Read the following article and write a short 2-3 paragraph response about what lies ahead for the next American president and what your thoughts are about this issue and the points mentioned in this article.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080901faessay87501-p0/richard-holbrooke/the-next-president.html
43 comments:
Hi! I'm here too!
Hello =]
Hi! Party!
I'm so here its insane
hi
chellooooo
Im in! Work it Warriors!
heyy!
Hey it worked
hello howdy
I'm on.
Yay!!!
more emphatic howdy
i spoeaky nu ingles
translation- i'm here too.
Mr. Pratt is the man....ps im here
im in
sup foo
im here!
The article, of course addresses the key topics of the next presidential election. As these candidates attempt to solve the problems they need to understand the importance of every decision they make. The foreign policy for the future of the U.S. should be a hard lined innovative approach that will succeed in getting goals accomplished. For the key issue of dealing with Iran and Iraq I would have to agree with John McCain and his approach. The U.S. needs to show to the rest of the world that we are a super power. If we are to back out of the war now, that we may or may not be winning, we will look lenient to the ideas of terrorism. We have not accomplished our goals and to not finish should not be an option.
The other great issue of the current election is the dilema of energy. Our dilema is both in how to obtain our energy needs and of polution. For this issue, Obama has a better idea in that the more we spend on technology the better chance we have to be more efficient and pollute the air less. The key to a plan dealing with pollution is to gain china's approval as china has the largest population in the world and is growing in many ways. Both Obama and McCain need to adapt their ideas to the ever changing world after reading this article I am even less sold on either of them as legitimate presidential candidates. Both are not taking strong enough stances to keep up in a world that is growing faster than the United States.
I went into this article interested in learning both sides of the Presidential election, but I was somewhat disappointed. I found the article leaning more to Obama on many points during the article with subtle things such as listing famous politicians, who agree with Obama, but not doing the same for McCain, or elaborating on Obama's reasoning for signing a treaty then stating that McCain refuses to sign it without any explanation, clearly steering the reader to Obama's perspective. Furthermore, the author describes a President that should fix our domestic economy and strengthen relationships with foreign countries which could help our economy as well. I agree with those goals, but I believed that the author got ahead of himself. A strong built economy can crumble in a matter of minutes, but it takes time and patience to rebuild and America should not expect gas prices to drop dollars the second the new President enters office.
I was not surprised to find that McCain wants to remain in Iraq until a victory, but victory is not clear. McCain says that America is winning because the number of casualties is continually decreasing, but that can not define the outcome of a war, which was seen in Vietnam. I was surprised however to find that although Obama wants to pull out of Iraq as quickly and safely as possible, he wants to send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan. Those are two different conflicts, but I would assume he would take the same strong peaceful stance in both wars. I did like Obama’s fight for direct communications with the Middle East and his demand for a complete ban on nuclear weapons. Obama also has a strong goal orientated plan for fighting global warming and becoming more energy efficient. Unfortunately, McCain’s plan, or lack there of, was much more vague. This article intrigued me to learn more about each Presidential candidates stance and helped me look for what a President should do.
i finally got in!
David - Nice analysis. Seems pretty scary, and many might agree with you, that neither Obama or McCain are legitimate presidential candidates.
Mandy - Good observations about the article and the author's perspective.. I agree with you. I think this article was very unbalanced at times and although it may not have beat up on McCain it sure seemd like he was making McCain and George W. Bush to be the same person. One of the best points you presented is the quote I cut and pasted below. Many Americans are in fact looking for a quick fix.
"A strong built economy can crumble in a matter of minutes, but it takes time and patience to rebuild and America should not expect gas prices to drop dollars the second the new President enters office."
