Sarah Palin: The Real Two-Face?

Ever since Sarah Palin hit the spotlight during the 2008 Presidential election she has been a magnet of attention in the media.  Her eccentric personality and her very unique views on many issues, she is both loved and hated among the American population.  Media organizations often portray her quite differently reflecting the political bias of their respective editorial staff.  Fox News and CNN portray Sarah Palin in drastically different ways to build up support for their network; Fox portrays her has an American hero while CNN portrays her as an uneducated and ignorant politician.


With Libya dominating recent news, and the President having discussed the national position in this new humanitarian aid "war."  It would only make sense that Sarah Palin would have spoken out on the situation.^[1] 



She spoke on Fox News and explained her disgust for Obama and how he has no reasons to get into this war.  Despite the fact that she agrees with Obama in the fact that she strongly dislikes Gaddafi and encourages the spread of democracy and freedom across the globe, she still could not find anything positive in the Presidents statement.^[2]  Fox, being a strong source of conservative media, openly discussed the hate for Obama that Palin obviously feels, and even Greta Van Susteren began interjecting her own opinions on the speech, saying it was "flat" and implied that it was a weak speech because it failed in both its main purposes, or at least those she felt it should serve.^[1]  Also, they also fail to mention her blatant lie that the no-fly-zone costs $600,000,000 a day, when in fact costs $600 million in the first week, with prices to be dropped dramatically as the weeks progress.^[3][4] Rather than being informative and substantive in their news broadcasting, they express bias opinions in order to gain more support for their cause, and supporting Sarah Palin as a politician.  This bias in the media tends to lionize Palin,bolstering up their views while trying to appeal to their vast conservative audience.

The CNN reporting was along the same lines as Fox News.^[5]  Just as Fox had a strong conservative bias, CNN posed a quite liberal bias in their opinions on Sarah Palin.  Rather than take Sarah Palin's message as a whole, they took the worst and most uninformed bits and went about disproving them piece by piece to hurt her political career.  For example, she stated "We're going to hand over command and control to a steering committee. I don’t think that this has ever been a part of foreign policy, a military mission in the U.S. before."^[5]  Rather than focus on her main opinion that the United States should not be handing over control, they expose her ignorance in order to invalidate her opinion.  Instead of focusing on the politics, these media organizations express their own views about political candidates creating a bias reporting from both sides. 

The media, often referred to as the fourth branch of government^[6], was a main source of information for the majority of the public populous.^[7] As media has developed and become more accessible to the general public through blogs, online articles, cable TV, or talk radio, this changed.  It became more important to increase viewers because this was their source of income.  An example of this need to be viewed is the new "horse-race" approach to the media. They dramatize the daily changes in opinion to attack or support a specific candidate, drumming up support and making a general list of "front-runners."  This has been their main focus, and rather than educating people, media organizations now express bias opinions in order to support their own organization by attracting prospective viewers.

[1] http://video.foxnews.com/v/4612646/palin-on-obamas-war
[2] http://sarahpalininformation.wordpress.com/2011/02/23/sarah-palin/
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/libya-no-fly-zone-could-cost-one-billion_n_839364.html
[4] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/libya-us-intervention-fly-zone-gadhafi-cost-taxpayers/story?id=13242136
[5] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/29/gop-contenders-say-foreigners-in-charge-of-american-forces-whats-true/?iref=allsearch
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

Newt Gingrich: Explore 2012

With 2012 elections heating up, it's coming down to decision time to see who will be running in the Republican primaries.  Not many candidates have stepped forward with bids to run, so Newt Gingrich's decision to form a fund-raising committee is about the most convincing call to arms yet.^[1] With years of experience and a solid Republican sponsors to his name, Gingrich is a strong contender to earn the nomination from the Republican party.  Republicans will be looking for a strong candidate to run against Obama, and the return of the former Speaker of the House would be the logical, though not perfect, fit for that nomination.

In his day, Gingrich--most famous for his strong opposition to President Clinton--was a prominent figurehead of the Republican Party.^[2]  His fierce standings will give him a decided advantage in this election, as many republicans have been looking for a strong leader to balance out the powerful personality of Obama.  Without a "big name" figure, the Republicans will not stand a chance at ousting the President with the established support he currently possesses.^[3] This gives him an edge over many other potential candidates; nameless figures like Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, or Mitch Daniels have nowhere near the spotlight Gingrich has had in years in Congress.  Even the bigger names like Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney have shorter records as governors of their states than Gingrich had in the House.^[4][5][6] 

His main competitor, Mitt Romney, will be an interesting match up.  Romney's experience and degrees in business will become a major factor in his campaign as the economy becomes an increasingly more important issue to the 2012 campaigns.^[5]  However, he is still fighting an uphill battle against negative opinions about his religion and his health care policies among conservative republicans.  With a large percentage of people holding negative opinions towards LDS politicians (25% --- the second highest opposed religion after Islam), a large portion of the conservative ticket is slowly lost from Romney's support group.^[7]  Also, Romney's record as a moderate might look good for a national Presidential election, but state level primary elections are more difficult.^[8]  Passing health care reform with many similarities to "Obama-care" could prove to be fatal in the final days of the primaries.  This gives Gingrich the advantage of winning the nomination in the primary.  He is considered very conservative in his views, and is a favorite in the rising Tea Party Movement.  This momentum might give him the extra boost to start his campaign well to stomp out any competition early on.  In the primary, Gingrich's biggest challenge is to overcome the recently released extramarital affairs.  If he can persuade those conservatives turned off by that, he has a good shot at earning the nomination.

