Alexander Violet's

            The United States Constitution describes our three branches of government in the most conformed way intended by our forefathers to ensure our freedom and keep the ruling of a person from tyrannical actions. As its preamble states,

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Prosperity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Article 2 implements the criteria to form an executive branch by eligibility, terms, and powers. In section 1 of this article, it states that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The Presidential term further described in the text to subsist for the length of four years and to which it can be renewed only once more upon being successfully re-elected. Before entering office, the nominated and qualified person to endorse the role of President must recite the oath of office of the President of the United States which is quoted as such, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This document is one of the most important documents of U.S. history because it enables the government to identify its role as a functioning organization which ensures the freedom and interests of its people while dejecting the possibility of ruling oppressively.

Today, what is the job of our President? While giving a tour of his oval office, President George W. Bush described,

The President must serve the Nation and not himself, not his self interests. A president must be the President of All the People, not just those who voted for him. Our President’s got to elevate the discourse and set goals that are bigger than the political parties. (…) The job of the president is to unite the Nation. (…) The job of the President is to set big goals for the country, big objectives and in order to achieve those objectives, the country must be united. (…) A president must see a day that is coming, not the day that is gone. The President has got to see a better day for America, and I do see a better day for this country. (…) And in this job, you’ve got to have a sense of humor; otherwise, it makes for the days awfully long and the nights awfully short.

            Should I add that a President needs to have good decision-making skills? The challenges that we face today make this ability even more critical than ever before. The impacts from our current and past Presidents’ choices have at times left some people with beneficiary results and others with catastrophic ones. It is crucial, therefore, to understand how our two candidates, Senators Obama and McCain, will react facing certain situations. Their reactions characterize their distinct leadership styles. How are those styles going to translate in office and result best in the preservation of the people’s welfare and the protection of our nation’s interests as intended by our forefathers? This 2008 Presidential election has been particularly abundant in presenting our two candidates with opportunities to respond to numerous critical issues: from our economic turmoil to the occurrence of Russian invasion into its neighbor, Georgia.

Senator Obama’s style is such that he would rather wait on complete facts and entourage himself with experts to make firm decisions. David Axelrod, Senator Obama’s chief political strategist, explained that the Vice-Presidential nominee, Senator Joe Biden, is far more experienced and had been chosen by Senator Obama lucidly. “He [Senator Obama] is very methodical when he evaluates his decisions. He’ll ask a series of questions. He’ll engage you in a dialogue on the options. And then, he’ll make a decision. And he doesn’t look back at that decision,” Axelrod proclaimed. Margaret Warner, senior correspondent of the PBS’s nightly news program, remarked one of Obama’s advisors saying, “Obama’s decision-making is dispassionate and never off-the-cuff.” Former Representative Abner Mikva from Illinois exclaimed, “I have never seen anybody in the political arena who can be as deliberate and cool as he is on decisions. In all the years I’ve known him, I’ve never seen him emotionally angry. I’m sure he’s been – I mean, I could tell he was upset at times, but the emotions never went into the decisional process.”

Senator McCain’s leadership style, on the other end, can be perceived as somewhat premature as he reacts in striking quasi-independently on an issue using instincts to calculate when and what to say right then on the spot. Judy Woodruff, senior correspondent and 2008 political editor for the NewsHour, reports Senator McCain saying, “I don’t torture myself over decisions. I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often, my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”  According to Los Angeles Times staff writer, Doyle McManus, Senator McCain has proven to engage himself on a crisis with a clearly different approach than Senator Obama. While McCain visited the site of devastation that hurricane Gustav had caused, Obama decided that a visit there would actually hinder the rescue mission by causing a depletion of resources needed to operate successfully. While McCain took the Georgian side on the first day when Russian invasion came about, Obama, him, had requested both countries to stop military actions against each other, then, later that day criticized Russians for their invasions. McCain was also quickest to take a stand on the economy, but his rhetoric evolved continuously in a new direction as more information surfaced. McManus listed these changes on McCain’s oratory expressions about our economy’s crisis, “On Monday, [McCain] declared that ‘the fundamentals of our economy are strong.’ On Tuesday, he said that the economy, while strong, was in ‘crisis’ and that he opposed a federal bailout of insurance giant AIG. On Wednesday, after the federal government announced that it would take over AIG, he said that action was unavoidable.” As far as Obama’s reaction during that period this happened, he only criticized McCain for calling the economy strong, he did not give any specifics on his stand as McCain had done, though later that week, Obama did take side with the Fed’s decisions and the Bush administration for their efforts in re-stabilizing the economy as long as Main Street was to be helped as well, according to the L.A. Times. Such differences in leadership styles would have not so easily been distinguished between our two Presidential candidates if it wasn’t for the media shining the light on our unusual number of pressing concerns which appears to have had arisen from such a short and crucial period of time in U.S. history.

