Protesting Puppets: Why Supporters of PBS Marched on Washington

Written By Jessica Nichols

The first presidential debate sparked a lot of controversy, the least of which did not fall on America’s sweetheart, Big Bird. Romney’s comments about cutting funding for the Public Broadcasting Service, though conceding, “I like PBS, I love Big Bird,” inspired the protest held November 3, aptly named “Million Muppet March.”

The “Million Muppet March” brought together more puppets than probably had ever been in once place, standing for one purpose before.

Protesters marched Saturday, November 3, in support of PBS after Romney makes comments about cutting federal funding to the program

If Romney likes PBS and Big Bird, then why would he attempt to cut funding for the household name and channel? Romney had this to say, “I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS… I’m not going to keep spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.”

Romney has been under fire about the comment ever since. Trending on social networking cites, memes, thousands of tweets, and an extensive media debate over whether cuts to PBS would begin to make a dent in federal deficit later, organizers created the “Million Muppet March.” Supporters of public broadcasting were outraged to hear Romney’s comments, and critic Bill Maher from “Real Time With Bill Maher” pointed out the PBS subsidy’s small proportion of the federal budget: a mere $445 million of $3.8 trillion.

The spirited march on Washington was started by animation executive, Michael Bellavia, and Chris Mecham, a university student, in response to Romney’s comments. Bellavia said, “I figured, why just make it a virtual show of support? Why not take this opportunity because it seemed like there was already a growing interest in it and actually make it an active, participatory event.”

The “Million Muppet March” saw protesters toting anywhere from fun-sized sock puppets to full-sized creations of our favorite neighborhood friends from Sesame Street: Big Bird, Bert and Ernie, Animal, and more.

Sesame Street, which has been airing for 43 years, is a very popular educational program, so there was no problem for organizers of the march to find people willing to come out and show their support for this longtime American institution. Organizers of the march say that at least 600 people signed up to participate in the actual march at the capital, with thousands more showing their support virtually through Facebook, Twitter, and even their own marches across the nation.

As the election draws nearer, supporters hope that their efforts raised enough awareness about the importance of federal subsidies to the Public Broadcasting System, for public television and public radio.

We’ve Shelved SOPA/PIPA, Now Can We Stop Other Crappy Legislation?


Written by: Kaitlyn Burkhart

After a short and heroic uprising of the Internet community, it seems as if the people have won the battle against censorship of the Internet. On Friday January 20, Congress dropped the bills in the wake of the largest online protest in history. A staggering 13 million people took the time to add their names to the petition, alongside a voluntary blackout held by thousands of websites (including Wikipedia, the sixth most-visited site in the world),  in order to keep the Web free of censorship and out of the hands of the government and big business. The swift building of this movement, and it’s direct impact that hit the government straight in the legislature, has possibly been the most successful (if not the only, disregarding the rather ill-organized Occupy Wall Street) display of democratic power from the people in the recent past, with comparisons to the Arab Spring Movement, and our forefathers’ Boston Tea Party.

With the Internets’ uprising being hailed as a great success, it seems to be that maybe this movement of power from the people will shine the light on us as citizens, and how we’ve sat idly by as unfair, unconstitutional, and extraordinarily-out-of-touch-with-citizens’-lives legislature has been passed without even a whimper. Until, that is, they tried to take our Internet. Is this what Democracy has come to in the US? They can cut taxes for the rich, monopolize the elected government official positions to weed out any person who can’t spend millions on a campaign, slash spending on our education systems yet boost Congress’ payrolls, and most recently pass a bill that gives you no rights under the Bill of Rights if the military thinks you’re a terrorist.

Was it not so much that we were fighting for Freedom of Speech, or was it that the Internet the last free thing we had?

Remember this?


Many social commentators have been speaking out on the apathetic nature of Americans today, noting that if most of the things we let slide today happened 50 years ago, the people would have been pulling up the roots of the administration, making noise in the streets, and children would be writing letters to state representatives in their classrooms. What happen to the America where people were actively fighting for their rights? Where if people saw something that was wrong, and actually thought they could change it?


Let me ask you a question; When was the last time you watched, read, or discussed the people running for the positions in Congress or the spots in the next Presidential election? Were your thoughts afterward about the policies those people were promoting, or were you merely dissatisfied with how the entire thing seemed to be about how clueless our political leaders were, or how the debates had seemingly become pissing contests between GOP members, where one person commented on how much money the other person had made, how many wives they had, or why Obama is a socialist and needs to be stopped?

