http://www.realclearmarkets.com/printpage/url=http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2020/09/a_crisis_resists_the_usual_rem.html
With the economy at the front burner, the candidates are going to have to present their position. The disasters that have ravaged the economy have thrown politicians a curve ball. Uncertainty surrounds what should and should not be done. America is divided on the topic of the government intervention. Obama and McCain are going to have to speak clearly and precisely on how they intend on fixing the market. Is the market fixable by the government? Do Obama and/or McCain have the required experience in the economy to fix it?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Conservatives Viewed Bailout As Last Straw
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27repubs.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
This article talks about the Republican party's reluctance about passing the $700 billion bill proposed by George Bush. Instead of passing Bush's plan, the Republican party wants to look into alternative ways of alleviating the financial crisis. The Republican's do see however, that something needs to be done. As Jeb Hensarling of Texas said, "You were being asked to choose between financial meltdown on the one hand and taxpayer bankruptcy and the road to socialism on the other and you were told do it in 24 hours...It was just never going to happen.'' According to the article, Republicans recognize that the potential failure of the plan would be attributed to them. This is why they [the Republicans] wanted to make it very clear that they want to see government intervention, but different from the one currently proposed by the White House. This has created a lot of tension between the members of the Republican party, sparking many arguments between them. What I think is interesting about this situation as a whole is that we are seeing that the Republucans are not siding with the President because they realize he is trying to get this bill passed "on his way out of the White House." No matter what plan they come up with, I am conviced that there will be a bailout of some sort nontheless.
This article talks about the Republican party's reluctance about passing the $700 billion bill proposed by George Bush. Instead of passing Bush's plan, the Republican party wants to look into alternative ways of alleviating the financial crisis. The Republican's do see however, that something needs to be done. As Jeb Hensarling of Texas said, "You were being asked to choose between financial meltdown on the one hand and taxpayer bankruptcy and the road to socialism on the other and you were told do it in 24 hours...It was just never going to happen.'' According to the article, Republicans recognize that the potential failure of the plan would be attributed to them. This is why they [the Republicans] wanted to make it very clear that they want to see government intervention, but different from the one currently proposed by the White House. This has created a lot of tension between the members of the Republican party, sparking many arguments between them. What I think is interesting about this situation as a whole is that we are seeing that the Republucans are not siding with the President because they realize he is trying to get this bill passed "on his way out of the White House." No matter what plan they come up with, I am conviced that there will be a bailout of some sort nontheless.
Debate Winner
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/
This article shows the campaign ads of both Obama and McCain post debate and shows their different approaches and how they were trying to spin the debate. Obama's campaign ad was saying that McCain never mentioned the middle class once during the whole debate. McCain's campaign ad shows various clips where Obama is agreeing with McCain on one subject matter or another. McCain also tried to emphasize his experience whereas Obama emphasized change. The article mentions that one of Obama's goals for the debate was to link McCain to Bush in terms of economic policy so people will be put off by that. I don't know how successful Obama was in creating this link, but I think it is a good strategy because people are clearly displeased with how the economy has turned out under the Bush administration. McCain is generally not that great of a public speaker, but I think the debate was his best public appearance so far. He looked composed and did a good job speaking, which is very good for him because he does not want the image of a poor public speaker. A president should always seem knowledgeable and confident while speaking in public and I think McCain's showing at the debate definitely helped him in that regard. The ultimate question is who really "won" the debate? I think McCain's stronger than usual speaking and his ad repeatedly showing Obama agreeing with his points makes him seem like he might have a leg up over Obama. Also, though both candidates had about equal speaking time, McCain seemed to dominate most of the conversation. I am wondering now if this recent debate will significantly change the polls one way or another or not.
