Election Night

With the votes still being counted, more information has emerged regarding the campaign finances of each team and some questionable tactics by supporters.
The Rusher campaign earned $81,700 during the course of the race and spent $60,500 on advertising and other expenses, the most of any of the candidates. The Eagles campaign raised $92,826 and dispersed $15,500 of it. The Campbell campaign, though raising $87,500, chose to spend none of it on advertising, and these reporters are wondering if this choice had a detrimental effect on Campbell’s presidential aspirations. Though Rusher raised the least money, she has outspent her opponents, and she seems to be running away with the election.
Two controversies have also arisen today. Francis Brooke, the brother of a top Rusher campaign member, filed a lawsuit claiming that the FEC had unjustly rejected his attempt to bundle all the St. Albans sports teams as a giant PAC. Unfortunately, the courts dismissed this challenge on the grounds that sports teams cannot be PACs because they belong to St. Albans.
Additionally, a rumor has circulated that a group of lower classmen threatened to “bum-rush” Ms. Grazette’s mailbox with ballots for Campbell because they felt that excluding them from the voting process has doomed Campbell. They argue that because only seniors can vote, the election is automatically tipped towards Rusher. The FEC rejected this claim because underclassmen are simply not old enough to vote in the presidential election and because the senior voters represent only one portion of the electoral pool. The BGE staff, the administration, and the lower school all seem to be leaning towards Rusher, so even without the seniors, she would likely win the election.
The final results and exact numbers will be released tomorrow morning.
(The pictures to left show the Rusher and Eagles campaign teams).

The Debate

EYE ON STAMERICA: PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE 2008 CANDIDATES AGREE ON WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ/DIVIDE OVER REV. BILLOW COMMENTS AND UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE (By Ms. Grazette)
Presidential candidates Rusher, Campbell and Eagles went at each other in a taped debate in the American Government class yesterday. Topics covered the map from the Iraq War to attitudes on moral issues and universal health care. The candidates really showed that they are quite different on how to execute government involvement, even in areas where one might assume similar policy outlooks. Candidates want out of Iraq but are deeply divided on universal healthcare and comments on public schools made by the outspoken Rusher supporter, Rev. Will Billow. (Francis Thumpasery stood in as Rusher; Gunnar Sidak as Campbell and Graham Thompson as Eagles)

Moderators Kacey Read and Amy Collier began the debate by asking each candidate how they would manage Iraq. All candidates indicated they would want to pull out of Iraq, with Campbell making clear that his philosophy is to, "Make America great again. It will take years, even decades." Campbell advocated more of a human rights philosophy as the key strategic guide for where America should allow human rights intervention. He argued that Americans should, "Pull out of Iraq and mind our own business. Intervene only when critical." He gave the case of Darfur as an example to show that he was " big on human rights intervention," but stated unequivocally that he "saw Iraq as a mistake." The other candidates all agreed on Iraq. Rusher felt that "America has moved away from being part of the global community," and that its pursuit of "unilateral" efforts is dangerous. She advocated more "consensus" and the need to "return to the UN to work more with other countries."

The candidates were asked whether they thought America's moral values were deteriorating, and specifically, what role should a president play in establishing moral values. Rusher stated that she was "pro-choice and pro gay-rights," though she quibbled with the moderator on what was meant by a "moral issue." Rusher made clear she did not like the question and felt a more helpful question would "separate civic issues from morality." When asked directly by Read if she felt the president should use his office to improve moral values or highlight what he or she thinks are flawed moral values, Rusher answered "No," arguing further that she believes in the "separation of church and state."

Eagles responded to the question by making clear that he viewed religion as "very personal. It is different for every person." While he described himself as someone who "believes in God and Christ," he made clear that it was, "Not government's job to impose it on other people. People should be allowed to express their belief in whatever manner they want."

Campbell also argued that he was "Very pro separation of church and state History shows the blending of the two is not successful and can lead to disaster." Campbell took pains to show that he was "not anti-religion," but that in America "the fear of imposition is why we separate the two. It is perfectly fine for Eagles to hold beliefs...he has those first amendment rights...but ask him to refrain from imposing that upon America."

