To My Students Who Asked, Why Should I Vote?

It’s a fair question. And, it is a very timely one. My answer will be a direct one, no begging this question.

It is a matter of empowerment, as well as collective power. Empowerment means giving individuals the tools needed to have a positive affect in society. Empowerment can also be cumulative. When one individual feels certain about their knowledge, abilities or actions their behavior spills over and influences others. Voting will empower you, and have a cumulative affect on all of the people around you. But just deciding to register to vote involves some education and analysis. I teach, so I’m all in favor of you educating yourself before taking action.

First, begin following the 2008 campaigns at the national, state and local levels. While the presidential campaigns may capture your interest, you may have more direct political power at the local level. More than any previous generation, you can educate yourself about political campaigns using online social media or traditional media. And, most importantly, you can be part of what is being called the first presidential election that features citizen-generated content. Voter registrations are becoming the best attended events—complete with music— on many college campuses. Why? Because in this election, young voters care and are actively participating. Let your passion about events and problems in society guide you. If you care very deeply about the War in Iraq, saving the environment, making college more affordable, or reforming immigration you can easily find out where the candidates stand on these issues and comment on their web sites or You Tube. And, you can discuss it with your friends. Millions of 18-24 year olds have already voted in the 2008 election and they have made a difference in the outcome and momentum of various campaigns. They can be proud of their role in shaping this election. And, when they vote in November they will be helping shape the future of the nation. When votes become a collective, they can be very powerful.

While the Pennsylvania primary isn’t until April 22, our voters could still play a significant role in determining who the presidential nominees will be. Consider the fact that there are over 1 million state residents in the 18-24 age bracket. Do you realize how much power over 1 million voters could have in the primary?

Sometimes I am asked if one vote matters. The greatest impact of voting may be at the local levels. In the mid-1990’s I had the privilege of serving on the Luzerne County’s Election Board. If you don’t think that one vote matters, consider that we had to toss a coin to settle several local elections—one for the City’s school board. That is a fairly common scenario across the country—a single vote determining the outcome of an election. Direct decision-making at the local level or representative decision-making in a presidential election—democracy only works when you vote.

I know that you have strong, very perceptive opinions on a lot of issues. And, I know you speak up. If you do not vote you will have no voice in the national conversation about who should govern, no voice to advocate for change, no voice to question and probe policy, and no voice to complain when things do not go the way you think they should. Here is your chance to bring your distinctive voice to the 2008 election. Join with millions of other young voters and send a really clear message about how this nation should be governed.

One final thought. Does it concern you that in only 15 years your generation will be leading this nation? Empower yourself. Get ready to lead and vote.

Dr. Jane Elmes-Crahall
Wilkes University
Communication Studies

My Experience as a First Time Voter

The American electorate is now one person stronger. Consider me part of the “youth-quake”, rocking the 2008 Campaign. I am a first time voter. There, I said it. But getting to this point required introspection. I had to ask questions and research in order to choose which party I wanted to register as.

Where can I pick up a registration form? How do I know which Party to be in? Which candidate am I most likely to vote for? These are just a few of the many questions I asked myself when deciding to register to vote for the first time. I felt overwhelmed with all the questions I had in my head about the registering process.

I decided to vote this year because it is the first time in my life I am following the presidential campaign. I am attending a Controlling Spin class which focuses on politics and the media. This sparked my interest in our nation’s government and the president’s role in all of it. I became more aware of my country in less than two months than I have in the past nineteen years.

As a first time voter, I am expecting to face a few challenges of my own. I have to catch up on the key issues of our country’s concern and create my own opinions about them. After creating my own opinions, which I’m still in the process of doing, I will then explore the candidates’ opinions and their plans of action to enhance our nation.

Another challenge I had to face when registering to vote for the first time was deciding on which Party to choose. I consider myself an Independent, but I really want to vote in the Pennsylvania Primary, so I had to select a Party. I called my Dad because I was having trouble deciding. He is a registered Republican and my Mom is a registered Independent. I never considered myself a hardcore liberal or a hardcore conservative, so I chose the one I felt I best fit under.

As a first time voter, I am excited to be a part of something much larger than I am used to. I feel that I can make a difference in the world by being able to follow politics and voice my opinions about issues. Furthermore, I can influence who will be the next president, which can change America. Although it is a small difference, it will mean something for future generations.

Amy Fusco '10
Wilkes University
Communications Studies

Help for Veterans of Iraqi War

I’m pretty sure if you’re the typical movie going American citizen, you have seen the award winning film, Forrest Gump. Lieutenant Dan, an unforgettable character, gets wounded from a battle deep within the jungles of Vietnam. Eventually it resulted in the loss of his legs. Over the course of the movie’s 142 minutes you saw the dramatic rise and fall of this character as he accepted and then refused a fate he didn’t deserve. What’s particularly sad is that Lt. Dan was a foreshadowing of a harsh reality facing returning troops from Iraq.

More and more, I hear stories of young adults around my age, 22, returning home from Iraq without limbs, with dependencies, suffering from PTS and the worst fate—death. We live in a country that claims to be #1, but we haven’t accepted responsibility for providing help to our modern day veterans.

