Advertising is absolutely critical in gaining support, prestige, and power, whether it be in business or in politics. Three ways to persuade an audience is through the effective use of ethos, pathos, and logos (image, emotion, and logic), and are heavily used in the 2008 presidential campaign.

In ethos, the image of the product, or in this case, the candidates, must be pleasant and appealing to the people. Through advertising, each candidate naturally attempts to destroy their opponent’s credibility through any means possible, and appearance seems to be a major factor in campaigning. For example, John McCain’s physical features could either distract or attract voters. He, being a POW, has endured a multitude of torturous beatings, and his appearance reflects these injuries. The public could either admire McCain’s permanent ‘badge’ of service to America, or they could view it as an issue of deterioration due to his old age. On the other hand, Barack Obama’s potential has been questioned on account of his biracial status. The fact that Obama would be the first black President of the U.S. rises skepticism in the minds of voters, but the color of Obama’s skin would never be used as a ploy in the McCain campaign. Race would be an extremely foolish topic to attack. Also, speech and mannerisms also greatly influence the image of the candidates. Barack Obama has been praised for being a very suave, potent, and intelligent speaker; he appears to have a wide vocabulary and sense of comfort when addressing a crowd. This ability has positively improved his image. Lastly, the involvement of each candidate’s family members in the campaign also plays a role in image. Barack Obama ‘uses’ his wife and children to his political advantage, and they tend to make him appear a noble man, husband, father, and friend. McCain’s wife is always by his side and seems to be very enthusiastic and supportive of her spouse.

In pathos, the campaigning officials purposely manipulate the emotions of the public. This can be effectively initiated through the use of negative campaign advertising. For example, in an Obama-approved commercial, John McCain is attacked for his proclamation that he is a ‘maverick.’ The ad displays the qualities McCain believes he has, then directly negates these assumptions using statistics and a clip of McCain admitting he votes with George W. Bush ninety percent of the time. I believe the most powerful element of the commercial is McCain actually confessing he is basically a continuation of Bush’s administration and policies. I realize that this voice clip may have been taken completely out of context, but it is still very effective and may motivate voters to support Obama. In my opinion, John McCain overly exaggerates his military background to capture the emotions of the American people. However, this is a very smart way to persuade voters into believing that he is very experienced and knowledgeable in the area of foreign policy. The ignorant people/voters of America will be most effected through the use of pathos. This is because they most likely do not pay attention to any of the cold hard facts about the candidates, and only pick up on what the media feeds them. The media is probably the largest source of news dealing with emotion; it will dig into the candidates personal lives and backgrounds to try to find any dirt on their record or personalities. For instance, potential voters who may have watched a video on YouTube of Obama’s kids talking to him at the Democratic National Convention, may decide they should vote for him because he is a family man, or because his daughters are cute. When Lyndon B. Johnson campaigned for president in September 1964, he ran a commercial that showed a little girl picking the pedals off of a daisy as she counted to ten. As a man’s voice counted down, the camera panned in on the little girl’s eye, and an atomic bomb exploded in her pupil. Johnson went on to say, “These are the stakes! To make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die.” This controversial commercial was extremely convincing, in that the emotion of fear was manipulated.

In logos, or logic, campaign advertising appeals to the more educated populous. Logical statements may be made in order to increase the legitimacy of both McCain and Obama. Each presidential nominee attempts to present an issue and provide a logical response that makes the audience say, “Wow, McCain/Obama really knows his stuff, and his solutions make sense to me.” This can be done mostly through debate and speeches. The use of slogans, such as Obama’s “Change” and McCain’s “Maverick” not only look professional on campaign signs and stickers, but rally support for each candidate.