I think this article was very successful in laying out the challenges that the next president will face. Unfortunately, I felt that the author was more focused on pointing out the flaws in the Bush Administration to adequately address the plans of the Obama and McCain parties. Although I do not personally agree with many of John McCain’s views in different areas, I think this article unfairly tied him to George Bush. Over the last few months, when it became clear that Obama would be the Democratic nominee, the media has been favoring Obama. I think that the media has been attempting to make Obama in to a Kennedy-like figure, who will somehow save America from it’s current problems. As I look back in this article, I can’t find one problem that the author found with any of Obama’s plans and policies, while all of McCain’s plans seem to be outdated or flawed.
One particular point that I found the author ignored was the two presidential candidates strategies in Iraq. The author, as with most Americans, was quick to praise Obama’s steady withdrawal of troops in Iraq, while re-deploying troops in Afghanistan. However, the main reason that the conflict in Afghanistan has resurfaced is the withdrawal of American troops before the country could be adequately rebuilt. If America were to withdraw all of the troops from Iraq before the country were adequately rebuilt, a similar thing would happen. The reason that Al-Qaeda has been able to establish itself in war torn countries is that they offer education, however radical it may be, and opportunities for the local people. Although the article does make some good points, I feel that it only seems to further the media’s infatuation with Obama.
I found this article more useful as a guide to current foreign and domestic issues in the United States than as a resource on the Presidential candidates. I agree with the others that it did seem to favor Obama over McCain, who becomes tainted when compared to Bush due to the fact that he is a Republican. However, I feel that Obama's plan to carefully get the United States out of Iraq is better than McCain's plan to stay in until we have achieved "victory", as the economic impact alone of the war on our country is very high.
The two issues I found most interesting in this article were global warming and the war in Afghanistan. It is clear the global warming is a bigger issue than most people (including people in power,) estimated it to be in the recent past. As the leader of a superpower, it will be important for our next president to take a hard stance in helping this cause in order to set an example for the rest of the world and show that we are taking responsibility for the pollution that we create. I found the part about the war in Afghanistan intersting becuase the media focuses so much on the Iraqi war that it is easy to forget that there is another war happening in the background, which is also draining our economic resources and therefore needs to be dealt with and, hopefully, brought to an end. Finally, I found the last paragraph or so about the fact that once in office, the president may not keep their campaign promises, very interesting. Though it is important and necessary to judge a candidate based on their stances on issues such as wars and pollution, it is also important to keep in mind that you are electing a human being who will make their own decisions once they are in office.
As the article states, the next president has a daunting task ahead of him, and will face many challenges in leading our country throughout the next four years. The article helped me gain a better perspective on what problems we have in our country and how the two presidential candidates, McCain and Obama, plan to solve these issues if elected. I did however find as Mandy and Kaz pointed out that the article was somewhat biased and continuously praised Obama and his policies, while criticizing McCain’s views and even grouping him with Bush. I do not know if it was how the article was written or if it is just my personal opinion, but I found myself agreeing with Obama’s policies over McCain’s. I would like to read an article that was more biased towards McCain to see if I would still hold this position.
Overall, I think there are two main issues that the article focuses on: the energy crisis and foreign diplomacy. I believe Obama has a better and stronger policy for reducing gas emissions and developing new technology to reduce America’s dependency on oil. If not taken seriously now, global warming may prove disastrous in the years to come. I also agreed with Obama’s plans for Iraq. I strongly disagreed with McCain that “casualty rates are proof that the United States is winning the war.” Lower casualty rates in Iraq do NOT prove that we are making progress in helping Iraqi government and society. Like Obama, I believe we should be bringing troops home, as too much blood has already been spilt on this issue. I am however apprehensive about removal, when looking at what happened in Afghanistan. Overall, the money being spent to fight these wars could be of better use to the United States and could aid other countries in need. I think we could take the “Greg Mortenson” approach and bring education to the people of these countries, to prevent the radical teachings of the Taliban and Al Qaeda from spreading to future generations.
This article is a plethora of information over this upcoming election. Obviously, the article leaned towards Obama and his view on foreign and domestic policy, but this was warranted. Obama has the ideas that fix the problem and do not just put a band-aid on it.