This article shows the campaign ads of both Obama and McCain post debate and shows their different approaches and how they were trying to spin the debate. Obama's campaign ad was saying that McCain never mentioned the middle class once during the whole debate. McCain's campaign ad shows various clips where Obama is agreeing with McCain on one subject matter or another. McCain also tried to emphasize his experience whereas Obama emphasized change. The article mentions that one of Obama's goals for the debate was to link McCain to Bush in terms of economic policy so people will be put off by that. I don't know how successful Obama was in creating this link, but I think it is a good strategy because people are clearly displeased with how the economy has turned out under the Bush administration. McCain is generally not that great of a public speaker, but I think the debate was his best public appearance so far. He looked composed and did a good job speaking, which is very good for him because he does not want the image of a poor public speaker. A president should always seem knowledgeable and confident while speaking in public and I think McCain's showing at the debate definitely helped him in that regard. The ultimate question is who really "won" the debate? I think McCain's stronger than usual speaking and his ad repeatedly showing Obama agreeing with his points makes him seem like he might have a leg up over Obama. Also, though both candidates had about equal speaking time, McCain seemed to dominate most of the conversation. I am wondering now if this recent debate will significantly change the polls one way or another or not.
First Debate
http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1188934,CST-EDT-edit28.article
I read a piece of commentary on the first presidential debate that took place on Friday night. The author points out that this debate is what American politics are all about. There were relatively few scripted zingers and most of the debate contained good substance and allowed viewers to gain valuable insight. After watching the debate I felt that both candidates did well and each had their good moments and bad. However, the true value of this debate was the chance to see some true differences bewtween the candidates. Not universal differneces such as healthcare and the war in Iraq, but differences in opinion on how to handle Iran and other foreign policy issues that do not garner much air time. Another interesting difference that the author points out is how each candidate would alter their plans because of the $700 billion bailout. Interestingly McCain called for a freeze on all programs except for those that are vital. Obama also said spending needs to be reigned in but woudn't want to sacrifice early childhood education programs. I believe this a real fundamental difference between the two candidates and is something that we could see the effects of once either candidate takes office. Would a spending freeze on all programs except those that are considered vital be a benefitial move? And does Obama really think that early childhood education is going to take precedence over other critical programs such as national defense, social security, etc?
I read a piece of commentary on the first presidential debate that took place on Friday night. The author points out that this debate is what American politics are all about. There were relatively few scripted zingers and most of the debate contained good substance and allowed viewers to gain valuable insight. After watching the debate I felt that both candidates did well and each had their good moments and bad. However, the true value of this debate was the chance to see some true differences bewtween the candidates. Not universal differneces such as healthcare and the war in Iraq, but differences in opinion on how to handle Iran and other foreign policy issues that do not garner much air time. Another interesting difference that the author points out is how each candidate would alter their plans because of the $700 billion bailout. Interestingly McCain called for a freeze on all programs except for those that are vital. Obama also said spending needs to be reigned in but woudn't want to sacrifice early childhood education programs. I believe this a real fundamental difference between the two candidates and is something that we could see the effects of once either candidate takes office. Would a spending freeze on all programs except those that are considered vital be a benefitial move? And does Obama really think that early childhood education is going to take precedence over other critical programs such as national defense, social security, etc?
Palin Qualified?
I did my assignment on an article called “Is plain qualified, Obama not saying” from the New York Times. It talked about how Obama wouldn’t comment on Plain’s experience he would “let the American people decide. I think this is a very good move by Obama because this is a place he doesn’t even need to waste time criticizing Palin because so many people are already doing it for him. Republicans and Democrats are both constantly raising questions about her experience on TV and in debates. People are bombarded so much with this experience question that there is no reason for Obama to attack her more. The question the interviewer asked really even highlighted how inexperienced Palin was. He asked, “Sarah Palin claimed in an interview that Alaska’s proximity to Russia somehow enhances her foreign policy experience and credentials. Do you agree with that?”. It is laughable to me that she could even say that, and I’m sure many other Americans feel the same way. I think he is trying to come off as an even classier candidate because he doesn’t need to resort to smear tactics for this part of the campaign. This could attract many voters who have noticed the questionable tactics used by John McCain. He also turned the argument to McCain, stating that he was the one who was going to be in charge if elected, not Palin. This is where we have to bring the campaign back to, because in reality it is almost all about the Obama and McCain; Palin is really almost becoming a distraction to the real issues.