Our two candidates’ distinct leadership styles have shown to have different benefit and risk factors, but for the individual citizen to vote for one would be to assume a consequential idealism that would not necessarily result in a better state for the nation. That said, a President of the United States would benefit the nation, the world, and its living constituents most by employing a clear, pragmatic and calm leadership style than by reacting impulsively on instincts and gut. For this reason, Senator Obama has a legitimate advantage of being elected as President of the United States of America. Unless more information would change my standpoint, Senator Obama would most likely obtain my support for this 2008 Presidential election.

 “The White House Video Tours.” The White House. 23 October 2008 <http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/life/video/index.html>.

“McCain Blends Instinct With Political Calculation.” The Online NewsHour. 2008. PBS. 22 September 2008 <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/mccainupclose_09-22.html>.

“Confidence, Openness Mark Obama’s Decision Making Style.” The Online NewsHour. 2008. PBS. 23 September 2008 <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/obamacloseup_09-23.html>.

McManus, Doyle. “McCain and Obama Different on Style as Well as Substance.” Los Angeles Times. 2008. Los Angeles Times. 23 September 2008 <http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-assess20-2008sep20,0,7459654.story>. 

            Before the next President of the United States takes office and embarks on a variety of challenges, a candidate needs to be elected. The views characterizing each candidate during this electoral race of 2008 mainly respond to domestic and international issues that we face today. The American people will have to choose between Barack Obama and John McCain by considering which one of the two implements a better policy. The challenges are there, they are numerous, but the question that voters will have to answer is, who of the two candidates will most effectively and efficiently lead our nation and exercise their powers accordingly, to respond to those issues? Voters will also need to anticipate the effects of those two candidates’ actions and choose one candidate over the other based on the fact that, according to ontheissues.org, one holds a hard-core liberal view, and the other, a populist-leaning conservative one. 

            Senator Barack Obama has reached a distinctive role that permits him to influence the world. He has the power to bring an economic relief and moral prosperity by, if elected President of the United States, increasing standards of lives where populaces are in most needs, at least as it seems by looking at his domestic and international plans. His number one priority is to keep American people safe saying, assuring the American people during his 2008 Congressional Black Caucus Democratic speech, “I would not hesitate to strike against anybody who would do American interests’[sic] harm.” (Barack Obama on Foreign Policy, 2008).  The foundation, which Senator Obama’ s foreign policy is based on promoting our traditional idealism: “democracy and human rights; free and fair trades and cultural exchanges; and development of institutions that ensure broad middle classes within market economies.” According to Senator Obama in a speech he made at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, what influences each and every one of us in the world are the human aspirations towards dignity, freedom, and the opportunity to have a better family life. This can “ultimately restore our influence and win back the hearts and minds necessary to defeat terrorism and project American values around the globe” resulting in a more prominent security to our national entity (Barack Obama on Foreign Policy, 2008).

            While his speeches surely sound good, what he has done deserves recognition as well, especially in Africa where he sponsored and co-sponsored multiple bills in support of the African people and their prosperity. In the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Acts (S.2125) that Senator Obama sponsored, Congo would receive aid to resolve their humanitarian crisis. Some of the elements constituting this bill imply our engagement in setting up a minimum requirement that the Foreign Assistance Act, the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, and the Arms Export Control Act, would be accountable for. It is recognized that cooperation with other countries is necessary to “promote relief, security, and Democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)”. The limitation of our assistance to Congo in this bill seems to maintain that if the DRC is not making significant progress, our aid would cease to apply. One of the most obscure issues that DRC has to resolve, and thus seeing as significant progress, is the atrocities that its military is inflicting such as mass rapes and premeditated murders. In the bill, it is imperative that RDC regain control of its Armed Forces, prosecute those responsible of committing unprecedented crimes before a tribunal and bring its people to justice. Senator Obama wrote a law in 2006 that would contribute $52M of U.S. assistance to Congo. He also supported the African Union peacekeeping mission by working on a further $20M to the cause of bringing peace to African families (Barack Obama on Foreign Policy, 2008).