To begin, let us look at the environment along with the oil issue. Now that Americans are finally feeling the pressure of the high costs of oil (which are far delayed compared to places like Western Europe), Americans are beginning to see that something has to be done, but what? Drilling for domestic oil increases the supply but doesn't give us a fix to the $4 a gallon at the gas pumps, as it will take a decade to take effect. In a decade, that price of gas may double! Many countries in Western Europe have already looked to other solutions. The country of Denmark has invested time and money in wind technology and now has 19% of their country running on renewable and free wind energy! This is a clean and cost effective solution to America's oil obsession. We cannot continue to let $475 billion a year fall into enemy hands just because they have oil. It's time that we put that money to use in our own country and invest in ourselves.
Unfortunately, I disagree with David's conclusion of the military situation in Iran and Iraq. McCain's policy includes writing a blank check to buy weapons and keep troops in Iraq and possibly Iran. This is not the answer to help our economy strengthen. We should be taking that money and putting it in our domestic hands to create a stable economic system and it should be put in the hands of international organizations that will help rebuild the stability of the countries in that area. Thus, I agree with Obama's strategy in Iraq. In the countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we must also follow Obama's ideals. His position states that we must prevent the Taliban from interfering with peaceful operations of these governments. These governments are not in the political and economic stability to deal with the Taliban and run the risk of being overrun.
In the end, we must remember that policy in the United States of American is constantly being crossed out and rewritten. We just want to make sure that it is in the best interest of the American people. Obama is the candidate to do this job.
The next president of the United States will have several issues facing him after the disastrous presidency of George Bush. Most of everyone in our class agrees that the author didn’t favor McCain and blindly supports Obama. But, both candidates are well qualified for the job, and that either one could win the election. However, I do support Obama over McCain because on several issues he stands on. First, not only must the next president obtain the respect and loyalty of the American people, but restore America’s dominant image in the world. In my mind, Bush ruined the reputation of the U.S around the world. Secondly, the president must address the issue of the economy, especially with rising gas which affects almost every good shipped to the U.S and also, the large transfer of wealth to other nations that have oil. I agree with Mandy that gas prices will not immediately drop as the next president enters office, but both candidates should make an attempt to help the millions of struggling Americans. Thirdly, he must promote new forms of energy in order to discontinue our dependency on oil and reduce carbon emissions which lead to the climate crisis. The author makes global warming the biggest threat to our world, but I strongly disagree with him that there are bigger issues facing America at this time. The final disagreement that I have with McCain is his foreign policy and his pursuit to continue fighting a War on “Terror”. He takes a more aggressive approach to punish other countries, while Obama wants to safely end the war and not invade other countries if something minor happens.
as i was reading the article, i couldn't help but jot down all of the authors notes in relation to the various policies this year's presidential candidates have been faced with. These include Iraq, Afghanistan, the current economy and oil crisis, the UN, Iran, and other foreign relations. And while reading through the article it was exceedingly obvious that the author was biased towards Barack Obama. The author made an effort to go into a further evaluation of McCain's policies and making connections, past and present, that would prove how flawed all of his plans were. And despite the fact that the author is obviously aware of the possible option of change when it comes to foreign policy post election, he does not falter in criticizing a majority of McCain's presidential platforms. And although i myself am more partial to Obama in the first place, i find that an article who's purpose is to inform readers on the candidates and modern issues the new president will face should not turn into a pro-Obama column. And considering the title of the article is "Next U.S. President and Foreign Affairs" and not " McCain, an Extension of the Bush Family with a tad more Aggresiveness", i found it irrelevant to immediatly refer to Bush's failures as president as a pre-cursor to McCain's administration if he were to win this election. On the other hand, the author was very effective in outlining and presenting the various global and domestic issues that the new president will be confronted with. He was very clear on specific examples such as the crisis in Sudan, the conflict with Iran, the energy crisis, U.S. relations with Latin America, future relationships with nation's that are rich in raw materials (Brazil), and focusing in on countries that have begun to test boundaries as a result of new oil finds. I was pleasently suprised with the Author's comments on the new president's need to salvage the appearance of Democracy. I wholly agree with him in that success in countries that are being introduced to Democracy such as Iraq need a more appealing bill board that "sells" Democracy as we see it rather then they're perception of it which is not all that positive. Another interesting point that the author brought up (especially on the first and last page) was the idea that the elected president should make it a major goal to not only save the wilting economy, but to also salvage the U.S.'s reputation. He continues to in some way or other relate many of the world issues at hand back to the U.S.'s general appearance as a nation. That to secure the U.S.'s position as world leader, it is the president's best interest to present the country in a more positive light that may have dimmed slightly as a result of the war and lack of involvement in other international affairs. The article did bring up some concerns that the candidates are commonly questioned on that i was unaware of and despite its flaws it did, nonetheless on some level, accomplish its over all goal which is to highlight the next presidents duties and plan of attack.
