Bailout

Senator John McCain met with CEO's of big corporations like Merril Lynch, eBay, and Cisco Systems. They discussed the thought of spending $700 million dollars to bail out the U.S. financial markets. He said, "Most Americans feel very strongly this isn't their fault. It's Wall Street and Washington and the cozy insider relationships that have caused a great part of the problems." He felt that the CEO's knew pretty well the situation of the economy. He want's CEO's to be held more accountable and oversight because the citizens feel it's Wall Street and Washington's fault. The CEO of Merril Lynch was making 83.1 million dollars annually including bonuses. Thus, McCain doesn't want to give executives like this a "golden parachute", which is a payout to help them. He also stated that senior executives should not be paid more than the highest paid federal office, which is the president, who is making $400,000 a year.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26871010/

Gerald Herbert / AP


I do agree that these companies need to be bailed out, even though they dug themselves into their holes. It's gonna be rough to see that money coming out of my parents, and possibly my own pocket. It's also kinda sick to see Merril Lynch failing, when their CEO is being paid 83.1 million dollars a year. If some of that money went into the company instead of into his pocket, then maybe they wouldn't be in their current situation. I really, really like the statement made by McCain that senior executives should only be earning 400,000 dollars tops. It's wrong to think that the President of the United States is making so much less money than CEO's of companies. I think that the President has a much more important job, and thus should be making the 89.1 million dollars a year over any CEO. JMHO.

Making a Choice

Since 2003 the United States has commited forces to Iraq to fight the war on terror. The American people seem to be getting restless at this length. Both presidental candidates have their own solutions. But which one is the way to go? Obama has an 16 month plan in which all combat brigades would be removed from Iraq. Also a residual force would be left in Iraq to act quickly on conflicts and to track down potential terrorists. John McCain has said that forces can be taken out once it is clear that it won't jeopardize all that the troops have fought for already. He wants to wait until Iraqi police and military can assume more responsibilities. Both candidates have been switching positions on the war. Obama has made more switches voting to fund and then not to later on. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26689720/

I think that right now John McCain is making the right choice. If we pull out too quickly, Iran might gain a foothold and influence terrorism in Iraq. This might lead us to have to go back there anyways, and under more challenging conditions. Iraq's military needs to be well trained and well equiped before we pull out. We can't completely rely on them right now, and 16 months isn't nearly long enough to build a dependable military. We have to be timely on when we leave, and in my opinion 16 months isn't going to be long enough. I don't think that a date can be set by either candidate right now. I also feel that Obama doesn't have it all figured out in his head yet. He talks of leaving residual forces in Iraq but he doesn't have a set amount, it could be 150,000 troops for all we, or he knows. He also has switched opinions on troop withdrawl. In June 22, 2006 he voted against withdrawing troops, but he voted to cut off money to force withdrawl. This doesn't make sense to me because if he wanted the troops out he should vote for them to be directly withdrawn, instead of dangering their lives by giving them less money to obtain military equipment. I don't think that either candidate has the perfect answer, but I don't think there is one at this point.

McCain and Obama calling for change

As McCain and Obama do battle we hear them both calling for change. Senator McCain's strategist Steve Schmidt said "John McCain has a record of fighting to change," which was quickly countered by Obama's strategist David Axelrod who said "This isn't change, this is more of the same." McCain has just gotten out of Minnesota and is headed to Wisconsin to give a speech to a state leaning more towards the Democratic party, while Obama is campaigning in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Also the ever popular topic, Sarah Palin, continues to surface everywhere. This article, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26558949/, did a poll on how favorable Sarah Palin is, and it said that 85% of Republicans, 53% independent, and only 24% of Democrats are viewing her favorably, which is to be expected.


It's come to my attention that politics have lost a lot of class. Politics used to be about compromise and respect for the other nominees. But it seems like the only strategy politicians have in getting votes is to see how much they can ruin other candidates campaigns. In the article, Sarah Palin's pregnant 17 year old daughter resurfaced. And by the percentage that the Democratic party is in favor of Sarah Palin, I think this is having quite an effect. I don't think that this should even be an issue. It wasn't Palin's choice to have her daughter be pregnant, it was obviously her daughter's. Democratic operatives uncovered the rumor off of the Internet and forced Palin to reveal that her daughter was five months pregnant. This just furthers my point about the politics of today having less class. Instead of relying on their plans to better America, they dig up embarrassing information, like this, to try and ruin the Republican's campaign and make Obama's plan look more favorable and gain them more votes. It's a sad thing when people feel they have to vote one way just because they are embarrassed to vote the other, and support something that might be morally wrong, even though it doesn't directly effect a candidates ability to do their job.