I believe that negative campaign advertising is an important tool candidates use to gain support. Although certain attacks may be considered desperate, cruel, or inappropriate, this form of advertising is effective in swaying voters’ opinions in many ways, however illegitimate the ads may be. I feel that personal attacks have focused far too much on the candidates’ lives, personalities, and backgrounds. These criticisms would be valid if the platforms, beliefs, and practices of the candidates were highlighted, but this is not the case the majority of the time. At the same time, each candidate must have thick skin and not let these personal attacks effect their crusade. I find that McCain’s despondent attack on Obama’s “celebrity” has certainly backfired on him. It is absurd to call Barack Obama a celebrity, and no evidence even supports this claim. I think this McCain ad is extremely immature and exposes the insecurities John McCain feels in his own abilities to draw crowds and speak publicly. Many of the campaign ads I have seen on television make me laugh because they so poorly try to find anything and everything to tarnish their opponent’s reputation. Negative advertisements stick in the minds of the public far more than positive ads, and this has proven to be a powerful weapon in campaigning. So, yes, I do believe that campaign advertising is positive in that it allows each candidate to spread their beliefs, but at times, can appear idiotic and irrelevant.

 

Bluntly put, Obama would've been a fool if he'd accepted public financing.

Nevertheless, this doesn't mean he should be given a free pass on this issue. As for me, what matters is not that he lied, is how he blatantly tried to politically spin his decision not to accept public financing as some sort of moralistic action. However much I may like Obama as a candidate, he is, and will be, a politician. Politicians lie, big deal. So does everybody, only that politicians do it better. But I digress. My point is that Obama acted as a sly profiteer when he decided that, seeing how popular he had become, it would be in his best interests not to accept public funding. Let’s look at this issue from the politico-moral and economic perspectives.

When Obama didn’t know his popularity had the power to raise hundreds of million from the “grassroots” movement, he promised to accept public funding if McCain accepted it as well. Apparently, Obama had little to say about the “[irreparably broken public financing system]” in the beginning. If his main reason for changing his decision to accept public financing had been because the public financing system had been corrupt, why did he pledge to accept it in the beginning? Does this mean that Obama would’ve gladly accepted funding from this “irreparably broken system” had his campaign managers not found that they could raise millions from the “grassroots movement”? How can Obama dare accuse a public financing system only and only after he found he had a fall-back pillow? More importantly, how could he use ‘corruption’ as an excuse when he is now going to have an enormous (and unfair) monetary advantage over the McCain?

From the economic perspective, Obama made the logical choice by weighing his opportunity costs vs the benefits he’d receive from refusing public financing.
What did Obama have to lose when he refused public funding? Some credibility for lying, but that was marginal at best. He also lost the chance of getting $84.1million worth of free money. That's about it. He didn't lose much.
What did Obama have to gain when he refused public funding? Many things. To list a few, the chance of raising over $400 million (5 times what he would've gotten from public funding), and the opportunity to take the high moral ground and start his moral posturing again (sorry Obama supporters, not trying to be harsh, but that's one of his political strategies).

Clearly, Obama would've been an irrational person if he’d accepted public funding from the economic viewpoint. Be that as it may, his decision to not accept public financing made me regard Obama as a much less admirable candidate, not because he broke a promise, but because he is now using his devoted zealots to gain an unfair monetary and moralistic advantage over his adversary.

Post #2:

drstranana@aim.com
"I agree that from an economic standpoint Obama should have logicall took the money. However in your "moral standpoint," seems like an unfair criticism of his donors. The contributions were 91% under $100. That doesn't seem as if he is asking his supporter to empty their wallets into his campaign account. "

I never said in my moral stanpoint that donors would empty their wallets, nor was I criticizing the donors in any way. I was complaining about how Obama tried to spin his refusal to accept public funding as a moralistic action (which, in any case, should be an immoral action).

"Moreover, McCain is no longer limiting himself to public funds. Moreover his campaign has shifted to spending nearly all of it's campaign money on negative ads, which doesn't seem to be a moral way to spend campaign money no matter where you get it. "

If you condemn McCain for spending money on negative ads, you're condemning just about every presidential, and congressional candidates in U.S. history for lack of morals. This includes Obama, so I don't see you point in that McCain spending money on negative ads makes him "less moralistic" than Obama is.


sokkergrl3@ymail.com
I very much agree with you in that "[Obama's] false pledge to seek public financing was a sneaky way to entice McCain to fall into the public financing system..." However, I do not think Obama's excuses for refusing public financing were half as honorable as he made it sound.
You say that "[Obama's] main reasons for rejecting public funds included his opinion that “the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." This may be true, but I say that Obama would've kept his feelings against the public financing system if he weren't as popular as was, just like any politician.