Seriously? Watching a debate nowadays is like watching an episode of The Real Housewives of New Jersey. Same amount of cat fights, less fabulously dressed.

And somehow equally trashy.

With so many people displeased with the happenings in the government, it’s amazing that it took them threatening our Internet for something to happen. The people won have won a battle, maybe that will be the thing to stoke the proverbial fire under our chairs to win the war. Or, at least, do something to put the power back in our hands.

We the Tweeple: Twitter and the 2012 Presidential Election

Written by: Allison Hibbs

“I really think 2012 is going to be the Twitter election.”

That’s what Dick Costolo, CEO of the social media giant, told attendees at a tech conference in California in late January; although the same words might have been uttered by any avid Twitter user who has followed political conversations on the website during the onslaught of GOP debates or the recent State of the Union address leading up to the 2012 Presidential election. Commentary, discussion, fact-checking and ideological rants have flooded the site during these events, involving participants in an interactive political conversation reminiscent of a no-holds-barred town hall brawl.

In fact, among twitterers, trending conversations have often proven to be far more popular than the actual events themselves, a sentiment repeated often during the debates in particular – and with more than a hint of irony.

Twitter appreciation from tweeps during GOP debate on 1/26/12.

Tweets range from inane to insightful, from snarky insults to eloquently phrased questions or impassioned pleas. Anyone looking to get in on the action simply has to add the right hash-tagged phrase to his or her comment to be included in the thread. Keeping up with comments in the heat of the moment becomes nearly impossible, but one has only to go back to the thread when they have time and they can read up on what was said, follow links to related news stories, check the integrity of comments made by those on stage during the event or simply laugh at the more humorous tweets.

During the CNN Debate hosted by John King, opening comments made by Newt Gingrich blasting King for opening with a question about his personal life were widely ridiculed and reposted by active tweeters. While the audience seemed to appreciate his indignation, the twitterverse was not as kind.

1/19/12 CNN debate/ Begala tweet re: Gingrich

It is fairly common knowledge – at least among those familiar with the social medium – that the use of the Twitter platform was an advantage to the Obama camp during the 2008 election cycle: he received far more mentions than his opponent and a disproportionate number of Twitter users identified themselves as democrats. (This doesn’t take into account the number of tweets regarding Republican vice-presidential hopeful, Sarah Palin, who received a large amount of mentions – most of which were unfavorable.) But Twitter has gained significant numbers over the last four years and Republican politicians have increasingly taken to using the platform for their own messaging and organizational purposes. GOP presidential hopefuls employ staff members to follow the tweets during their appearances to find out which topics they are concerned with and which personality attributes or answers they prefer. There is, unquestionably, much to be learned from immediate feedback and they intend to take it to heart.

From the look of it, however, they’ve got a lot of catching up to do if they want to turn the advantage in their favor. During the President’s State of the Union address on Jan. 24, tweets were significantly less scathing and more topically relevant than those posted during the debates. Twitter users still seem to skew further to the left of the aisle than the general public.

Tweets re: GOP debate vs. SOTU

Nevertheless, Twitter has – if nothing else – had the effect of combating political apathy and has brought the public political debate to a whole new level. Those who are chagrined when barred from political discussion in social forums have now found an outlet through which they can share ideas, facts, emotions and hopes – in the hopes of staying informed, sharing information and influencing election outcomes, presidential or otherwise. A new era in politics has indeed arrived.

Welcome to Election 2012, the Year of Twitter.

The Whipping Boy: Obama Takes Previous President’s Scrutiny In Stride

Written by: Alexis Poole

Recently, President Obama appeared on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer and responded to scrutiny by Newt Gingrich, calling him “the most effective [food stamp] president.” Rather than debase himself to name-calling and slander, Obama chose to focus on the issues at hand, saying that he’s leaving it up to Americans to decide “who reflects the sort of core values that helped create this country–the values of hard work, responsibility, but also looking out for one another–and who is tapping into some of our worst instincts.”

With such diplomatic answers, Sawyer leans and implies, “Watching the debates?”

