The 2008 Election

The ad campaigns for President have begun. Whether or not they're true is a different matter altogether. Unfortunately, not nearly enough people in this country take the 5-10 minutes necessary to research whether or not a candidate's claims are true or false. The internet is the quickest, easiest way to get unbiased, non-partisan views that aren't clouded by politics.

**Change**

The Republican party is actually attempting to run a campaign based upon "change" when they've been in power for the last 8 years. I don't know if it's unprecedented or not, but it's certainly something that is strange to witness.

Barack Obama has a powerful line of argument, though, when he says that John McCain has voted in line with Bush 95% of the time. Is this true? Factcheck.org wrote:

The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67 percent (2001).

So are people actually going to believe McCain when he says that he represents the change that Washington needs? It remains to be seen, but the record certainly indicates that they shouldn't.

**Do-Nothing Congress**

This 110th Congress has been criticized for being a "Do-Nothing Congress" and has received record low approval ratings falling below that of even President Bush's ratings. Is this a fair assessment of the new Democratic majority?

Yes and no. The truth is that the Congress has not accomplished a great number of things. However, people have to think "ok, why is that?" The main answer is the filibuster. According to the New York Times, back in December 2007:

"So far in this first year of the 110th Congress, there have been 72 motions to stop filibusters, most on the Iraq war but also on routine issues like reauthorizing Amtrak funding. There were 68 such motions in the full two years of the previous Congress, 53 in 1987-88 and 23 in 1977-78."

In fact, also quoted in the article is the leader of a conservative research group in Washington who says that the Republicans are turning the filibuster into a primary strategy.

Again, will the strategy work? To filibuster more than any other Congress in history in just the first year of a 2-year cycle, but then leave that part out when you say that the Democratic-led Congress hasn't done anything? It remains to be seen.

**Economy**

With the U.S. economy in such poor shape, this will play a major role in who a lot of people cast their vote for. John McCain has repeatedly said that the economy is strong, we're not headed into a recession and that the times have been prosperous with low unemployment. He has said that the economic problems are "psychological".
Yet, are people going to still listen to McCain when he says that he can fix the economy, when he doesn't even admit the economy is a problem?

**Taxes**

McCain and Obama have both offered up their tax proposals as well. The Republicans love to say that the Democrats will raise your taxes, and it's proven to be a great campaign asset for them thru the years. However, in this campaign, McCain is still using that argument when the facts actually show differently.

Since my words won't express it as well as the column's, here is an article that Newsweek published about a McCain ad that attacked Obama's tax proposals:

"We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates' tax plans. When we asked him if Obama's claim that he would 'cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families' was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was 'consistent with our estimates.' Overall, the TPC found that Obama's plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.

"Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

"Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

"[McCain's] ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about 'years of deficits.' But (and we've reported this before, too), the fact is both candidates' economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending, and by that measure, McCain's is worse than Obama's. According to the TPC analysis, Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's plan would bring about a projected $5 trillion increase in the same time frame.

"The Obama campaign maintains that the Tax Policy Center's estimates don't account for Obama's proposed spending cuts, including things like ending the Iraq war. But those cuts will not come close to balancing the budget, and Obama has avoided promising a balanced budget during his first term.

"McCain, however, has said he will balance the budget by 2013. Experts remain skeptical. In early July, The New York Times quoted Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition — a bipartisan fiscal responsibility advocacy group — as saying the claim was 'unlikely':

"Robert L. Bixby (as quoted by The New York Times, July 8): 'It's feasible to balance the budget by 2013, but very unlikely under the policies Senator McCain has proposed. The spending cuts are far too vague to be counted on for significant savings and, even if they were more specific, I can't see how they would come close to offsetting the level of tax cuts he recommends.'

"McCain senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin sent The Washington Post's editorial board a copy of McCain's plan in support of the candidate's claim. But the board concluded, in its July 14 editorial, that the plan was '"not credible'."

But will people actually pay attention to this? Or will they just assume that the Democrats raise taxes for everyone, period? It remains to be seen, but hopefully people can pay attention to this.

**Experience**

This was a hot-button topic for a long time. McCain accused Obama of not having any experience. The entire right-wing accused him of this. And then McCain went and nominated Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin for his Vice President.

Obviously, there has been much talk of Palin lately because she's new on the scene. No one knows anything about her, so as journalists try to find things out, stories get reported on. They question her readiness to be the V.P. of the United States...and Palin criticizes the media for it. Isn't it their job to ask these questions?

Now I know that Jon Stewart isn't a news source, and his main -- and only -- job is to be humorous, but he and his staff put together a really funny, yet accurate, clip regarding the Sarah Palin nomination:

The great part about guys like Stewart, besides just being really funny, are their ability to find clips and quotes of people when they contradict themselves when it suits them politically.

So it comes down to "executive experience". The McCain party claimed that Palin is qualified for the Vice Presidency because she has more executive experience than either Obama or Joe Biden combined. They never mention the fact that she has more executive experience than John McCain as well.

And what does her experience boil down to? Mayor of a town that had less than 10,000 people in it, and governor of the 47th most populous state in the union. In fact, when she ran for mayor of Wasilla, AK she won the position with a total of 909 votes. She then hired a lobbyist to secure $27 million in federal funds for the small town, even though she says that she is against Washington earmarks.

Palin became governor of Alaska in Dec. 2006. When she ran for the office one of her platforms was to continue securing federal funds for the "Bridge to Nowhere", a bridge that would replace the ferry between Ketchikan, AK to the Ketchikan Int'l Airport located on an island. Once elected governor, Palin changed her mind on the issue...and then trying to take credit for her stance against earmarks gave her famous line "thanks, but no thanks" in her V.P. acceptance speech.

As governor, I really thought that being in charge of the National Guard would stand in her favor. And I read this which looked good for her:

"Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin 'extremely responsive and smart' and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder."

That's a pretty darn good endorsement. Of course, it was immediately followed by this:

"But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, [Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell] said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations."

If you watched the Republican National Convention, the majority of speeches were ridiculing and mocking the Obama campaign. They said the right things in order to fire up their base, igniting chants of "Drill Baby Drill" and "USA USA". While I don't doubt that the Republicans have the best intentions of the United States at heart, their mocking attitude of superiority is sickening. I honestly tried to like Sarah Palin during her speech...I liked her when she talked about her family; however, I despised her for not telling us about herself politically, but rather jumping on the offensive and resorting to sarcastic remarks about the oppostition. That didn't make her look fresh or new as the McCain campaign had hoped for. It made her look like just another Republican politician.

In summary, I just wish that people would take the 5-10 minutes to research something that they hear the politicians, and the pundits, talk about. Figure out if their claims are true. Make your voting decisions based upon policies, not about who you'd rather have in your kitchen for dinner. Because they're not coming to your house....but their decisions as President will effect what happens inside of it.