23 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/16/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>There has been a significant push among Democrats to solidify senatorial support for gay marriage during the past few weeks. There’s been an avalanche of Democratic senators coming out in support for gay marriage, including senators from more conservative areas of the country, such as senators Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Bill Nelson of Florida. This group was recently joined by Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., who won his seat five months ago against his controversial Republican competitor, Richard Mourdock.Supporting same-sex marriage equality isn’t an entirely unprecedented move from Donnelly. In 2010, he voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” along with the majority of House Democrats. The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, estimates that during his six-year House stint, Donnelly supported its interests approximately 30 percent of the time. As for the people in the state he represents, Indiana is currently split on whether same-sex marriages should be made legal. The Indiana General Assembly approved an amendment to ban same-sex marriage but postponed putting the amendment before voters because of pending Supreme Court cases. It’s clear that some conservative Hoosiers feel betrayed by Donnelly’s switch, arguing that the senator was not sincere during the recent election or that his switch was motivated by political expediency. It’s hard to tell how legitimate their complaints may be. Donnelly’s announcement was relatively quiet in that it followed the general trend of senators newly coming out for same-sex marriage. He announced on his Facebook page that, given recent Supreme Court arguments and increased public discussion, he has realized he must support equality for all Americans. This recent surge in support for gay marriage clearly is a larger issue than Donnelly or Indiana. Many pivotal politicians have changed their minds on this issue, including President Barack Obama, former president Bill Clinton and former vice president Dick Cheney, but the recent surge has been unique. Part of this is due to the general public’s growing support for same-sex marriage. However, while public support for same-sex marriage has grown steadily through the years, senatorial support has grown in more confounding leaps and bounds. Some of it may be partly explained by a rush of momentum. Senators may grow with each other or learn from the positive responses their peers receive on coming out. There are then some senators who simply have new reflections, who undergo unique personal experiences that cause them to change their viewpoint. It does raise the interesting point of how and to what extent political figures are allowed to change their mind. I often hear average citizens talking about the need for open-mindedness and flexibility, but it’s inevitable that the consistent, fixed politician receives praise more than the flip-flopper. For average voters, it’s hard to assess whether a shift in political thinking reveals a weak or manipulating personality or a genuine conversion. It often depends on the agility of the individual or the friendliness of the political climate. While flip-flopping is obviously disappointing, a philosophical conversion (and, given the singularity and relevancy of the issue, I tend to put a change of mind on same-sex marriage more in the latter category than the first) is a change that can be respected. Regardless, I personally celebrate Donnelly’s switch. Nate Silver of the New York Times has predicted that by 2020, gay marriage will be at majority support. Although gay marriage has not yet won its legal battle, it has accomplished the all-important task of gaining public support. Senators feel the shift in public tolerance, and they don’t want to be on the wrong side of history. The rise in public senatorial endorsements will likely slow once same-sex marriage has become the clear majority stance. But this represents a key time for politicians to switch their position on same-sex marriage, no matter what their personal reasons may be. In the coming year, it will be interesting to see how the last few Democratic holdouts or their Republican counterparts take advantage of the changing political scenery. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(04/02/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Confession time: As a tween girl, I was wildly embarrassed to go bra shopping in public. I had a wonderful mother and an older sister to help introduce me to the wonderful world of bras, but it took me a while to get over my tween angst about it. If I’m being completely honest, that embarrassment didn’t totally die, because just planning on writing about my bra shopping experiences in the newspaper made me shudder at first.I can understand why I was so embarrassed when I was younger. Puberty and the items of clothing that come with it are naturally sensitive topics for a lot of people, which is why I wasn’t surprised to hear that more than 13,000 people have signed a petition against Victoria’s Secret’s new line marketed towards young teenagers. Many parents are outraged, arguing that this is part of a larger social trend of increasingly sexualized young girls. I get the hesitation and anger surrounding this issue. That trend is a pervasive part of our culture of which we should be wary. But the more I thought about the petition and my own experiences, and the more I read the actual facts regarding the Victoria’s Secret “line,” the more I felt the rage was misguided. Firstly, there seems to be a lot of misinformation about what exactly Victoria Secret’s new line is or who it is being marketed toward.This is something many media outlets are gleefully taking advantage of. “Bright Young Things” is the (admittedly unfortunate) tag-line for a new Pink collection that came to stores in time for spring break. The pre-existing Pink line was created in 2002 and was geared toward younger women, aged 15-22, as it continues to be. Before I researched this column in-depth, opponents of the line gave me the impression that this was a line for much, much younger girls, something that simply isn’t true. But this goes beyond the issue of age. What all this outrage seems to really boil down to is fear that, if teenage girls wear pretty bras, if they don’t feel ashamed of their bras, they will become sex-crazed fiends. Of course, none of the opponents say this directly. They talk about how women need to grow up in a world where clothing doesn’t define them, in a world where they can become anything. Of course that isn’t a woman who wears Victoria’s Secret bras, because that would make them a tramp. Often, the critics turn it into a painful dichotomy — you can become a successful, intelligent young woman, or you can become a young woman who wears pretty bras. Take your pick. I certainly wouldn’t want my young daughter (or myself for that matter) to have her butt decorated with clever witticisms or sexual jokes. I think there is a line where certain styles of explicit lingerie are not age-appropriate. But I also don’t think 15-year-old girls and older should only have the option of wearing pancake-colored, misshapen training bras. Having a bra that is pretty, something that they like wearing and aren’t ashamed of, won’t turn them automatically into a girl gone wild. Part of this stems from the pervasive misconception that bras (and to a larger extent, breasts) exist entirely for a sexual purpose. That idea has extremely damaging repercussions, as likely any mother who has faced wrath over breast-feeding in public could tell you. Virtually all women wear a bra every single day. They wear them for a whole host of reasons: comfort, added support, fit under clothing, etc. But for some reason, as a tween, I still felt wildly embarrassed to acknowledge a bra’s very existence and given my familial support. I think a lot of that has to do with the way society talks to young women about their bodies. Victoria’s Secret is certainly not a perfect store. There’s no denying that they’ve had legitimate conflicts with both conservative and liberal feminists in the past. But it is completely ridiculous to condemn them just for making necessary bras and underwear marketed toward girls 15 and older. If girls are younger than 15 and shopping at Victoria’s Secret, it’s likely their parents who either gave them the money or the transport to buy things there, something only those households have control over. All across America, Victoria’s Secret exists as a relatively cheap, accessible place to buy bras and underwear. Especially with girls going through puberty younger and younger, it is vital that we try to combat the culture of shame that surrounds puberty and the clothing that comes with it.— gwinslow@indiana.edu
