Negative campaign advertising: one of the leading factors in the political and presidential elections today. The future leaders of this country spend thousands of dollars in putting out negative and unethical advertising to gain the support of the public. And as sad as it is that our country relies heavily on what is often referred to as “attack ads,” the use of negative campaign advertising often is beneficial to both the candidate and the public. Of course the most obvious use for negative campaign is to point out the flaws of the other party, whether it be personal or political, there is no easier way to discredit the opponent. Positive advertisements, which normally deal with the emotional appeals of the public, often neglect the political issues. Negative advertising on the other hand deal more with political policy of the candidate, for example McCain’s ad which criticizes Obama’s policy to increase foreign oil. Negative advertising also is a way to basically stimulate the public’s attention allowing for “back and forth” negative attacks. The more that the public is engaged the more of the public will take the time to vote. Campaigners have to be careful though on what exactly is used to attack the other opponent. McCain’s attack against Obama being the “biggest celebrity in the world” was clearly a mistake; not only showing that McCain is having trouble combating Obama, but also blatantly states that Obama is more popular and well known in the public eye. If politicians insist on using negative advertising they need to make sure they are not making outrageous claims. This often hurts the candidates. As shown in surveys of the American public <http://www.thisnation.com/question/031.html>, more and more people are becoming disgusted by the lengths candidates will go to in order to win.
Negative advertising has taken over the media leading up to the presidential elections. However this does beg the question, how much could these ads actually affect the views of the voters. Most likely the ads will only reinforce the views of that particular political party. If a member of the Republican Party was to watch a negative ad about Obama, many would already be in the mindset that Obama is not the right choice for president. And of course the same would go for a strong supporter of the Democratic Party being against McCain. If anything it seems that these would merely be a way of rallying the “troops” rather than recruiting more. Today it seems that people are so blind that they would only follow the shadows cast by their own parties rather than try to find the truth. One could only hope that someone who was indecisive of their political candidate could overlook the mudslinging and scandalous tales and actually posses the intelligence to rationally look at both sides.

Post #1-

I would love to respond to some of your arguments but for the sake of Mr.Chavez’s time spent grading, I will just respond to your arguments by explaining my opinion on the topic which is whether or not Barack Obama should have used public financing.. (not Bristol and how she will affect the election although that is equally interesting)

Obama was right in rejecting public financing and using his online method of small donations. It’s true he said he would use it if McCain did and then flip flopped on that decision which probably hurt him since it shows an indecisive quality, however may I remind everyone that this is politics. When has a candidate not flip flopped a decision or policy? There are far more serious policies that the candidates have flip flopped on, and this is not as serious. So he said he would use it and then said he would not use it. Big deal! The whole point of politics is to get the voters to vote for you, and for the most part that means lying to them and changing your policies.

In my view however, Barack’s flip flop in his decision on public financing was well justified and not only just so he could get more money for his campaign. He wasn’t lying to the public because in this case, lying at first would not have benefited him in any way whatsoever. Why didn’t he just state in the beginning that he did not want to use public funds? We don’t know. This would have been better for Barack and then he wouldn’t have to face the heat from McCain saying things like Obama “is just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient.” But if I’m right didn’t McCain use private funds in the primaries and then switched over to public? Anyways, maybe Obama wasn’t completely up to date on the problem of public funding or maybe at first he wanted to use it because it put him and McCain on an even playing field and then changed his mind. Who knows? But what we do know is Obama’s reasoning behind this move.

