<p>If all of you are anything like me, you are always checking this board to see if there are any new topics. Now that all the EA apps are in, we are in waiting mode. Long as we're all in this together, we ought to get some good conversations going on this board. </p>
<p>Fact is, although everybody posts stats on the board for comment, it isn't as if whatever people say in this forum is going to have any bearing whatsoever on what happens in reality. Most people who have done the level of research people on this ND board have done already know the answers to 95% of the questions they ask--or at least know as much as the people they're asking do. What we are seeking, really, is not information, but some fellowship to get through the ride.</p>
<p>The coolest thing about Notre Dame is not the football or the campus--although both are amazing and unparalleled. It is the people who attend there. Sure, the place has its share of jerks who are the precise reason for the "hate 'em" aspect of the "love 'em or hate 'em" Fighting Irish. But there is such an abundance there of really smart people who want to make a difference. The older I get, the more I realize it.</p>
<p>I'm not going to lie and say I was a model student. Grappling with a lot of issues at the time, I was a major partier. One semester--the one I got a 2.7 GPA--I only attended the midterm and final exams. I self-studied the rest, usually a few days before the test. Funny thing, I really thought I was gaming the system; I'd shown them! It was several years later that I really felt the remorse of how much I'd cheated myself out of; how much I'd missed out on in college.</p>
<p>What I've come to realize, though, is that I learned from my fellow students. I cannot even count the number of times I'd walk around those lakes with someone (usually a cute guy :)) and get into debates about the deepest issues of the world. One of my very good college friends is now CFO of a major Fortune 500 corporation; another is national marketing director for a New York City upscale designer. One of the guys who I've never really heard from since sophomore year is now lead news anchor for the New York City NBC-affliate. Funny thing is, none of them really aspired to be those things way back when. They just became them.</p>
<p>In any case, I think we ought to use this board for some substantive, cyber "walk around the lake chats". Anybody names a topic, or I post one of my columns up here and get people talking...</p>
<p>What do you say?</p>
<p>Well, since I am a cute guy (yeah right) I think it is only fitting that I be a part of this. Most of the debates I would start are probably political, but I will hold off on those to see if anyone has better ones!</p>
<p>I'm going to kick it off with my column for this week. It is about the past election, but is non-partisan. Anyone else can throw in ideas, too. Just tired of reading abbreviated lists of qualifications and posting "you've got a pretty good chance", when I'll bet there are some real thinkers lurking amidst our ranks here... Here goes:</p>
<p>PART 1:</p>
<p>POST-ELECTION THOUGHTS </p>
<pre><code> Last Wednesday morning's news of the historic shift of power on
</code></pre>
<p>Capitol Hill was good news for some and unpleasant for others, in roughly
equal proportion.
The fact that the election was finally over, however, was
universally welcomed.
If I could think of one word to describe this year's mid-term
elections, it would be "overkill." The Center for Responsive Politics, a
non-partisan group which tracks campaign financing, estimates that a record
$2.8 billion was spent on U.S. Congressional races this mid-term election.
To the average American, that translated into a record number of
in-your-face negative ads, glossy flyers jamming the mailbox, and automated
phone calling. Given Missouri's status as the epicenter of both political
parties' strategies to either retain or regain power in the Senate, all of
us were treated to an even greater dose.
It is said that money is the mother's milk of politics. There
is certainly evidence from this year's election that the adage still holds
true. Of the races whose outcome has been determined, 93 percent of House seats and 67 percent of Senate seats were won by the candidates who spent the most money. It is because of this phenomenon that no sooner had the polls been closed for 2006, than the pundits were already handicapping for the election of 2008.
Perhaps this is why even an avid political junkie like me is
getting sick of the electoral cycle. Given the arms race of campaign
financing, the election season never ends. It isn't just a matter of the
influence that all that money can buy; but the many ways campaign
consultants have found to spend it---mainly in ways that annoy us.
There is, though, a silver lining to this. Money didn't win as
many races this year as it did in 2004, when 98% of House races and 88% of
Senate contests went to the biggest campaign spender.
SEE PART 2</p>
<p>One of the races that bucked the trend was the Missouri Senate
race, where Republican incumbent Jim Talent outspent his Democratic
challenger Claire McCaskill, yet nonetheless lost his seat. Having met the
man and followed his career, I believe the people of Missouri lost the
services of a truly decent and honorable man, who did his job well. Perhaps
had his advertisements focused more on Talent's considerable accomplishments
and personal qualities, more people would have come to know this and
possibly voted to re-elect him. Instead, the cornerstone of the
soon-to-be-former senator's campaign strategy appeared to focus on talking
about Claire McCaskill's husband. Obviously, it backfired.
While it is easy to second-guess a failed strategy after the
votes have been counted, I have to believe that the rather cynical tactic of
non-stop negativity was something that came from the national party, rather
than Talent himself, who is anything but a political pit bull. The
conventional wisdom of campaign strategy is that relentless negative
advertising suppresses turnout. With a healthy 53% of the Missouri
electorate voting this mid-term election, such was not the case. Despite
the fact that a man I genuinely believe to have been the better person for
the job lost, perhaps his plight might serve as a warning to those tempted
to unleash a tidal wave of negative ads.
The other silver lining was the much closer than expected
outcome of the vote on Amendment 2. Despite having been outspent 10-to-1,
primarily by one couple with a vested financial interest in gaining research
funding, the heartfelt grass roots campaign of those who opposed the
amendment managed to dramatically narrow the gap. A month before the
election, polls estimated over 60% of likely voters in the state supported
the measure. By election day, it barely managed to pass, with only 51.2% of
Missourians approving it. Given another week, it may well have failed.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue, it should be heartening to
realize that in a David vs. Goliath battle of campaign spending, David
nearly won.
Recently, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pleaded that the
warring factions of his country rise above their sectarian loyalties for the
good of the nation. It reminded me of how fortunate we are in America that
our differences are not settled by violence, but instead at the ballot box.
We are still a nation at war, to be governed by those elected by
a majority of the people. It is time that we, too, rise above our partisan
loyalties and support what is best for the nation. It is my earnest hope
that a good job is done by our elected officials in Washington, D.C.,
regardless of who gets the credit.
Let the healing begin.</p>
<p>I second your final thoughts, ddjones! I hope that our country can put aside the political divisions and work together as a whole for the good of the country. We need to present a united front, a STRONG united front to hopefully ward off terrorism!</p>