To start with, I thought that this article was really interesting in that it seemed to go through every issue in the world today, both domestic and international, and somehow attribute them to George Bush. I'm not a Bush fan myself, but I almost found myself feeling sorry for him after reading this. Not only did this article trash every single one of Bush's decisions during his presidency, but the author also assumed that McCain planned to emulate the Bush administration in every way.
Aside from that, I thought this article really did a great job of explaining what issues that the next president will have to deal when they take office. In particular it emphasized the importance of finding a solution for the oil crisis, and dealing with foreign diplomacy issues, including America's involvement in foreign conflicts, in trade with oil and natural resource rich countries, and it's reputation in the world.
One of the new President's most important issues to be dealt with will be the economy and the oil crisis. Just as Mandy said, Americans cannot expect the gas prices to drop immediately, but Bush has created a situation that is putting a lot of economic strain on millions of American families, and it will be the job of the President to try to relieve that.
The new President will also have to deal with foreign policy issues left over from the Bush administration. The war in Iraq will need to be dealt with, as well as with the rapidly deteriorating situations in Afghanistan and Iran. Dealing with Iran will be a very delicate process, especially with its dislike of the United States, and its emergence as a nuclear power.
The next president, McCain or Obama, will have many responsibilities and problems to solve domestically and in the world. I tend to lean towards Obama's views of the situations that the United States is in, although it was bothersome to me that the article focused more on Obama and less on McCain. I would have liked to hear more about McCain's views and propositions for solving the United States' dilemmas.
The two central focuses in the article were the environmental problems and the situation in the Middle East. The environment is in severe trouble, and I believe that the best solution to this is a partnering with the world's major carbon emittors, China, Russia, Brazil, Western Europe, and India to cut down on the emissions of climate-warming gases.
In the Middle East, not only Iraq and Iran but also Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and bordering countries, I believe that Obama is correct with his idea to carry out diplomacy with the countries and also put pressure on the Iraqi politicians by withdrawing US troops. I disagree with McCain's view that diplomacy is cowardly and will convince the terrorist nations that the United States is weak. Diplomacy has worked in the past, and it follows the United State's ethics, whereas bombing the countries to pieces and pressuring them and their people to agree with our ideals is contradictory to our nation's principle. Fundamentalist Muslim culture is much different than our autonomy. We can't force a new, adverse way of life onto these people, but we can teach them. Providing schools, occupational training, occupations, art, and music allows the people to see what the United States and our values allow us to achieve. By teaching them to succeed, they will learn the "American Way" and they will be more open to the United States' goals in their country. We must focus on the people of the foreign nations. The government can change because of the people, but they need our guidance to achieve their goals. I am convinced that the men who join the Taliban and Al Qaeda have nothing else to resort to. Teaching, respecting, and providing for the natives will empower them to make their own decisions and start a flourishing government.