Gingrich's strong conservative credentials, however, will be one of his greatest weaknesses.  Although he will be very popular among conservative Republicans during the primaries, the general election will run quite differently.  Typically general elections tend to favor moderate candidates that are positioned only to the slight left or right of center.^[9]  Obama, a relatively moderate democrat, while Newt Gingrich, is perceived to be quite conservative.  His candidacy will do more to rally the Democratic base and scare away moderate Republicans.  This puts Gingrich at a decisive disadvantage to Obama, as it is difficult to remove an incumbent with a strong approval rating for a second term (similar to the situation George W. Bush had during his reelection).  The best idea to combat this anti-extreme is to run with a moderate Vice President with strong qualifications.  This might lead to the selection of a running mate like Mitt Romney; however, as they are both top contenders, a contentious primary season would make this ticket highly unlikely.  Without a strong running mate, it is unlikely that Newt Gingrich would win the 2012 Presidential election.

[1] http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/03/03/gingrich-dips-toe-in-2012-waterswith-a-website/
[2] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260535/revisiting-clinton-gingrich-showdown-ramesh-ponnuru
[3] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/cnn-poll-obamas-job-approval-rating-on-the-rise/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee
[7] http://pewresearch.org/pubs/648/romney-mormon
[8] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/261407/re-mitt-romney-health-care-daniel-foster 
[9] Dr. Monson, February 2011,W111-BNSN-BYU, class lectures

NRA: Protecting Guns Since 1871

The National Rifle Association, or the NRA, was formed in 1871 to protect the main aspect of the second Amendment to the United States Constitution: the freedom to bear arms.  In order to maintain certain rights, the NRA lobbies Congress to influence legislation on firearms at all levels of government.  The NRA grades government policy makers, namely congressional representatives, on an A-F scale, as a way to influence voters to support candidates that support the NRA agenda.^[1]  Those who seem to strongly support the principles upheld by the NRA are granted an A status, whereas those trying to expand gun control or other such negative gun laws will most likely receive a failing score.  Once a scale is created, the NRA uses money donated by individuals in order to support the cause.  Its focus is to protect the right for everyone to own weapons, and fight against strict regulation that would have any effect on that right, and they will do all in its power to protect that right.^[2]

In order to reach that goal, the NRA sends out lobbyists to communicate with members of Congress in order to persuade them, both factually and tactically, to vote one way or another.  In 1999, the NRA was considered to be the most powerful lobbying group in the United States.^[3]  Today a formidable force, despite recent events like the Tucson shooting.^[4]  This event rekindled many older issues the NRA fights about, such as regulation of semi-automatic weapons, stricter gun permit tests, and enlarged clip size.  They have become experts on engaging citizens and mobilizing a base in order to help show elected officials that the American people support their cause.

There is an excellent example of this in Tennessee, where a bill with an amendment that would ban guns from bars but allow them in restaurants which served alcohol was shot down.  NRA lobbyists told nine legislators who had previously voted in favor of the bill that the NRA opposed it, and they gained the necessary numbers to shoot the bill down.^[5] Although the bill was later amended yet again, the NRA successfully turned several voters' opinions in order to maintain good relationships with such a powerful interest group.  Another example would be Jim Matheson, a democratic congressman from Utah's 2nd District, as discussed in class; the NRA pressured him into being more conservative on his gun control in order to alleviate the stress they were placing on his campaigns.  The NRA has the capabilities and is willing to spend money to prevent candidates from getting elected in order to protect their rights.  According to a Fox News report, the NRA spent about $15.6 million from 2007-2009 in political campaigns (through its PAC).  The bulk of that money was used to fight those opposed to the NRA beliefs (namely Barack Obama), and smaller parts given to help out their allies.^[6]

Although their efforts against Barack Obama were a failure, they found a substantial amount of success, including pressuring Matheson in Utah, influencing the Tennessee state legislature, passing laws in Arizona and Iowa, and doing even more in 2010 alone.  They were able to change gun policy in several states, like the Arizona law passed to allow unrestricted handguns, and bring about the allowance of concealed guns into all but three of the National Parks.  Overall, the NRA is very effective at influencing public policy through its lobbyists and is willing to put forth the effort to really stand up for what it believes. 

[1] http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/nra-posts-grades-and-endorsements-angle-beats-reid
[2] http://home.nra.org/#/ila  (watch the video)
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#cite_ref-Timewarner.com_4-0 
[4] http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2041535,00.html
[5] http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/may/08/nra-lobbyists-visit-persuaded-9-to-flip-votes/
[6] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/30/nra-lobbyists-hold-strong-influence-policy-agenda/