(03/19/13 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>When you’re in a world populated by sentient mushrooms or a flute that can change the direction of the wind, it seems silly to be constrained by boring gender norms. But unfortunately, that’s often the case in popular video game franchises, which continually rely on the perennially male hero. Earlier this week, a father hacked “Donkey Kong” for his young daughter, who was annoyed that the only option in the game was for Mario to rescue Pauline. He created a game option for Pauline to rescue Mario instead. There have been other stories like this in the past few months, including an almost identical one in which a dad hacked “The Legend of Zelda: Wind Walker” for his daughter and made the main character, Link, a girl. These stories of reversed video game gender stereotypes have drawn attention from gamers and non-gamers alike, due to the altering of several franchises that have largely been set in stone since their creation. Of course, it isn’t necessary for a protagonist in a video game to share the gender of a player, and video game protagonists can have very definite, intricately created backstories that are implicitly tied to their gender. But often, these video game protagonists act more like blank slates, serving as the always silent, always stoic and always male heroes. This is further complicated by the near constant presence of beautifully, easily victimized young women who hang around the male hero. It’s not uncommon that the rescue of these beauties is the central conflict in a video game, such as Mario’s endless pursuit of Princess Peach, the most famous video game damsel oft kidnapped. In so many video games, women act as nothing more than the red herring, the justification for the hero’s own experience. They are not seen after an initial introduction, or they are offered in deliberately tantalizing snippets. They represent an end goal for the male protagonist, a reason for his story to exist.The rescue of these women often has more to do with the hero’s own masculine ego than the safety or experiences of the damsel and the villain in these games tends to represent the most bestial and base of opponents, often a large, aggressive animal with a lascivious streak. Women in video games are often something to be gained rather than someone to be, and it’s difficult to deny that this lesson about the role of women can have a lasting impact on the young boys and girls who play these games.Not all video games engage in this stereotyping, and the ones that do are not necessarily wholly negative. There are an increasing number of games that offer compelling female or customizable characters. Younger video game players continually rely on the Nintendo franchise to provide age appropriate games, but this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be cognizant of the effects video games have on young people’s conceptions of gender roles.Franchises such as Mario and the Legend of Zelda are classics for a reason — they’re great games. But it’s important that we keep encouraging diversity in video games, so that everyone who engages in these stories can reasonably expect the girl to sometimes be the hero, too.— gwinslow@indiana.edu
(02/26/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Indiana General Assembly passed a bill almost two years ago to ensure that undocumented students living in Indiana would have to pay nonresident tuition rates at state-funded institutions of higher learning. Just a reminder for all IU students not paying out-of-state fees — the cost of tuition and room and board for nonresidents is estimated to be about $40,000 for the 2012-13 school year. This tuition rate is only going to increase. Many of Indiana’s undocumented immigrants have lived here their whole lives. Just like their peers, they hope to earn a college degree and contribute to their home state to their fullest potential. But increasingly, they are unable to afford a college education. Proponents of this measure argue that it doesn’t limit students from going to college — it just doesn’t give them the benefit of lowered tuition. But when the price of an out-of-state degree is around $40,000 per year, pretending it doesn’t severely limit a student’s ability to get a degree is at best thoughtless and at worst deliberately and cruelly disingenuous. For undocumented immigrants, especially those who came in early childhood, this is a severe threat to their futures. Indiana is often the only home they’ve ever known and where their families and affections now reside. Securing citizenship is a lengthy, complicated process, especially for young students with limited resources and time. Some estimate there are about 3,000 young people in this type of position across Indiana, people whose road forward is hugely uncertain. Fortunately, the Indiana Senate is currently considering Bill 207, which would partially counter some of these detrimental measures, making students attending public colleges before a certain date still eligible for in-state tuition rates.This would help many immigrant students — several of whom recently testified to the Senate Education Committee — who had to drop out of college after their tuition bills tripled. Although a total repeal of the original bill would be even better, passing SB 207 would be a critical step in ensuring that all of Indiana’s students can receive proper job training and a college education. It’s still early in the legislative process, and the Indiana legislature tends to be unfriendly to immigrants, but hopefully Indiana will recognize the plight of young students who have spent their entire lives in this state and consider it their only home. Every student should be able to obtain a college degree. The more we push back against the moral and pragmatic significance of providing a comprehensive education for undocumented students, the more we inevitably damage the way we conceive and prioritize education for any student in this country. The website Indiana Dreams features a blog where you can read stories of young, undocumented students in the state whose future aspirations are being threatened. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(02/13/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Although President Barack Obama opened with a quote from John F. Kennedy and repeatedly referenced the need for bipartisanship, the president was not hesitant to push for the bold second term agenda he suggested in his inaugural speech. Obama proposed raising the minimum wage to $9 from $7.25, bringing the inflation-adjusted rate back to the level it was in 1981. As he has in the past, he called for the end of tax breaks that encourage outsourcing and for an overhaul of the corporate tax code. He also recognized the need to improve our education system as a long-term investment in our economy, with new expansions in preschool and STEM courses and a focus on college affordability. The address likely pleased many who hailed his discussion of climate change in his second inaugural and felt he downplayed the issue in his first term. Obama vowed to double the use of renewable electricity generation, increase the efficiency of cars and create an Energy Security Trust to fund research on efficient energy technologies. Obama also announced plans to withdraw 34,000 troops from Afghanistan. He also subtly alluded to heavily debated military drone programs, calling attention to his foreign policy victories and stating that the sacrifice of thousands of soldiers is no longer required when facing international threats. As was widely expected, he also discussed the need for immigration and gun policy reform. He applauded bipartisan groups already working on immigration bills in Congress while pleading with them for increased urgency. With recent victims of gun violence watching with First Lady Michelle Obama in her box, Obama pushed again for universal background checks and the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, both of which have some measure of bipartisan support. He largely saved gun policy reform for the end of his address, finishing on a strong note of pathos as he repeated the legislative need to consider victims like Former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz, and the families of Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo. Obama recognized fears about continued government spending, but said that his proposals would remain below caps the two parties agreed to in 2011. The State of the Union indicates this will be a fierce legislative year. With every passing month, the president will lose power to move forward on his goals and face the threat of an increasingly lame duck second round in the White House. Americans should expect Obama to aggressively move forward on policy goals while there is still momentum to take advantage of in the second term. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(02/12/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Indiana is currently one of only 11 states that provides no money for early childhood education. This makes the bill currently being debated in the Indiana General Assembly — which would create a two-year, $14 million preschool pilot program — all the more important. Partly because of Indiana’s decades-long resistance to expanding pre-k funding, approximately only half of preschool-aged children in Indiana don’t attend public school. This rate is topped by only six other states in the country. The proposal in the Indiana General Assembly is supported by Gov. Mike Pence, although he has repeatedly emphasized his desire to see private businesses and organizations kick in funding. But even model pre-k programs, like The Busy Bees Academy in Pence’s hometown of Columbus, Ind., and which he has previously praised as an example of a local solution, will face cutbacks soon without public money. These cutbacks will mean staff reductions and fewer school days for the already small group of Indiana children that receives vital pre-k teaching. If we want to talk about fixing education problems in this state, we have to recognize that pre-k has become a crucial element in children’s future success. Even without the numerous studies that point to this important element, anyone who spends time around children near pre-k age can testify to the amount of brain development that occurs during this period. Society will get left behind the longer we devalue early education. Children who attend high-quality pre-k programs are less likely to be held back a grade, more likely to graduate from high school and more likely to have higher earnings as adults. Children who don’t know the letters of the alphabet when entering kindergarten still show significantly lower reading skills by the time they graduate first grade, setting them on a limited track for the rest of their lives. These programs don’t just benefit the individual student. Studies show that every dollar invested in early learning brings more dollars down the road. It’s time Indiana recognized the importance of pre-k education. High-quality early education programs help children do better in school and in their later careers, as well as potentially strengthen the economy down the line. Indiana students are getting left behind because of politicians’ reluctance to accept the decades of positive data on early learning programs. It’s high past time for the Indiana General Assembly to start moving forward on improving our educational system. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(01/22/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>President Barack Obama was officially sworn in again Sunday in a small, private ceremony attended by the first family and a few select reporters. Although the Constitution dictates that the president must take office on Jan. 20, inaugural festivities were saved for Monday. This is the first time this has occurred since former president Ronald Reagan was sworn in for his second term in 1985. Obama’s first inauguration in 2009 was infamously flubbed and re-administered after Chief Justice John Roberts spoke out of sequence. This time, the official, intimate ceremony on Sunday went smoothly. Obama’s youngest daughter, Sasha, noted in a whisper to her father that he did a “good job ... didn’t mess up.” With Obama’s repeated first inauguration and the swearing in this year on Sunday and Monday, Obama is the first and likely the only president to match Franklin Roosevelt’s record of being sworn in as the president four times. Vice President Joe Biden was sworn in by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina to swear in a president or vice president. For ceremonial purposes, Obama repeated the oath of office Monday, which was the federal holiday marking Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday. Although this is the second time, following Clinton’s reelection in 1997, that a presidential inauguration has fallen on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, it has obviously increased the emotional resonance given Obama’s status as America’s first black president. The 57th Presidential Inauguration theme was “Faith in America’s Future,” which echoed themes expressed in Obama’s campaign of optimism and forward movement as a country. Overall, this inauguration was a smaller, simpler affair than Obama’s first swearing in. Although the president has the support of a slight majority of Americans, according to most polls, this inauguration serves as a reminder of both what Obama has accomplished so far and what still must be done. In his inaugural address, Obama repeatedly emphasized the power of average citizens to drive the nation and government forward. Given recent tragedies, it was unsurprising that he addressed the need to enact new gun-control measures. He also focused on reversing climate change, so far not a priority for the Obama administration, and the continued push for marriage equality. He also brought up his desire to reform current immigration laws, something which he has previously described as one of the greatest failings of his first term. Obama generally tends to shy away from matters of race, but the timing of his inauguration cannot help but accentuate the historic nature of his presidency and reelection. In the past, Obama has noted King and Abraham Lincoln, the memorial of the latter of whom was in view of the president during the ceremonial inauguration, as two people he admires more than almost anyone else in America’s history. Obama was sworn in by placing his hand on top of two bibles, one belonging to each man, emphasizing the connection between those two historical leaders’ accomplishments and the president’s. Although Obama is taking office at a time of extreme partisanship and political divide, he can hopefully find a way to emulate both these great men and work across the aisle with Republicans to achieve some of the goals he outlined in his inaugural address.— gwinslow@indiana.edu
(01/15/13 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>For a game designed to emulate the competitive, fast-paced nature of our economy, it was perhaps inevitable that the Monopoly tokens themselves would one day have to submit themselves to the American consumer’s quickly changing tastes for their survival. Hasbro, the maker of Monopoly, has announced that it will be retiring one of the game’s classic tokens. For those of you whose Monopoly skills have fallen to the wayside in the face of games like beer pong or kings, here is a refresher on the tokens: the race car (introduced in 1935), iron (1935), wheelbarrow (1952), boot (1935), top hat (1935), thimble (1935), battleship (1935) and Scottie dog (1952). One of these tokens will be killed based on the results of a poll on the official Monopoly Facebook page. Until Feb. 5, Facebook users can vote on their favorite token. The loser will be permanently knocked off the roster. Will Scottie “go to the farm” to hang out with my childhood pets? Was Rihanna’s acting in a movie of the same name enough to kill any affection for the poor battleship token?I admit, I was that boring child who always chose the Scottie dog because it’s the cutest token, similar to how I identified with Belle of the Disney princesses or Sporty Spice of the Spice Girls just because they both shared