Rusher joined Campbell in saying that she felt religion was being overemphasized in the campaign. Rusher agreed that it had been, "seen in history...when religion takes a prominent role other people's rights are repressed...for example, women's right to choose; also the rights of homosexuals. We need to keep this in mind."

No discussion would have been complete on issues of religion and morality this week without the entrance of the controversial Rev. Billow comments. STAMERICA debate watchers were all aware that Billow had endorsed Rusher earlier this week with comments that drew a strong reaction from supporters of public schools. The Reverend Will Billow, who serves as a pastor at St. Albans, remarked in a sermon recently that he is inclined to support Sherry Rusher in her campaign for the presidency due to her "stance on public support for parochial schools." Willow went on to say that,"Rusher understands that some public funds for parochial school efforts is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I have never understood the objections. After all, parochial school supporters have never objected to their tax dollars supporting public schools even though they do not advocate religion...public schools and their participants are in effect, Godless." An uproar erupted over Willow's characterization of public schools as "Godless" with online cries for Rusher to denounce Willow's support. Public school champions argued that Willow's comments could reduce funding for public schools.

Moderator Amy Collier asked Rusher to directly address the Rev. Billow comment. Rusher tried to distance herself from Billow without renouncing his support, saying that "while we do appreciate the support of Rev. Billow---he is a long supporter and has always been helpful---we do not support his view in its entirety. Billow represented one side of his beliefs; he is very compassionate...he believes in a strong social justice system, and we feel that is very important." Rusher emphasized that there were some things Billow supported that clearly she shared: "We plan to [introduce] universal health care. Those are values we share with Billow. Those are the values we hope to emphasize and would work toward as president."

The matter seemed to have been put to rest and the debate proceeded calmly until the moderators discussed universal health care. Campbell felt that "in an ideal world, government would supply [healthcare]. I think America is idealism backed by action." But Campbell said he was,"not sure that government can provide quality. There is a difference in access versus quality." Campbell felt Canada had been successful at this, but provided health care on "a much smaller scale. We have 350 million Americans, much bigger. I like the idea in theory, but can we succeed like Canada and Sweden?" Rusher supports universal health care and believes there are many more successes than Campbell acknowledges. She argued that America is the only major country without some form of universal health care. Eagles disagreed and argued against universal health care, saying that "government has failed at providing health care." He also took sharp issue with Rusher's call in the debate to lower drug costs, arguing that a free market would better set drug prices. Heated exchanges around the health care issue lead to a sharp attack on Rusher and Eagles from Campbell: "So let me get this straight. Ted Eagles is okay with leaving countless Americans behind to die and suffer and Sherry Rusher is comfortable with flip flopping on whether she supports her pastor or not."

The moderators closed the debate by allowing each candidate to offer closing comments on why they should be elected, as well as what they thought of their opposing candidates. Campbell lead by saying that, "We have a terrible pool of candidates. Here I am not trying to be selfish, but I can only see myself as the savior because I am focused on the issues. I would be terrified if they [meaning Eagles or Rusher] were president. Eagles is a hard core capitalist who is okay with leaving behind others for his own success. He is okay with having poor people since he does not even want to give them health care. Rusher is okay with her pastor saying public schools are Godless." Campbell went on to "call them out," demanding that Rusher make clear whether she "agrees or disagrees" with Billow and if she disagrees with his endorsement, will she "cut him off from her campaign."

Eagles made clear he felt "insulted by Campbell's hideous remarks," and went on to state that he has "argued more for the poor than both candidates combined." He stated that his "tax records show he supports the poor." He felt that the other candidates, "want to take your money to government to give to the poor...I say let the private person do it." Eagles accused Rusher and Campbell of being, "all talk and no show. I care very much and would help the poor with health care." In fact, Eagles had stated several times during the debate he supported reduced drug costs for the poor. Eagles was however, skeptical of Rusher's claim on experience, adding that "heading a Language Department at a small school or being a dean at it," was not enough to qualify her for the presidency. He emphasized his real world work and board memberships. He was proud of drawing organizational support that he felt reflected his long history "at STA and hard work" for those groups. Eagles also argued for his close relationships to students at St. Albans.