To agree with the opinion of many of my fellow students, I was hoping that this article would provide a more balanced view on the policies of both candidates. However, I found almost immediately that Richard Holbrooke tended to discuss the flaws of McCains candidacy and point out the obvious benefits of Obamas. However, with his biased opinion aside, the article provided a plethora of infomation pertaining to the upcoming election. What really interested me was when Holbrooke pointed out that yes, there are the major issues at hand; Iraq, Afghanistan, climate, oil, etc, but also that the next president absolutely cannot allow some of the seemingly minor problems to be swept aside. Issues in Darfur, Zimbabwe, and Bosnia will remain everpresent if not addressed with the same intensity immediately.
There were a few parts of the article that I found to be quite interesting. First, Holbrooke's observation that in the last decade or so there has never been such an obvious transfer of wealth from one nation to several others. He makes a valid point that many countries, not once on the national grid find themselves swimming in the benefits of the oil industry and therefore are allowed some more political power. Unfortunately for many of the democratic nations, that means that countries like Venezuela and Russia are becoming more powerful on the political scene.
Secondly, Holbrooke discusses the differing plans of actions for our situation in Iraq. Even without the strong biased opinion shown in the aritcle, the simple facts of Obama's policy seem more logical. Leaving troops in the Middle East for an indefinite period of time, with an almost unlimited supply of wealth dedicated to military suppport seems irrational. As Pat explained, this will not save our economy, but simply keep it on the downward slope we find it on today.
To bring forward my last point, I will agree with Pat again. For McCain to think that more research into offshore drilling will solve the oil crisis, he is not thinking in advance. Countries across Europe have acknowledged the power of the sun and the wind and have used them to their advantage. It is high time that the US, with so many of these natural and renewable resources at hand, learn to use them and become less dependent on foreign oil.
Mr. Pratt, thank you for providing us with this interesting aritcle.
I strongly agreed with this article, and it provided much insight as to what to expect from either presidential candidate. It really opened my eyes to the main issues of this election and each candidate's stance on them. As the article states, the next president must focus mainly on the domestic economy, energy dependence, climate change, political relations especially with the Middle East, but also with the other powerful countries of the world. In order to accomplish as much as possible, the president must lay out his goals and have an effective plan, keeping in mind that he cannot solve every problem. At an international level, he must weigh his priorities against his capabilities, but will be more successful if he first tends to the economy of his own country. In order to repair our international reputation, the United States must first repair our economy to become a stronger and more unified nation. The most effective way to aid the economy would be to start with the price of oil. As the article points out, the higher the oil prices, the greater income the producing oil nations of the Middle East will receive, and will therefore obtain more power. If the next president is able to lower the price of oil through diplomatic relations with the producing countries, the U.S. will then have a stronger economy and also have the upper hand. The issue with oil also brings up another key point to this election: climate change. President Bush greatly ignored this problem, which has spurred political debates for years. Obama has created a more comprehensive plan than McCain in regards to energy sources, which could eventually have an unimaginable effect on the world. If the U.S. is able to come to an energy agreement with China, the other top polluter in the world, much progress would be made in order to lower pollution, and also to inspire other countries to do the same.
I found the candidates' strategies regarding countries such as Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan to be very surprising. The article states that McCain has announced that he strongly believes that the U.S. should be in the Iraq war to win, but what I couldn't help asking is what would constitute a win? Unless the United States completely destroys Iraq, there will always be some form of opposition to U.S. policy and therefore McCain's plan would result in a near-permanent occupation of the country that could last 100 years or more. Obama's plan to solve the problem with diplomacy, starting off slowly and cautiously withdrawing troops seems to make much more sense than McCain's idea to continue the war only to prevent the risks that could occur if troops were withdrawn. I also found it interesting that the article mentioned that forcing democracy on other countries is not a good game plan, because just like we discussed in class today, it is all about the way you present it. If the next president can encourage developing nations or those struggling with their government to create some form of democracy, I believe both that nation itself and also the reputation of the U.S. would greatly benefit, rather than if the United States forcefully established a democracy to a reluctant or unwilling nation.