            Other than writing, sponsoring, or co-sponsoring bills, Senator Obama has brought a spot light to some of the most underdeveloped slum countries of Africa due to his worldwide popularity. As a result, people around the world became aware of some of the harsher conditions that citizens of impoverished nations go through. In 2006, he visited South Africa, Chad, and Kenya and paid respect to those 200 people who died in the 1988 bombing of the U.S. Embassy; encouraged those African nations to take greater actions on the detection and treatment of HIV and malaria for its citizens by, along with his wife, publicly taking an HIV test and visiting a malaria research institute; and advised the Kenyan government to end corruption, according to ontheissues.org. Senator Obama has placed an emphasis in his foreign policy plans to help Africa and its constituents. But how is it helping our national interests?

            Senator Obama wants to reach new markets where the U.S. is lacking, according to his speech at the 2007 Des Moines Register Democratic debate, majorly in African markets. He said, “When I visited Africa, I was told by a group of businessmen that the presence of China is only exceeded by the absence of America in the entire African continent.” While this would be a strategic move to promote marketing U.S. industries and multi-national businesses, in Senator Obama’ s views, in conjunction to that, the U.S. needs to deal with China in a tougher manner when negotiating. It is a necessary technique in order to compete against the latter as he said that “They are not our enemies, but they are competitors of ours.” However, in order to answer the question of who holds more leverage between the U.S. and China in the world, the first thing to do, according to Senator Obama, is that “we’ve got to get our own fiscal house in order.”

            Senator Obama has a different economic approach than the GOP. He claims that there is a mismanagement currently taking place. He said in the CNN Late Edition of the 2008 presidential series in May 2008, “As I travel around the country, what I’m absolutely convinced of is that people recognize that if only 1% of the population is doing well (…) that something’s being mismanaged.” To stabilize this imbalance that he put forth, Senator Obama wants to increase capital gains taxes on investments and stocks, according to ontheissues.org, but he plans on deferring those taxes among the people who have a 401(k) plan. This economic strategy is argued to potentially result in increase of wages and incomes for the average working class.

Senator Obama plans on potentially pursuing the $12 billion spent a month on Iraq to use it in working on issues at home. During the 2008 Democratic debate at the University of Texas in Austin, he commented:

Spending $12 billion every month in Iraq means that we can’t engage in the kind of infrastructure improvements that are going to make us more competitive, we can’t deliver on the kinds of health care reforms that Clinton and I are looking for. (…) The notion that we would sustain that kind of effort and neglect not only making us more secure here at home, more competitive here at home, allow [sic] our economy to sink.

While potentially tapping financial resources from the Department of Defense’s budget to fight the war in Iraq, Senator Obama plans to regulate creditors in the U.S.

Senator Obama wants to protect consumers by implementing a Credit Card Bill of Rights which would allow a rating system to inform the consumer on different credit cards. Those ratings would be based on a number of stars from one to five that would be given according to each card’s features, adjacently, mandating credit card companies to display those stars on the application forms and contractual materials (Barack Obama on Budget and Economy, 2008). The Credit Card Bill of Rights would “ban unilateral changes, apply interest rate increases only to future debt, prohibit interest on fees, prohibit ‘Universal Defaults’, [and] require prompt and fair crediting of cardholder payments”. On top of this bill, to protect the consumer, Senator Obama would put a cap on interest rates of payday loans and have better consumer awareness when disclosing lenders’ information about their fees, payments and penalties. He addresses this economic issue by pursuing businesses to adopt an ethical approach and responsibility towards consumers rather than pocketing a profit at the latter’s expense. Such a strategy potentially is likely to obtain most votes from distressed consumers. Along with regulating creditors, and getting consumers’ support, Senator Obama faces an opportunity to obtain even more votes, those of homeowners.

Senator Obama co-sponsored reforming subprime mortgage regulations to support current and future homeowners in the face of foreclosure and bankruptcy. He backed the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 which refinances subprime mortgages (Barack Obama on Budget and Economy, 2008). It plans on allowing states and local governments to tap from the FY2008 budget to “redevelop abandoned and foreclosed homes” and for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to alleviate foreclosure activities. In addition, Senator Obama supported the Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2008 (HFSTGBA 2008) which “authorizes a bankruptcy plan for individuals with regular income to provide for payment of such claim for a period of up to 30 years. [HFSTHBA 2008] creates a principal residence homestead exemption for debtors over 55 years of age.” (Barack Obama on Budget and Economy, 2008). In co-sponsoring the mortgage reforms, he also sponsored the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act of 2008, which “amends the Truth in Lending Act to set forth additional disclosure requirements governing any extensions of credit (not only mortgages) secured by the dwelling of consumer.”