Common Cause, a promotional organization for public financing, even said that it is “badly outdated and in need of major overhaul.” The article also stated that “only 9 percent of taxpayers in the country voluntarily contributed $3 of their income taxes to the presidential campaign fund.” Obviously, this method is not working because the people don’t want to donate this way. Obama stated in his video on opting out of public funds that Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs are drowning out the voices of the American people and that this is the reason why he does not want to use it. According to http://change-congress.org/blog/tag/John_McCain/, the biggest flaw is that there is too much of the wrong kind of money in the system which is from the lobbyists and PAC organizations who expect favors later on and these groups are willing to invest millions to make sure that the best campaign is given for their favored candidate. Combine this with what Barack said: the people with the most money get the most influence. Barack is only trying to be a true Democrat in accepting these smaller donations from these individuals. I think Barack’s intention by this was to appeal to the public even more by showing he wants the money from the people who truly support him.

Bottom Line: The system is flawed and Barack doesn’t want to use a flawed system, and Barack’s method is working producing “record-shattering” funds without the heavy influence of the 527 groups, lobbyists, or special interest groups.

Post #2:

Health Care

Matt Diamond

In this time of sharply rising health care prices, both Barack Obama and John McCain realize that health care needs all sorts of changes. According to NCHC.com, $2.3 trillion dollars were spent on healthcare in 2007 at $7600 per individual, 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense. An estimated $4.2 trillion is predicted for 2016. They have both developed answers to different issues that now exist. It is difficult to asses each argument in comparison to the other because they both have many similar ideas and they are both fairly broad in their ideas. However, in general Obama want to take matters into his own hands with tax money, policies, and mandates, while McCain seems to want to work on the issue by guiding the natural economy and allowing people to act on their own. Due to the nature of the plan's, I believe Obama's is lengthier due to the nature of his position that he should be responsible for practically everything going on in American Health Care. In contrast, McCain wants to identify problems and let the machine work on its own.

So lets compare, shall we?...

Both candidates begin by identifying that there is a problem with American health care that have been previously ignored. Obama is more specific in stating the issues, demonstrating in his introduction that he's done his research. However, the difference lies in the core philosophies. McCain wants to "restore control to the patients themselves," while Obama wants "a new national health plan to all Americans." Both then agree that everybody should be eligible for healthcare, including those with pre-existing illnesses, and that small business should be protected.. But soon they diverge in ideology as McCain speaks of using competition of businesses to lower prices and match needs while Obama talks about how his national program will help individuals.
But fundamental questions immediately arise: Who will pay for Obama's program and how will McCain stimulate competition? It appears there are no good answers. McCain does speak of his plan to give $2,500 to $5,000 to families, which sounds like Obama, and they both go on to promise health care plans that allow people to change jobs or retire and still keep them.

The underlying questions of both candidates are constantly in the back of the readers mind as he or she examines the arguments.
Some parts of McCain's plan seems incomplete, such as the suggestion of a nonprofit corporation to help non-insured individuals out of the goodness of their hearts. He also wants greater competition from drug companies, improvements on prevention of health problems, personal health care coordinators, smoking prevention programs, and tort reform to help doctors following guidelines be free from lawsuits, among other reforms. The problem with these is that many problems are not caused by lack of information, so these plans are unconvincing unless backed up by explanation of their function. Unfortunately, no such explanations are provided. And how is he going to increase competition exactly (this question also faces Obama)?

Obama's plan is the same on many levels, but his plans involve subsidies and lower prices for health care from majorly taxing the rich. The problem there is that this can encourage the wealthy to spend less, thereby slowing down the economy. Obama wants policy after policy. He wants to average person to have easy, information-centered access to health care for a low price, but how will he get the money for people to review these policies and pay for low health care? How will this effect hardworking doctors who perform more and better work than other doctors? Additionally, Obama's plans for new technologies and research sound fantastic and optimistic. "Looking forward' as they like to say in the politics. But with all his other policies, plans, and aid to the common man, where will he get the money for his computer oriented programs, his AIDS research programs, his heavy metal protection programs, or his diabetes and mentally ill protection plans. Those all sound like noble causes that should possibly be one of Obama's main priorities, but by nationalizing these programs and taxing the rich, he gets rid of natural, private competition. Kudos to him for his emphasis on technology and research, however, in my opinion.