Before reading this article, I had heard of some of the policies of both Obama and McCain, however I was not really too familiar with either. But by the end of reading it, I surprisingly found myself in quite strong support of Obama and what he could to do for our country if he sticks to his plans. However, I agree with Haley that I would like to read an article more biased towards McCain, to see if my opinions were still the same. Overall, whichever candidate wins this election, he certainly has a very challenging 4 or 8 years ahead of him, and must be proactive and consistent in order to reaffirm the strength of our country.
I find it hard to believe that this article could be named "Next U.S President and Foreign Affairs," when the purpose was to point out flaws in the Bush Administration, and then furthermore try to justify this by portraying Senator Mccain as the President. For the last eight years, the most outspoken critic in the Republican Party was McCain concerning a variety of subjects, including immigration, Guantanemo Bay, and environmental issues. There is a reason why a great number in the conservative base are not avid supporters of the Republican nominee, and it is because he is not a true conservative. What allowed for him to win the Republican nomination was not his right-wing stance, but rather a history of working with and against both parties, which is popular among independents. If he was truly a replica of Bush, would you not expect to see polls reflecting Bush's popularity rating? For the record, I would say that I am not an avid supporter of either candidate, but if I were able to vote this year, I would have to side with the lesser of two evils.
Concerning the daunting tasks the next president will have to face, there is even more bias equivalent to far-left media outlets like NBC, MoveOn.org, and The Daily Kos. For starters, the same group of experts who last year said that progress in Iraq was dismal reported in June 2008 that 15 of the 18 Iraqi Benchmarks have been successfully attained. Unfortunately though, none of the major news networks(including Fox and NBC) actually felt that there was any merit to reporting it, and thus, the lies from leading Democratic figures are left unchallenged.
Concerning Global Warming, in which the author said would "reach a catastrophic tipping point in ten years," I disagree with both the author and the candidates. When the source of such a statement is left as "many scientists" rather than giving the name of a well-known researcher, there is a problem of credibility. On the other hand 31,000 scientists, including 9000 phds, became signatories to a petition denouncing Global Warming as an attempt to further state control over people and businesses. Legislation promoted by McCain and Obama concerning carbon regulation is in essence a promotion of the sale of carbon credits, a business of which Al Gore is the owner.
As stated in virtually all prior posts, the next president will have a surplus of increasingly difficult issues to face. Pinpointing one or two real major issues is close to impossible, as the world seems to find itself in a little more turmoil everyday. It is because of this that I do not have faith in either candidate.
I would agree with my classmates that the piece itself is quite biased in its support of Obama and sheer distaste of McCain, and the comparisons to Bush are a bit drastic. However, overall it does serve as a well-put-together summary of their positions on issues. Though the author's praise of Obama can be a little bit of a diversion from truly understanding the positions of each candidate, the sides are both clearly explained.
According to the information in this article, both candidates are "planning" on making a lot of changes. I use quotes because I find myself quite skeptical of both candidates, and this election in general. I disagree with many people who have said that it cannot get worse than Bush, because it can always be worse. However, I think that the general population's absolute discontent with Bush has sparked the idealist in everyone. For some, the ideal is McCain's drastic approach towards Iraq, keeping the troops there until we "win." But what are we winning in forcing a country to re-build itself from the ground up in accordance to our standards of the way it "should" be? It's simply oppressive. Obama's approach is a little unclear, and though I would agree with a slow, steady withdrawl one hundred percent, I feel as though our government should be just as involved - if not more involved - as Iraq's neighbors in its reconstruction as a nation. After all, two of it's neighbors happen to be Syria and Iran, neither of whom the US is in good standings with at the moment. As for the conflict in Iran, I believe McCain is a little too aggressive, while Obama is a little too diplomatic. A happy medium between the two extremes may be a better answer to the problems the US faces in general.