Post #3:

drstranana@aim.com
"Tae, the point is that McCain is playing the game of politics just as much as Obama.
If not more, by the looks of his VP."

I never said McCain didn't play the game of politics. In fact, I agree w/ you that McCain's running a dirtier campaign, but you're missing my point. My point is that Obama, while trying to take the high ground, is disappointing voters by lapsing to the typical politician's level, which is profiteering by the circumstance, and pleading to morals only, and ONLY if it's beneficial for them.

Heather White

In a Politico article published on March 3 of this year, McCain and Obama were cited as both agreeing to limit themselves to public financing funds in 2007 before either candidate was the confirmed nominee. This stemmed from the idea that limiting themselves to these $84.1 million funds would eliminate the influence of lobbyists and public interests groups. This promise seemed advantageous to McCain who would not be able to raise the funds that his Democratic opponent would be able to. This also fit into the moral reform of campaign finances that would decrease the role of money in campaigning—a clear sign for voters of election reform. This would contrast the 2004 election where candidates raised the majority of their money through advocacy groups. The second largest amount of money came from political parties and independent groups. And finally roughly 19% of candidate funds came from public funding.

However, in the June 20 Boston article, Obama reported that he would be reversing this decision and turning down public funding. He claimed that this system of public financing was “irreparably broken” and that he would return to his “grassroots movement” that would raise funds through millions of small donations. McCain took this reversal in financing as Obama “lying to America,” and voiced that Obama was not new politics because of his desire for campaign funds over the limiting the role of money in politics.

So was Obama right in his decision of turning down public funds or should he have accepted them?
We must consider two things: Why he did this and what he gained from it?

Obama said that he chose to turn down the money because of this “broken system.” According to the Federal Election Commission, public funds are raised through a $3 check off on tax returns. Every year the amount of participation in this type of fund raising decreases, in 2005 participation dipped below 10%. But what makes this system corrupt? According to the commoncause.org, the problems with public funding are that “incentives are not strong enough to compensate for spending limits against well-funded candidates; the schedule for receiving public funds does not reflect the realities of current presidential campaigns; the system needs more funding” and flaws exist in the limits of spending these funds.

However, this refusal just gives Obama more spending options, and high funds. This wasn’t necessarily as morally based as Obama spun it, as seen by the fact that Obama’s big donors (those who donated the maximum amount of $2300) were typical Washington sources.

But at the same time Obama’s site includes this message on the donation page: “This campaign is about building a different kind of politics. We don't take money from Washington lobbyists or special-interest political action committees. Instead, our broad base of individual donors ensures that this campaign answers to no one but the people.” This is seen in 91% of funds that are raised from donations of under $100. Obama has also asked donors to refrain from donation to Pro-Obama outside sources in order to maintain control over the campaign’s direction. This does give legitimacy to Obama’s claims and seems like a positive effect of turning down public funds.

And although at one point Obama had nearly triple the funds McCain had, opensecrets.org has reported that at this time in the election, McCain has raised almost $230 million with 80% of that coming from individual contributions. This proves that McCain was still able to keep up with Obama, and makes you question if raising the campaign funds would really put either at an advantage or just cancel each other out.

So was Obama right in turning down these funds? Obama did manage to surpass McCain in advertising still, but he also lied to America and then received money from lobbyists. So whether he did it for the moral reasons to gain support from the average man and refrain from using a broken system, or whether he did it to not have restrictions on his budget; one consequence is clear—Americans will see one of the most expensive campaign years to date (over $1billion combined total of all candidates according to opensecrets.org). This makes you think of all of the trouble, smear campaigns, and posters that we wouldn’t have to deal if Obama had just limited his funds to the $84.1 million.

But nevertheless I feel like the Obama did the right thing because every cent he gets from supporters is deserved, and the same goes for McCain. After all, the political races rely on money and that’s that American way.

"Obama would've been an irrational person if he’d accepted public funding from the economic viewpoint. Be that as it may, his decision to not accept public financing made me regard Obama as a much less admirable candidate, not because he broke a promise, but because he is now using his devoted zealots to gain an unfair monetary and moralistic advantage over his adversary."

