Daniel Balogh 

Negative campaign advertising is something that really can't be said to be good or bad. In many ways, negative campaign advertising has helped people over the years to become president, by shedding a bad light on the opposing candidate. In the 2004 election, it even helped Bush win the election, as Goldstein states in the first article, "There are many reasons why John Kerry lost in 2004. He didn't lose because he didn't have enough money — he actually out-advertised the Bush campaign." However, it is also very easy for it to backfire. I mean, many people can go so far and harsh with negative ads that it can actually look badly on the person who approves the message. If McCain attacks Obama's personal privacy or some such with things that aren't even relevant to the campaign, it only looks bad on McCain. In McCain's advertisement, I honestly do believe he not only crossed the line but kind of made himself seem a little silly. To call Obama a celebrity is a ridiculous statement that holds such little basis. If anything, McCain is much more of a celebrity and has acquired much fame with his P.O.W. (Prisoner of war) acts of heroism for the country. I really don't even see how somebody's popularity reflects on how that person will run the United States of America, though. This is almost like saying "Obama's middle name is Hussein and his first name is Obama, so hes obviously going to run the country horribly!" Which, believe it or not, a lot of people do look down on Obama because of his name. That being said, this reminds me of a video my good republican friend who now attends UCLA once posted on Facebook, which basically took a bunch of out-of-context quotes from Obama's book to prove that he was "racist" against whites (for reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI77cU3jsFs). This is the kind of negative statements by the opposing faction that I feel only makes them seem ignorant and silly. Not that negative campaign advertising has done videos such as this so far, but if it gets to this point, its then that I feel like it is no longer effective.
That being said, with technology politics have come a long way. We can now have debates on T.V. for the entire world to watch. For people to actually think that presidential candidates wouldn't try to profit off negative advertising is ludicrous. I mean, its beneficial for them and it could be the difference between winning an election and losing it. However, one must look at the actual morality and fairness of negative ads. If the negative ad lies about anything, it should immediately be taken off. I also feel if the negative ad digs up some sort of random artifact from the past on the candidate that is ridiculous and reflects very little on the current personality of the president, it shouldn't be allowed to be shown. For example, if someone puts in an ad that in college Obama was once caught drunk at a party and shouldn't be president because of that, its pretty silly. I think that a lot of times negative ads can appeal to the ignorant voter, and despite the fact, as the article says, "Contrary to conventional wisdom, the more that people are exposed to negative advertising, the more they know, the more engaged they are and the more likely they are to vote," I feel like those who vote are many times ill-informed. A voter who votes for McCain because he saw something mean about Obama in an ad is worse than someone who doesn't vote at all, in a lot of ways. On the average voter, negative advertising is obviously effective. But to truly be fair and congruent with the democratic system, it is expected that voters will have their interest peaked by these ads, but not just simply believe what they hear. It is expected that people who see these ads go out and research and find out if these things are true, and what the other candidate would do better in these areas. That's the one thing about negative advertising that really bugs me, the ads always say why the other guy is bad, but somehow avoid stating how the person they are promoting would do better in these areas. I'd like to see more statistics, cold hard facts, and concrete details in advertising.
I realize throughout my response I've been a lot more harsh of McCain, and despite the fact that I am liberal, I really do feel like this is warranted. The two advertisements we were shown of Obama's negative advertising were vastly more accepting and less harsh than McCain's. Plus, the statements made honestly seemed a lot more valid and supported. That's not to say Obama is right and McCain is wrong (oooohhhh, pun), Obama could still make an ad that is ludicrous and backfires on him. In this situation it may be possible for a voter to compare the advertisements and say "Oh, hey, Obama is less petty and clearly a lot nicer." I guess that's the risk the candidates take with negative advertising, but it's really just one of the many risks you take when you're running for president. Obviously, no candidate is going to use positive advertising over negative advertising, negative is clearly much more effective. Its more shocking, more in your face, and in general is more talked about and more widely recognized. As the article states, "the major reason Abraham Lincoln did not use negative ads was that TV didn't exist. If it did exist, he would have." I suppose this sums up a lot of points I have tried to make. Technology is here, and its a great thing to have. We can advertise, good or bad, and we can use the power of technology in many ways. Not to sound cliche, but as the Spiderman trilogy says, "With great power comes great responsibility." With negative advertising comes the promise that no candidate will take it far enough to the point where it actually becomes a serious constitutional issue. We have to remember that even presidential candidates are people.