Obama shook his head saying, “You know, I don’t watch the debates, I gotta say. Now I read the reports, and what I get a sense of is that whoever wins the Republican primaries is going to be a standard bearer for the vision of the country that I don’t think reflects who we are.”

By not watching the debate, Obama focuses on the facts that have culminated to our country’s current state, rather than view sensationalized debates that have been watered down to slanderous disrespect and a riddling off of certain keywords and phrases used to illicit a positive response from would-be constituents. Hopefully, his charts and graphs are better than what we’ve been subjected to.

Chart of many mistakes

Given the mistakes, could you trust this author's credibility?

Separating the Jelly Beans Fact From Fiction

As we move from reading our news in papers onto reading primarily on the Internet, we must take into consideration the time lost in heavy research and who stands to gain from our inability or sheer lack of inclination to fact check all we come across through fast channels like Twitter and Facebook. Election time always brings out the emotional side in us all, tugging at purse strings and heart strings like a puppeteer. However, as American citizens, it is our duty to choose a worthy candidate through means of logic. And that’s where this chart falls flat, at the peril of

Since when does 8.5 percent minus 7.8 percent equal a difference of 9 percent?

When graphs like this one are presented, it’s our duty to use all the skills that our educated selves can conjure up and look at everything from an OBJECTIVE perspective. It also helps if we can add and subtract, unlike the odd math in row 2: Unemployment Rate.

First of all, subtracting percentages is simple enough. In the case of row 2, where the difference between 8.5 and 7.8 is somehow bigger than either initial number, the chart creator’s credibility comes into play. One could suggest that the percentages in row 2 should have been number of people in the millions, where a difference between them could very well be 9%–but since Mr. Conservative can’t edit his own work, his credibility is shot, as should anyone’s trust in him.

Secondly, in order for a chart to be accurate, it must compare separate and equal entities. If the chart presented the responses of a number of people who favored one jellybean flavor over another, we should all be able to agree that no matter how many different flavors presented, we’d still be talking about jellybeans.

According to the above chart, the ‘Inauguration Day’ column stands for, and could have been more accurately titled, ‘Pre-Obama’. Two presidential terms’ worth of George Bush, Jr equals the figures in the first column, whereas the middle column ‘Today’ combines the figures of both Bush terms and Obama’s singular term. To be completely fair, a graph would have to compare presidents’ contributions singularly and side-by-side; For example…We would ONLY have 14 million people on SNAP benefits (food stamps) if it wasn’t for Bush’s initial “contribution” of 32 million. While the numbers have indeed risen in almost every category, Obama’s “contributions” to these issues are far less than what he was presented with when he took office. Our deficit would only be $4.6 trillion if it wasn’t for Bush’s “contribution” of $10.6 trillion.

Instead of focusing on the differences however, we should be wondering how we incurred a deficit (of any size) to begin with. We all pay our taxes every year, we all get taxes taken out of our checks, some more than others. What is any elected official doing with our tax dollars? We need to be objective and prioritize our expectations. We know we elect human beings for president. Can we expect one human being (a president) or one group of human beings (an Administration) to clean up two terms’ worth of declining numbers AND make every American prosperous and happy? AND IN ONE TERM, no less?! We know the presidents we elect are human. We hope whoever holds the next term is HUMANE as well. Compared to Bush Jr. and the wildcard Mitt Romney, Obama might be the most humane of all…that is, unless we turn a little more attention to Ron Paul.

The Reasonable Lunacy of Ron Paul Action Figures

Super Politician Ron Paul!

What is faster than a liberal? More politically powerful than a lobbyist? Able to leap Ben Bernanke in a single bound? It’’s….Ron Paul action figures! Representing a new wave of politically clever campaigning, the figures are being sold by Revolution PAC with all proceeds going to support Paul’s run for president. And who can blame Paul or his supporters for thinking outside-the-box, considering Paul’s main obstacle in running for the White House.

Since Ronald Ernest Paul first emerged on the presidential spectrum in 1988 as the Libertarian Party’s nominee, equal coverage has always been an issue. In his inaugural presidential campaign in 1988, Paul’s received little attention even within his own libertarian party. Garnering not even 1% of the vote in the presidential elections, nobody seemed to mind as George Bush went on to defeat Michael Dukakis.