On the matters of energy and global warming, I believe each candidate falls into their extreme once again. McCain would increase offshore drilling, yet also increase the price of energy with his plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Obama also plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissons by demanding better fuel efficiency and requiring companies to bid on polluting. His short term plan to find relief from high energy prices would be futile, as his plan to fight greenhouse gas emissions would, in the end, increase energy costs. McCain's plan to encourage drilling offshore for more oil, while at the same time putting in place a plan to reduce emissions, seems contradictory. Obama's plan to find short-term relief while also instituting a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is odd as well, since the latter will cause energy prices to go up as well.
Both Obama and McCain are idealists in their own right and although they may want to do what they believe is right for our country today, I don't believe that either of them have the correct balance of political savvy and decisiveness to head out country into the unpredictable future.
Although keeping readers informed on many issues to be faced by the upcoming president, the article is blatantly biased and would nearly serve as propaganda for the Obama campaign. His policies are repeatedly described as new, fresh, and contemporary. The author’s clear dislike for incumbent president Bush is closely tied to his distrust for conservative Republicans in Congress, such as Senator McCain whose proposals are “neither original or new” in a time described by the author as one in need of rapid and serious change.
While reading the article, I found myself asking the question, “did we dig ourselves in too deep of a hole?” According to the author, Bush’s lack of initiative has made several current world issues, such as climate change and the energy crisis, much more pressing. The general consensus is that in order to resolve these issues in a timely manner, many sacrifices must be made. However, these must be done without damaging the already faltering U.S. economy. The reconstruction of the economy is a daunting task in itself and one that seems nearly impossible to face while asking consumers to cut back on gas consumption. All this must be done in a time when there is an immense sense of unhappiness associated with the federal government and people expect the January induction ceremony to bring rapid changes which is simply not feasible. For example, in order for an energy solution to be reached, the two nations with the highest emissions must agree on an answer. This is not an easy task because of the East’s clear distrust of the West which has evolved through prior actions by the United States. While this decision cannot be made, more time is elapsing in which the heavy consumption of products such as oil is funding nations that could potentially be dangerous United States enemies and thus, opening new outlets for them and creating capabilities they would not otherwise have.
The overwhelming problems currently facing the world, let alone the United States, caused me to conclude that neither candidate has the capacity to resolve the issues entirely and it will indeed become a long process encompassing the ideas, policies, and efforts of many presidents to come. Decisions such as the War on Terror and a solution to climate change will have vast consequences to face generations to come. The upcoming election is one that will influence the U.S. for years to come. This four year term is only the beginning of the process.
I began this article a blank slate not knowing anything about either candidate and only knowing the briefest amount about the obstacles that our next president would have to face. By the end of the article if you would have handed me a voting slip and said vote now i would have checked Obama of in a heart beat. The article as my other classmates have noticed was almost completely swayed towards Obama and saw nothing wrong with any of his policies. The interesting part was when the author of the article begins talking about "the other war" which both Obama and McCain have similar views on. He wrote a brief paragraph about their policy ideas and then devoted two paragraphs to about how the Bush administration screwed up and left Afghanistan in a mess. After praising Obama and giving a few details on McCain's policies the author went on a Bush administration bashing rampage. Once the whole "wow Obama is great" feeling wore off i was able to see how much the author almost attacked both Bush and McCain. The article, though successful for giving facts on the job that the next president has waiting for him,it was not successful at giving the reader an unbiased knowledge of both candidates at hand. What i did like about the article though was the last paragraph that explains to the reader that you can only guess how the individual candidate will be in office by their campaign. The author explains that "If a candidate takes a position that, on reaching the White House, he concludes is wrong, it obviously would be irresponsible to stick with that position". This was the part of the article that stuck with me the most, I remember with every election my dad saying "You never know what their gonna be like in office" and the quote from the article proves that its true, we never know. We can hear the debates ,hear their ideas, and compare and contrast the two candidates all we want. However, the most we can find is maybe a glimpse of their character and hope that when situations change they'll make the right decision for us and for our country.
