not as important and they shouldn’t waste their time by answering.

I also do not believe that the Republicans should waste so much energy attacking their opponents and Obama. If they are asked a direct question about their opponents’ faults they can be addresses. Other than that, so many negative remarks give that candidate a negative connotation in my opinion. I would be less likely to vote for them the more they attack others and not building themselves up instead. They only shoot each other in the foot to set themselves apart instead of getting in depth with their own beliefs.

I’m being extremely overdramatic but it appears that every time Romney spoke, he had something to say about Obama. It’s getting very tiresome to hear. I do find that these men have incredible self-control. They bash one another when they are a few feet away from them. No wonder they attack one another, to relieve their stress from previously being publically attacked. It’s amazing to just watch their faces.

The vast majority of the debate was Romney, Santorum and Gingrich with Paul only adding in occasionally. I do not think Ron Paul will be nominated. Even as president he would get eaten alive and walked all over by more aggressive people in the government. Sometimes it’s difficult for me to watch him because I just think of how awkward it would be to see my sweet grandfather verbally attacking someone. I see him as the next one to drop out. Romney and Gingrich will be the last two standing.


Brittany Battista
Communication Studies
Wilkes 2013