In 2005, The Washington Post ran an article about a wounded veteran, Robert Loria, who returned from Iraq to find out that the government turned its back on him.

Loria had his hand blown off and could not walk as well. As pain increased significantly throughout his body the last thing that entered his mind was him owing money to the U.S. Army. He was hit with a $6,200 debt after putting his life on the line that would eventually alter his bodily functions forever. When The Washington Post looked into this situation, they found 331 soldiers also dealt with this problem. When military authority higher-ups were questioned, the only response they gave was a computer malfunction was messing up the debts (George, A01).

Along with financial problems and physical complications that arise from this war, some of the worse are long term psychological effects that remain untreated. Since the Vietnam conflict, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) has been a main concern and those who suffer from PTSD experience anxiety, depression, sleeplessness, flashbacks, wariness, and in extreme cases, suicide. One of these extreme cases is Marine Lance Cpl. James Jenkins.

Jenkins was a Marine who survived a fifty-five hour battle with the Mahdi militia in Najaf which would eventually mess him up. After returning home he couldn’t sleep for some time because of the hyper sensitive activity of the war and took up gambling which turned into a major problem and even bigger debts. Soon after Jenkins couldn’t function and would eventually take his life. The reason behind this terrible incident was the lack of medical assistance with PTSD (Dobie).

Everyday the news is awash with political jargon and pseudo promises of a better future for America. We’ve heard “change” and “hope” repeated like an old style vinyl record that’s been overplayed too many times. Yet one topic that hasn’t been touched upon enough in presidential debates is treatment of returning veterans. Why is it that these soldiers who are putting there lives on the line for a better world are being pushed aside?

Shouldn’t the current administration be concerned about offering assistance to men and women, to mothers and fathers, and most of all, to these kids? Maybe they should make sure that all returning veterans get the assistance they need whether it is mental, physical or financial.

Citations:
St. George, Donna. “For Injured U.S. Troops, ‘Financial Friendly Fire’.
Washington Post 14 Oct. 20005:A01.

Dobie, Kathy. “Denial in the Corps.” The Nation. 2008. Truthout Issues. 18 Feb. 2008

Matthew Gobbler '08
Wilkes University
Communications Studies

Edwards: Forgotten, but Not Gone

In a Presidential primary season that is overly rich with celebrity endorsements ranging from Oprah Winfrey to Chuck Norris, endorsements have begun to lack any meaning or influence on the campaigns. Even Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama, which was played up by the media for days, was not able to pull a win for Obama in the Massachusetts primary. However, I think there is at least one endorsement left to be given that might have a significant impact in pulling the Democratic Candidates out of the tie they have been stuck in for weeks.

John Edwards left the Presidential race on January 30, 2008 without making an endorsement of either Obama or Clinton. Throughout his campaign, Edwards had a substantial following, which even enabled him to beat out Clinton for a second place finish in Iowa. He received14% of the vote in Florida,18% in South Carolina,17% in New Hampshire, 4% in Nevada, and 30% in Iowa according to cnn.com. Although these percentages are relatively small, in the close race between Obama and Clinton if one candidate were to receive a significant amount of those votes, it would make a difference.

I think it is highly possible that if Edwards did make an endorsement, many of his supporters would follow his decision. The reason is that unlike actors and other political figures, Edwards was actually in the race and had a clear following who wanted to see him as the next President. As a result they have a logical reason to trust his opinion on which remaining candidate will be the best for the job. Also, there is the good chance that if whoever he endorses wins, Edwards will be at the top of the list of possible running mates for that candidate. For Edwards supporters, seeing their candidate as Vice President is better than nothing, so of course they will want to vote the way Edwards suggests they do.

This week it was reported that both Clinton and Obama had secret meetings with with Edwards at his home. This seems to indicate that an Edwards endorsement could come in the very near future. However, as each day goes by the significance of an Edwards endorsement fades. Soon enough the primaries will be over and all Edwards supporters will be committed to a different candidate. Only time will tell what Edwards chooses to do, but I think it is safe to say that he is the most likely choice for either Clinton or Obama as a Vice President. As for what the media has dubbed the “Dream Ticket,” with Clinton and Obama as running mates, it really is just a dream.

Christine Zavaskas '09
Wilkes University
Communcation Studies

What’s Really Going On: A Marine’s Perspective on the Surge and Withdrawal of Troops in Iraq

We are experiencing a historical race for the White House in this year of 2008. One of the main issues in this campaign for me, my peers, my family, and my friends is the undeclared war in Iraq. Many of you may have heard Senator McCain and President Bush sing praises about the successful surge in Iraq, and the negatives associated with pulling our troops out.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but can we really know how things are going in Iraq if we are not there? To attempt to answer this question I wrote to a Marine who is a friend, Squad Leader LCPL Wehmeier M.E USMC/0311, and asked him if he thinks that the surge is working, and if he feels that troops should start being pulled out.
This is what Mike said:

“I think that the surged worked and we need to start pulling some forces out, however we need to better train the Iraqi police and army. Which they have a team called MITT which works with them. But, as an occupying force we need to start leaving.”