Sammie Davis

I feel that Senator Barack Obama ultimately made the right decision in declining public financing. Just looking at the opening statistics provided regarding the last election in 2004, less than $150 million came from public financing whereas nearly $450 million came from separate advocacy groups. As the first presidential candidate to turn down public finances for the final election, it appears to be a risky move. However, as the article puts it, Obama has achieved “record-shattering” funds based solely on internet fundraising, public involvement, and other ways independent of income taxes.
Obama’s choice not to accept public financing is strategic on several levels. For starters, the system itself is quite flawed and disorganized. Even Common Cause, which is a promotional organization for public financing, admits that it is “badly outdated and in need of major overhaul.” With this, it seems inane to consider the option. Besides, if Obama is so superb in terms of gathering campaign finances without the use of taxation, then there is no reason for him to enlist in a policy that limits the amount he will have availed to him. Sheila Krumholz with the Center for Responsive Politics points out that “only nine percent of taxpayers” even participated in public financing back in 2005- a twenty percent decline from the twenty-nine percent in 1980.
Clearly Obama made the more intelligible move, but it is understandable why Senator John McCain is becoming rather inflamed on the matter. Obama did in fact state that he would accept public financing if his running mate did which is the source of criticism coming from the McCain campaign. On the contrary, Obama made such a statement quite early in the primaries and no candidates came forward about the matter. Additionally, McCain was running opponent-free while Obama was butting heads with Hilary Clinton; during this time, McCain ran entirely on “private funds.” Overall, Obama’s change-of-mind is acceptable for various circumstances. He certainly made a move that will very likely pay off significantly in this presidential election.

After reviewing both the plans of Obama and McCain for American health care, it is evident to me that Barack Obama is more in touch with today’s society and the everyday needs of the majority of America’s population. His plan is more attainable than that of John McCain’s, whose ambitions may never come to fruition. Although they both share the same common goal of providing affordable, non-discriminatory, portable health care to all Americans, Obama’s plan, in my opinion, would be far less chaotic in the transitioning stages. Obama proposes to create a “watchdog” committee, the National Health Insurance Exchange, which will govern new and existing insurance providers, overseeing that the policies, rates, and accessibilities are just and exhibit equality of opportunity to all. However, John McCain’s proposal to compensate American individuals or families for the cost of medical insurance with a monetary sum would be a huge mistake, and would closely resemble President Bush’s stimulus check. I agree with "justice.flores" that most Americans who receive this cash will not credit it to the proper and intended purpose given them: relief from health care costs. I do believe that McCain’s GAP plan, which calls for centralized insurance for all Americans, is an excellent idea to alleviate the struggles synonymous with health care, but highly unrealistic and not immediate enough of a solution. Obama’s proposals would mitigate the cumbersome process to receiving proper and efficient health care more rapidly and with less difficulty. I believe that Obama relates more closely to the population of America, in that he would provide a broader range of choice to the people, rather than channeling them into one centralized health care plan. I also believe that through his health care plan, Obama will begin to slightly erase the lines of status and class among Americans by providing the average citizen with a similar plan to the elite members of Congress. He also appeals to the “common man” by allowing paperwork and enrollment to be more comprehensive and less stressful. Obama will avoid reaching into American taxpayer’s wallets while accomplishing his goals in the health care system. He states, “We are not a country that allows major challenges to go unsolved and unaddressed while our people suffer needlessly. In the richest nation on Earth, it is simply not right that the skyrocketing profits of the drug and insurance industries are paid for by the skyrocketing premiums that come from the pockets of the American people. This is not who we are. And this is not who we have to be.” I strongly agree with Obama’s statement, which basically sums up his stance on health care in a few sentences. McCain’s plans appear more vague and general than those of Obama’s, whose proposals I believe would be more effective.

  Bernard Teller

Post #1: Imagine yourself:
Breaking into someone’s private home because your home flooded or lost electricity to then find the owner sitting down in the dinning room with his family eating dinner half past eight. A family of four, a husband, two kids, and a wife. The husband jumps up when his eyes fall on you, alert, in the stance of attack, ready to defend his family. You start to explain yourself, give your excuses, but he attacks thinking you’re a threat. The wife calls the police as her husband pins you to the floor waiting for the polices help which arrives just moments latter. They arrest you and interrogate you and you have the nerve to say "It’s not my fault; I have a right to be here! My home isn’t in living state; I had no intentions of harming the family! I just wanted to spend the night on a dry bed! IT’S MY RIGHT TO WANT TO SLEEP WELL TO!"

In my opinion my made up story above, is very similar to when an illegal immigrant steps foot into America, and then has the nerve to protest his rights for being in the country. These events that occurred on August 16th in Lake Elsinore are unbelievably pathetic on the immigrant’s part. I have no problem with illegal immigrants who want to live and work better by coming to America, but to then to protest and try to fight back there deportation when caught, now that to me is ridiculous, you took your chance, you were caught, so sorry.