A decade later in the 2008 presidential elections, not much had changed. While Paul opted for the Republican nomination that time around, his congressional record in the previous ten years apparently gained him little or no respect, perhaps evidenced  by the fact that FOX News chose to leave Paul off the debate invitee list.

Has the Paul campaign experienced any difference in treatment in 2011-12? Certainly the age of free-social media advertising has helped level the playing field, giving all candidates an equal voice, right? (Did anyone realize that the Socialist Party of California Chairman, Stewart Alexander is running! Or Fred Karger, the first openly gay presidential hopeful?)

In a recent media report published by the Pew Research Center, Texas Congressman Ron Paul received the least amount of news coverage of all, serious, GOP candidates (astoundingly, he was even beat out by Sarah Palin whose presidential campaign this year…..oh wait). While Pew’s report does state that Paul received a great deal of attention in the blogosphere, as well as an overall positive spin, this should not be equated to things like mainstream media coverage, or time and attention garnered in the one too many GOP debates.

Even more damming evidence against Paul’s fair coverage emerged as he announced his “Plan for America.” Contrary to ex-running mate Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan or Mitt Romney’s 59 point proposal, Paul’s plan has received little attention even by the endlessly hungry 24-7 news cycle. Maybe it just needs a catchier moniker?

The lack of attention attributed to Ron Paul could easily be attributed to his “radical” ideas, but why hasn’t his vision caught on with more of those dissatisfied with status quo politics? With the continuing malcontent rising in the American voice and Occupy movements, many citizens are completely dissatisfied with “politics” in general.  For instance, in the 2008 election, 56.8% of the voting population turned out, leaving nearly half the nation at home. While that percentage is considerably large relative to past elections and the highest since 1968, it still leaves close to a hundred million people who decided to abstain.

On one hand, they are the apathetic, the disinterested, and the jaded. If a candidate could tap into the lethargic voting base, the political scene could dramatically change in an instant. On the other side of the spectrum, we have the Occupy Wall Street groups whose platform, though admittedly undefined, more closely resembles Ron Paul’s positions than any other candidate on either siade of party lines. Surely the ultra-libertarian Paul and these groups could form a politically strong symbiotic relationship that, if nothing else, should garner Paul more attention than he is getting.

In the past decades of Paul’s political career, the narrative on him certainly has been that he is a “fringe candidate”, a “kook”, and at best, someone whose ideas were interesting but just so crazy that they shouldn’t even be considered a realistic possibility. But as the Occupy Wall Street protesters like to remind us, aren’t we in need of some radical change? If the country is to reverse it’s a trajectory, one in which the majority of Americans believe is going in the wrong direction, it won’t be made at the margins with tax tweaks or spending cuts here and there. Systemic change, the kind President Obama promised yet hasn’t seemed to deliver, is necessary. In which case, taking Ron Paul’s ideas more seriously should be more than just an interesting notion.

The Rise of Santorum is Cause for Concern

Written by: Michael Arnold

Rick Santorum has fared extremely well in the GOP race thus far. Although paid little attention until recently, the underdog runner is now being identified by many Republicans as the best conservative choice.  His ascent to the top, however, should be regarded with alarm.

Senator Santorum is a man who is frighteningly out of touch with the people he is hoping to represent. His beliefs on cultural morals, especially in regards to the LGBT community and family values, are beyond antiquated, they’re absurd and overbearing.

Rick Santorum

Presidential Candidate Rick Santorum

In a recent Fox News interview, Santorum expressed his support for the reinstatement of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” claiming that gay rights and black rights are not on an equal platform. In sum, he defined homosexuality as a “behavioral” choice and made the pitiful and awfully supported assertion that gay people “can stop being gay.” Rather than extending equal rights to all American citizens, Santorum believes that we must fight back against those “trying to impose their values” upon the nation.

Impose their values?  While Santorum expresses his belief in imposing the denial of fundamental rights upon a significant segment of the  American citizenry, he makes the dual claim that this segment is somehow imposing something upon America at large. The logical flaw in this argument is so blatant that it borders on arrogance.

The nation’s social values should not be dictated arbitrarily by someone who believes he understands what is best. What America needs is a president who is committed to understanding the people of the nation, what they want, and how to respect their liberties. Santorum’s record has proven that he is not that candidate.