Lets not be so harsh on McCain. Yes, it could take a decade or more to reap the benefits of expanded drilling into Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. A decade is not a long time, and the writer does not have a valid argument. in my opinion thats not an excuse not to do it. Alaska is the biggest land mass of any U.S. state, and its largly undeveloped. Why was the nantucket sound wind project so widley opposed by many including our senator Ted Kennedy? Because, the people that were effected by the site were mainly wealthy people who lived on nantucket, or boated in the sound. You will never satisfy everyone. The point being, renuible energy is great but, thats not reason to not become more self sufficent when we have the natural resources in places like the gulf of mexico and alaska to explore and drill for more oil. The demand for oil is not going to go away. We can only become less relient on it. But, why be dependent on Venezuala. I guess the best policy is to do both what McCain and Obama say. Drill and explore for oil, and invest to tap the renuible sources on enregy.
Obama policy proposals are adjusting old policies and new realities. McCains proposals are not new or original. When hearing many comments liek thsi it gets frustrating. I would love to read a prop republican article. McCains New league of democracies seem agressive and is looked at as an atempt to compete with the UN. No one wants to support this new things says the liberal writer. MCcain is harder than bush and called a neo conservative by the writer. MCcain is pro Iraq and very supportive of it. He thinks we are winning the war and we should leave troops. I do not agree with McCain completly. Though i think his idea is better than Obama. He thinks the war should never have been started and we should withdraw troopts stedduly. If we get out their will be no stopping terrorist. They will start by taking over nebhoring countires and soon enough send the world into WW3. It is to me too late to have an Obama for president. We are already in way over our heads.
From the article, and obviously from the declining state of the economy and U.S. foreign affairs, the next presidet certainly has a great challenge to face; bringing the United States back into favor as one of the super powers of the world. In the beginning of the article, the author says that " to restore the United States to its proper leadership role, two areas of weakness must be repaired: the domestic economy and the United States' reputation in the world." In the article, McCain's programs make him look as if he would not only not repair our reputation in the world, but he would damage it.
One of the programs that McCain described is his "league of Democracies". Just by the name of the organization it is offensive and seems like an attempt to take power for the U.S. Some of the United States' greatest competitiors in the UN are China and Russia, but by limiting the new organization to a League of DEMOCRACIES, he is eliminating them from the picture completely, leaving the U.S. as one of the powers in the new group. This does not sound to me like it would be a great step in foreign policy. He also talked about expelling Russia from G-8 for invading Georgia. Although it is certainly not something to be overlooked, it is not something to be taking such drastic action over either.
One of my only problems with the article was in the beginning. The author spoke of all the problems in the U.S. as if they could be solved by the presidenr alone. The fact is that the president himself does not have the direct power topass legislation to improve our economic status. He may encourage his programs as well, but unless Congress votes them in, the President himself has no power to enforce them. I did not feel that enough credit was given to the other pieces of the system
I had very little opinion on the election prior to reading this article, therefore I had an open mind going in, and was hoping to develop a stance on the matter. Like Mandy, I was disappointed, because the article favored Obama so heavily that I felt I couldn't make a fair judgement, on who I would personally like to see become president. The issue that I took most interest in was the war in Iraq. I see definite flaws in both candidates approach to the war in Iraq, as well as in Bush's approach. McCain's approach does indeed show that the U.S. is a world super power, which is important, but it also does not provide means to an end in Iraq, which I feel is also important. Obama on the other hand thinks that the war should not have started, there is no victory in sight, and that a withdrawal of troops from Iraq is in need immediately. Although this may benefit many people, the idea that Iraq will develop a political solution because of the absence of U.S. troops is surely not definite. What is to say that we won't be right back where we started, if no solution is met and the troops are removed too soon.
I think David really had a good point when he said that both candidates need to adapt their ideas to the changing world. After reading this article, I am also not sold on either candidate.
McCAin picked a woman for his VP nominee!!! Smart man!
Finally in, after like a week.
I'm a little late but I'm in
Post a Comment