Sarah Palin gaining McCain Votes?

Has McCain's choice of vice president gained him more votes than it has cost him? Yes. While the democrat's are screaming her faults many republican's feel much more comfortable about casting their vote for McCain with Palin on his team. The main reason Palin has swayed the public to favor McCain is her conservative views. Since McCain is such a liberal republican he did not have the support of many conservative republicans. Sarah Palin changed that. Many voters have deemed Sarah Palin unqualified for vice presidency yet many republicans approve of her more conservative views saying they help even out McCain's more liberal stand. While not as experienced as most candidates for the vice presidency, Sarah Palin has won the hearts of many. Sarah Palin has racked up votes just for being a young woman. Also her strong religious views along with her pro-life views have gained McCain strong support from the Christian community that he otherwise wouldn't have had. Sarah Palin has softened McCain's campaign relating to the average American citizen. Without Palin McCain did not have the strong republican base that he now has.

Sarah Palin has opened the door for opportunity and evened the playing field. Palin is in her forties while McCain is in his seventies. Palin is a female while McCain is a male. Palin is conservative while McCain is liberal. All these things have gained a wider spectrum of voters for the McCain team. While some voters are concerned with the prospect of Sarah Palin becoming President of the United States in the event of McCain's death some conservatives would rather have her as the leader of this country.

Practical Finances

Thomas Friedman, a reliable columnist for the New York Times, wrote a convincing article , titled “Practice finance the old-fashioned way”, explaining why the American people need to get back to the old-fashioned way of finance. He claims that because the American people stopped caring about how they got things, only that they got them, the lending crisis became bigger and bigger until we hit rock bottom. Friedman states that saving and hard work should still play a big part in our economics, but in most cases they don't. He points out that we have strayed from the standard of saving our money for the things we want and instead we buy want we want first and then worry about how we are going to pay for it.

Mr. Friedman assumes that if the American people had not gone credit happy our country would not be in the financial crisis that it is in today. Does Thomas Friedman have evidence for his claim? If solid logical thinking is considered evidence, then yes, he has evidence. America has been lending excessively. The banks made off with a bundle in the beginning but eventually the money stopped coming in as people failed to pay what they owed. Now if our country had been more conservative with it's lending standards, Friedman argues, none of this would have happened.

Frankly, Friedman as me throughly convinced that he is correct in his assumptions. America has been too lenient with it's lending. If America had thought about how it was paying for things we would not be in this particular economic downfall. Friedman was right on when he said “the Puritan ethic of hard work and saving still matters.” The question is, will people listen.

Save the Fat Cats

Nicholas Kristof tries to persuade his audience, those who disagree with the bailout plan, that unless we ratify the bill we will end up with economic stagnation, repeating the mistakes of Japan. Nicholas Kristof is a reliable journalist and because he has been writing for so long he has mastered the art of persuasion. Like any good writer, Kristof can throw facts out there and bring people to his side of the table. Let's evaluate his argument. His article "Save the Fat Cats" centers on an argument stating that if we don't act to help our banks we will end up like Japan; economically ruined for decades. He compares the banks and government of Japan to that of the United States. The big banks are sinking as a result of their own bad decisions, the same reason the Japanese banks were in trouble, but who wants to save these fat cats? Kristof argues that we need the fat cats to keep our country running. Banks keep the credit flowing and according to Kristof that the most important thing for our nation during this time. Now after stating all of this Kristof continues to try and persuade those who disagree with the bailout by saying that they are right in being furious but only passing this bill, along with other measures, will save America. Kristof assumes that America's problem has the exact dynamics as Japan's and that a bailout would have corrected Japan's economic problems. Does America have reason to be scared? Possibly. Kristof's article is very persuasive. His facts about Japan are useful in swaying the readers opinion because it is a real life situation and not just theory. Yet, I am not completely persuaded that he is right. He has a solid argument backed by evidence and logic but I am still skeptical. Just because Japan became economically stagnate doesn't prove that approving a bailout would have made the situation any better nor can he prove that passing the bailout in the U.S. will redeem our economic stress. Politically speaking Kristof's argument has great value if the reader agrees with his assumption. Even if one disagreed, Kristof's argument is an important one because no matter which side of the argument one is on the results will change the economic field.