I agree that from an economic standpoint Obama should have logicall took the money. However in your "moral standpoint," seems like an unfair criticism of his donors. The contributions were 91% under $100. That doesn't seem as if he is asking his supporter to empty their wallets into his campaign account.

Moreover, McCain is no longer limiting himself to public funds. Moreover his campaign has shifted to spending nearly all of it's campaign money on negative ads, which doesn't seem to be a moral way to spend campaign money no matter where you get it.

Post #2:

Tae, the point is that McCain is playing the game of politics just as much as Obama.
If not more, by the looks of his VP.
I was overexaggerated to point out that this election, and the campaigning in it, has turned both candidates into political machines that they condemn, BUT that's the way poltics works. No one ever won playing clean. And limiting funds wouldn't have changed that.

 Post #3:

"Because of his change of heart in public financing, and way of earning donations instead online from many, many small donations, Obama is an incredible change to Washington's normalities and I welcome it."

Obama would have be doing more to change washington's normalities by limiting his campaign funds to just what the government granted rather than chosing to fund raise on his own, which would more than triple his funds. This seems even more typical Washington politics than chosing not to take the public funds. Moreover a lot of the candidates running during the primaries said that they would not take public financing. It seems like Obama sees that he could spend more money by raising himself rather than doing it to take a stand against the corrupt system.

Post #4:

I agree I think I am just as disappointed in Obama. I suppose the only hope we have is that he is still the lesser of two... disappointments. However, I still understand why he decided to opt out of public financing. Just wish he would have kept to his word.

"The US healthcare system ranks last or next-to-last on five dimensions of a high performance health system: quality, access, efficiency, equity, and healthy lives." (http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_health_care_plan.html)

Barack Obama's plan to reduce health insurance cost seems decent to me, but I would like it to be more in depth, and in detail. While McCain's plan I believe has some positive things in it. Such as the smoking cessation program, the less people who smoke, the less of a chance they will get lung cancer. That would be a long term benefit(if people actually go through the program).

Barack Obama's plan is if a person wants to keep their current health insurance then they can, except their cost will go down $2,500 per year. And if you don’t have health insurance, then you get a choice of new, affordable health insurance
. Barack Obama said that he would hold health insurance companies "accountable for the prices they charge and the harm they cause." He also said he would outlaw "insurance company discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions.”

John McCain's plan to give every American family a $5,000 refundable tax credit to buy health insurance. According to Fact Check, McCain forgot to include that workers would be taxed on the value of any employer-paid health benefits, partially offsetting the $5,000 credit for those now covered by such plans. Experts said that this would probably cause companies to reduce or get rid of health benefits for their employees. So with McCain's plan we would gain some and then lose some.

I was reading more of Barack Obama's plan, one of his points is to require hospitals to collect and report health care cost and quality data. How will he do this? According to American Thinker, in order for this plan to work, “an army of new bureaucrats must be hired by the government to keep a watchful eye on the doctors and hospitals to ensure quality.” There will have to be a larger staff hired, which includes more costs. Barack Obama is also going to invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records. Obama believes this plan will improve quality and save money. A study published in The Archives of Internal Medicine showed information technology did not make a quality difference.
So at this point it's hard to say which has the better plan, they both have good aspects and some cons that come along with their plans. I like Barack Obama's plan because he gives people the choice of sticking with the insurance they have, and no matter what getting it lowered $2,500 each year.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/10/04/obama_attacks_mccain_on_health_care/
http://www.factcheck.org/mccains_5000_promise.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/obamas_health_care_plan.html
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

 

The NPR article was posted online on August 13, 2008. James Hayes seemed very confident that his "self deportation" would work, and I believed him too. It sounds like a much more logical choice. Well, it sounds logical in the sense that immigrants already given a notice to leave can deport themselves back to their country of origin without force. People could have more closure to the end of their stay without being forced to stay in detainment until being forcefully removed. It would eliminate having to, once again, forcing exported immigrants to start their lives without any type of background. Soon to be deported immigrants could make arrangements in their home country so they could have a home and possibly a job when they return. Enforced deportation, however, takes people unsuspectingly from their home without any opportunity to finalize arrangements in America and make new arrangements in their homeland.