As to John McCain and his plans for responding to our nation’s concerns, his leadership skills from his unmatched years of experience seem to be a strong factor in deciding whether he is “the” candidate to lead our nation and get the votes he seeks to be nominated President. As with Senator Obama, Senator McCain holds some of the same standards and fundamental and moral values in numerous issues. When asked whether, as commander-in-chief, it would be acceptable to disregard international human rights treaties when operating overseas, Senator McCain replied that there were no circumstances which would allow this to happen; the law that Congress approves is adopted as the “law of the land” and therefore “it must be obeyed under the terms that it was ratified.” (John McCain on Foreign Policy, 2008). Senator John McCain renounces a laissez-faire approach wherever our principles would be offended in explaining during a GOP debate in 2000 that if genocide in Rwanda were to recur, a military operation would intervene. He pointed out that “we can never say that a nation driven by Judeo-Christian principles will only intervene where our interests are threatened because we also have values. If genocide is allowed, the consequences later are more severe.” (John McCain on Foreign Policy, 2008).

Senator McCain sponsored a bill to impose sanctions against Burmese officials of the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and to ban imports of gemstones, teak and other hardwood timber from that country. Burma’s junta has ruled with unprecedented resentment, committing numerous and countless atrocities against its people, “In crushing the Saffron Revolution, killing hundreds and jailing thousands, including countless Buddhist monks,” Senator McCain denounced, “the junta has left no doubt about its blatant disregard for basic human decency.” During the Burma Democracy Promotion Act (BDPA, [S.2257 & S.2172]) in 2007 that McCain sponsored, he explained in his introductory statement,

We, as Americans, stand on the side of freedom, not fear; of peace, not violence; and of the millions in Burma who aspire to a better life, not those who would keep them isolated and oppressed. Our response must go beyond statements of condemnation (…). This legislation imposes meaningful and effective punitive action against the cruel, thuggish, and illegitimate Burmese government. (John McCain on Foreign Policy, 2008).

His legislative action, according to this BDPA, would create a profile on officials of the SPDC who violated human rights laws, lists them, and financially sanction them, as well as denying U.S. territorial entry. On top of banning imports from Burma, the BDPA “prohibits any U.S. person or corporation from investing in Burma.” Senator McCain, just like Senator Obama, does not want to support any countries where progress is not happening.

Senator McCain is wary to spend tax payers’ money where there is corruption. He wants to cease making financial contributions to causes in Africa where corrupted governments co-exist until assurance that present contributions will go to their destined beneficiaries. When asked if we should appropriate a $300 million surplus to help fight AIDS in Africa, he replied that before spending taxpayers’ money into corrupted states, “I would have to make sure that it would go to the recipients and those of these poor people who are afflicted with this terrible disease.  Frankly, in a lot of parts of Africa today, I do not have that confidence.” (John McCain on Foreign Policy, 2008). Senator McCain wants to stop spending in other places too, particularly in our domestic affairs.

Senator McCain plans to stop all “out-of-control” spending from Congress (John McCain on Budget and Economy., 2008). He claims that if he gets elected he would veto all big spending plans that cross his desk criticizing them as “wasteful” spending which impairs our economy. During the 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida, he expressed confidence about his knowledge in economics as him being “very well versed” in the subject. Further, he quoted the Wall Street Journal for having the majority of economics crediting him as being the better candidate to handle our nation’s economy. He relates his credentials stating that he was chairman of the Commerce Committee in the Senate, “which addresses virtually every major economic issue that affects the U.S.” and that he was there at the Reagan Revolution, just after the first tax cuts was made into law along with the restraints on spending that came about. Today, Senator McCain’s economic plans, if elected President, would be to stop spending $400 billion a year on oil to foreign-oil countries because some of that money, he claims, “goes (…) to fund terrorist organizations.” (John McCain on Budget and Economy., 2008). His plan to balance the gap is to develop technologies which will eventually prevent the $400 billion a year outflow to those countries. As he shows himself being an economic savvy and having the backing of economic specialists as he claims he has, can he and will he take the steps necessary to ensure recovery when dealing with our current financial “crisis”?