Obama's plan on the service seems to solve more issues, but the means of carrying out his goals are unclear. At the same time, McCain lacks explanations for his ideas. I have no favorite, but if the research-oriented approach of Obama with the practical, independent company approach of McCain were combined, I think I would be pleased.

Congratulations ICE! Your new program managed to deport six, yes SIX, illegal immigrants! Out of.... millions? ICE needs to do a better job of deporting people; however I realize the difficulty of finding illegal immigrants and then humanly getting them back to their country of origins. I say humanly because in the interview the interviewer talks about reports of illegal immigrants being dragged out of their hoes in their underwear. This type of activity is not the first that I have heard. "Suspected illegal workers were loaded later Monday into white vans with shaded windows and driven away as ICE agents guarded the plant entrances. Gonzalez wouldn't say where they were headed other than to say they were being taken to a holding facility." (Source--http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,410321,00.html) Sounds mighty close to what a certain somebody did (starts with hit and ends with ler). As Mr. Chavez has stated, we should go after the people that hire illegal immigrants. If people do not want to hire illegal immigrants, illegal immigration will drastically lessen.
As for the Lake Elsinore fiasco, I have mixed feelings. One person's comment on that page struck me as true, he said he was saw a political cartoon that went something like this-- A couple of kids were sneaking into a movie theatre and one says to the other, "After we get in, lets demand free popcorn" Some posts were well thought out arguments against the protests, but most were blatantly discriminating and hateful. The illegal immigrants are protesting against people enforcing the law. However, on the other side of the coin, my parents are both immigrants (legal ones). I know how hard it is to get into America, and if they did not have a powerful American helping them, they might have never been allowed in. America has always been cruel to immigrants, even to the first ones (climate and disease were brutal). This is a shame because most of the immigration laws (if not all) were created by white people afraid that their country and power will be taken away by minorities. I digress, the fact is, is that illegal immigrants can not come into America and then protest against their deportation, even though they knew full well that what they did was illegal.
I realize that my comments do nothing, I do not give suggestions (except one) because I do not know how to fix this complicated problem, where both sides seem to be right and wrong at the same time.
PS- On a slight side note, I would like to say I am extremely against the building of any sort of wall across America. One just has to observe the Berlin Wall to come to the conclusion that walls do two things really well: Keep people from coming in........ and keep people from getting out. I hope the day never comes where I feel compelled to escape America, but I do not know the future. That is why i despise the building of such walls.

To determine which candidate has the best plan for a timeline in Iraq, we need to rewind to March 20th, 2003. The original purpose of the war was, according to George Bush, "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." We all know that WMDs have not been found, that Saddam Hussein has been executed (thus, can't support terrorism any more), and has "freed" the Iraqi people. So then, why are American troops still in Iraq? Mainly, they are there to make sure the new Iraqi gov't is stable enough to hold up for itself w/o getting overthrown by terrorist-friendly regimes.

Now, Obama and McCain have opposite views on this matter. Obama wants to remove U.S. troops by 2010 in a phased, gradual removal of troops. Nevertheless, a "residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel." In short, Obama's plan on Iraq is to retreat from Iraq much like the way Nixon did for the Vietnamese war.
McCain, as the Republican he is, wants to send in even more troops into Iraq. He went as far as to propose than at least 100,000 additional troops should be sent into Iraq to calm the conflict for good ( http://www.johnmccain.com/fie/ ). Obviously, McCain is a believer of strong action in the face of conflict.

