Thursday, December 6, 2012

Complete Analytical Essay #3


Kennedy Ellis
Mr. Comer
Honors Government
December 3, 2012

The Founding Fathers’ Anthropology of Man: The Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights


            Based on the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers of America found Man to be good; however, based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the fathers found that Man was evil and needed to be controlled. The independent government set up by the Articles of Confederation shows the amount of trust the Founding Fathers had in the nature of man. The more restrictive and law-abiding government set up by the Constitution and enforced by the Bill of Rights shows that the Founding Fathers were skeptical of Man’s nature and found it necessary to instill more boundaries to restrict man from its natural state of chaos.
            The independent government set up by the Articles of Confederation shows that the Founding Fathers found man to be virtuous. In the midst of the American Revolution, Congress was in desperate need of a government of that was strong enough to defeat Britain; however, its’ fear of central authority led Congress to draft The Articles of Confederation. The Articles present a government that weakens the control of a strong national government and puts more of the power into the hands of the people. In fact, article one states that each state shall “retain [its own] sovereignty, freedom, and independence” (ibid.). The authors of the Articles believed that in order to be successful in the fight for their independence against Britain would be create a government that was the exact opposite of Britain’s, a government built around and for the people instead of a government built to control the people. The states that have complied with the Articles of Confederation “hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare” (ibid.). Based on the first and second articles, the Founding Fathers found man to be beyond honorable, trusting them to defend not only themselves but also defend their fellow men in any time of need. While the Articles of Confederation accredit the man to be reputable, the Constitution and Bill of Rights find man to be cruel and in need of control.
                The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are testaments to the true nature of man. After events like Shay’s Rebellion where the people abused the power they were given only proved the weakness of the Articles of Confederation and the need for a strong central government. The Constitution strips the people of all the power the Articles gave them and grant “all legislative Powers [to the] Congress of the United States” (ibid.). Once the Founding Fathers realized that man was actually corrupt and evil, they instituted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to ensure that man would be controlled. While the Constitution details the duties of Congress, the Bill of Rights details the rights of the people, including the freedom of religion. Although the Constitution brings all the power back to Congress and out of the hands of the people, the Bill of Rights allows man the freedoms necessary to ensure that they are not completely controlled by the government.
            The Founding Fathers originally found man to be good, but after close examining, they found man to be chaotic and in need of a supreme authority. The Articles of Confederation created the thirteen colonies with a government similar to that of the city-states in Athens, a government that allowed the colonies to be in control of their government. However, once the Founding Fathers saw that man was rampageous, they instituted the Constitution to create rules for man to abide by and the Bill of Rights to create rights that allowed the colonies to still feel their sense of freedom.

Thesis of Analytical Essay #3 (just a little late)


Kennedy Ellis
Mr. Comer
Honors Government
December 3, 2012

The Founding Fathers’ Anthropology of Man: the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights

            Based on the Articles of Confederation, the Founding Fathers of America found Man to be good; however, based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the fathers found that Man was evil and needed to be controlled. The independent government set up by the Articles of Confederation shows the amount of respect and trust the Founding Fathers had in the nature of man. The more restrictive and law-abiding government set up by the Constitution and enforced by the Bill of Rights shows that the Founding Fathers were skeptical of Man’s nature and found it necessary to instill more boundaries to restrict man from its natural state of chaos. 

Oh Penn State....

http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/05/penn-state-in-spotlight-again-with-sorority-photo-mocking-latinos/?hpt=us_t4

In the article above, a derogatory picture from a sorority at Penn State is discussed. The sorority sisters of Chi Omega posted a picture of them all wearing sombreros, ponchos, and fake mustaches holding signs that say "Will mow lawns for weed and beer" and "I don't cut grass, I smoke it". The picture was taken at a Mexican- themed Halloween party but it was posted last week on Tumblr. Once the photo went public, it went under immediate scrutiny.  The Penn State Panhellenic Council is taking the matter very seriously and looking for ways to punish the girls of Chi Omega. University officials, who have had conversations with the girls, say that they express deep remorse for the photo, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't offensive. Ariel Coronel, president of the Penn State Latino Caucus stated "This is not a joke. This is our culture." One would think that Penn State has had enough of the negative attention with the fiasco created by ex-head football coach, Jerry Sandusky, but it seems that Penn State just can't get enough of it.