Rusher reiterated her support for Billow and accused Campbell of ignoring Willow's work on important outreach issues. In the final analysis, Rusher advocated supporting her candidacy for her "experience" and "broad grass roots support." She was proud of not having any PAC money. She felt her huge Facebook support and individual giving meant she was more a candidate of the people and emphasized her Oklahoma roots.

Campbell advocated his compassion and desire to reach young people. He says he cares "much about the world," and is devoted to leaving it better for "young people." He gave that as his primary reason for entering the race.

The debate in full is posted to the American Government class Blackboard site, the desktops of the Computer lab and online at STA Election Game at Google Groups.

Final Thoughts: PACs, Money, and the Debate

The election is tomorrow, and the campaigns are taking last minute desperate measures to ensure success. The Rusher campaign, or the self-labeled “Dream Team”, has taken back its vow to reject PAC money, and last Friday, May 16, accepted $10,000 from the Touch Football and Frisbee clubs. Before this new development, the Rusher campaign was the only one rejecting PAC funding.
Last week, the Eagles campaign had received criticism for raising so much of its funds through PAC bundling. In response to the Rusher announcement, the Eagles Campaign Director, Graham Thompson, defended the use of PAC funds by saying, “In a country with the First Amendment, PAC money is as valid and hard earned as an individual gift”. He added, “All that noise about bundling last week was smoke and mirrors from the Rusher campaign. They were upset that we worked harder at fundraising.”
Yes, the Eagles campaign has earned the most money, but Rusher still leads in individual donors, indicating that she has the broad support of alumni, teachers, and students. In fact, this weekend Rusher picked up the support of teachers Earl Houston and Edie Ching. Nevertheless, Eagles has raised more than $85,000, while Rusher has just approached $70,000.
But do not forget about Campbell, who has raised a very respectable $82,000. And according to most students, Campbell won the debate last Thursday. One of his particular remarks both attacked his opponents and made him appear to be the best choice for the job. He said, “Now let me get this straight… Eagles is okay with not giving poor people health care and Sherry Rusher is okay with flip-flopping on supporting her pastor calling public schools ‘Godless’”.
The Daily Dish is eagerly awaiting the election results tomorrow and will keep the public updated as much as possible.

Last Minute Reminders

With the election taking place tomorrow, the Daily Dish would like to run through some important last minute information. All voters must be registered by 8 am tomorrow morning, and if you are not registered by then, you will not be allowed to vote in the election. Absentee ballots must be in no later than 3 pm tomorrow afternoon and can either be handed to Ms. Grazette or placed in her teacher's mailbox. The absentee ballots are available on Blackboard or through any of the campaign members.
The polls will be open from 8 am to 8 pm, and any registered voters can email their choice to Ms. Grazette.

The Facebook Tactic

As the election draws closer, the candidates are looking for more ways to reach voters. Perhaps one of the smartest tactic has been to create groups on Facebook, a social networking site that the majority of St. Albans students actively use. By creating these groups, the campaigns can announce their candidate’s entry in the race and can give students the instructions for donating money and registering to vote. Currently the Eagles campaign has two Facebook groups, one started by Ben Otoo and the other by Anirudha Balasubramanian. The former, entitled “Eagles ’08 Giving America Wings, has 13 members, and the latter, called “Edward Eagles for US President: Giving the Nation Wings” has 17 members. However, because of overlap, together the Eagles’ groups have 22 members. The group entitled, “John Campbell for U.S. President”, which was started by Gunnar Sidak, has a total of 23 members. The Rusher group, or “Mrs. Rusher For President Of the United States Of America”, was created by Henry Brooke and currently has 17 members.
While Facebook groups may be good forums for raising money, there is a slight problem with the groups’ goal of finding voter support. St. Albans seniors are the only students who can vote in the election on Tuesday, and therefore it is more important to look at how many seniors are in each group when attempting to predict election results. The Rusher group includes four seniors, one of whom is also in the Eagles group. Combined the two Eagles groups only have three seniors as members, while the Campbell group, despite having the highest membership, does not have any seniors.
At this point in the race, it is imperative that the campaigns turn their attention to eligible voters. The freshmen, sophomores, and juniors who are in the groups are useful in raising funds, but the seniors, faculty, and staff are the people who decide the election.

