Liars as Leaders

The Brave New Foundation is an advocacy group dedicated to drawing attention to the social injustices plaguing America. http://www.bravenewfoundation.org/ As the presidential election draws near, the Brave New Foundation is focusing on supporting Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s efforts. Earlier this month, they posted an assessment of a series of ads approved by John McCain which “distorted” many comments Obama has made in his campaigns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk The constant scrutiny Obama has undergone is making this election one of the most negative campaigns to date. Instead of spending more money on informing Americans of why he is a qualified president, McCain is using his campaign dollars to take Obama’s words out of context and create messages that will cause America to view him in a negative light.
In one ad, McCain attacks Obama for wanting to have sex education classes for kindergarteners, when in fact Obama wanted to “protect young children from sexual predators.” In another ad, McCain says Obama deemed Iraq as a “tiny” country that did not pose a threat. Obama’s actual message was that Iraq (along with Cuba and Venezuela) is a tiny country compared to the Soviet Union, and would not pose a threat to America the way the Soviet Union would. A third ad criticized Obama for never supporting the troops, while McCain “always votes in favor of the troops,” yet the US Senate records prove, “John McCain has voted NO over 10 times on pro-veteran and active service member issues such as healthcare and body armor.” McCain also blames Obama for wanting to raise gas prices. McCain claims that he plans to drill more in America and “rescue family budgets.” The Department of Energy, however, says “the effects of drilling in America wouldn’t even be felt until 2030,” meaning McCain could not possibly take credit for lowering gas prices in the next four years. Several magazines such as Time and newspapers such as the New York Times were then quoted in the assessment by the Brave New Foundation. These magazines criticized McCain for upping the anti for “sleazy” political ads and constant deceit. These negative advertisements seem to show how far McCain is willing to go in order to bring down Obama. He has taken Obama’s messages completely out of context and misused the media to share false ads with America.
This assessment by the Brave New Foundation is an example of both negative ads and how the media utilizes the watchdog function to keep candidates honest. Typically, negative ads are used when candidates see that their competitor is favored by voters. If this theory is true, McCain must believe that Obama is favored by the public and his continual negative advertising methods may be an effort to bring down Obama’s appeal since McCain has already done everything in his power to raise his own approval rating. Though both candidates are guilty of releasing negative ads about their opponent, McCain seems to be guilty of releasing carelessly researched and therefore less credible ads about Obama. The watchdog function of the media allows a balance for the deceit in political advertising. Since it is against the law to not show an ad even if it is untrue, negative commercials have to be aired. The Brave New Foundation’s retaliation assessment of many of John McCain’s false ads can be shown to the public via the Internet on such websites as youtube.com in order to hold candidates accountable for their messages.
Since viewing many of the negative ads McCain has released, my respect for him has continued to diminish. It is my opinion that a man who will use such unfair techniques in order to skew what another candidate stands for is not worthy of trust. This assessment by Brave New Foundation has been effective in making me question whether or not McCain will be trustworthy as a president if he is not credible in his advertising. Character is not determined by whether or not someone wins, but how they win.

Country first... and second... and third...

As recently as a few hours ago, McCain put his campaign on hold to convene with government officials to propose a plan helping the economic situation facing the country. I know many people believe this move to be a poor one for McCain's campaign. I was unsure of how I felt when I immediately heard McCain's announcement. The more I think about McCain's actions, the more I feel it was a smart move on his part. He is not doing this to gain the approval of the American people within the polls. The economic situation can not be fixed in a matter of days, but what McCain states to be "leadership meetings", is a start. I think it is the perfect opportunity to see our presidential candidates step up to the plate and see how they react in an American crisis. For McCain, he was the first of the two candidates to address the situation. The action of putting his presidential campaign aside in order to focus on the interest of the American people is Senator John McCain's most noted quality- you know, putting "Country First".

His message to the American people can be found here: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/24/campaign.wrap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCVideo

Throughout this campaign, I have gained more and more respect for Republican nominee John McCain. I admire his "Country First" approach within his campaign, especially when he detailed his Prisoner of War experience in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. I respect the numerous times he has addressed the negativity within presidential campaigning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZf05ijVFtc&feature=related
He has faith in the American people, and by heading to Washington in the middle of his campaigning to formulate economic strategies in order to better the American people, it is evident he truly does put country first.
After reading other political blogs on this topic, many have Barack Obama quoted:

"It's my belief that this is exactly the time when the American people need to
hear from the person who in approximately 40 days will be responsible for
dealing with this mess," said Obama. "Part of the president's job is to deal
with more than one thing at once."

(http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/09/mccain_suspends_campaign.html?hpid=topnews)

I agree with Obama's statement, and because I agree with his statement, I find it odd that he is not stopping his campaign in order to help a crisis that he quite possibly might be in charge of handling come January. Both candidates should want to formulate a plan in order to change the current situation because they are Americans too. The president has the ability to change American policies to better not only the country but themselves as American citizens.


John McCain has not forgotten about his campaign, he merely is putting it second and dealing with the economic crisis currently facing the country. He did ask Obama to join him in his act of putting the economic situation ahead of the presidential debate and campaigning. The negative campaigning needs to take a back seat for the next few days so these presidential candidates, current president and government officials to economically secure the future of all Americans.

Senator Biden for Vice President?

Conflict arose yesterday when Senator Barrack Obama criticized his running mate, Senator Joe Biden for having an opposing view on “massive financial bailouts.” Biden agreed with Senator John McCain in stating that the federal government should not have given the American International Group $85 billion in aid, then later decide to change his view and back it. Senator Obama later tried to settle the issue, by simply stating that he should have waited to respond to the comment, but why did he choose to agree with Senator McCain in the first place?

