Ted Stevens Corruption

Ted Stevens hasn't lost hope after being convicted of having VECO, an oil company, renovate his house for free. He seemed shaken by being charged guilty, and said "I am innocent. This verdict is the result of the unconscionable manner in which the Justice Department lawyers conducted this trial." He has decided not to drop out of the race to be the Alaskan senator, but Democrats are taking full advantage of the allegations by putting out commercials of fake FBI agents and using excerpts from wiretaps. He has helped out Alaska since before it was a state, he has funnelled in a lot of federal money. He says that he will fight his case, because he says that he has paid all of his bills that were sent to him, so it wasn't his fault. His Alaskan colleagues seem to agree with him because they are standing by him through this. He also stated that some evidence had been hidden from him up to the trial. The sentencing was held off, but is said to be 5 years for each of his 7 crimes.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,444257,00.html

I question some of these allegations, because why are they coming out so close to the election? Seems to me like the Democrats are just trying to cause some controversy to help their candidate, because they know that Ted Stevens has been a powerful politician in Alaska for a very, very long time. I think that the trial should have been declared a mistrial, if it is true that some of the evidence, and a witness, were withheld from he and his attorneys. I believe that this will only slightly effect his campaign, I feel that he has built up a good enough reputation, that this won't turn all of his voters away. His colleagues are still supporting him, so this goes to show the trust that they have in him, and his abilities as a United States senator. Plus, he has been able to take in billions of federal dollars for his home state, and I don't think that the Alaskan voters will completely forget this. It shows great resilience on his part to not give his campaign, after having his name trashed. I don't think that he should just be tossed to the wind.

Foreign Aid

Bush stated that "during the past eight years, the United States has provided more foreign assistance than at any time in the past half century". He seeks to invest in the countries that have taken democracy as their own. He has given 16 billion dollars in food assistance total, for people all over the globe. Another billion dollars have been put to work with better sanitation, he's cleaning up the world. Money has gone to upgrade education in these countries. Over 700,000 teachers have been trained, not to mention the countless schools that have been built with the funding. A program to help control malaria was set up, and have reduced deaths by 50% in 15 African nations. The only downside is that the spending has been somewhat sporadic, says J. Brian Atwood, dean of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,442502,00.html

Now more than ever the needy people in other countries need aid. A shaky economy worldwide will greatly increase the needy. Most people would turn in, and focus on themselves, but being the only remaining superpower, the United States is obligated to give a lending hand. I read a blog post by Josh Hobbs, he said, "Many democrats have been pushing for the stimulus check, but President Bush has been somewhat against the idea because of the huge federal deficit." This got me to thinking about the international aid spending, and maybe its not good to put so much money into it. I see the positive that a stimulus check could do for our economy. Maybe its time to draw in, and save our economy, because it seems like whenever America is succeeding, the rest of the world is to. Bush is in a tough position, does he continue the American way, and lend a helping hand where its needed most, or does he save his countries economy first. Personally I think that stimulating our economy, will stimulate all the other nations, and maybe we'll start to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

North Korea and Terror

Condoleeza Rice has been talking with North Korea, as a part of a six piece negotiation group, including Japan. When the idea was proposed to George Bush, he refused it on the spot. The deal made, was if N. Korea disarmed it's nuclear program, then we would remove them from our terrorist list. This would probably help our current relations with them. Satellites have picked up some images of low range missile testing. Some people are angry because the Verification bureau hasn't been involved in any of the debating. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435463,00.html

I think that taking them off the list is a good idea, because I just read some of, "charlie's current event blog", http://charliesevents.blogspot.com/, and he stated that China canceled some of it's senior visits, and military-to-military cooperation. It would be best to try to keep some peace Asia. With the world's economy spinning out of control, it would be in the United State's best interest to keep as many of its friends as it can. If N. Korea started disarming, then it would be very wise to take them off the list, just to improve relations. It takes courage to trust your enemies, but doing so could help lead to a more peaceful world. The United States has to start taking some different risks, and I firmly believe that this is one to take a stand on.

Lieberman and McCaskill

Host of "Fox News Sunday", Chris Wallace, had two senators, Joe Lieberman and Claire McCaskill talk about the two candidates, Obama and McCain. Both senators were quick to make it clear who they were pulling for. Lieberman for McCain and McCaskill for Obama. The first topic discussed was Sarah Palings quote, "Our opponent is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country." Lieberman said that it was fair game to use this information, while McCaskill said that the American people deserve better. A few political ads were run from both campaigns, one talking about McCain being erratic, and the other about Obama voting to raise taxes 94 times. Both senators took their respective positions, and showed their colors for their favorite candidate. Both of the senators thought that these personal shots that the candidates were taking at each other might be going to far. McCain personally had one ad not aired because he felt it crossed the line. This article can be found at, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432884,00.html.

I agree with the senators that both candidates may have crossed the line with some of their personal shots. The American people, including myself, would rather hear about where the candidates stand on issues, not the McCain doesn't wear a suit to church, or that Obama forgot to pick up his cousin from school in 1986. When I view these negative ads, it just makes me like the other candidate less. It makes me feel like neither candidate has respect for the other, when both are trying so hard for a common goal. They should know what each other is going through and be as considerate as they can be. I want to hear what their economic plans are, and what they are going to do concerning taxes. If taxes are increased on small-business as Obama has proposed, then we may see a decrease in available jobs as owners won't be able to pay for more employees, and this is exactly what we don't need during this "recession". I think that McCain has the answer, taxing the rich is unfair, the people that work the hardest for their money are the most deserving. I don't think that the people that worked hard, and are reaping the benefits should pay for the lazy, undeserving low-lifes in our society to live. Reap what you sow.