ICE is a great deportation program, it treats the illegal immigrants more then fairly, it gives the immigrant 90 days to get ready to leave and to pack his/her belongings. What happened at Lake Elsinore was also in my opinion fair towards the immigrants. The immigrants who made a boisterous peregrination from Elsinore Elementary School to Lake Elsinore City Hall and then to the Lake Elsinore Sheriff's Station had absolutely no right to protest. Most of them were in America illegally and should be happy and content with the way they were being treated and should not demand better treatment. I don't think that the Lake Elsinore City Council was harsh enough nor do I think the 100,000 dollars ICE received for its program is sufficient enough to deal/handle the illegal immigration problem.

As Mayor Daryl Hickman said "People were not coming downtown. We had to do something. Now we're seeing the results,"

Heather White

As a society based on the idea that all men are created equal, how can you deny someone a first amendment right, such as the right to peacefully protest [by criticizing someone for having the "nerve to protest"], based on the fact that thy weren't born north of the California-Mexican border?

Scare tactics work for 8 year-olds who fail to listen to their parents. As far as using them for Self Deportation on adults who traveled to America in order to find work, I do not think that is effective. ICE raids having been highly criticized in Oakland, CA for treating immigrants unfairly and inhumanly by using intimidation to bring "justice" [see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/25/BAGDNPFGV213.DTL]. These raids instill fear rather than finding compassion for those who are trying to overcome the hardships they faced in other countries. Although these people are here illegally, if they are not damaging the community, then I fail to see the harm in their presence. For the community to allow them to stand on the corners to find work, and let their children enter the school systems; it now seems unfair for them to support the raids that deport immigrants who would otherwise be at home with their families.

Last time I checked, those who are paying them under the table and circumventing taxes, are not complaining about the immigrants. As far as the threat of immigrants, I have yet to see statistics drawing a direct correlation between crime and illegal immigrants, because of that, one can only assume that other social factors are playing into the decline of visitors in downtown.

Those being taken by the ICE raids aren't the cause of crime, if they were they would have come into custody another way. But the truth is, in country like America, the rights of everyone should be held to the same standard.

Heather White

"They caused there own problems, they would not be at square one (most likely) if they would not have decided to get all tough and rebellious. They should be happy that they even made it into America; they should take what they can get with open arms being that what they are receiving is much better then what they would receive in their own countries"

These people are protesting to be treated equally, it's unfair to say they are being tough and rebellious. They shouldn't be happy that they have to worry that any day they can get deported or pushed off the streets which is the only source of income for their families. What happens to their children if they can't work, they are enrolled in schools and trying to succeed in America. When ICE raids in Oakland happen, students have to stay at home and hide out because they are afraid that if they are seen, they lose all of their chances of staying here and getting educated. That's not really something to be happy about...

Post #1

The economy is a deep concern, especially during this election year, because of the rising debt. Even though the article says that right now the 8.7 trillion dollars the United States owed in 2007 was only 66 percent of the GDP, that was one year ago. The national debt is now 9.8 trillion dollars and the GDP only grew 3.3% last year; see this article (http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/08/28/is-market-rising-on-obama-presidency/). The ratio of how much the United States makes compared to how much it owes has not changed significantly. John W. Schoen may say that the economy should be able to withstand that amount of debt considering the percentage of the national income the debt makes up. However, that does not mean that the state of the economy should be put on the back burner. All the country has seen this debt do is grow, and there has not been a real plan proposed to reverse this trend. The last economic fix that was put in affect was the stimulus checks, and they have been sent and spent and the economy is still the same. If the government lets this problem go, and if the candidates do not discuss the issue and suggest solutions, the debt will only get worse. And considering the state of the economy recently, the near-recession the country has reached and the housing slum, it is not clear whether the United States will be able to handle that amount of debt for much longer. If solutions are not proposed now, when there is still time to correct the economy, the United States will have to succumb to some drastic measures later.

I completely agree with you themexi_can91. According to the article I mentioned in my first comment, consumerism accounts for seventy percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Once people stop spending, the economy stops growing, and the GDP goes down. So far in this election, Barack Obama seems to be the stronger ecomonic candidate because he wants to cut middle class taxes, leaving more money in their wallets. He also wants to end the war in Iraq allowing the United States to stop inflation. According to this wallstreet journal article (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120451614688707083.html) McCain has been back and forth on his stand on private social security accounts which does not look good in the eyes of the voters. The American people will want a candidate that at least has a solid platform on what they plan to do about the economy. What he is clear about is that he will not raise taxes or introduce new taxes, but he will cut corporate income taxes by ten percent. McCain has yet to figure out how he will come up with the money that will be lost by this tax cut, even after cutting spending by the federal government. If McCain does not come up with a more solid plan, voters will turn to Obama for economic security.