Senator Santorum takes no shame in making the claim that traditional marriage is superior to other lifestyles; meanwhile just under half of the country currently leads a traditional “nuclear family” lifestyle. He has inserted his extreme religious beliefs into his political policy by imposing the inclusion of intelligent design and other non-scientific theories into Pennsylvania state curricula. He does not believe in every American’s implicit “right to privacy;” and he claims that the use of contraceptives are “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

The proof is there. This man simply does not respect basic American rights, and he is by no means suitable to lead a changing nation.

Acceptance and support of a diverse populace is a crucial element of being the President of the United States. While Senator Santorum’s beliefs and policies are alarming, his growing support is even more so. Voters have yet to realize that electing a leader who does not respect the rights of one group, can just as quickly strip rights from another.

2012 Iowa Caucus Results in a Draw

Romney Wins Iowa Caucus

Former Gov. Mitt Romney celebrating after his narrow win over Senator Rick Santorum in the Iowa Caucuses.

2012 Iowa Caucuses Result in a Draw

Mitt Romney Defeats Rick Santorum by only 8 votes.

Written by Agathe Panaretos. For what many saw as a chance for the Republican Party to narrow its field of possible presidential candidates, Tuesday’s caucuses in Iowa resulted in a near-tie between former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.

The final results of the caucuses held last Tuesday have the former governor winning by the slimmest of margins, with a total of 30,015 votes over Santorum’s total of 30,007.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who many anticipated would be a dark horse in the upcoming primaries, finished in third with 26,219 votes.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry finished in fifth and sixth place, respectively. Native Iowan and Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann finished last, pulling in 6,073 votes. Failing to win a single county in the state, Bachmann later withdrew her candidacy following the results on Wednesday morning.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman skipped the caucus in order to spend time campaigning in New Hampshire, whose primary is to be held on January 10.

Santorum, who up until the last week had remained near the bottom of the polls, was the latest candidate to experience a surge of support in an ongoing rollercoaster of viable contenders. While promising, his close finish in Iowa further demonstrates Republican voters’ dissatisfaction with the current crop of contenders.

A common theme among exit polls conducted throughout the state reveal voters have little faith in Santorum’s chances of beating President Obama in the November election. Thirty-one percent of voters named the ability to defeat the current President as the most important quality in choosing which candidate to support; of that percentage, only thirteen percent picked Santorum.

The Iowa Caucus is the first real litmus test in measuring a candidate’s potential of becoming the Republican nominee for President. While a poor showing in the state can quickly lead a campaign to its knees, a positive performance does not always translate to a successful bid on the national level. Of the past five Republican Caucuses held with multiple candidates, only two (Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000) have gone on to win the Republican nomination.

With only a few days left before the New Hampshire primary, the remaining candidates will likely focus their campaigns on one target: Mitt Romney. The former governor has maintained a steady following throughout the campaign and overwhelming financial support, spending over $17 million since January 2011. With a win in New Hampshire, Republican voters may finally accept Mitt Romney as the clear winner.

Mayor Bloomberg Brushes Off Newt Gingrich Criticisms as Gingrich Campaign Faces Challenges


Newt Gingrich criticizes Michael Bloomberg

Written By: Anatole Ashraf

Despite mounting campaign challenges, Republican candidate for the 2012 presidency Newt Gingrich continued to aim criticisms at New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg for a second day while Bloomberg chuckled at the jeers.

At a “Mom’s Matter” forum in Des Moines, Iowa on Dec. 30, Gingrich cited Bloomberg as a reason for wanting to overhaul the entire electoral system, claiming he did not have the mayor’s personal wealth to buy a seat.

“The current system is a disgrace,” Gingrich said. “When Bloomberg can buy the mayorship of New York and nobody can compete with him because they’re all under various contribution rules, when millionaires go out and have huge advantages, there’s something profoundly wrong with the system.”

Bloomberg in turn brushed off the comments at a press conference designed to advertise New York City’s efforts to increase pedestrian and bike safety on Dec. 29. When asked about the comments, Bloomberg laughed and replied, “What, did he say something?”

“My job is have more events like this to be able to say that bike safety has gone up dramatically,” Bloomberg said, “[that] crime has gone down, deaths by fire, deaths by traffic, that schools are improving, and that is what I am going to focus on.”