Who will Haley choose to replace good ole DeMInt?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/06/who-will-replace-demint-scott-rises-to-top-of-list/?hpt=po_c2

In the article above, reporter Peter Hamby analyzes who will replace Jim DeMint who announced he will be leaving his seat in the Senate to take over Heritage Foundation. The candidate most likely to get the job is South Carolina Representative, Tim Scott. Governor Nikki Haley must appoint someone to fill the seat until there is an official election in 2014. Scott is the best candidate because he is one of the conservatives' biggest stars; if Haley did not elect him, she would face more scrunity from the conservative, who are the main reasons why she even became governor. GOP fundraiser Barry Wynn says everyone feels comfortable with Scott sitting in for DeMint. The question is not whether anyone will like Scott, that question has already been answered with a big fat YES. The real question is will Haley elect solely because he is the obvious candidate from her conservative party or will she elect him because she thinks he is right for the job.

Clinton Ends the Rumors

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/06/clinton-defends-rice-pushes-off-2016-speculation/?hpt=po_c2

In this article, Hilary Clinton comes to clear the air about a rumored beef with UN Ambassador Susan Rice and end the claims that she will be in the 2016 election. After the September 11th attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya that killed 4 Americans, many wondered if Rice was right for the job. Clinton stepped in to defend her successor stating that Rice is a capable leader and goes on to say that she will support the President in his choice of who is to follow her. Also, Clinton put an end to the rumors that claim she will be a candidate in the 2016 presidential election and that her husband is next in line to be the Ambassador to Ireland; however, her husband will be providing a helping hand to Obama but without the title of Ambassador. Clinton ends saying that she looks forward to a life that is simple and allows her to spend most of her time with her family and friends. 

Analytical Essay #2


Kennedy Ellis
Mr. Comer
Honors Government
December 3, 2012

Overrated Presidents: John F. Kennedy, Thomas Jefferson and Barack Obama
            In his famous novel Star- Spangled Men, Nathan Miller constructs a list of America’s worst presidents for reasons such as inability to govern and pure deceit. However, Miller targets Thomas Jefferson and John F. Kennedy not for their inability to rule but for their overexposed popularities; their popularity as one of the founding fathers of America and America’s most dashing president are examined far more than their achievements as presidents. Likewise in today’s society, President Obama’s re-election for a second term is largely due to his stature of being America’s first black president instead of stemming from his achievements, or lack thereof, during his first presidency.
            Thomas Jefferson’s claim to fame as one of America’s best presidents is misguided. Americans are so quick to praise Jefferson for the Louisiana Purchase that they neglect to realize that his Embargo Act almost plunged America into her first depression. As the tensions between Great Britain and France reached a boiling point, America was dragged into the middle to claim a side. In an attempt to escape humiliation at the hands of Britain and France, Jefferson passed the Embargo Act of 1807, which closed American ports to trade. The act “practically wrecked the nation’s economy and plunged it into its first depression while having absolutely no effect upon its targets”(Miller 243). Not only did Jefferson’s purchase of Louisiana worsen the economic debt by nearly twenty percent but also his Embargo Act almost plummeted America into its first economic depression. While Jefferson is praised for achieving far more than he actually did, Kennedy enjoys a reputation of also being one of America’s best presidents.
            The superfluous praise given to John F Kennedy is not deserved. While most people know Kennedy as the charming socialite with inspiring speeches of integration and change, they do not know him as the cold warrior obsessed with expanding an already expanded military. While the achievements of Kennedy such as the Peace Corps and the space program that painted America as a scientifically developed nation adds to his repertoire, his lack of fortitude is what ultimately led to his failures as a president. Trying to project an image of toughness, Kennedy “welcomed confrontation” in foreign affairs; in fact, he sent in CIA-trained Cuban exiles to invade Cuba and its Communist leader, Fidel Castro. However, on the day of the invasion, Kennedy got cold feet and withdrew the air support the CIA agents depended on. Kennedy not only did not kill the Communist leader but he also worsened the relationship with the Communists, causing them to build the Berlin Wall and install missiles in Cuba as a protection against a possible U.S. attack.
            Both Kennedy and Jefferson enjoy reputations that far exceed their actual achievements in office; Jefferson’s popularity as one of the Founding Fathers and Kennedy’s reputation as America’s sweetheart create a bias that makes America focus solely on why we love them instead of focusing on what they actually did. Like Kennedy and Jefferson, President Barack Obama enjoys a reputation far more than what his achievements show he deserves. In his first campaign in 2008, Obama was the voice of change; he spoke of equality among all races and he promised to lower the deficit left to us by President Bush. However, as his first-term came to an end, Obama did not keep his promises. The national deficit reached a record-high eighteen trillion and health care has been one of the hardest things for many people to obtain. Despite all of the failures in his first-term, Obama was still elected into a second- term. Although undeserving of a second term, Obama is re-elected largely because he is America’s black president. Jefferson and Kennedy are celebrated more so for their ideas and the direction they led America in after their presidencies; Obama on the other hand is celebrated for breaking through typical stereotypes for people of his race and changing the way minorities are viewed in today’s society. 