Though both candidates take an appealing stance for their supporters, McCain's stance seems to be too rash and hot-headed. McCain is basically proposing to send a juggernaut into Iraq and smash the sectarian forces for good. This does not work. Force cannot be undone by force, especially the type of force that isn't organized into a form of a nation (like is the case with the sectarians in Iraq, as well as the terrorists). McCain's strategy would only dramatically increase the number of American casualties, since more and more suicide bombers would try to fight off the "invaders". It's like trying to tap a water tap very hard. No matter how hard you try to stop the flow of water, unless you close the tap, water will burst. This is the case with Iraq, and has been the case with countless historical events, including the American Revolution (in England's point of view, it must've been frustrating to try to dismantle the revolutionaires when the U.S. didn't really have a capital to conquer that would quell the rebellion) and the Vietnamese War.
Obama, on the other hand, doesn't plan to put his thumb on the water tap. Instead, he is planning to finish this ordeal is a way that would hurt America's reputation the least, with the least amount of casualties with the least amount of wasted money. Everyone, including me, wants the Iraqi conflict to end once and for all. McCain's plan won't give us that. It will just prolong the 'war' for another 4 years with no hope for escape. Obama's plan will help America get out of this quicksand and use the trillions of dollars that would've been wasted in the war in more useful areas, including education, health care, and the recovery of the economy.

Both candidates definitely agree that the conflict in Iraq should come to an end, ASAP. George Orwell once cynically said that "The quickest way to end a war is by losing it." Obviously this is not a choice for either of the candidates, but Obama's phased retreat from Iraq will not only end the conflict in Iraq, but preserve America's reputation as well.

Post #2:

ismith, I agree that Obama's plan has its faults, and that sometimes he is more rhetoric than practicality. I will admit myself that I doubt that a 16 month removal would work as smoothly as Obama pretends it would be. Nevertheless, like I said before, the original purpose of the war on Iraq had been fulfilled. Mission accomplished, so to speak. In other words, there is no shame in America retreating from Iraq.

ismith, you've said that "Obama’s plan would be more hot-headed because, now that victory and peace is in sight, Obama wants to rush it and just leave in 16 months." True, but then, the definition of "hot-headed" can be disputed. What is more rash, wanting to retreat from a war (a phased retreat, not a sudden one) within 16 months, or wanting to send an additional 100,000 soldiers into a war that has been going on for over 7 years? Clearly, like you said, "McCain doesn’t want to stay in Iraq 100 years." However, it seems almost certain that under Obama's presidency, the war in Iraq will finish sooner. If war in Iraq finally comes to an end, the economical benefits along with America's changed reputation (from an aggressive bully-ish nation into a more diplomatic leadership country). Victory is certainly important. But a shoddy victory after a decade long war is not worth as much as the word 'Victory' connotates.

Post #3:

kekkhall, you've said that "we, as a democratic nation, demanding of our society the very basic protection of natural rights not become involved to save this people from a leader as tyrannical as few others in the modern era?"
Maybe I am being a little cynical in saying this, but do you really believe what you just said? If the U.S. is so concerned about "protecting the natural rights" of people in Iraq (which should supposedly be reflected by the trillions of dollars wasted in the war), the U.S. could probably have obliterated poverty in the entire world with the trillions they've spent on the war. Obviously, it's not because of our political leader's altruism or reverence of man's "unalienable rights" that the conflict in Iraq still hasn't ended.

I can't say for sure that I see the true reason behind the war in Iraq, but it is mostly if not purely for America's self-interested motives, not for the good of the Iraqi people (that, in any case, would be just a side effect).

Kekkhall also said that "this conflict requires a strategy that is realistic and encompassing. It requires a strategy that involves true infrastructure repair, the strengthening of an economy, the encouragement of trade with other economic powers, and the chance to put in place a government that can stand up to the fiercest of tests."
This really tells me nothing about a solution for Iraq. Are you suggesting that the U.S. give up a hefty chunk of its revenue to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and economy? The U.S. is an amazing country, but it is not the world's sovereign with unlimited resources. Moreover, this is way easier said that done. Deploying troops and maintaining order in Iraq from sectarian violence is already a burdensome job. Now, trying to rebuild another nation's infrastructure and economy when the U.S.'s economy itself is in peril, sounds like a very unrealistic and unpractical solution.