Monday, September 22, 2008
McCain and Mikheil: a Dangerous Relationship? Nice Try, But That Ain't Gonna Work...
Why Realists are Worried About McCain
The article explains in detail the close friendship of John McCain and Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvilli, from when they first met at a gathering in Washington in 1995 through the Georgian-Russian war this past summer, in which Saakashvilli called McCain on a daily basis for support and guidance. The article attempts to argue that this relationship could be detrimental to the United States' foreign policy decisions in a McCain-led administration. The author claims that this friendship could cloud his judgment, and even cites an official as saying "When you personalize these issues, you lose sight of some more basic national interests" to convey the message that John would not be acting in ways that would best serve the US as a result.
I find this entire argument quite laughable.
First, the fact that McCain knows and gets along with the leader of our most fervent ally should only be seen as a positive. At a time when the United States needs all the allies it can get, how can a candidate that would immediately solidify a relationship with such a crucial allied nation not be seen as a plus? That McCain already knows and converses regularly with world leaders can only make him more qualified to handle our nation's foreign policy affairs.
Second, just because they are longtime friends, McCain will not blindly follow Saakashvilli's words. The article also details the story of how when Saakashvilli won the election to become Georgia's president, the incumbent refused to relinquish his seat. John McCain called up the incumbent, who was also a good friend at the time, to demand that he step down from office. The author also explains that last November, when Saakashvilli ordered a crackdown on an opposition TV station, McCain called and demanded that "all freedoms [be] restored" immediately. These two events show that McCain will not let friendships get in the way of his personal convictions, which is something I admire in a politician.
The article explains in detail the close friendship of John McCain and Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvilli, from when they first met at a gathering in Washington in 1995 through the Georgian-Russian war this past summer, in which Saakashvilli called McCain on a daily basis for support and guidance. The article attempts to argue that this relationship could be detrimental to the United States' foreign policy decisions in a McCain-led administration. The author claims that this friendship could cloud his judgment, and even cites an official as saying "When you personalize these issues, you lose sight of some more basic national interests" to convey the message that John would not be acting in ways that would best serve the US as a result.
I find this entire argument quite laughable.
First, the fact that McCain knows and gets along with the leader of our most fervent ally should only be seen as a positive. At a time when the United States needs all the allies it can get, how can a candidate that would immediately solidify a relationship with such a crucial allied nation not be seen as a plus? That McCain already knows and converses regularly with world leaders can only make him more qualified to handle our nation's foreign policy affairs.
Second, just because they are longtime friends, McCain will not blindly follow Saakashvilli's words. The article also details the story of how when Saakashvilli won the election to become Georgia's president, the incumbent refused to relinquish his seat. John McCain called up the incumbent, who was also a good friend at the time, to demand that he step down from office. The author also explains that last November, when Saakashvilli ordered a crackdown on an opposition TV station, McCain called and demanded that "all freedoms [be] restored" immediately. These two events show that McCain will not let friendships get in the way of his personal convictions, which is something I admire in a politician.
Let her fight.