In an interview Monday, Senator Biden called one of his campaign advertisements that mocked John McCain horrible, as it apparently knocked his lack of e-mailing skills. This is truly ridiculous considering that voters are looking to these advertisements for the presidential nominees to address issues, but instead they are addressing who is better at e-mailing? In this instance, he is again siding with Senator McCain.

Senator Biden said "When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," which contains some wrong information as FDR came into office three years after the stock market crash and at a time when television had yet to take off. Does Senator Biden, a vice-presidential nominee, really know that little about the history of his own country and the former presidents of the United States? Regardless, Senator Obama continues to believe that he is a better choice then Senator Clinton as he is an “Outstanding public servant,” which has the same effect on me as Senator Obama being a “community organizer,” nothing. How do those positions explain why Senator Obama or Senator Biden are qualified to be president and vice president? In asking a vice presidential nominee about his running mates questionable statements, I expect a response more solid than this, especially when there are only about two months left until the election.

The Republican National Committee believes that Senator Obama is being reflected through his running mate’s comments and points out his inexperience. I could not agree more. I can’t understand how Senator Obama and Senator Biden are experiencing contradictions on current political issues. Do they not discuss them? Furthermore, it seems Senator Biden has been siding with Senator McCain recently and Senator Obama continues to condemn then defend his choice for vice-presidential nominee. Though a spokesperson for Biden, tried to change the subject by talking about Senator McCain’s plan for tougher rules on Wall Street, when he had previously supported deregulation. However, while he might change his stance on an issue, Senator Biden has stated, “Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend, she is qualified to be president of the United States of America, she’s easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America, and quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me,” which really this lack of enthusiasm as vice-presidential nominee as well as his lack of enthusiasm for America. If Senator Biden truly believes that Senator Clinton was a better pick, then why even bother accepting the nomination? The occurrences of these past couple of weeks have really left me wondering what Senator Obama was thinking when he picked Senator Biden as his running mate.

Political Cartoonists' Take on the Nominees

As a follow-up to our unit on political cartoons, I thought some of you might be interested in these two New York Times columns about political cartoonists discussing their efforts in depicting the presidential and vice presidential nominees.

Obamanomics

Anyone notice the recent slump in Senator Obama’s Gallup poll rating? I didn’t. But after reading Jeff Jacoby’s article in the Boson Globe, titled “Seeing through Obamanomics”, I learned that Obama’s ranking fell from 54 percent in August to 48 percent in a month’s time, just barley giving him the lead over John McCain. Jacoby attributes the fall to the public’s reaction to Obamanomics; Senator Obama’s plan for addressing economic issues.

Obama describes his plan as “neighborliness” saying that those who can afford it should by willing to pay more taxes to support those who are not earning enough money. Jacoby says, “Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint” and I agree.

Who is Senator Obama to force wealthy American’s; people who have worked hard to earn money and maintain a high standard of living, to support those who are making minimum wage? Let me just say that I do agree that well off American’s should do their part by giving back to society and donate money to charitable causes and others in need of financial support. But to force them? Let’s get real.

Perhaps I would be more inclined to go along with Obama’s economic plan if he played more of an active roll in contributing to charities. According to Jacoby, Obama himself, a man pulling in an average of almost $250,000, only managed to donate $2,154 from 2000 to 2004. Naturally he bumped up this percentage to 5.5 percent when he entered the US Senate and started talking about running for president. What gives Obama the right to ask wealthy American’s to be more neighborly if he was not willing to actively help out the little guy until he was under public scrutiny? Something is not making sense to me.

Taking money from upper class American’s and handing it to the lower class is not, in my opinion, the correct way to address our countries economic problems, of course there are other ways to look at this issue. However, I believe Jacoby is right when he says, “you [don’t] have to be an economist to wonder about the grasp of a nominee who tells 95 percent of the public that they can have something for nothing.”

This legitimate form of political communication presents ways for readers to grasp meaning with the presentation of statistics. While all readers of Jacoby’s article may not agree with what he has to say or his interpretation of Obama’s taxation policy, the piece does prompt readers of all political parties to investigate the issue discussed.

Jacoby’s critique of Obama’s economic plan presents overlap of three different forms of political communication. He wrote an article for the Boston Globe which appeared in print and on the internet and the article also made reference to a Fox News interview Senator Obama had with Bill O’Reilly, allowing the topic to reach a broad group of individuals.

This article also demonstrates some of the new incivility found in politics today. The attention that Jacoby draws to “Obamanomics” enhances an already mean spirited discourse between politicians who thrive on ego driven politics, media figures, and the public. The fact that news is now used as entertainment adds more to the new incivility. News now goes in a twenty four hour cycle which means stories constantly have to be addressed with a new spin in order to get the public interested and talking about the issues. “Obamanomics” was first talked about when Obama was interviewed by O’Reilly and then Jacoby steps in and discusses it in his article, causing more of an uproar about the topic.

The fact that this article is on the internet also adds to the new incivility in politics. Internet technology allows people to react quickly. Readers are able to pass the piece around quickly by emailing it to friends, creating a blog about it, and giving feedback to the columnist. The more technology progresses, the less accurate the information can be because people can react quickly without checking their sources… or even having sources for that matter.

Jacoby’s opinion editorial just goes to show that every single thing a politician says is under scrutiny. Whenever a political figure comments on an issue or answers a question, someone is listening and ready to argue. While the argumentative nature of Jacoby’s piece does offer up forms of incivility he has a right to express his opinions and allow the public to see an issue from a different viewpoint.