the same hair color as me — the point being I wasn’t very imaginative. Fortunately for my childhood sense of nostalgia, many people seem to have shared my selection process. The Scottie dog is safely in the lead for now. But if you didn’t choose the Scottie dog, your token may be in peril. Thus far, the tokens seemingly related to work and domesticities are losing, with the iron, the wheelbarrow and the thimble still floundering in the single digits of voter preference. I admit, I never quite understood the appeal of these tokens, but the American consumer is notoriously fickle. To help us decide, the Monopoly website has posted the case file of each token — each are now currently resting in jail to await their sentence — that displays a line from the prosecution and defense, such as the thimble’s defense that it “can be used as a hat for tiny mammals.” Of course, the losing token will need to be replaced, and Hasbro has already unveiled its five potential candidates, including a guitar, helicopter, ring, robot and cat, which will also be based on the results of a Facebook poll. This isn’t the first time Monopoly has switched around its tokens, but it is the first time we have a choice in the matter. If all the hoopla over the fiscal cliff deal has left you feeling frustrated, feel reassured that if you think you can’t directly influence the American economy, you can directly influence the next best thing — the game based off the American economy. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(12/06/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>After two decades in Congress, Indiana Rep. Dan Burton is finally on his way to retirement. But before he left, he decided to give one last holiday gift to the American people: a malicious diatribe on the evils of vaccines. Unscientific claims linking vaccinations and autism aren’t anything new. Since Andrew Wakefield, who has by now lost his medical license, published a fraudulent 1998 paper suggesting certain childhood vaccines can cause autism, the vaccine-autism link has been one of the more annoyingly persistent quack medical claims. The original study has been retracted, and scientists have repeatedly found no legitimate link between childhood vaccinations and autism.But for some reason, more than 20 percent of the United States population still thinks vaccines can cause autism, and anti-vaccination groups like SafeMinds or individual activists still get media attention for their false and dangerous assertions. Just this week, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform had a hearing to look into the causes and prevention of autism, which basically gave Burton an opportunity to deliver a several-minutes-long diatribe that repeated long-debunked and obviously dishonest anti-vaccination claims. The committee called on scientists Alan Guttmacher from the NIH and Colleen Boyle from the Centers on Disease Control to speak about this matter, but the scientists were repeatedly confronted with pseudoscience and nonsensical proclamations.Burton was joined in his ludicrous attacks by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., who at one point yelled at Boyle after she failed to answer his question as he wished, “Never mind. Stop there...You wasted two minutes of my time.” Luckily, the representatives were more polite to noted conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccine activist Mark Blaxill, who has argued that the CDC is actively covering up evidence about the environmental causes of autism. By all means, Congress has the right to look into pertinent medical areas, but this hearing was turned into a dangerous anti-science circus. By repeatedly giving platform to Wakefield’s fraudulent claims, Burton has given potentially deadly pseudoscience new credibility on a wide scale in the United States. Since Wakefield’s paper, there has been a resurgence of many entirely preventable diseases in the United States. In 2012 so far, 49 states and Washington D.C., have reported increases in cases of whooping cough, with the majority of deaths affecting infants. Anti-vaccine activists hurt everyone, especially pro-vaccination Americans in comprised positions, such as children too young to get vaccines or individuals who are immunocomprised. As long as members of Congress try to throw out years of research to favor their gut feelings or emotions, American health will be the victim. Just because Burton is retiring doesn’t mean there won’t be other dangerous anti-science politicians willing to take up his mantle. Rather than trust politicians’ pseudoscience, please, Americans, get your kids vaccinated as directed by a board-certified doctor. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(11/29/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>During the next year, newspaper readers will be much less likely to see “homophobia” or “Islamaphobia” reported in mainstream newspapers. That’s not because either of these phenomena is likely to lessen in the coming months, but because the Associated Press Stylebook, which many United States newspapers utilize as a style and usage guide, has decided to nix certain salient but murky terms — including homophobia, Islamaphobia and ethnic cleansing. AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn criticized these terms as being inaccurate and vague. The Stylebook now says phobia, whether defined as an irrational fear or as part of a mental illness, is inappropriate in sociopolitical contexts. Minthorn said he hopes to move to using “something more neutral, anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case.” In addition, certain euphemisms like “ethnic cleansing” can lessen the brutality of the acts being committed. The Stylebook can move away from these types of familiar and overused phrases to achieve greater levels of accuracy and neutrality. Some have argued that from a linguistic standpoint, the suffix “-phobia” is more broad than AP admits. The suffix can be used to connote dislike, aversion and prejudice. In many ways, it has become an all-purpose suffix and an important part of our political discourse. Officials from the LGBT advocacy group Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation will review these changes but have not yet released any commentary. However, George Winberg, the psychologist who first coined the term homophobia, has already said he disagrees with the changes. He said homophobia was a hard-won word and, more importantly, “we have no other word for what we’re talking about and this one is well established.” It will be interesting to see how newspapers across the country respond to the AP’s decision. Although many American newspapers rely on it as a guide, they are free to deviate from AP rules. Other print news sources use different or individualized stylebooks. The Indiana Daily Student has a style guide adapted from the AP Stylebook with some terms specific to IU and Bloomington.Some newspapers have already announced their decision to either follow or break away from the new AP suggestions. Terms like homophobia and Islamaphobia have been long criticized as connecting what is simply prejudice with more appropriate fears or disorders. Although this is true, it is also true that these words have become part of our national discourse on various sociopolitical issues. Television and radio news programs will likely continue to utilize these words in various contexts, regardless of whether the majority of American newspapers try to emulate the AP Stylebook or not. Trying to find new terms to conjure the same vivid images and notions in these more familiar phrases could muddy the waters.Either way, the changes from the AP are a reminder of the importance of making sure we are accurate and precise in our dialogue surrounding important sociopolitical issues. Buzz words like “Islamaphobia” or “homophobia” unconsciously shape the direction and tone of our discussion in ways we might not yet realize. During the next year, I’ll be interested in how much self-examination newspapers across the countr engage in about these changes. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(11/15/12 5:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last week’s election brought about a victory for incumbent President Barack Obama. Congress largely kept the same partisan make up it had before the election, with Republicans dominating in the House and Democrats controlling the Senate. But the election also brought some troubling results for the GOP. The more interesting implications of the election come down to voter demographics. Despite GOP hopes that Obama’s demographic successes in 2008 were a fluke, key elements of his base returned in even higher numbers to vote for him this time around, primarily young people and minorities. African Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans all backed Obama with overwhelming majorities.Nationally, nonwhite voters made up 28 percent of all voters, a two percent increase from 2008. Of these voters, Obama won 80 percent. This was especially significant in several battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, where there are sizable minority populations that helped bring about an Obama victory. The long term gender gap among voters also assisted Obama. In the swing states of Florida, Virginia and Ohio, he kept or improved his 2008 margins among women. Although all of these results fit into established voter trends, seeing the exit polling demographics is somewhat staggering. Now, the GOP needs to admit they have a problem on their hands. Part of the problem seems to be their refusal to budge from a particularly insular media bubble. Liberals obviously have their own slanted media sources, but there is a segment of the Republican Party that seems particularly skilled at ignoring the reality of their situation. No example comes to mind better than the GOP reaction to Nate Silver’s ultimately correct predictions. Rather than admit that Silver’s polling was accurate, far right conservatives rejected his model, even creating a doppelganger website that predicted huge Romney victories. Because it predicted an Obama victory almost perfectly accurately, they dismissed his polling data. Republican media seem to reward niche pundits, who identify with a segment of the American population that is quickly shrinking. Even Bill O’Reilly admitted after the election that “the white establishment is now the minority.” Republicans can no longer count on support among older, white men to offset their lack of popularity among huge minority group, especially among the fast-expanding Hispanic-American population. The Christian far right population, which helped sweep former president George W. Bush into victory, increasingly seems out of date and harmful to Republican success. There is currently a huge rift in conservative media not only about how to address this problem, but if the problem exists at all. The ways Republicans can broaden their appeal — doubling down on core economic beliefs while moving away from some of the more stringent social values that have shown to just not work with younger generations — is unpopular with much of the conservative entertainment complex. At the GOP convention, there seemed to be some efforts to address their demographic problems. Keynote speakers included some of the most prominent minority Republicans. Romney’s campaign set a high goal for increases in Latino voters, a goal they ultimately failed to accomplish. But this is a deep-rooted conflict that will take more than one campaign cycle or convention to fix, even if it helps bring to light the severity of this issue. After this election, Republicans need to do a serious self-examination of the institutions and culture that have created this huge divide in the country. The first step to fixing a problem? Admitting you have one. And the GOP most certainly does. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(11/01/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Between Tropical Storm Issac delaying the start of the Republican National Convention earlier this fall and Hurricane Sandy now wreaking havoc on the East Coast, it seems Mother Nature doesn’t think the two presidential candidates have faced quite enough challenges this election season. Given the heavily scripted, down to the last second nature of campaigning, this storm has and will continue to muck up the candidates’ final campaigning plans in critical ways. Both candidates will likely spend time addressing the states affected by the hurricane, time they would usually have spent focusing on important swing states like Ohio or Colorado. They have also both had to limit their campaigning. President Barack Obama has sent out first lady Michelle Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to campaign for him while he attends briefings in Washington, D.C.Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has canceled several campaign events out of sensitivity to those affected by the storm. The media as a whole has been focusing less on the election and devoting more time to the horrific storm and the subsequent cleanup and recovery efforts, as it should. This means the two men will have to fight to gain crucial coverage during the last week, a time vitally important in influencing last minute voters.Undecided voters will see their last week to make a choice between candidates filled with Romney and Obama navigating the storm and clean-up, rather than discussing larger ideologies and plans.This can be a time for Obama to demonstrate his command or a time that can bring back echoes of former president George Bush’s less-than-well received Hurricane Katrina performance. In some ways, there is more to gain or lose for Obama here than Romney. Voters will be reminded, as Obama repeatedly stressed during the final debate, that he is the commander in chief, the one currently sitting in the Oval Office. A positive performance in this time could be a bonus for Obama’s image, reinforcing his claims that he is calm and in control. Meanwhile, Romney is limited in what he can do in response to the storm, but he doesn’t have the same potential for failure. He will focus on maximizing the effectiveness of his now limited campaign. Romney’s camp had been planning on a last minute blitz strategy of television advertisements that will now likely be pulled or rearranged due to the storm. He will need to re-examine the tone of these ads, so he doesn’t appear overly political or petty in a time of crisis. This is a challenge both Obama and Romney will face as they discuss the storm. Romney has also received some flak for his statements during the June 2011 CNN primary debate that states should have a bigger role in disaster relief. His campaign quickly released a statement stressing that Romney would not abolish Federal Emergency Management Agency, but that he continues to believe that states are in the best position to aid communities in times of disaster. It’s still unclear just how much the storm will affect voting behavior. Early voting has been shut down in several East Coast states. In lower-income areas, many of which usually lean Democratic, voting will likely be hurt by the storm. Sandy reinforces the fact that, until Nov. 7 rolls around and a president is chosen, the actions of Romney and Obama are viewed through an all-important political prism. Nothing the two men say or do is not carefully thought out and scripted, but this storm throws a huge challenge in the face of both of their campaigns. Perhaps an undecided voter herself, Mother Nature is throwing out one final test to see how the presidential candidates measure up in the last week before the election.— gwinslow@indiana.edu