Monday, December 3, 2012

Machiavellian Analysis Analytical Essay


Kennedy Ellis
Mr. Comer
Honors Government
December 1, 2012
A Machiavellian Analysis: Nixon and Carter
In The Prince, Machiavelli reveals the qualities a man must have in order to be a good leader; some of these qualities are the ability to keep an honest front despite deceitful actions and to rule the people with meanness but not cruelty. In Star-Spangled Men, Miller reveals that Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter fail on both counts; Nixon failed to keep an honest front when his participation in the Watergate scandal were revealed while Carter failed to rule the people with meanness, deciding to rule the people as equals and friends.
The Watergate scandal not only made Nixon one of the worst presidents of all time but it also created a rift of trust between America and her people. In The Prince, Machiavelli states numerous ways for a prince to be successful, including keeping a virtuous front. For “it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities…but it is very necessary to appear to have them”(Machiavelli 6). Nixon appeared to be a great president; he repaired America’s broken relationship with the Soviet Union following World War II. He and his security adviser, David Henry Kissinger launched Vietnamization, a plan to slowly extract American troops from Vietnam, and they traveled to China and the Soviet Union to smooth over their strained and broken relationships. Nixon was also a dedicated husband and father, only adding to his seemingly sparkling image. However, the Watergate scandal led Nixon down a path of hatred, a path Machiavelli advises to absolutely avoid. Although a prince “is very often forced to do evil” in order “to keep his state,” he must “avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible” (ibid. 7, 10). In order to ensure his victory in the 1972 election, Nixon hired to Gordon Liddy and Howard Hunt, two former CIA agents, to his Committee to Re-Elect the President, otherwise known as CREEP. Nixon assigned CREEP to the Gemstone Plan, where they were to bug the offices of George McGovern and Lawrence F O’Brien because Nixon feared that they might have evidence that Nixon was receiving money from billionaire, Howard Hughes. The plans to bug McGovern and O’Brein’s phone lines both failed; however, McCord and four others went to Watergate to fix the bugs placed on O’Brien’s phone at Watergate. When a security guard found duct tape on the door, McCord and the four others were arrested and Nixon was subject to the blame. As more details on the scandal were revealed, Nixon began to look more and more guilty and when Nixon refused to hand over the videos the Supreme Court subpoenaed, there was not a doubt in anyone’s mind that Nixon was the mastermind behind the whole affair. The Watergate scandal made Nixon one of the hated presidents in America and his lack of concern only made the Nixon failed to keep Machiavelli’s one golden rule—avoid being despised at all times; however, Nixon was not the only president that failed to meet the requirements of Machiavelli’s successful prince.
Carter’s lack of a backbone and his constant need to please the American people distracted him from his actual duties as a president. In The Prince, Machiavelli declares that in order for a prince to be successful, he “ought to inspire fear in such a way that if he does not win love, he avoids hatred” (ibid. 4). On his road to the White House, Carter served as a member of the Georgia Senate and as the state’s governor. While working in Georgia, Carter was a hard-working and diligent man; he achieved his goal of re-organizing that state government despite opposition stemmed from his own tactical errors. However, when he focused his attention on winning the White House, he became overly consumed with winning the hearts of the American people. In fact,  in an attempt to make he and the people feel as equals at his inaugural address, “the fifty-two-year-old Georgian wore a business suit instead of formal dress”(Miller 36). Carter got so involved in his campaign that once he won the presidency, he had no clue what to do. Not only did Carter fail to instill fear in his people but also he failed to do any of the duties of a president.
Both Carter and Nixon failed to adhere to the rules of Machiavelli’s successful prince; while Nixon allowed his virtuous cover to be blown on account of his truly deceitful nature, Carter got so consumed with being loved by his people that he ended up being despised by them for his lack of agenda and goals for America.
Ana

