Archive for April, 2009

This post was guest blogged by Alicia Menendez, one of our Rock the Vote Radio panelists. The opinions expressed in this piece do not reflect the views of Rock the Vote or Dropzone Media. You can listen to the latest show here.

In 2006 – the year I spent working at a law firm (and subsequently deciding not to go to law school) and acting as a surrogate on my father’s U.S. Senate campaign – stem cell research was a major campaign issue.  In fact, it was such a defining issue for New Jersey voters that our opponent broke with Republican Party leadership to support this research.  But for us, the matter wasn’t simply political; it was deeply personal.  About thirteen years ago, my grandmother Cuca started to misplace money and keys.  Then it got worse – she began getting lost in her own neighborhood.   Soon thereafter she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease.  Today, she is bedridden, and she’s forgotten how to speak and swallow.  

I spent most of the campaign traveling the state and speaking at small community gatherings.  In almost every meeting, there was someone whose family had been touched by Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or diabetes.  Many of them weren’t strictly Democrats or Republicans; they were voters with one key issue – stem cell research.  

I learned that year that you can talk about the Constitution until you’re blue in the face, but we as humans respond to issues as much emotionally as we do intellectually.  

Since our taping, I’ve been wondering if David’s approach (sticking to the Constitution – which I can disagree with but at least grapple with intellectually) is more or less effective than Jillian’s approach (relying on the “life” argument – which I have a hard time with since I think defining stem cells as life that needs legal protection is irrational).  Both arguments are equally personal and, for many, emotional.  

Or is there a third way?  And if there is, what does it look like?  Is there such a thing as compromise when we’re discussing interpretation of a historical document or personal interpretations of what constitutes “life”?  And if there is not, do we have to let go of the notion that we can compromise on everything and concede that each of us will always have to make emotional and intellectual concessions?

• 

This post was guest blogged by David Centofante, one of our Rock the Vote Radio panelists. The opinions expressed in this piece do not reflect the views of Rock the Vote or Dropzone Media. You can listen to the latest show here.

To all of the Chicken Littles in both parties that are talking about the death of the Republican Party: the sky is not falling.

• 

This post was guest blogged by Rebecca Young, one of our Rock the Vote Radio panelists.  The opinions expressed in this piece do not reflect the views of Rock the Vote or Dropzone Media.  You can listen to the latest show here.
 

Let’s cut to the chase—the Republican Party looks anything but powerful at the moment. The GOP’s key message (smaller government) just granted gays the right to marry in the state of Vermont, and their strongest leadership figures (Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Steele) are pulling the party in three different directions.  Add that to the fact that the idea of a future Sarah Palin presidential bid just doesn’t seem to go away, and we have one very bleak outlook for the GOP.

Over the last few months, Republicans have argued that Democrats are using a divisive public relations campaign to make it seem like there is no conservative leadership. Although it can definitely be argued that this is true, Republicans are falling into a game of politics by not realizing that their most important task is to look inwardly at their party.  Something about their message branding failed to motivate the American people.  President Obama didn’t win because voters like flashy lights and a great orator; he won because our country gravitated toward his message of change that abandoned the last eight years of conservative leadership.

This election was a message to all conservative leaders – change your message so that it resonates with the real needs of the American people. I understand that similar often feels safe, but during this time of country-wide uncertainty, the Republicans would be best-suited highlighting their more moderate party members. A great example would be Charlie Crist of Florida—he is the type of person that, regardless of party, voters can relate to.

The American people are not foolish.  When drastic action is needed to save the country in a crisis, they will take us, kicking and screaming, in the right direction.  Nobody is asking the Republicans to agree with the Democratic agenda; after all, balance is integral to our government system. What they do need to do is understand how their message plays in this current climate. If the Republican Party doesn’t realize that the country needs solutions and not characters, they will fail to garner support or be a part of fixing this country.

•