Campaign Finance Update: An Indication of the Election Results?

Based on the latest gathered data, Rusher seems to be the only candidate who has gained the 20 necessary donors to qualify for federal funding. She has raised $55,200 from 26 individual donations and no PAC donations. The Eagles campaign has raised more money, $73,926, but has only received 10 individual donations because most of the campaign’s funds come from PAC bundled donations. The PACs that have contributed to the Eagles campaign include the Environmental Club, the Entrepreneurship Club, the Government Club, The Independent, Model UN, and 6 other PACs. The Rusher campaign last reported having only 1 individual donor and $2,300 in funding. These figures are possibly outdated, however, and the Daily Dish will investigate this further.
These reporters feel that the campaigns need to raise more money in order to advertise effectively. Newspaper and TV ads cost a lot, and without greater funds, the candidates will not be able to get their messages out. Additionally, by aggressively raising funds from citizens and voters, the candidates appear more viable and more serious about the presidential job. They will get their names out in the public eye and possibly sway voters. There seems to be many large bases on untapped donations and untapped support, such as many teachers and large groups of students – especially St. Albans seniors.
If the donations are any way of gauging how the voters will vote on Election Day, it seems that Rusher may currently have the upper hand because she has the most individual supporters and therefore has the broadest base.

The Daily Dish would like to remind voters that voter registration closes at noon on Monday, May 19th. If you would like to vote in the election, you must contact Ms. Grazette or one of the campaign teams by then.

An Informative Town Hall Meeting

The town hall meeting this afternoon, though lacking a large audience, was informative and energetic. After being asked about the troubled American education system and possible solutions to the problem, the Eagles campaign, which was represented by Robbie Cumby, said that the US needs to improve education in order to jumpstart the economy. Cumby continued by saying that the way to bring the country out of recession is by improving opportunities and job training for citizens. The Campbell campaign, which was represented by Gunnar Sidak, claimed that it was “full of idealism” and that it believed education could be made better. Sidak remarked that too much of America’s money and attention was focused on the terrorism and the issues abroad, and he emphasized that the country must focus instead on attaining quality teachers. The Rusher campaign, represented by Paul Cato, emphasized that the US needed to spend more money on education and create accessibility for everyone, whether rich, poor, black, or white. Cato said that the country should get rid of standards, a complex subject which he thinks particularly hurts children of color.
On the question of the troubled economy, the Campbell campaign declared, “America is a great place to be”, and noted that it is no longer a world superpower. Sidak said that to improve the country’s economic position, the US should pay off the national debt and fix America from the inside out. The Rusher campaign emphasized the need for safe trade and increased trade with America’s neighbors. If this occurs, Cato explained, the country should then turn towards domestic issues that make America safer, not in a military way but a social way. The Eagles campaign also supported free trade and added that the US needs to put food products into the market in order to lower prices. Cumby made clear that Eagles would address the issues of soaring energy prices and the crumbling housing market.
Ms. Woodruff then asked about America’s standing in the world, wondering whether the country’s reputation has been hurt by the troubled economy. The Eagles campaign explained that the dollar is falling but that the economy is not being hurt on the whole. The small extent that it is dropping, Cumby said, is due to borrowing from China, a large debt, and a dependence on foreign oil. The Campbell campaign also emphasized a need to decrease spending and increase taxes for the time being. However, Sidak said that the money raised from these taxes should not be spent on military causes.
Mr. Hansen then asked Campbell and Eagles whether the country really needed another white male in office. The Campbell campaign said that “diversity is great” but that voters should not decide based on skin color and should instead look at which candidate can do the job better. The Eagles campaign added that the country needs a “human being who take us out of the dark” and that this was not about a person’s color.
The town hall meeting provided voters with an opportunity to discuss the important issues with the candidates, and this proved very successful.