Candidates Aren't Going Negative, yet

LA Tiems outs that no candidates are throwing negative comments against each other yet. Some people believe that it's too early, considering how far we are from the elections in 2008. There have been arguments among the candidates but its lacking teh negative connotation it will have as the heat presses on within debates. A media analyst, Evan Tracey says that

"We've seen swiping ...the natural progression is to take that to the airwavesand
put it in an ad"

which shows how much candidates will do anything to win the elections legally (Barabak). We are waiting for the first person to step on that boat, because from that first blow comes many where the candidates will do anything to beat the other. Although there have been some lashes out with candidates Sen. Clinton (D) and former New York Giuliani (R) showing that there are some tensions building up through their opposing thoughts. Although Sen. Obama has been trying to rally against the

"Politics of negativity and division" (Barabak).

There haven't been true statements of negativity, only people rallying towards buildiing a stronger party to out beat the opposing party. "

On Wednesday, Romney begin airing a spot chastising fellow Republicans and
urging the GOP to put our own house in order"

rallying them together to beat the Democrats out of the elections of 2008 (Barabak). I personally think that mudslinging should not be a part of politics because it degrades the opponent, and that's not how a person should try to win. It only benefits the other. I may not be the best or even perefect person but I believe that candidates need to take in consideration how hard they hit and how hard the person will fall if given that negativity. The gloves will come out next year as the elections draw near. Candidates should took take in consideration of what is leaving their mouths because at times it may leave a mark on fellow canididates or opponents.

Works Cited: LA Times Sunday Edition September 23 2007 "Candidates aren't going negative, yet" By Barabak

Antiwar Protests present in the Capitol

The thought of the support towards the war in Iraq has been going down the tubes, runs in many Americans' minds today. People have been arguing if our time in Iraq has been proving anything. Some others believe that sending more troops will hurt our nation even more. As Bush prepares to withdraw the 5,700 soldiers, people become enraged for the fact that if their time in Iraq has been truely effective. He plans to even send another surge of troops during the summer of 2008. I think that's just plain sloppy. President Bush is going through this whole idea of trial and error, hoping that the more troops he sends will help gain success. Through Bush's actions there had been a series of protests at the Capitol last week focused especially on the war on Iraq. These antiwar protests have been triggered due to the many deaths from the war. People started to argue that

"the Iraqi people do not see us as peacemakers" (Macias).

We are forcing a unstructured goverment to change their standards to ours. We should not be playing "hero" and enforce democracy everywhere needed just because we think it is wrong. Several thousands of people gathered up to try to make a difference on Bush's decisions with the war on Iraq. Citizens have been arguing that staying in Iraq wouldn't prove anything other than we are a world power. At the Capitol many protesters were rallying against the war and Bush because of the total amount of deaths both from Americans and Iraqis. It was surprising to see how veterans were also present in the protests. This idea that veterans have been attending these protests show Bush is so far off from his point, where even his former soldiers don't support him anymore. I believe this war has been blown out of proportions. I, as a citizen, am against the war. I thought those protests were quite effective such as the "die in" effect. It was a organized group that memorialized the Iraqis and U.S. troops who have died since the invasion in Iraq. There were about 1,000 volunteers who signed up to lie down on the floor to portray the lives we have lost in this dreadful war. Although there were also antiprotesters in support of Bush and the war. There numbers were not as massive in comparison to the people against the war. Bush is losing his support fast. Which leads to the protesters wanting to impeach Bush. The impeachment was a great idea when it was early on his two terms at presidency. I believe its too late now because its term is almost ending. All hopes to resolving this problem seem to fall on the new president as he/she enters office in January of 2009. These protests say something about the people of America, that we need to end the War now!

Here's a video of theWashington D.C. 'Die In' Demonstration 9/15/07


Works Cited: LA Times Sunday Edition Sept. 16, 2007 "Antiwar protest caps a week focused on Iraq" by Tina Marie Macias and Jordy Yager

Cancer within Campaigning

It is safe to say that cancer is a huge epidemic that still lingers in our society today. It kills as much as 560,000 Americans and it is the biggest killer in lives of Americans under the age of 85. The LA Times states,

“Although cancer has touched the lives of several presidential candidates, few talk about it on the campaign trail”(Dallek).

Deaths such from cancer should become an issue to talk about in debates. Many politicians have gone through or known people who have gone through the whole cancer ordeal. People such as former Senator Edwards’ wife who had her breast cancer spread to her bones. This issue comes to mind as a huge epidemic that needs to be mentioned as an issue in need of solutions funded by the candidate. Debates from the citizens have been towards the politicians in hopes for them to establish a credible cancer policy. The people of America are deeply affected by this case because of how politicians aren't paying close attention to this issue as they run for office. In order to gain the votes of Americans they need to address the needs of people which includes this issue of cancer. Cases such as

“Edwards, Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, Brownback and Huckabee participating in a forum on cancer sponsored by MSNBC and Lance Armstrong’s LiveStrong foundation” need to be administered more because there have been arguments of how deeply this issue is being addressed (Dallek).

People fear cancer more than terrorism because how it sweeps the nations with many deaths. President Bush has caused more uprising to this issue due to cutting the National Cancer Institute’s budget by a total of 12% in the last four years. As an informed citizen, I believe that we should take care of our home before we take care of the world and try being all heroes about it. Cancer kills many lives and the need for funds towards that issue or even to be addressed is needed. During the CNN’s YouTube Democratic debate

“a Long Island breast cancer survivor implied that fellow survivors and their families should make cancer prevention and treatment a key issue on which they cast their ballots” (Dallek).

This portrays how the issue of cancer does not come into play in campaigns more often than they need to. In the future if more millions are affected, the issue of terrorism will be directed somewhere else as a disease becomes a bigger issue due to the many affected by it such as cancer. It should be an issue talked more in campaigning due to its toll on the citizens of America.

Works Cited: LA Times Sunday issue Sept. 9 2007 , An issue on remission by Matthew Dallek (LA Times Opinion)