"Pact on Debates Will Let McCain and Obama Spar"The article talks about the agreements made between both the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign about the structure of both the presidential and vice presidential debates. The Vice Presidential debate is what really interested me within the article. Palin advisors wanted less open discussion and more direct questions which will limit the interaction between the candidates themselves. After watching her RNC speech, I see no problem with letting her and Biden spar. From previous readings on Palin it seems intimidation is her strongest trait. It seems that the McCain camp will only talk about the “Executive” experience of Palin when it benefits his choice for picking Palin; then when the Debate commission wants to set up a fair and informative debate, the McCain campaign states that Palin is a rookie debater. Let her attack Biden, see if she can keep up with the senior members of Washington. We saw other governor’s debate throughout the primaries; there were no special privileges for them. Will foreign leaders ask only direct questions? Negotiates and communication are a key parts of diplomacy, and the debate is a long standing part of the political process. Should debates be modified because particular candidates don’t feel comfortable in them? Does good debating represent good negotiations and leadership, or does it simply mean you can memorize prepared answers to be rattled off? It seems to me that the role of President or even Vice President might be filled with new uncomfortable situations. Will Joe Biden really be the most intimidating force the Vice President will face? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
America's Stress Test
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/09/21/2008-09-21_americas_stress_test.html
The article is about McCain and Obama's reaction towards the recent Wall Street Crisis. the article notes that neither were prepared for this crisis,even though the economy has been in such bad shape for at least a year now. The article brings up the strong complaint that if they don't know how to react now, how will it be when either is elected President. This is a frightening thing to think about. After seeing how both candidates reacted, it is hard to say which is ready to react as a President and not just stand up and be able to talk their way out of everything. The article brings up the idea of McCain and Obama running "shallow" campaigns. Neither could react to the economy's problems and they are afraid to lose votes by saying the wrong things. This article brings up the reality that neither candidate is fit for dealing with a crisis and with our current economy, a crisis is never too far away.
The article is about McCain and Obama's reaction towards the recent Wall Street Crisis. the article notes that neither were prepared for this crisis,even though the economy has been in such bad shape for at least a year now. The article brings up the strong complaint that if they don't know how to react now, how will it be when either is elected President. This is a frightening thing to think about. After seeing how both candidates reacted, it is hard to say which is ready to react as a President and not just stand up and be able to talk their way out of everything. The article brings up the idea of McCain and Obama running "shallow" campaigns. Neither could react to the economy's problems and they are afraid to lose votes by saying the wrong things. This article brings up the reality that neither candidate is fit for dealing with a crisis and with our current economy, a crisis is never too far away.
Time for a GOP Panic?
My Article is from The American Spectator.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13921
The article describes how the polls are showing more of a lead by the Democrats in the recent week or so. When Palin was first nominated for Vice President, GOP ratings went up causing the Democrats to get worried. However, after Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson and Obama's recent attacks with his TV ads, the Republicans have lost that lead. "Palin's approval numbers took a nosedive, going from 52% positive to 41% positive in the space of eight days, while her negatives ratings rose from 35% to 46%."
I find this article interesting because it kind of describes how the presidential race is never clearly in favor of one candidate. It varies week-by-week. One week Obama may be ahead, while the next McCain may be. The media plays a huge role because of their biases and the clips that they choose to show. While for this week Palin may be the victim, with the upcoming presidential debate, the next victim may be Obama, especially if foreign policy becomes a hot topic. Either way, it shows that neither party should never be comfortable in their position and it's always good to stay on edge. This is the reason why some people find politics to be entertainment in itself.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13921
The article describes how the polls are showing more of a lead by the Democrats in the recent week or so. When Palin was first nominated for Vice President, GOP ratings went up causing the Democrats to get worried. However, after Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson and Obama's recent attacks with his TV ads, the Republicans have lost that lead. "Palin's approval numbers took a nosedive, going from 52% positive to 41% positive in the space of eight days, while her negatives ratings rose from 35% to 46%."
I find this article interesting because it kind of describes how the presidential race is never clearly in favor of one candidate. It varies week-by-week. One week Obama may be ahead, while the next McCain may be. The media plays a huge role because of their biases and the clips that they choose to show. While for this week Palin may be the victim, with the upcoming presidential debate, the next victim may be Obama, especially if foreign policy becomes a hot topic. Either way, it shows that neither party should never be comfortable in their position and it's always good to stay on edge. This is the reason why some people find politics to be entertainment in itself.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Welcome
Hello and welcome to our class blog. Here, you will find numerous examples of insightful and critical commentary on the news of the day from students in Bentley College's Honors section of Introduction to American Government (GO100H). I look forward to reading all of your posts and comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)