I very much agree with drstranana, in that "[the U.S.] can't win every battle", especially those battles that serve no purpose (as I said before, the original mission in Iraq has been "accomplished"). Iraq is nowhere near as bad as the Vietnamese war, but the monetary burden is many times greater that of the war in Vietnam ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_vietnam ). The War in Iraq is, and has been a nightmare. It's time that the U.S. wakes up from this nightmare.

 Katie Hall

The Iraq War has been controversial from the beginning of US involvement. UN sanctions had failed, Hussein was involved in atrocious crimes including genocide, and the growing fear was his ability to make his attacks more global with atomic or biological weapons. Our involvement in the war for the last two reasons was unfounded, but how could we, as a democratic nation, demanding of our society the very basic protection of natural rights not become involved to save this people from a leader as tyrannical as few others in the modern era? His willingness to torture his own people, including the use of gas upon the Kurds, demanded the attention of the world utilizing more than rhetoric or sanctions. He stole shipments of food, medical supplies, and money for himself and his thugs denying the people of his country those basic natural freedoms and security. All of this was done in the face of the most powerful nations of the world. You cannot talk of human rights and sit idly by watching so many suffer at the hands of such a criminal. Whatever your argument for or against the war, the issue is not whether we agree or disagree, but where do we go from here?

Obama suggests the need for an imposed timeline to end US occupation which he has determined to be without limit under current policy. He also believes in leaving well-trained strike forces in place to stop any violence. While this timeline and extraction of troops at this time may sound appealing, the reality is stability and safety have only been achieved through the surge in US troops which has significantly reduced violence, death and tragedy by a combined 80%. Clearly, the surge has restored order, a policy that Obama would not agree to; however, we must now move to establish a stable government to bring our troops home. A small force such as that suggested may only lead to increased American involvement as this might be perceived as a sign of weakness leaving our force outmanned and out gunned. Prematurely ending US involvement, while leaving a smaller force in the lurch as Iran and Syria continue to harbor terrorists can only lead to a potential for American resurgence in the region.

McCain is correct when he says that the next phase must be to push the Iraqi government to take control by assisting the nation in developing a sound economy to encourage those within the nation to seek their success from within the infrastructure of Iraq. Stability is the key and while a timeline is to be imposed it must be a flexible response. As a democratic nation, we have failed to protect all of our people in meeting the ideals set by our founding fathers more than 225 years ago. How can we expect Iraq to end the corruption it has faced, address sectarian violence, and establish a sound economy and infrastructure on a timeline that we see fit because it is politically expedient. This is not an easy problem to solve. Forcing the Iraqi government to abide by election guidelines in 2008 and 2009 will move our nation closer to withdrawal, one that McCain believes can be achieved shortly thereafter. To draw down forces prior to this being accomplished will only encourage more violence in the face of a fledgling government.

People like to seek the easy answer. Get our troops out. This sounds reasonable, but is far too simplistic in its views. This problem became ever more complex upon our incursion and now we must find a solution that will maintain the security of this nation while it tries to solve its enormous problems. We live in a “reality TV” world; we have only to look at the shows on our regularly programmed networks to understand that Americans wish quick solutions to all problems. At a time when speed is not the answer, strength and courage of conviction must succeed. It sounds nice to accomplish your goals as we did during the Gulf War. However, this conflict requires a strategy that is realistic and encompassing. It requires a strategy that involves true infrastructure repair, the strengthening of an economy, the encouragement of trade with other economic powers, and the chance to put in place a government that can stand up to the fiercest of tests. That said we should not be there much longer and McCain’s tentative timeline of 2010, as dire as this sounds provides the nation of Iraq with its best chance to succeed.

 

Link i used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California
its really long, but has alot of information

 

The issue of the economy crisis is not blown out of proportion, there is no greater problem. The United States is underestimating it. All of the little problems of America are of economic consideration so when you put it all together it is one big problem. We are spending more than we are receiving.