(10/25/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The presidential debate Monday night didn’t have a clear winner. This is partly because the two candidates don’t have wildly different positions on foreign policy. Even Glenn Beck tweeted at one point, “I am glad to know that Mitt agrees with Obama so much.” However, there were still several prickly exchanges between the two men. Obama’s “fewer horses and bayonets” response seems poised to become the “binders full of women” or the “big bird” line of this debate. He also seemed set on reminding Romney that he is the one with the all-important commander-in-chief experience. He referred several times to the challenges this position has brought him and with which he has effectively dealt, reminding voters about Obama’s well-received foreign policy record, while at the same time reminding them of Romney’s lack of experience.Romney avoided gaffes, sure to please Republicans fearing a reprisal of some of the awkwardness of his foreign tour during the summer. Both Romney and Obama emphasized maintaining a strong relationship with Israel, and Romney further said that the administration has been too weak in regards to the possibility of a nuclear Iran. An annoyed Obama denied a New York Times report suggesting he was considering one-on-one negotiation plans with Iran. He said he was pursuing stringent measures against Iran, including crippling sanctions.With few exceptions, the foreign policy debate focused almost entirely about the Middle East. Europe and Sub-Saharan Africa came up only fleetingly. Romney walked back earlier comments about Russia being our greatest geopolitical foe. More than anything, both men continually emphasized how foreign policy comes back to the domestic economy. Voters overwhelmingly say they care about job creation and the deficit over foreign policy, so it makes sense that both men would remind viewers of the most salient domestic issues. When the opportunity presented itself, the candidates discussed issues ranging from Romney’s tax plan, to the federal auto bailout or teachers. It was on these economic issues that the men’s strongest opposing viewpoints came into light. Obama challenged Romney after Romney once again insisted he supported federal help during bankruptcy for the auto industry. Although Romney pointed to his five-point plan to revive the economy, he still didn’t provide some of the detail voters have been hoping for, instead directing voters to look at the plan on his website and reminding viewers of his experience in business.The presidential debates are now finished, but the candidates are still in a dead heat. If the election stays this tight, the candidates will likely duel it out in the nine important battleground states until Nov. 6.— gwinslow@indiana.edu
(10/18/12 4:31am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>While the national media continues to zero in on the presidential debates, many Indiana voters are also paying close attention to the debate amongst their U.S. Senate candidates. The candidates, Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-2nd District, Republican State Treasurer Richard Mourdock and Libertarian candidate Andrew Horning sat down Monday for the first of two debates. It is a highly contested race in a state that has been loyal to Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., ousted by Tea Party favorite Mourdock in the primary. Howey/DePauw polls shows Donnelly with 40 percent of the vote, Mourdock with 38 percent and Horning with 7 percent. The two major party candidates are in a statistical dead heat. The Hoosier State is still strictly red when it comes to other races this election cycle. Rep. Mike Pence, R-6th District, has a comfortable lead against Democratic candidate John Gregg in the gubernatorial election. Romney is almost guaranteed to take the state in the general election. In order for Donnelly to win, some Hoosiers will likely have to split their ballots to ensure a Donnelly victory. Much of the race has been defined by Mourdock’s primary victory against Lugar. Donnelly has repeatedly painted Mourdock as too extreme for Indiana, while emphasizing his own bipartisan leanings. He has reached out to Lugar supporters, discussing history of working with Lugar stressing their cooperation on giving federal loans to Chrysler and General Motors.Not surprisingly, Mourdock has distanced himself from the more right wing Tea Party tenants he promoted in the primary. In the debate, he denied being a Tea Party candidate, insisting he was a proud Republican. While he has become more moderate on some issues, his frustration with the Obama administration was apparent throughout the debate. He repeatedly decried the failures of the administration, likely hoping to reach out to disgruntled Indiana Republicans already supporting Romney. When Horning chimed in during the debate, it was to repeat the same message. If voters want to fix issues in Washington and between the two major parties, they need to go with an outsider. At one point in the debate, after a tense disagreement between the two mainstream candidates, he likely delighted Libertarians all across Indiana by saying, “I could not possibly frame my argument as well as you all are doing for me.”This will be an edge-of-your-seat contest until election night, one of the closest races in this election. Both candidates will try to appeal to the middle-of-the-road voters that have supported Lugar for years. If you’re an undecided Hoosier, tune in Oct. 23 to the final debate, when the candidates will face off to grab your vote. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(10/11/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s debate victory last week helped add new energy to his campaign, which has been hit hard in the past few weeks by embarrassing leaks and falling polling numbers. That means the stakes for Thursday’s vice presidential debate are higher than ever for Vice President Joe Biden and vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Although not all of Romney’s debate assertions last week were entirely truthful, he appeared assertive, controlled and presidential. If Ryan performs well tonight, he can help add to the new momentum in Romney’s campaign. Ryan has been preparing heavily for this debate. Although Biden is known for his verbal gaffes, Ryan pointed out recently to Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace that Biden “doesn’t do that in debates...He’s a very disciplined person when he speaks in these kinds of situations.” Ryan has said several times that he expects Biden will be a strong adversary. Moreover, Ryan has little debate experience, none of which has been at the national level. His last debate was when he first ran for Congress 14 years ago. Being out of practice clearly hurt Obama during last week’s debate. Ryan will have to work hard to show that he is capable and in command on the debate stage. Even though Ryan doesn’t have much debate experience, he is a career politician. He was first elected to Congress when he was only 28 years old. In interviews, he can be light-footed and evasive. He is also widely known as someone who is sincere and proactive in his deeply held beliefs. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, he is comfortable with number-based talking points and has a strong individual vision for what the direction of the country should be. In particular, discussions of taxes and the deficit will give Ryan a chance to showcase his economic credentials. Ryan also has to reconcile his personal visions with Romney’s. Romney has pursued several increasingly centrist stances during the past few weeks. In the presidential debate, Romney publicly backed away from several elements of his tax plan.Ryan will have to double down on Romney’s positions on the economy, healthcare and the size of government. It is a task that may be particularly difficult in certain cases in which Romney’s numbers don’t really add up or where Romney’s support has been mixed, discrepancies Obama pointed out without really driving home during the debate last week.Biden will likely amp up the overall aggression in his performance, especially given Obama’s passivity on stage. Biden is a more colorful speaker than Obama, which can both help and hurt him. He can be witty and outspoken, leading to memorable sound bites for viewers. But those traits have also been the cause of decades of gaffes. Just recently, Biden remarked that the middle class has been “buried for the last four years.” Biden will have to work to maintain his overall dominance against Ryan, while avoiding moments of vulnerability that Ryan could act upon.No matter who the victor turns out to be, Thursday’s debate will likely be a lively show.Because vice presidential candidates face a little less scrutiny than the names on the top of the ticket, their debates are often looser and more energetic. On a side note, it will also be the first time that two Catholics have ever debated each other in a televised presidential or vice presidential debate, an example of how this year’s presidential tickets are the most religiously diverse ever. However, Catholicism is one of the only things the two men share ideologically. Thursday provides both a difficult challenge and a great opportunity for both campaigns. Ryan will have to overcome his lack of debate experience to build on the momentum Romney’s performance began last week, while Biden will have to fight to pin down specifics on several discrepancies in Romney’s plans without making any embarrassing gaffes. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(10/04/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>A record 24 million Latinos are eligible to vote in the 2012 presidential election. Even more significantly, Latino voters are a key presence in several battleground states such as Florida and New Mexico. The candidates will fight a heated battle in states like Colorado, where a 20 percent Latino population will help decide where the state’s nine electoral votes will go. All this has caused both candidates to increase national efforts to court Latino voters. The efforts have especially intensified for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign, which set a goal of securing 38 percent of the Latino vote and is currently trailing President Barack Obama in Latino support by a large margin. In many ways, trying to attract more Latino voters makes sense for the GOP. Latinos are one of the fastest-growing populations in the U.S. They are also more up-for-grabs politically than other minorities. Although a majority of Latinos identify themselves as Democrats, they have shown a willingness to support moderate Republicans in the past. Especially with the presence of many Catholic Latinos, the Republicans might find support in conservative social positions. Adding to this is Obama’s comprehensive immigration reform, which Obama has called one of the biggest regrets of his presidency. But although the GOP convention highlighted some of the party’s top Latino officials, like Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, Latino support for Romney has fallen. Romney’s secretly taped fundraiser, where he joked that it would be helpful for his electoral chances if he were Mexican, didn’t help him appear sensitive to issues Latinos face in the U.S. For many Latino voters, immigration reform remains a top issue. Romney has tried lately to soften his stance on immigration. He recently said he would not deport young illegal immigrants granted temporary visas through policy changes by the Obama administration. But Romney still hasn’t given enough specifics. During the primary, Romney was aggressive on immigration issues, calling for the controversial policy of self-deportation. He also declared he would veto the Dream Act. Now, Romney has indicated he might instead consider legislation from Rubio, which would allow for young illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. Obama took more than 60 percent of the Latino vote in 2008, and polls currently show a similar lead. But if Romney is able to lay out a more specific message on immigration, he might be able to attract more Latino voters tired of and disappointed by Obama’s inaction on issues of immigration. No matter which way the Latino vote swings, it remains important for both candidates to recognize the Latino vote as increasingly crucial, a trend that will likely continue in following elections. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(09/27/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>At a recent AARP event in New Orleans, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan was booed after he discussed repealing President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. For a party that traditionally performs strongly with older voters, it was a chilly reception.More troubling for the GOP campaign are new polls by Reuters that show Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s lead among Americans 60 or older has taken a severe fall from a 20 point lead to less than 4 points. In addition, a new Gallup poll shows voters trust Obama more than Romney to have a positive influence on Medicare. In certain battleground states with older populations, such as Florida, voters expressed more faith in Obama’s Medicare plan than Romney’s, 50 percent to 44 percent. Part of selecting Ryan as his vice presidential running mate meant Romney would have to confront the Medicare issue sooner or later. In his role as chairman of the House Budget Committee, Ryan proposed revolutionizing Medicare by giving seniors money to buy a government or private plan, a method Democrats have criticized as a voucher program that won’t be enough to cover medical costs as traditional Medicare does. Republicans argue this will preserve the program’s longevity. So far, though, the public has been extremely reluctant to accept Ryan’s plan, with older voters opposing it by a 2-to-1 ratio. Ryan’s discussion of Medicare has focused on the negatives of Obama’s plan, a strategy that hasn’t been very successful. Ryan has repeatedly criticized Obama for $716 billion in cuts to Medicare, cuts that Ryan’s budget plan also made. As for the candidate, Romney has fought to keep the focus off Ryan’s plan, arguing that Romney is “the guy running for president, not him.” But these polls seem to indicate the Democrats are winning the marketing battle against Medicare.Analysts say Romney must reverse the decline in support among older voters for a win. Jonathan Oberlander, a health policy specialist at the University of North Carolina, said, “If Romney loses seniors, he loses this election, period. A bad showing nationally (among older voters) does not bode well for Florida and other states with big senior populations.” Romney and Ryan will have to address how their Medicare plan will benefit older voters, a topic they will most likely address at the debates in October. Rather than focusing on criticizing Obama’s plan, the GOP campaign needs to elaborate on the positives of its approach. They need to find a way to bring older voters back into the Republican fold if they want a chance of winning. And the GOP knows this is a bigger issue than Romney’s win in November. This is likely their last chance to repeal Obama’s health care law before more of its changes go into effect in 2014 and become entrenched in the system. If Republicans want that chance, they have to find a way to market their Medicare plans successfully to older voters. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(09/20/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>With President Barack Obama gaining ground in several key states, unease about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s position is spreading among GOP supporters. Part of Obama’s lead is a standard post-convention bounce, a typicality that unfortunately didn’t really occur for Romney after the GOP convention earlier this month. But it isn’t just poll numbers that have some in the GOP camp concerned. Politico, quickly followed by other news sources, has released several articles this week criticizing Stuart Stevens, Romney’s top strategist, a man almost always tagged with the qualifier “eclectic.” The prominent Politico article detailed a last minute convention speech switch that left viewers underwhelmed. It also covered the unfortunate Clint Eastwood chair skit, which Pew pollsters found many considered the highlight of the convention, particularly among independents and casual viewers, the people conventions are typically hoping to appeal to.Thus far in the race, Stevens, Romney’s staff and the candidate himself have preached one strategy: stay focused on the economy and the negatives of Obama. Now, they are being criticized for not saying enough about specific Romney policies or positive attributes. It’s not just opponents, but the Republican base that is once again beginning to grumble. Stevens has now announced that Romney will be changing up his strategy. Given the amount of unrest in the Middle East and criticisms concerning lack of detail, Romney’s campaign will now focus on “status quo versus change.” Although the economy will remain the focus, Romney’s camp will make a concerted enough effort to address foreign policy, the threat of nations like China and the negative tone in Washington. Economic stagnation and protests in the Middle East may help the GOP regain footing. On the other hand, neither Romney nor Ryan has extensive foreign policy credentials and Romney’s foreign forays so far have resulted in several embarrassing verbal gaffes. A recent CBS poll found that voters trust Obama more to handle an international crisis. Although Romney’s camp has shown it is sensitive to its stagnating poll numbers and criticisms, their current position is not unique, perhaps providing a bit of relief for concerned Republicans. Mark McKinnon, former President George W. Bush’s chief media strategist said the Bush campaign had a similar period, calling “it Black September. Everything went to [pieces]...It’s eerily similar.” Obama’s campaign also drew fire after the conventions in 2008 while Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., temporarily leaped ahead with vice presidential pick Sarah Palin. The damage that the Romney campaign is taking right now may be a normal September swoon. Despite assurances by Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s that “everybody knows” Romney is not going to be the next POTUS, the poll numbers are still too close and the election is too far out for anyone to determine definitely who will be the victor. Much will depend on the continuing economic reports and events in the Middle East. Romney and his supporters will have to wait and see if he is able to find more success with his new campaign strategy. — gwinslow@indiana.edu