Yet, why would individuals illegally entering America legally exit? If they came in without proper certification, it is because they know they are not eligible, yet they still want to start a new life in America. For this reason, the "self deportation" technique is illogical. Some may simply give up on evading the ICE and make arrangements, but most likely if they have successfully avoided any deportation from the ICE so far they are not going to let themselves be forced to return to a clearly less fortunate life in their country of origin. For this reason, Hayes said that only 6 individuals had applied to the "self deportation" program. He was still optimistic though, because the program had only been started 10 days before. Unfortunately, the next month found only 2 more turning themselves into the program. For this reason, James Hayes was forced to end the program on August 22, although it only used "$100,000 of the ICE's over $2 million program" (http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/aug/23/ice-abandons-self-deportation-program-for-illegals/). Ironically enough, Hayes admitted in this article that the program was a complete waste of time and that enforcement was the only option. As inhumane as it is, this remark by Hayes is true. As much "self deportation" is a much more humane method of exporting illegal immigrants, these aliens are not going to want to turn themselves.

At the same time though, this "enforcement" needs to be defined. The "raids" as stated in the article about Lake Elsinore cannot be tolerated by local Border Patrol. Like ICE's attempted but failed method, people need to be given time to finalize arrangements in America. Like Hayes's program, illegal immigrants should not be detained, but put on a timetable. They should be instructed that they have a time limit in America, and at a certain exact date they will exported from the country. Of course, these illegal immigrants are likely to flee the area, but once again this would force them to abandon the lives they have created in that region, such as Lake Elsinore. Additionally, illegal immigrants should be given another option. Should they successfully be able to pay taxes, support themselves with a stable job, and not commit any damaging crimes to the community, then why not allow these illegal immigrants to become permanent members of America? They are already part of America's infrastructure, so simply make it official. Of course, ICE targets mostly criminals.

 

After seven years of the War on Terror, Iraqi leaders stated that they support a plan to withdraw U.S. troops by 2010. Throughout this war, over four thousand American troops have died and, according to an outside source, over thirty thousand have been wounded or injured (see attached source). This war that never had a set end must end as soon as possible.

After reading both of the candidates' positions on the Iraq war, I believe that Senator Barack Obama has the best plan, though his timetable, I think, is a little optimistic. He plans a "phased withdrawal" of U.S. brigades of 1 or 2 brigades a month, which would result in all troops being redeployed in 16 months total. During that time period, he plans to continue to train Iraqi soldiers in military tactics and put pressure on the Iraqi government to secure its country. Obama also plans to leave a "residual force" that would execute counter-terrorism missions and protect American diplomats and civilians. Those forces would focus on fighting Al-Qaeda, the extremist group that planned the 9/11 attacks. His plan resembles that of Richard Nixon's Vietnamization, in which American soldiers were brought home from a tiresome war with the North Vietnamese while training the South Vietnamese army.

By withdrawing troops, Obama will greatly reduce the amount of American soldiers killed or wounded in the region. Also, his plan will help improve the U.S reputation around the world. Our nation's influence in global diplomacy has dropped sharply. If that weren't true, Russia would not have stayed in Georgia as long as it, and Iran might actually acknowledge the UN sanctions against it. With our nation's resources so spread out, other world powers can get away with a lot; who is going to stop them? By ending this war and bringing the troops home, America can focus on its internal problems, better support the UN, and keep other world powers' activities in check. After 7 years of a war that has adversely affected this country, it is time for our soldiers to come home and for money to stop being spent on another country.