For example, let’s think of the National government like parents and us as children, anything we want has an expense that comes up. Their role is to decide how much we will receive to spend if granted to the children. Like parents, the government gives us a certain limit to the amount we spend, but the people’s “wants” will continue to go on forever, and “wants” require more money. To help pay off the 9 trillion dollar debt the U.S. has obtained we have to pay taxes. The truth is that the government cannot continue to raise taxes and ask for more and more money. The candidates of this season’s election have not been very open about talking about the failing economy because to solve that issue, it means we would have to raise taxes or cute services provided by the government, so as to save money (an example of this would be to salary cuts for teachers). However, if the government chose to decrease service, this may start a revolution.

Another thing that is important is how politics lead to economics. For example, the candidates talk about improving our poverty level and helping the poor. That starts as a political idea but to fix this problem involves money, which in turn lead to additives to our national debt and economics. The government is spending more than we are earning in taxes. In reality there is no bigger problem. Every single thing Obama and McCain talk about in their campaigns require the means of money to accomplish. One way of helping the economy is to decrease our consumerism and improve upon ore GDP. If we continually decrease our buying and keep selling our products to the other countries that will help the debt. We cannot keep relying on other countries for our products. We must make our own products and sell to other countries. If we reply on one country for many products, and we anger them in any way, like siding with their enemy; then they can completely cut off supplies to America.

Both McCain and Obama offer valid conceptions of their resolution for the national debt, but it is hard to determine whether they will actually follow through with their plans if elected president. Whoever we elect has a tremendous challenge because they must tell the people of America that we have to pay back our debt and find a reasonable way to do it.

I don't agree with President Bush's plans to increase domestic oil production, because I don't think that is the primary reason why gas prices our so high. Also, an increased focus on alternative energy sources can not only reduce or eliminate our reliance on crude oil, but also help the environment that's in a state of global warming and high pollution. i do agree with the fact that our reliance on oil has increased, but increasing production of domestic oil won't neccessarily resolve our issue with increasing gas prices. i think that our inventory levels concerning oil have been falsely portrayed by corporate leaders in the oil industry for the sole purpose of putting more money in their pockets. Commodity-market regulators are currently further investigating this issue, because they have reports of dramatic fluctuating decreases in crude oil inventory levels by the week. If these were falsely reported the decreases cause prices to dramatically raise and this would only benefit their trading positions and make them more money. For more information use this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122049453060297811.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news. Even if our dependence on foreign oils is where the problem lies, more domestic oil is not the solution. The projects President Bush calls for like the oil shales and Arctic National Wildlife Preserve would more than likely severely damage the environments there, which would be a problem since we need other raw resources in the arctic like fresh water. All of Bush's policies were rejected by Congress this is a sign that there were probably extreme underlying issues that weren't thought through before these bills were propossed. It could be argued that this was a result of partisan issues, but wtih the state of the economy im sure plausible ideas to reduce gas prices would not be overlooked for such a simple reason. Alternative energy sources realistically could not be implemented overnight no matter how effecitve they are, however the fact sheet vaguely states that those proposals would also take years to implement. So, considering the article is particularly biased in favor of the President and the Republican Party, this statement's vagueness probably shouldn't be overlooked. Since the implementation of both policies would take so many years, the focus on alternate energy sources is clearly more reasonable because its effects are greater and could eliminate our dependence on oil too. Not to mention the fact sheet also says in one of the proposals that it's more expensive than current production costs to tap into the production of oil shales. Alternate energy sources are better because the use of not only hydro power but wind and solar power as well will dramatically reduce energy costs in all aspects. Read this article for more information on ways the government plans to implement wind power: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB122040089460493157.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox. The presidents focus on increasing domestic oil supply is costly, will take years to implement, damage the environment, and may be ineffective because it doesn't neccessarily solve the core issue of why our gas prices are high.