(LINK: http://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152021058/its-all-politics-may-3-2012)
Mutanatia was now sitting at his desk, looking eagerly at
his students. “Welcome to week #1, of It’s
All Politics from NPR, hosted by Ken Rudin and Ron Elving,” He said. “This
is also our 6th week. This unit, we’ll discuss a somewhat
entertaining take on the news. Not only do these guys report political news in
what I think is a relatively neutral
way, but they also make jokes and have a laugh on the way. It is by far the place I like listening to
actual political news for a quick recap.
The hottest political weeks this year have been from the
virtually the whole month of May to the end of June and beginning of July.
These 5 weeks of this unit will highlight these points in time.
For a quick overview, here are the main topics we are going
to hit on:
Osama Bin Laden’s One-Year Death anniversary
Same-Sex Marriage (the political ramifications, not personal
viewpoints… I hope…)
The specter of Jeremiah Wright (the political ramifications
of bringing him “Back from the dead,” as it were)
The upholding of the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare,
depending on what side you are on) and the Fast and Furious Debacle (both in
one week)
Mitt Romney’s reaction to the upholding of the Affordable
Care Act/Obamacare
This week, we’ll begin with a pre-class discussion, and that
is: research Ron Elving and Ken Rudin and tell me what you find out about them.
Were you expecting the podcast to be biased? Why or why not? And, either way,
did it live up to your expectations?
Let’s begin by discussing the Afghanistan trip that Barack
Obama made to mark the One-Year Anniversary of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
We’ll start there before hitting the other topics, including Newt Gingrich
dropping out of the Presidential Primary for the Republican side, and the
Wisconsin primary. Answer 3 of the following questions:
11) Some
opponents of President Obama would say that not only the trip to Afghanistan,
but also his appearance on Rock Center, the trip to Ground Zero, and so forth,
were part of a “victory lap” that did not seem really befitting of the
president. What do you, personally, think of this theory?
2
22) Mitt
Romney sort of “Shadowed” President Obama’s “victory lap” about OBL’s death,
traveling to a 9/11 firehouse, and so forth. Some may say that this is not
befitting of a candidate either. The larger question is, should 9/11 and/or
Osama Bin Laden’s death actually be something to be politicized, or is it a
“universal event?”
33) We
also have contrasting viewpoints presented between drone strikes and torturing
a “handful” of terrorists. Are any of these justified? If so, under what
circumstances?
4
44) Newt
Gingrich sort of gives a half-hearted endorsement, comparing Romney to Reagan
(Who may be a Democrat by today’s standards), and he pretty much says, “like it
or not, this is our nominee.” Why do you think he did that? What purpose does
it accomplish?
5
55) One
of the things that Elving and Rudin bring up is that Bachmann is a “champion”
of the Tea Party. However, when discussing Marco Rubio, Hispanics are quickly
to point out that Hispanics are a diverse group. Is the same true of the Tea
Party in your opinion? If so, does the endorsement by Bachmann mean anything?
6
66) There
is also the curious issue of Mr. Grunell (spelling?). There is clearly more to
this story than simply firing something because he is gay. Find an article on
his tweets.
7
77) Elving
and Rudin suggest that Dick Lugar will lose the election. It turned out that he
did lose the election. The Onion (a parody newspaper) shortly thereafter called
it the “Extinction of Moderate Republicans.” Would you agree with this
sentiment if taken seriously?
8
88) Scott
Walker won the recall election shortly after this podcast. Does this
necessarily mean anything, in your opinion, for the General Presidential
election? Pay careful attention to the disparity in campaign funds.
He then passed out the homework:
Homework:
For the homework, please regurgitate what Elving and Rudin say
about the following:
11) What
is the big “oops” that they talk about in the first segment? Please note that
they were vague, but if you followed the events then, you should be able to
figure it out.
22) Describe
Gingrich’s “endorsement” of Romney according to them.
33) Describe
how the two sides, Romney and Obama, presented themselves during Obama’s “victory
lap” to mark the Anniversary of Osama Bin Laden’s death.
44) What
is that woman screaming at Mitt Romney in the sound bite?
55) I
can think of a similar instance within recent memory where something in the line of
a shouted comment at Obama occurred. Name it. Please note: the connotation and
verbiage is completely different.
Well, I figured I’d answer my own blog post since no else one did before we go on. Perhaps this can begin a dialog. I chose to take a look at questions 3, 2, and 4 I’ll begin with question 3.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the answer to Question 3 may be outlined in the following ways:
1) Drone Strikes are the least bloody of all the options. However, it consists of a man at the controls on a Army base, essentially playing a video game with real life ramifications. With that said, I believe that a dialog should begin on the validity of drone strikes than invade other nation’s airspaces. We, the US, would not want a drone strike against our own domestic terrorist in the US by another country, say China; nor, would I imagine, China want a drone strike against its own political opponent in its own country by us.
The second part of the question is: is it justifiable? To begin this question, let me preface it by saying I believe terrorists are evil and what they do to strike fear into the rest of the world is reprehensible. That being said, I advocate a hardline against terrorists. I do not believe that terrorists should be given full Constitutional rights in our country—due to the fact that they are not, with few exceptions, citizens of America. At the same time, torturing terrorists seems to be doing the exact same thing to them as they do to us… should we fall down to their level? I do not think so. Yet, a few people such as myself, would point out that they are “enemy combatants,” and thus and therefore are NOT protected by the Geneva Convention. My mind fractures on this issue; the jury in my head is still out.
2) In my opinion, I can sum up the answer in one way, and that is: 9/11 is a universal event for Americans and should NOT be made a political football out of. It affected everyone, from the family who lost a loved one, to a lover losing their better half, to losing friends and neighbors, and finally to those who—though not directly affected—simply have a fear of flying. As such, I object to anything that is done in “The name of” 9/11, as this clearly crosses a boundary to me, as does this supposed “victory lap” that the President of the United States went on. That being said, it is not necessarily bad for President Obama to flaunt his advisors and his decision-making ability but he should certainly not exploit 9/11 like he did.
3) Finally, question #4. To begin with, I have always seen a bit of partisan rancor in Newt Gingrich, as well as outward hostility each one showed the other in their debates. They went after each other; in fact, Romney co-opted Gingrich’s debate style, which is not-so-overt plagiarism in terms of style. With that in mind, Newt Gingrich was definitely a “Hard-core” conservative. Why would such a “hard-core” member, having gone through a bitter battle with the now-guaranteed Presidential nominee with his own party, even consider endorsing a moderate? Further, though he is towing the line, it is difficult for me to tell, at times, what Romney believes. With Gingrich, it was clear, cut, and dry—though a little “spacey” at times. The quote that sums up Romney is this: “I don’t remember what saying this, but I stand by what I said, whatever that was [paraphrased].” If he cannot even remember what it is he says, that is definitely a problem. I think that the way in which the “GOP establishment,” as the media portrays those speaking out against him, came out against Mr. Gingrich was a big mistake; I personally would have preferred him over Romney for the reasons I just mentioned.
Also, as to the homework:
Delete1) The "oops" was the mishandling of a certain escaped political prisoner from China.
2) Gingrich's endorsement was lukewarm.
3) Obama strutted out the day he made the decision and used to to say that Romney would not have made that decision; Romney spent his time defending the attacks and visited the 9/11 victims.
4) Romney is being called a "racist."
5) The one that jumps to mind is the famous "You Lie!" Moment at the POTUS'S State of the Union speech.