Do We Need a 24 Month Presidential Campaign? YES!

Imagine enduring only six weeks of campaigns before voting for the President of the United States. The idea appeals to many Americans as we sit here in February 2007 with over 20 candidates already announced for the 2008 race. But I believe it would be a horrible idea to rush a race for U.S. President.

Let’s say the Presidential campaign begins March 1 and ends April 15. Short campaigns are sufficient for governments such as the British Parliament because on the surface elections are less expensive, less likely to breed negative campaigning, and less likely to lose the public’s interest. But it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right idea for America. It may seem appealing at first glance, but this is not the right direction. Lesser known candidates’ stand little chance when trying to compete and the public has little time to fully evaluate each candidate’s issues. We need sufficient time to pick our leader and to understand their issues extensively. It takes time for leadership to emerge, especially on the national scene.

We know the popular presidential candidates and the persuasive ones, but what about the lesser known candidates? Having shorter campaigns allows those popular and persuasive candidates to hold their voters’ attention a lot easier without as much effort that would be required in a longer campaign, that is a negative effect. A longer campaign gives lesser known candidates a fighting chance, and makes our country more democratic. Herbert G. Klein, writing for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, supports my argument when he provides an important fact that Jimmy Carter was “a little-known governor and peanut-farmer who went on a two-year, nonstop campaign and upset all odds in winning his party’s nomination and eventually the presidency.”

If we compare picking the President based on persuasive ability within a six week time frame with the idea of picking a spouse based on beauty, then you can better understand my argument. The beautiful suitors would be the popular choice, but we all know that for a long term marriage to work, you need to understand what that person is about more than how beautiful they may look. That is what the result would be if we elected our next President within six weeks. We would select a person with the best image on first impression and have a vague idea of their issues. In a traditional race we begin to see flaws in their arguments over a lengthier period of time.

Although American attention spans are getting smaller, maybe it’s because the candidates are not exciting enough. There will be more people focused on who our next President will be for at least two reasons: our current situation with the War in Iraq and because a woman and African-American have legitimate shots at winning. This race could be historic and fun.

We need sufficient time to pick our leader, to understand their issues extensively, regardless of their attention span. Many people continuously swing their vote from one moment to the next which allows better candidates to emerge due to the competitive field. Randolph T. Stevenson and Lynn Vavreck, researcher for the British Journal of Political Science, tested 113 elections in thirteen democracies, and concluded that campaign length does matter for voter learning. They specifically state that “in campaigns of sufficient length voters may have more time to be exposed to competing campaign messages and to learn about the true state of the economy and the true policy positions of candidates”. We cannot sacrifice knowing each candidates issues extensively. It would be too risky for our country, and especially when we put the elction in context our current situation.

Referring back to my idea on marital relationships, when you meet someone for the first time, do you really believe you know them well within six weeks? It takes more than six weeks to be considered credible. Electing our next President within six weeks would direct our decision making towards the candidate who persuades us now. We could find out later that they have flaws that we just can’t stand, and does the current President ring a bell?

You wouldn’t choose your spouse within six weeks (unless it’s a reality television show, and we know how successful they are!). Therefore, why settle for electing the President of the United States in that short period of time? That can have catastrophic effects! Six weeks is too risky. If time lets us know that a certain person might be the one for us in loving terms, then lengthier elections will allow Americans a chance to vote for the candidate they truly feel is the right person.

Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communications Studies Major

Presidential Candidate: Bill Richardson

Well folks, it’s almost that time again! I’m sure that you’ve been hearing the buzz, noticing the headlines, and maybe even checking in to see what new events may have transpired in our nation’s capital. If you’re anything like me, you’ve been unable to escape the frenzy and anticipation that’s been accumulating around the 2008 Presidential election. When it reaches its peak, it’s going to be a hurricane of controversy and political dispute. Although the election has moved to the forefront of our media agendas, at this point lightning has barely started to hit the ground for younger voters.

With Democratic nominees Barack OBama and Hillary Clinton capturing everyone’s attention, the nation has been speculating whether or not this next term will re-define history in regards to the race or sex of our future President. But alas, there is another, less-noted nominee who would also mark an equally important, historical moment if he were to take the Presidency.

On January 21^st, 2007, Governor Bill Richardson from New Mexico announced that he would be running for the 2008 Presidential election. If he were to take the Oval Office, Richardson would be the first Hispanic American President in the history of our nation. Richardson has an extensive and impressive resume of political experience. From his time as a Congressman to his role as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Richardson has been all across the board. He served as the U.S. Secretary of Energy in the Clinton Administration, the chairman of the Democratic National Convention, the chairman of the Democratic Governor’s Association, and he’s currently the Governor of the State of New Mexico. Even during his undergraduate time at Tufts University, he was President of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity. Perhaps he is a natural born leader.

Although Richardson doesn’t have the budget to launch a campaign as ferocious as some of his adversaries most definitely will (he is in favor of limiting the budget for Presidential campaigning), he has some interesting perspectives on politics. For one, he strongly supports Native American causes. Having served on the House on the Natural Resources Subcommittee to Native American Affairs, he strongly pushed important bills for the culture. After being signed by President Bill Clinton, these bills are considered to be some of the most valued in all of Native American history. The list of bills is quite extensive.