Gingrich’s criticisms come at a time when the candidate’s campaign is facing increasing challenges. According to a CNN poll of 452 Republicans conducted from Dec. 21 to 27, Gingrich ranked fourth among voters likely to caucus on Jan. 3 with 14 percent. A similar poll conducted from Nov. 29 to Dec. 6 found the candidate enjoying a 13-point lead over current front-runner Mitt Romney with 33 percent. The issues plaguing Gingrich’s campaign are attacks from other campaigns which the candidate has called “negative,” or super PACs which are supporting other candidates such as Romney.

Following Gingrich’s surge in the polls a month ago, rival candidates Romney and Ron Paul launched several attack ads that some estimate costing as high as $10 million worth. One point of attack has been Gingrich’s mid-1990s affair with Republican staffer Callista Bisek while still married to his second wife Marianne Ginther. The pressure resulting from these ads have led Gingrich to say, “I can’t do modern politics.”

The forum in Des Moines, Iowa also found Gingrich “becoming emotional” about his mother.

“My whole  emphasis on brain science comes indirectly from dealing with…the real problems of real people in my family,” Gingrich said. “So it’s not a theory, it’s in fact my mother.”

Gingrich Absent from Virginia Primaries

Written by: Joe Sciabica

March 6, 2012 will be the date of the Virginia Republican primaries, also known as Super Tuesday. However, the only familiar faces for the ballot will be limited to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Representative Ron Paul. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Governor Rick Perry were unable to obtain the 10,000 required signatures to be eligible for the Virginia ballot in the upcoming primary. It is also a requirement of the 10,000 signatures to come from registered voters with at least 400 from each of the 11 congressional districts of Virginia.

The Gingrich campaign attempted to collect enough signatures in time but was unsuccessful, leaving them to search for alternative methods to somehow be eligible. Already there are arguments attacking both the rules of the Virginia primary and Gingrich’s campaign. Some people claim that a technicality should not stop the voters of Virginia to fully express their democratic rights and voices by not having a full list of candidates. Others claim that all of the blame lies with the candidate’s campaign and that a lack of organization is the real cause of Gingrich not being on the ballot. It is just a reflection of how Gingrich runs anything he is in charge of.

Wherever the blame is deserved can be debated, but it a sure thing that this will be a huge detriment to Gingrich’s run for the Republican candidate. Gingrich is currently behind Paul and Romney in the Iowa polls for the January 3 Caucasus. According to a Quinnipiac University poll of Virginia republicans, Gingrich is currently ahead of both Paul and Romney which means little for Gingrich as he will not be a choice on the ballot.

It is also uncertain whether Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum or Jon Huntsman will also be on the ballot. The Gingrich supporters may then be left with no choice but to select between Paul and Romney, either scenario being a bad one for Gingrich. If Romney were to win in Virginia, it would only reinforce his electability. If Paul is the victor, it may begin to dissolve the semblance of Paul being unelectable and become a real contender with the mass voters and mainstream media.

For Gingrich, this is a likely loss of 49 delegates if the Quinnipiac University poll and his popularity there as a resident correctly indicate is would have been assured victory. In any event, this will remind all candidates not to lose sight of the rules of the various state in their chases for votes among the people.


Short-sighted Republicans May Lose the Latin Vote Over Arizona’s Immigration Law

They probably won't vote Republican ever again

Despite the popularity with the base Republicans, the parties leaders are starting to see how Arizona’s immigration law could really hurt the GOP‘s hispanic vote. Even the Republicans heading heavily Hispanic states – like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and Rick Perry – are expressing their criticisms as they call the law overreaching.

Those thinking long-term are worried that the drastic immigration law is just a quick political fix that may backfire as an enormous divergence between the expanding hispanic electorate, and the GOP. According to Matthew Dowd, George W. Bush’s chief strategist back in 2004, said that it’s impossible to win a national election without

Without documentation, citizens are aliens

the Latino vote, which is something the Republicans already had trouble with during previous attempts to penetrate the White House. Other members of the party concur as the express their concerns with the short-sighted decision. Karl Rove came to grips with the possibility of the bill having some constitutional problems; Rick Perry (of Texas) asserts that he has issues with the bill, which wouldn’t be a great idea in Texas; and even Jeb Bush was quoted saying: “I don’t think this is the proper approach.”

Nevertheless, the short-sighted law is popular with voters; however, ninety percent of Hispanics are not of legal age to vote in Arizona.