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Solution to the Fiscal Cliff?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/30/opinion/kleinbard-fiscal-cliff/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

In the article above, Edward D Kleinbard analyzes a possible solution to the approaching fiscal cliff. As the cliff approaches, high interest rates and a slowed down economy approach with it. Kleinbard believes that the government must build a ramp from our current taxing and spending policies to a more sustainable mix. We must first get rid of all the Bush tax cuts and other temporary tax discounts. Then we must remove the $1 trillion of new spending cuts that Congress committed to when the budget committee failed. This will allow all taxpayers, poor and rich, to get the benefit of the lower tax brackets on their income. While all this sounds fine and dandy, the question still remains will this actually help sustain the fiscal cliff?

Friday, November 30, 2012

Should Kids be offered medical marijuana?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/30/health/medical-marijuana-children-time/index.html?hpt=us_c2

In the article above, a seven year old girl named Mykayla Comstock was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic luekemia in July. Against the doctor's wishes, her mother has been giving Mykayla small caspules filled with cannabis oil. The oil must be working because she went into remission in August. The effect that marijuana has on children is yet to be discovered, but the real question is should kids  be denied the use of marijuana in order to help cure their illnesses just because they are kids?

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Worst Movie Idea Ever

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/world/meast/egypt-anti-islam-film/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

In the article above, seven Coptic Egyptians were sentenced to death due to involvement in an anti-Islam film in California. The movie "Innocence of Muslims", Mohammed is portrayed as a womanizer, child molester, and ruthless killer. Islam becomes outraged once they catch wind of the scandal because they strictly forbid any blasphemy against Mohammed. The anger was so high that protesters in Cairo scaled the wall of the U.S. Embassy and tore down its flag and put a black flag in its place. The film also led to the death of three Americans and the U.S. ambassador in a Libyan protest. The Egyptian-American mind behind the film was sentenced to one-year in a federal prison because of his violation of his bank fraud in 2010. Let's just say the movie was a bad idea.

If Ireland had abortion rights like Roe v. Wade

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/26/opinion/frett-savita-abortion-rights/index.html?hpt=wo_t4

In the article above, a woman named Savita Halappanavar died last month after being denied an abortion. If Halappanavar would've been allowed the abortion, she would still be alive today. Author Latanya Mapp Frett reveals that almost 13% of women die because of maternal complications. Several countries, including Ireland do not allow women to get pregnancy and they are even considering not allowing abortions during the early stages of pregnancy. Hopefully, Ireland and other countries will look at this situation and think of the women they could be saving if they allowed abortions. 

Monday, October 29, 2012

Romney and FEMA

In this article, writer Kevin Liptack analyzes Romney's viewpoint on FEMA. At the June 2011 debates, Romney stated that he wants the states to have control of FEMA. He thinks that the states should be in control of emergencies such as storms and other natural disasters. Romney thinks that with the states having control of FEMA, the federal government will avoid contributing more money to the deficit.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/29/romney-wants-more-responsibility-for-emergency-management-in-states/?hpt=po_c2