Richardson has seen much of the world. Having a wide history of diplomatic travels, Bill has bravely ventured into such places as North Korea, Nigeria, and Cuba. Richardson has acquired a belief in peaceful negotiation. He doesn’t find much value in the use of hostile force although ironically, he’s still in favor of more spending on our military. Years back, Richardson traveled to Baghdad to negotiate the release of two captured American aerospace workers who were being held captive. After face to face negotiations with Saddam Hussein himself, the terms were secured and the prisoners released. Richardson is also responsible for bravely negotiating the release of prisoners in the Sudan and in North Korea.

Personally, I wouldn’t be at all opposed to the idea of Richardson for President of the United States. Although we disagree on certain issues, he seems like an overall good man who stands for his own beliefs and has the best interest of the American people. In regards to the hot topic of immigration, Richardson believes that there should be a path to legalization through the payment of taxes and education of the English language. I must agree.

To me, Richardson seems like the kind of guy that you could easily have a good chat and a cup of coffee with. Keep an open eye for Richardson’s advancement throughout the political race/storm that we’re about to witness. Like I mentioned, this is only the beginning. Hopefully with time, Richardson’s name and reputation will come to the forefront of the upcoming Presidential election.

Jim Feeney '07
Wilkes University
Communications Studies Major

Our Next President?

Think Before You Speak, Senator Biden.

This advice does not draw from our first amendment right to freedom of speech. All Americans need to think before we speak, but especially candidates for President. We are a very individualistic society and want instant gratification, so we blurt things we do not mean. And even in our impulsive sayings – things come out of our mouths and we simply do not think about the consequences. Yes, I know, it is hard to think about every little thing you say but especially in politics, candidates need to be aware of their surroundings at all times, including who is listening. Everything they say and do will be recorded and repeated, many times – especially if it has negative connotations.

U.S. Senator Joe Biden from America’s first state, Delaware, has an exceptional background in politics. He appears to be a deserving candidate for the Presidential consideration in 2008. He’s a dedicated family man who has more than 30 years experience in the U.S. Senate. He serves on the powerful Foreign Relations Committee and has served on it for the three decades he’s been in office. In January, he was elected chairman. As chairman he has began to hold hearings on the War in Iraq; the committee also successfully passed a resolution to stop President Bush from sending more troops to Iraq.

During his time in office he pushed for some very impressive legislation issues. In 1994, he wrote the Violence Against Women Act, which set up a national hotline and shelters all across the country. And he also has continuously pushed for crime bills – his Biden Crime Law requires communities to be notified when convicted sex offenders move into a neighborhood.

It is no mystery that Biden’s family is one of the most important aspects in his life. Shortly after being elected into the Senate in 1972, his first wife and daughter were both killed in a car accident; leaving him a single parent to his 2 sons. Even now, with 3 children and 5 grandchildren, Biden still resides in Delaware choosing to take public transportation home every night to be home with his wife and mother. With all of his years of experience in the U.S. Senate, his wonderful legislation, and his dedication to his family –he should be a viable candidate in the 2008 election.

However, despite his dedication to American values and the American family – perhaps the biggest lesson Biden should have learned in his more than 30 years experience in the Senate is to think before he speaks. Recently, in an interview with the New York Observer, Biden referred to one of his Democrat counterparts, Senator Barack O’bama (Ill.), as a “clean, articulate African American man.” This statement set off a media frenzy, which Biden defends by stating his comments about O’bama were taken out of context. Biden’s apology and O’bama’s own reaction - he did not think Biden was trying to offend anyone - are still making headlines. He even got a little time on ABC’s “The View.” Even the very outspoken co-hosts Rosie O’Donnell and Joy Behar defended Biden’s comment.

Nevertheless, this isn’t Biden’s first run with the insert-foot-into-mouth syndrome. He made comments with racist connotations against Indian-Americans when he stated that you can not go into a 7-11 convenience store without one of “them” owning one. And he even made statements against his own state, as a slave state, that fought with the North because they could not find their way to the South. Biden also had a run in with accused plagiarism charges at several different occasions – the most recent was in 1987 where he knowingly plagiarized excerpts from a speech by a former British party leader, Neil Kinnock. That incident and the background of several other plagiarism cases in his academic past led him to drop out of the 1988 Presidental election.

So that was 20 years ago. And Joe Biden is back to speaking without thinking and it may be at a deadly cost for his presidential bid. His comments about O’bama will not be taken lightly in the upcoming broad-range Presidental election in 2008. His words may have been taken out of context but they will not be erased – which might ultimately mean his campaign could be terminally tarnished. But can Biden regain the trust and forgiveness of the American people like he has done before? Only time and the American people will tell.

Furthermore, before Americans head to the primary polls and elections, the candidates need to be aware that Americans are listening and watching. And, Americans do know how to do their own research and make educated decisions for themselves without the media and without political slander. So politicians, especially, Senator Joe Biden, be aware of your comments because Americans can forgive but we certainly don’t forget, especially, in this era of electronic campaigning.

Cheryl Gressley ‘08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major