(09/13/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>After the media vacuum of the political conventions, students might feel a bit worn out from election politics. It can be hard to face the barrage of campaign entertainment, half-truths, distortions and the focus on issues you might not care about. But one thing that was evidently important to candidates at both conventions and is likely of equal, if not greater, importance to college students everywhere is the cost of attaining a higher education. Republican Candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama have both promised they understand and empathize with the plight of debt-loaded students. Investing in education was a common theme for many DNC speakers, and Obama declared, “No family should have to set aside a college acceptance letter because they don’t have the money.” Romney also emphasized the disappointing position many college students find themselves in when they graduate and realize they mistakenly “thought they’d have a good job by now ... and that they could start paying back some of their loans.” Although both recognize the common problem, Obama and Romney unsurprisingly diverge on what they believe the appropriate response to be. In 2010, Obama revamped student loan programs. Beginning in 2014, new loan recipients will pay back no more than 10 percent of their disposable income each year. Discussions to extend this program to current students are underway. In addition, after 20 years, remaining debt will be forgiven. If you’re in a public-service profession like teaching or nursing, your debt can be forgiven after 10 years as long as your payments have been on time. Obama has indicated he would like to increase Pell Grants and extend the $2,500 college tuition tax credit set to expire at the end of this year. In his DNC speech, he called for cutting the rate of tuition increases in half during the next decade. One way this would occur is through programs that reward states that put college pricing changes in effect and provide stable college funding. Critics have said Obama’s plans don’t involve enough funding to bring college tuition levels down as much as Obama would like. Romney’s position is not as clear and is complicated by his vice-presidential choice. The Vice Presidential Candidate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., budget plan calls for kicking 1 million students off of Pell Grants, but Romney has said he supports extending the rate cut for loans.A paper Romney published in May said he would end duplicative federal financial aid programs, make sure Pell Grants go to those who need them most and, overall, “tackle this challenge by making clear that the federal government will no longer write a blank check to universities to reward their tuition increases.” Romney would like to bring private lenders back into the federal student loan market. Obama’s reforms all required that the government issue all federal student loans. Romney and Obama both recognize the high costs of college and resulting debt are problems that hurt all of America’s students. This November, consider which candidate you think will offer the best educational reform policy. Get out to vote on an issue that directly affects you.— gwinslow@indiana.edu
(09/06/12 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Since we were young, we were raised to value honesty in ourselves and others. We’re repeatedly told that George Washington fessed up about the cherry tree, that our pants will be set ablaze if we lie and that Pinocchio’s nose grew. So it makes sense that we carry that value into the political arena. More and more resources are available to us to check the veracity of every political event. The 24-hour newsrooms catch the tiniest gaffes, and websites like Politifact and Factcheck grew popular by attempting to give truth ratings to various statements from politicians.When I talk to my peers, they often express dislike for a candidate by attacking a politician’s perceived sincerity. Even if they can’t elaborate, it seems a lot of Americans have a firm opinion as to who the truly honest politicians are, and it just so happens that the belief often aligns with the candidate their party has tossed into the ring.Honesty seems to be a special concern to many Americans during this convention season. After the Republican National Convention, Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., attracted much flak for a speech that contained some lies and a lot of what was seen as spin or perspective. Media outlets covered these more substantial discrepancies before gleefully jumping on a lie about Ryan’s marathon time. He said two hours and fifty-something, but it was actually four hours. The Democratic National Convention this week is sure to attract similar coverage, especially from disgruntled Republicans who would like to prove that they are not the only ones who can stretch the truth. But most Americans’ fascination with honesty extends far beyond one convention season and one convention speech. Polls show that Americans repeatedly rank honesty as one of the most important factors in voting for a candidate. In a 2000 Pew poll, 84 percent of Americans said it was very important for them to learn about a candidate’s reputation for honesty, ahead of issues like the candidate’s voting record and the candidate’s major financial contributors.More recently, Pew asked voters for one word that best described Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. Some of the top words and the number of people who said it out of the 1,010 surveyed: 32 people said honest, five said phony, 13 said liar, nine said fake, eight said sincere and six said dishonest. Pew hasn’t done the same question for President Barack Obama yet, but I bet the results would have a similar dissonance. We value honesty in our politicians, but our belief in who is telling the truth often seems to fall along party lines. We forgive the lies of our tribe but demand blood when the other tribe commits the same sin.It makes me question, given most Americans’ poor ability and opportunity to seriously judge a candidate’s honesty, if we mistakenly overvalue it. It’s a nice political buzzword, but like a lot of other political terms, it can often mean different things from person to person.Thinking our candidate is the honest one might just be one more cognitive bias that we fall prey to as voters. I’m not saying telling the truth is not a valuable and responsible trait and that certain candidates don’t lie to a reprehensible degree.But given the flurry of sound bites, the barrage of media sources and the necessary entertainment that campaign season is, I urge you to pause before you declare your candidate or your party the honest one.Remember there are different sized lies, and some truths are greater than others. I’m less concerned about Ryan’s marathon time than I am his assertion that Obama was to blame for America’s credit downgrade when the rating agency explicitly blamed the GOP.Campaigning comes with a good deal of theater. Before you judge a candidate on a vague notion of sincerity, look at his party’s platform and his stance on pertinent issues rather than any sense you have of his genuineness. Even if you don’t listen to my warnings about trusting a political actor’s honesty, you may find that your political beliefs, and your opinion of his honesty, always line up.— gwinslow@indiana.edu