While I read the McCain website, I could not find or understand HOW he was going to handle the war; it just explained reasoning behind his beliefs about the issue. Senator John McCain, as well as the Bush administration, likes to say how much the surge worked and how much progress has been made in Iraq. It is true that violence has dropped since the U.S. first arrived, and a plan to withdraw troops is finally being outlined. However, violence is only down because we are there. It would be like putting a thousand police in one of the worst neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Crime will drop, yes, but once those police leave it will go right back to the way it was. McCain says that Obama's plan would have led to a "loss" in Iraq. My question is, who defines a win or a loss in this war? Is it a win just because violence has dropped? Shouldn't winning a war be defined by more than how many car bombings happen in a month?
Senator McCain does not like the idea of a timetable for withdrawal, and believes that redeployment should be based on conditions on the ground. What happens when we start a withdrawal, and then violence increases? Are American troops destined to stay in Iraq until every insurgent has been killed? There is no wining this war, at least not completely. There will always be insurgents and counter-insurgents and freedom fighters and suicide bombers; the U.S. cannot fix that even with 100 years, and it definitely should not try. Iraq is not the threat to America, Al-Qaeda is, and its strength has been renewed. It is time to stop ignoring the people that attacked our nation like the Bush Administration has done for the last 7 years, and what McCain intends to continue to do. (see bottom 2 links)

When Nixon pulled out of South Vietnam in 1975, it fell almost immediately feel to the North. The reasons are that the U.S. with all of its military might could not make a significant difference there. From 1964 to 1975, the NVA and Vietcong remained strong enough to continue to battle the RSVN and U.S. troops. The war in Iraq is not very different. Yes, our troops have succeeded in lowering violence, but the insurgents are still around and have not been significantly weakened. There is, however, one key difference; Nixon did not leave any residual forces in Vietnam.
Under Obama's plan, there will still be a U.S. security force in Iraq, which may not solve every problem, but at least it will largely maintain the work that has already been done.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=3366118&page=1
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12988/alqaeda_in_iraq_gains_strength.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F462%2Fterrorist_attacks

 

The Iraq war is now widely accepted as one of the biggest overall mistakes of the 21st century (although perhaps Bush’s greatest achievement while in office?) and continues to suckle at the already all-but-disintegrated economy of the United States. Humanistically the common ideal is to withdraw the U.S. forces from Iraq as the violence has severely dropped since operation ‘surge’ was approved in 2007, the operation that the Republican nominee advocated since its inception. However, John McCain still favors the saturation of Iraq with American military forces despite the reported sharp cutback in deaths and general violence in the country. Not to say a phased redeployment of American troops, as proposed by Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, is the only answer – keeping in mind he supports a residual “strike-force” of troops in Iraq to provide continuing defense against terrorist groups – but in my opinion his plan is too idealistic to succeed in a fluctuating Iraqi government. I do thoroughly support the addition of military bases in Iraq, or at least posts, maybe not with extreme proliferation, but with enough presence to stave off the dangers that neighboring countries have been recently associated with- but that is another topic.

Like most people, I support the bringing home of American troops from overseas which is essentially the main aspect of Barack Obama’s plan on the Iraq issue, but his reasoning in regards to how well the Iraq government deals with their problems without a significant international aid is vague and bluntly, places entirely too much bank on a government that couldn’t prevent terrorist groups from surfacing in the first place.

John McCain also supports a redeployment of American troops from Iraq but is not as pervasive about it as Barack Obama is. He proposes that American troops remain in Iraq until 2013 or UNTIL the Iraq government PROVES it is stable and prepared, in all aspects to defend its own country with its own troops. Fortunately this has already been occurring as seen in the Awakening movement which is essentially a coalition of Iraqi’s who oppose Al Qaeda and terrorist organizations.

However, members of this group, roughly twenty-percent, and next month are expected to be transitioned into control of the Iraq government - a changeover from U.S. control (more like support) – and already are presenting views of dissent towards this action but primarily towards their soon to be incumbent Iraqi officials. They view their government’s actions as an attempt to break apart the Awakening movement because of a fear that movement leaders and general group will gain public power and support over the Shiite-led government which will result in a change of power in the upcoming Iraq elections. This theory, although radical as it may seem, is an echo to the supposed real cause of the success of operation surge – the general ‘ethnic cleansing’ of capitol cities during the time the operation began. Shiite citizens drove out Sunni Arabs out of their neighborhoods upon the basis that because Al Qaeda is predominately a Sunni group, they must be too and ironically IT WORKED and even MORE ironically, the climax of this violence and displacement of Sunni’s was at the beginning of operation Surge!