When asked why a Republican should continue to preside in the White House with the current economic record, Senator McCain replied,

I will, as president, veto every one of these big spending bills. I will impose fiscal discipline. We will clean up our act and we will regain the confidence of the American people as being careful stewards of our tax dollars, and we will fix this problem with having to borrow money from China, then we will balance our budget, just like every governor in America has been required to do. (John McCain on Budget and Economy., 2008)

He differentiated his economic intentions from President Bush’s by stipulating that he would veto “spending bill after spending bill after pork-barrel project after pork-barrel project, in the tradition of President Reagan” and that he would make the authors of those pork-barrel projects “famous all over America”. Senator McCain prefers to see the line-item veto which would bar a specific item from a bill versus vetoing the entire legislative package (John McCain on Budget and Economy., 2008). Senator McCain will seek to re-introduce line-item veto to take advantage of controlling pork-barrel projects.

According to its economic plan to bring about economic prosperity, Senator McCain plans in making the Bush tax cuts permanent; in decreasing the corporate expenses of equipment investments, potentially increasing the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by as much as ten percent; in keeping jobs domestically by cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%; and in establishing permanent tax credit equal to ten percent of wages spent on research and development (John McCain on Corporations, 2008).  Adopting the Bush tax cuts permanently would give families financial stability by increasing their confidence in knowing how much income families would be able to make. Not having this cut permanent impacts on the confidence of Americans, Senator McCain remarked, “If people and business and families in America are now planning their 2010 budget, there’s a great deal of uncertainty.” Cutting corporate income taxes “would keep businesses here, and it would keep jobs here and create jobs here.” According to him, by adopting the Bush tax cuts permanently and cutting corporate income taxes, families would be able to concretely plan their budgets bringing on financial confidence, security, and stability while keeping their jobs in the U.S. Enforcing this view, Senator McCain voted NO in 2005 on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move U.S. jobs offshore as proposed under the Tax Subsidy for Domestic Companies Amendment Bill S AMDT 210 TO S CON Res 18.

Senator Obama and Senator McCain both respect human rights and dignity, and are ready to back these fundamental virtues by sending U.S. assistance in different areas of the globe. They are both working to resolve our financial crisis according to their plans they have envisioned, both claiming that it will result in an economical stability and prosperity, enriching our country and its citizens by bringing our nation to an unmatched competitive power in the world. While Barack Obama utilizes a refreshing rhetoric that has not been seen for many years, his outlooks give citizens a sense which holds him competent for making drastic decisions resulting in fruitful changes for the country and the world. Senator McCain, on the other hand, resorts to a more cut-dry and conservative method which could previously be recognized within the last few years under the Bush administration. He insists on differentiating himself and his policies from the current administration to bring about an array of reconstructive changes as a republican. They both have a plan in mind in which promises to benefit our nation’s overall security and welfare, assuring a secured domestic workforce, increasing wages and income, decreasing individual taxes, and bringing prosperity to the country and the world. Does it take great promises with back-up plans to obtain voters’ support? Abraham Lincoln once said, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. He who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or decisions possible or impossible to execute.” To each candidate, current and future issues are resolved best by using their own policies and with cooperation, but what differentiates the two candidates other than the priorities in which they attribute their policies, or the differences in solving key challenges, or what beneficial effects would occur if elected president, is simply revolving around the number of Americans whom are convinced “enough” to get their vote in the ballot. Whomever of the two candidates appears to get the job done most persuasively in the heart of American people is going to be elected next President of the United States.

“John McCain on Foreign Policy.” Ontheissues.org. 2008. On the issues: Every Political Leader

on Every Issue. 20 September 2008 http://ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Foreign_Policy.htm.

“John McCain on Corporations.” Ontheissues.org. 2008. On the issues: Every Political Leader

on Every Issue. 15 September 2008 http://ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Corporations.htm

“John McCain on Budget and Economy.” Ontheissues.org. 2008. On the issues: Every Political

Leader on Every Issue. 15 September 2008 http://ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Budget_+_Economy.htm  

“Barack Obama on Foreign Policy.” Ontheissues.org. 2008. On the issues: Every Political

Leader on Every Issue. 15 September 2008 http://ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Foreign_Policy.htm

“Barack Obama on Corporations.” Ontheissues.org. 2008. On the issues: Every Political

Leader on Every Issue. 15 September 2008 http://ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Corporations.htm

“Barack Obama on Budget and Economy.” Ontheissues.org. 2008. On the issues: Every Political

Leader on Every Issue. 15 September 2008 http://ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Budget_+_Economy.htm