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Precis 4


Precis #4
                        Todd Graham, director of the debate at Southern Illinois University, professes in his article “Debate coach: Obama, heat up; Romney, stay cool” from CNN.com, that Mitt Romney, Republican presidential nominee, performed better than Obama during the Presidential Debate on October 3, 2012. In fact, he claims “Romney was hungry, Obama was flat” (ibid.).
                        Graham implements a simile and two metaphors to bolster his point. He employs a simile as in his analysis of Obama’s poor performance. If Obama doesn’t stick to one theme, “Romney will be like Teflon, and nothing Obama says will stick to him in these debates”(ibid.). Graham’s purpose is to illustrate Obama’s failure to support his claims with evidence, and if this persists, Romney will surely win every debate to come. He utilizes a metaphor when describing why Obama did not perform well in the debate. The problem was not that Obama didn’t clearly present his theme, “[t]he problem was that the new premise lacked bite”(ibid.).  Obama’s ideas were stated clearly but his lack of empathy and passion made his argument fall flat. Lastly, Graham employs another metaphor to describe what Obama needs to do in order to succeed in the next debate. He should “utilize the backward-step-pivot-forward technique as often as possible;” in doing this, Obama can turn all of his potential flaws into strengths, ensuring him a possible win in the next debate.
            Todd Graham applies witty diction. Graham attacks Obama’s dispassionate and distant tone saying that “ it’s bad when…uber-wealthy Mitt Romney seems like he cares more about the middle class and even lower class than the sitting Democratic president”(ibid.). Obama’s lack of passion and emotion not only made his argument less appealing but it also made it less believable. Syntactically, Graham implements short, choppy sentences. “Check. Check. And check.” claims Graham IN WHAT CONTEXT????. The short, choppy sentences appeal to the analytical tone because proves the author’s point that the Republican candidate played to all his strengths while Mr. President showed nothing but his weaknesses.
            I agree with Todd Graham in that Obama did not perform to the best of his abilities. Obama fell flat and he was unable to support his claims and arguments against Romney while Romney attacked all of Obama’s arguments as well as supplemented his own. If Obama wishes to succeed in the next debate, he should listen to Graham’s advice about turning potential flaws into strengths. Romney’s approach should be the same; he should be aggressive, but not mean. If Obama and Romney follow Todd Graham’s advice, the next two debates are sure to be interesting as well as enlightening. 

Thursday, October 4, 2012


Precis #3
            John Dickerson, writer for the slate.com, in his article “Dispatches From the Democratic National Convention”, declares that Michelle Obama’s speech at the Convention was reason enough for Obama to get re-elected. In fact,  he states  “Barack Obama has said that his biggest mistake in office is that he hasn’t told the right story to the American public…[m]aybe he should have let his wife tell it”(ibid.).
            Dickerson implements three rhetorical devices to prove his point. He utilizes cause and effect to show one of the reasons Obama should be re-elected. The First Lady states “[w]e were so young, so in love, and so in debt…[t]hat’s why Barack has fought so hard to increase student aid” so students don’t have to worry about enormous amounts of debt right after college(ibid.). Also, Dickerson employs personification stating Mrs. Obama “took a tour through those values instilled by this example—“dignity and decency,” “honesty and integrity,” “gratitude and humility.”(ibid.). Finally, Michelle Obama instills pathos in explaining why Obama is the best fit for the job; she states Barack deserves to be president because he “knows what it means when a family struggles” unlike his opponent Mitt Romney, who has never had to suffer(ibid.).
            John Dickerson utilizes passionate diction. He states that Michelle and Barack Obama “saw veterans, tributes to military families, and repeated references to their sacrifice.” Because Mr. and Mrs. President took the time to support America’s troops, Obama is more than deserving of their support; in fact, Elaine Brye, mother of four children on active duty states “[i] f someone is there for my family then I’ll be there for them”(ibid.).  Syntactically, Dickerson posits many  quotes from Michelle Obama such as “Barack knows what it means when a family struggles. He knows what it means to want something more for your kids and grandkids”(ibid.). The constant quotes from Michelle Obama reveal that Dickerson wants the reader to feel connected to the First Lady as well as it reveals his adamant support of the President. This contributes to his ebullient tone.
            I agree with John Dickerson in that Michelle Obama gave a great speech. The greatest element of her speech was that she made her husband more relatable to the American people. As stated before, she tells the American people “Barack knows what it means when a family struggles”(ibid.). She reminds the audience that the President had to struggle for most of his life, making him the perfect candidate to help America out of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Michelle Obama’s speech not only makes her husband more relatable but also it proves why Barack Obama should be re-elected. Dickerson posits that “[a]t the GOP convention Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan said they would make hard choices. Michelle Obama’s argument was that her husband should be kept in office because he already has”(ibid.).

