GAME CHANGE, Chapters 1-4 Open Discussion

I would like this to be a fairly informal back-and-forth about the book but I do want it to be substantive. Primarily I would be interested to know what took people by surprise. Is there anything about the candidates or the process that surprises you? That maybe leads to certain questions about what it takes to run? Is there anything you found upsetting or overly biased?

I would like you to respond at least twice after your initial responses. The first responses are due by Wednesday by midnight. The second wave of responses are due by Thursday night.

I'm also going to post some questions about each of the chapters that might help guide your initial responses:

Chapter 1:
What fateful decision did Hilary Clinton made in the run-up to the 2004 election? Why would she make this decision while so many of her allies were pushing her in the other direction? Do you think she made the wisest choice? How might her initial relationship with Obama be seen as ironic?

Chapter 2:
Why did key Democrats encourage Obama to seek the presidency?What qualities did he possess? What was it about Clinton that give them pause? Why was their support secret?

Chapter 3:
What challenges did Clinton face in her candidacy? Do you sympathize with her? Does the book?

Chapter 4:
What did you think of the process of getting your family or spouse onboard for running for president? Does running for president as it was described by David Plouffe to Obama sound at all appealing to you? If it is so arduous and miserable, then why does anyone want to do it? What does it say about Clinton or Obama? How is their drive defined differently?

The Environment

The environment is a huge factor in the world today.  For many years it has been overlooked and now the the government, corporations, and people are paying for their negligence.  The response to this negligence has been an overwhelming reaction.  Under President Obama's administration several measures have been taken to ensure the longevity of the environment.  Between 2010 and 2011, the United States reduced its oil imports by 10% which comes to about 1 million barrels.  Under the Recovery Act, the EPA and Department of the interior have allocated funds of up to 11 billion dollars for water quality, green jobs, and marine habits to name a few.
National policies have been adopted to protect, our coast, oceans, and lakes.  2 Million acres have been marked as federally owned wilderness to be conserved and protected.  Also, the first ever limits on Mercury and and other air pollutants were established under the Obama administration.

The Environment...

The environment can sometimes be as touchy a subject as abortion and gay rights. It’s not an issue whose effects can be observed immediately, which is why many people do not see it as an important problem for the government to solve. Of course, there is always the controversy over whether or not global warming exists and is occurring, however regardless of that, it does remain to be seen that our country is definitely not the greenest of all countries. In fact, the US had the second highest carbon emission per capita in 2010. As a democratic president, Barrack Obama does believe in the importance of environmental preservation, however he has faced some difficulty when trying to maintain environmental initiatives. The 2010 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference did not come to any kind of substantial agreement, and in September, Obama decided to stop the EPA regulations on corporate smog emissions because it was too complicated to enforce. However, there is still hope for a future in clean/renewable energy, as Obama included in his State of the Union address in January. I think one of the topics being discussed at the moment is the future of the EPA (whether it should be kept, made smaller, or abolished), however if a democratic president stays in office, it will most likely stay.

Energy is a Crisis aint it

The government is in a constant battle between the environment and energy need. We suck our natural recourses up and see how it harms the earth. Yet we can’t help ourselves for our need for energy out ways the earth’s interest, causing us to relay on fossil fuels and not enough on renewable recourses. With 37% our energy use coming from oil, 22% coming from coal, and 24% coming from natural gas. The U.S. is becoming quite a strain on the world and our pockets.  60% of our oil is imported into the country coasting us money we do not have. With these numbers we tend to turn to the government to solve our energy crisis.

                Obama stated in his stimulus plan that he would aid the earth with solar energy and other renewable recourses however there hasn’t been a plan to combat this idea. However that doesn’t mean they aren’t involved with the creation of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) which is dedicated to the development of renewable recourses and energy efficient technologies.

                I stand on that renewable recourses are not only good on the earth but will save us money and from a war in the long run. With renewable recourses energy costs will be at its all time low and inflation will go down. The economy will thrive with renewable recourses and we won’t be fighting any war for oil prices or for control of oil fields. We need to focus on solar panels and new ideas for renewable recourses before the current recourses go dry.  Renewable Recourses are the key to our future as a nation.

Natural Gas/Energy

America is endowed with a wondrous supply of natural resources but, more specifically, natural gas. America simply has more natural gas then anyone knows what to do with. Most would think this is a good thing but, on the contrary, there is so much that there is nowhere to put it, and thus natural resource extraction plants are left abandonded and those promised jobs are in fact losing jobs because there is not enough demand for the immense supply. This leads to the question of exporting the natural gas. If their was a limit on natural gas exports, then the demand would increase, one could limit the supply, and as a result it would cost more per export. These raises in cost could keep the natural gas companies alive in the US. The reason for the skeptical mindset, however, is that many people still do not believe that there is as much gas in the ground as people say. Finally, however, the issue of natural gas is one that resolves around the pocket book. Lawmakers will have a hard time voting against the export proposal when their constiuencies have a high unemployment rate and energy prices go up to attack their pocket books. If we have to rely on imports then both will experience rapid growth. If drilling is continued, but limited to benefit the American market place, then the opposite will occur. Unfortunately, this will result in retaliation from other countries, especially other countries that control the world's oil and other products of energy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0419/Natural-gas-Should-America-export-its-surplus/(page)/2

Obamacare Lacks Support, not only from Republicans

Obamacare is a health care topic that lately is hotly contested; it forces individuals not covered by governmental or employer-provided health insurance to maintain a minimal amount of insurance or face more expensive taxes. Signed into law on March 23, 2012, parts of the law are being contested in the Supreme Court, which will release its decision in June. While going through the Senate and House of Representatives, the bill passed with close margins, with all Republicans voting against the law. Unfortunately for Obama, though his bill was passed, there seems to be overwhelming opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. Formally called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the law forces individuals to purchase health care, which violates their rights. The act also increases governmental involvement in what should be a private market. “ It allows Washington to define the health plans that Americans must purchase. It gives bureaucrats the power to influence medical decision-making, which rightfully belongs in the hands of doctors and their patients. And its new taxes and expansion of government health care programs are unaffordable to current and future taxpayers,” (quote found here). What’s more, “The October Kaiser Health Tracking poll shows that, by a margin of 17 percentage points, Americans have an “unfavorable” (51 percent), rather than “favorable” (34 percent) opinion of Obamacare. This margin of opposition is all the more remarkable because the poll by Kaiser, a strong supporter of Obamacare, is skewed notably to the left. It included only 22 percent Republicans to 32 percent Democrats, even though exit polling in the last election showed an even split in party identification (35 percent apiece),” (see this website for more info)

Nebraska Health Care

Medicaid used to provide prenatal care (during pregnancy) to illegal immigrants, but that part of the program was cut in 2010. On April 18 (just a few days ago), Nebraska decided to provide this aid. Of course, this means that Nebraska will have to use its own money to do so. There are two primary concerns. One is the obvious issue with using state money, which is taxpayer money, to care for undocumented immigrants. The second is that this aid will encourage illegals to come to Nebraska.
Governor Heineman vetoed the bill because of its broadness and its bias in favor of illegals (as oppossed to legal citizens who cannot afford care). He felt that state money should be spent on legal citizens first. This veto, of course, was overridden. Heineman is concerned about an increase in population putting strain on the economy. This is, of course, possible, but at the same time an increase in relatively cheap labor can also bolster an economy.
What I find extremely interesting is how different groups came together to make this happen. Conservative, pro-life groups support prenatal care, because even unborn children of illegal immigrants have a right to life. Liberal groups tend to support this as well, since it advances health care.