Mike believes the surge worked or is working, but the crucial point he made is that “-as an occupying force we need to start leaving”.

Squad Leader Wehmeier is an old friend of mine who, in my opinion, is currently serving in an undeclared, unjustified war. Along with many other friends and all of the other mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, and family members who have a loved one in Iraq, I need to know this is a top priority in the 2008 campaign. This is my primary concern, the loss of innocent lives due to an undeclared war that should never have been started. It is 2008; we are civilized human beings that should be able to end conflicts without war.

My heart goes out to these men and women every day. Even if the surge did work, it’s time to end the violence.

The next man or woman to take over the Presidency will have to make this monumental decision as to whether or not to start pulling troops out and ending this “war.” All we can do is hope that they make the right decision.

Gina Bove '08
Wilkes University
Communication Studies

Dump the Delegates: It’s Time for a Direct Democracy

There are many things in life that I’ll never understand. These are things such as the fluctuation of gas prices as an election is near, how our economy solves its problems by increasing the price of everything, and most importantly, why we have delegates in a presidential election.

Please don’t misunderstand me, for I know the theory behind why we do these things, but they really don’t make any sense for success in the long term.

A few days ago, I was sitting in my Controlling Spin class listening to my professor explain to me why we have delegates in the presidential race. As I listened, my mind began formulating thoughts on why we even vote during the primaries or the November election if our votes don’t directly elect nominees or candidates.

In the 2000 presidential election we had Al Gore win the popular vote, but our current President won the Electoral College. How does that make any sense? Well, I have a solution, and that solution involves getting rid of delegates’ altogether and having a direct democracy. Let the people vote for who they want to see as the next President of the United States without having gatekeepers.

It does not make sense that we have to elect a small number of select individuals to represent our state as a whole in the upcoming convention.

During the Democratic primaries the winner and loser get a proportion of the delegates no matter the outcome. And it’s worse on the Republican side. If a candidate wins the majority of votes, in most cases he or she gets all the delegates, regardless if one candidate got one less vote. How does that make sense? In a direct democracy it would be straight votes from the American people. If five million people vote for Barack Obama and five million plus two vote for Hillary Clinton, then Hillary wins the nomination. It’s that simple and the people have a voice. George Bush’s vote counts just the same as the creepy guy who stares at you while you eat dinner at a restaurant.

I read an article on the Internet that included how delegates play a role in the election besides voting for a candidate they endorse. The article, from the International Herald Tribune on February 10, stated that “In this supercharged atmosphere, the disputed delegate count is more than a statistical exercise - it can influence a candidate's ability to raise money, sway party leaders and get out the vote.” That seems highly unfair. People become manipulated by the numbers. They see that Hillary is in the lead and they hop on the bandwagon.

That’s not to mention super delegates, who consist of leaders of Congress and powerful political figures who may make or break one of the Democratic candidates this year. These super delegates confuse the situation even further. I’m told that these power figures will choose who they want to see win the nomination with no average Jane or Joe in mind. How does that make sense?

Let’s throw out the numbers, throw out the delegates, tell the super delegates to focus on the important issues inside the Beltway, and let the people live the American dream that we talk about by chooing the next leader from the ground up. Now that makes sense!

Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies

Why Does Style Matter?

Why does style matter when you are electing a president? In the 2008 presidential election, Democratic hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are racing for the hot seat to lead this country through a time of “change.” But which one actually has what it takes to be the next president?

Both Obama and Clinton stand on similar platforms. Both support pulling out of the war in Iraq, both want better health care, both agree that change is needed for the U.S. But even if both said the same words, one may come off as a better candidate than the other. Why?
The answer is style. I am not referring to who looks better in blue, or who wore a better collared shirt to a debate, but rather the personal rhetorical style of a candidate based on their charisma, personality, and likeability.

Senator Barack Obama has been endorsed by members of former President John F. Kennedy’s family, including his daughter and his brother. J.F.K. was well-known and well-liked for his personality. Kennedy’s daughter Caroline even said that there was not another president that embodied that same charisma as her late father until Barack Obama. He has a general likeability, a down to earth personality, and a charismatic tone. Obama is seen as a change agent for the U.S., and it is probably safe to assume that everyone agrees that a change for this country is definitely what is needed.

Hillary Clinton has not been endorsed by such individuals because of her “style,” but rather her ability to be a good leader. The Kennedy family is not united on the endorsement front. Bobby Kennedy Jr., Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, and their sister Kerry all support Hillary Clinton. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend released a statement saying, “While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results.” Clinton has sometimes been seen as a closed person, a figurative stone wall. While Obama is earning his Kennedy endorsement for his charisma, Clinton is earning hers for her hard work and ability to get things done the right way.

Let’s all remember that it is only February, and I don’t want to be presumptuous and announce a winner just yet. Barack Obama has charisma and a great personality. He relates to people and is an inspiration to many. Hillary Clinton embodies leadership and the hard work and dedication that is needed to turn the United States of America right side up. Does their style really matter when it comes down to who will be elected? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Amanda Cawley '09
Wilkes University
Communication Studies