Either it be a general over-idealistic tone to the Iraq issue and perhaps relying too heavily on your own coaxing ability to encourage things to get better in an area that historically hasn’t been too peaceful or an almost cynical look mixed with aggressive sentiment towards the Iraq situation, no candidate has the clear better proposal when it comes to this situation. FORTUNATELY they both support, despite timeline differences, an eventual withdrawal of troops. What to do with the Iraq government is a topic that has yet to be thoroughly excavated by either candidate although it could be the eventual downfall of Iraq if not accurately negotiated out and planned.

Say we take our troops out of Iraq, which we will do eventually in time. And say negotiations occur and the Iraq government seems stable enough to handle its own countries problems with terrorists and homeland problems. What happens if the government simply cannot do what they said they would? What if the terrorists resurged? What if race wars continued and escalated? Without the presence of more than a “strike force,” international military assistance would be called on AGAIN. Although things in general are looking very positive in recent years in regards to the whole situation, violence has never completely ended. Because of this, I believe John McCain’s plan to keep troops in Iraq until very, very coercive evidence of government stability is established is the better one.

Ethnic Cleansing real cause of Surge success
http://current.com/items/89320744_study_decline_in_iraq_violence_not_due_to_surge_but_ethnic_cleansing

The Awakening movement/ Sons of Iraq response to government control
http://dailyiraq.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/baghdad-security/

In times of economic crisis, as we are dealing with at this moment, many people are very unsure of which way to swing when it comes to the presidential candidates and their approach to solving these problems. So far, I am not extremely happy with the choices we have in Presidents, but that is my opinion. As CNN.com broke down the 21 different issues being covered by the candidates, the two subjects I chose to talk about were foreclosures and jobs and wages. These two topics are issues I am currently dealing with in my life and with my family.

Almost three years ago, I experienced something many other children are going through right now as well: watching our parents get divorced. At first the subject was hard for me to truly grasp, but sooner or later, it caught up with me, and it showed. My grades sophomore year were my worst grades yet. Being the oldest of 5 children, I took on many responsibilities that not a lot of adults even take on. These responsibilities included finding a part time job to pay for a car just so I could help my mom get the other kids to practices, games, friend’s houses, and so on. Getting the job, to me, wasn’t that difficult but now, it’s the hours I’m having trouble fulfilling in order to pay for my car and the things that come with it. Taking this all on has definitely given me a wake up call and has called for me to grow up sooner than I wish I would have.

When it comes to jobs and wages, each candidate has their idea of what is a “better” plan. Let’s begin with Sen. John McCain. According to CNNMoney.com, “McCain's plan for turning around the economy focuses on corporate tax policy.” His plan is to cut corporate taxes, which would help many people. Individuals bear the burden of corporate taxes in one of three ways: as owners of capital who get a lower return on their investment, as workers who receive lower wages, or as consumers who pay higher prices. McCain promises to eliminate as much as he can in order to alleviate some people’s pain when it comes to money. McCain is looking to keep minimum wage at $7.25 in 2009, in order to keep inflation prices down. He is looking out for the best interest and the future of this country.

Obama on the other hand, is looking to raise minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2011. By raising the wage, he would also be raising the prices of inflation. And due to the rise of inflation, the more we’ll have to pay for tax purposes. Our economy is failing more every day, and Obama, for some reason believes he’ll have all this money to spend on different issues. I may support Obama in many of decisions, but this time around, I’m not too sure I feel comfortable with his views on our economy. The senator from Illinois said he would pay for these programs by ending the war in Iraq, reducing government waste, charging polluters for greenhouse gas emissions and ending the Bush tax cuts for wealthy individuals. McCain argued that the Democrat's "agenda to raise taxes and isolate America from foreign markets will not get our economy back on track or create new jobs." And on this subject, I agree with McCain.

