Attack of the Negative Ads

Every campaign that I can remember has been about bringing the other person down more than telling why you are better for the job. This election is no different. Both sides are claiming that the other is running the more negative campaign. The problem is how do you know since negative is a subjective term in this case. So I decided to watch a sample of each of the candidates’ latest television ads.
I watched seventeen from McCain and seventeen from Obama. Now I had to use an objective ruling so I decided that for a campaign ad you can have one of two types, either pro-you or anti-other person. As I watched McCain I thought it was pretty bad. Only eight of McCain’s ads talked about why you should vote for him, the other nine just stated why you should not vote for Obama. This personally made me a bit angry. However, I had yet to watch Obama’s. As it turned out, Obama only had one message that told us why he was the better candidate. The other sixteen ads were attacks on McCain. So who is running the more negative campaign? I would have to say Obama.
The biggest problem with this sort of campaigning, apart from the vicious attacks, is that it turns us into a group who votes not because the one candidate is better, but instead we cast our ballots on the candidate that is the least bad. So what could the candidates do instead of the malicious ads? Why not tell us what you stand for instead of telling us why the other person is so bad. Simply state why should we vote for you instead of why we shouldn’t vote for the other. That way when you are elected people can say, “That is the best man for the job!” instead of the usual, “At least he is better than the alternative.”

Unfair is Being Fair

The blog posting “Spread Your Own Power and Wealth” on the Powerlineblog.com is intended for the more conservative reader. The author seems to know what he is talking about giving exact evidence from the IRS, and historical background of taxes in the United States. His argument is about the proposed tax raise that Obama is campaigning about. Obama proposes an increase on income tax for the wealthy. The problem is the top 5% paid almost half of the income taxes for 2006 and the bottom 50% paid virtually no income taxes. Also knowing that the poor will always out number the rich, the constitution put barriers in place to “protect personal property from unjust confiscation.” So from the beginning of our country until 1913 the only taxes were indirect, such as tariffs, and duties. However, in 1913 the sixteenth amendment was passed allowing federal taxation of income. Now the question remains why the majority hasn’t taken more money from the rich. The author accredits this to the idea that the barriers to protect individual property erected by the founding fathers still work. The other reason is because a large number of Americans think of themselves as rich or have the ability to become rich, thus keeping them from trying to attack the wealthy. I agree with this author, the idea of taking something away from someone just doesn’t seem right. The easiest way I have been taught to think about this in terms more relevant to me is by linking it to grades. Let’s assume that you work your hardest on a test, study every night and take great notes. Now let’s say you get a 97 on your test. Then let’s look at another kid, and say that for some fault not of his own, such as not being able to understand the material or having a learning disability, takes the test and gets a 59. Well he obviously needs help so that teacher takes 17 of the points that the top person got on his or her test and gives them to the person that got a 59. Now you have two people one with an 80 and the other with a 76. Most people would find this horrible, saying the person should have tied harder; you earned the 97 you should get to keep it. But the fact is this is exactly what Obama wants to do with the wealth. So why is it ok to do with money but not grades? I understand that there are people that did not earn their wealth, but some like my dad were born a farmer and worked hard to get where he is and to have people take it away from him and give it to others because it “isn’t fair” that he has more money than someone else bugs me.