Precis #2
            Shannon Travis, eminent writer for CNN.com, in her article entitled “Is Obama taking the black vote for granted?,” declares that Obama can afford to take the black vote for granted. In fact, in opposition to those who think Obama can’t take the vote for granted, she states “that’s not entirely true”. Because Obama got ninety-five percent of the black vote in the two thousand eight elections, he can actually afford to take the black vote for granted.
            Travis utilizes three rhetorical devices to bolster her point. She employs logos when she describes why Obama can take the black vote for granted; “Obama won 95% of the black vote in 2008, and polls show he enjoys 87% support among black registered voters versus 5% for Republican rival Mitt Romney”(ibid.). Also she utilizes pathos as she describes Obama’s response to conservatives who stated “[u]nlike President Obama,[Romney] will not take any vote for granted”; Obama campaign spokeswoman Clo Ewing replied “President Obama does not take a single vote or support from any community for granted”(ibid.). To prove that Obama does not take any vote for granted, Travis lastly employs cause and effect. Hilary Shelton, NAACP Washington Bureau director, states “the president’s policies have greatly benefited African-Americans, such as health care reform…and protecting voting rights and civil rigths”(ibid.). With this last quote, Travis shows the things Obama did through his first term that allow him to take certain votes for granted.
            Shannon Travis employs sincere language. Although Obama was unable to attend the NAACP convention due to a so-called scheduling conflict, he rectifies the situation by releasing a statement saying he “really wanted to be with the NAACP because he recognizes that strong support that he has from this constituency”(Travis). Obama attempts to make up for his absence by reminding his African-American supporters how much their support and votes mean to him. Syntactically, Travis utilizes many quotes and m-dashes in her support of Obama. “I think the policies that he adopted--for better or for worse--they are very much policies that benefit African-Americans” says Sabato (ibid.). The quotes from other sources reveal her adamant support for Obama; in addition, the m-dashes reveal that Travis accepts the fact Obama is not perfect but that won’t stop him from trying to fulfill all the promises he has made to the American people, which contributes to her sympathetic tone.
            I agree with Shannon Travis believing that Obama can risk taking the black vote for granted. Although he shouldn’t, the overwhelming support from the African American community in the two thousand eight elections almost ensures him the same amount of support in the coming election. However, it is not the support Obama needs to worry about for “[Obama] doesn’t have to worry about losing votes to Mitt Romney. He has to worry about African-Americans not showing up in the record numbers that showed up in 2008,”states Sabato (ibid.). Obama needs not to concern himself with whether or not he will lose his most loyal supporters but more so with whether or not those supporters will actually show up to the polls. 

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Precis #1

Attached is the extremely rough draft of my first precis. This was written on the article we read in class entitled "Obama's Redistributive Change and the Death of Freedom".


Monday, August 27, 2012

Romney and Immigration

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/26/politics/republicans-immigration/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

In the article above, writer Tom Cohen discusses Romney's confusing stance on immigration. When trying to ensure his spot as the Republican candidate, Romney said that his opponents Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were not firm enough with illegal immigrants and that they didn't take enough of a stance on putting a stop to illegal immigration. It was clear, well at least at this point, that Romney is anti-immigration. Once Romney is made the Republican candidate, the first votes he goes for are the votes of the Latinos. Romney then went on to attack Obama for not taking the steps necessary to put an end to illegal immigration. Despite his want for the Latino vote, Romney's stance seems to be anti-immigration.

Does Obama Take the black vote for granted?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/obama-black-voters/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

In the article above, writer Shannon Travis explores whether or not Obama takes the black vote for granted. Travis argues that he does not; in fact, Obama does everything he can to ensure that he keeps the votes of the minorities. In his 2008 election, Obama won 95% of the black vote. Rev. William Owens argues that just because Obama is guaranteed the votes of the minorities doesn't mean that he is taking advantage of them; in fact, he is making sure that he keeps those votes.