Foreclosures are becoming more common every day. On my block alone, I counted at least 11 homes that had signs posted on the doors or in the lawns. More and more families are failing to make their payments on their homes and in return are losing one of the most important things in life, a roof over young ones’ heads. Now, lets start with Obama first this time. Obama’s views are as follows: allow troubled homeowners to refinance to a loan insured by the Federal Housing Administration, allow subprime borrowers to challenge foreclosure proceedings if they've been subjected to abusive lending practices, create a 10% tax credit for homeowners who do not itemize their taxes, create a $10 billion fund to help victims of predatory loans, create a separate $10 billion fund to help state and local governments maintain critical infrastructure, and authorize bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage principal. Again, as I had said before, our country is in a financial crunch, and again, Obama wants to get money from somewhere and help people out. While his intentions are good, the idea stinks. We need to start with the money problem first and NOT spend the money we don’t have.

On the flipside, with McCain, his intentions are more in touch with the problems we have now. McCain’s views are as follows: give homeowners the chance to have their loan modified, provided they meet certain criteria, offer of financial assistance to borrowers contingent upon lending reform, and provide more funding for community development groups so they can expand their home rescue efforts. His plans are to reach to the people themselves and not to go around them. McCain would like to lend a helping hand to people who are truly unable to support their payments because food on the table is becoming scarcer. Until now, McCain has not pushed for more government intervention, saying he wanted lenders to do for borrowers what they are asking the government to do for them - offer help. McCain portrayed his plan as one that uses government support to help worthy borrowers who are struggling and not bail out lenders and borrowers who got "caught up in the speculative frenzy" and who should not be spared "the consequences of their own bad judgment." His idea is more focused and written out in detail than what Obama has offered so far. Again, McCain has the better solution in my opinion.

In the end, I thought I had strongly supported Obama, but when it came to reading each candidate’s differences on issues about the economy, I found that McCain had better plans in order to help our country. It’s strange to think how easily our opinions can change on such issues.

 

The current energy crisis is not something that the next president needs to think about. It is something he needs to rectify immediately. If the current crisis was solved, a variety of economic, political, and environmental problems would be corrected. In my opinion, solving America’s oil dependency needs to be a top priority for our government, right up there with the economy. By no means am I a tree-hugging hippie. I just believe that this problem is larger than most.
With that said, I believe the first step toward fixing the energy crisis is cutting the pork barrel spending and the defense budget, as well as salaries for high-up federal employees. The amount of money the government would save by cutting these things slightly is enormous. If the energy crisis is going to be solved, America as a whole is going to need to make some sacrifices. The higher-ups in the government would still be well off even with a pay cut and the defense budget could be decreased by cutting back on small things. The government should then use the extra money they have from cutting budgets and salaries to fund research into alternative energy. I know this may be impossible, since like Shapiro said, the government and the oil companies have traditionally been friends for years because they both benefit from each other. I’m not going to discuss the past much here, but the government and the oil companies have stalled or blocked research into alternative fuel sources. Why? Because that would hurt them and take away some of their profit. Heaven forbid! Anyways, the government needs to gather the best from the scientific community and then bring them together and give them all the tools and funding they need to develop an alternative energy source.
While the scientists are working on a better fuel, America should start drilling some of its own oil. I have been against offshore drilling in the past, but now it seems that it is necessary in order to wean ourselves off of foreign oil. The most important thing is that drilling our own oil will only be a temporary solution until a new fuel source is discovered. When it is, Americans need to be willing to make the switch over to whatever that alternative fuel may be.
If America didn’t depend on foreign oil, the Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia would have no money. If those countries have no money, then they will not have a reason to terrorize other countries. International politics would shift drastically as the power of these countries waned along with our foreign oil dependency. In addition to putting these greedy, oil-exporting countries in their place and stopping terrorism, America will be helping the environment too. It’s the sad truth that America is one of the biggest global polluters, behind India and China. If we relied on alternative energy, we would reduce our carbon emissions greatly as a country, which would drastically slow down global warming. Hopefully, alternative energy would be cheaper than oil, as that would encourage Americans to make the switch over from gas. It would help out the average American, and it would also help our economy at home. If we developed a new fuel source, we would have to develop new engines and automobiles as well. The entire transportation industry would be transformed. I should think that America would produce its own vehicles and such that relied on new energy sources.
It is my fervent hope that America will wean itself off of foreign oil during the next presidency, and that it will develop and integrate alternative fuel sources. The energy crisis is more than just a peripheral issue, it is something that needs to be dealt with now.