Steamd

Last night, as Barack Obama was elected President, I was reminded of John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier speech. If you’ve never read or heard this speech then you should. Below you’ll find a full transcript of the speech.

I believe that we are entering yet another New Frontier. Last night a wind was blowing; not just a breeze but a strong wind blowing across our country. Obama captured an astounding two-thirds of the electoral college. It’s very clear that this President was elected for the people by the people. As JFK said: “For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do.” Yes, folks, the election of Barack Obama as President is the start of another New Frontier ushering in a new era. Do you feel it? Change is coming!

John F. Kennedy (Democratic National Convention Nomination Acceptance Address):

Governor Stevenson, Senator Johnson, Mr. Butler, Senator Symington, Senator Humphrey, Speaker Rayburn, fellow Democrats, I want to express my thanks to Governor Stevenson for his generous and heart-warming introduction.

It was my great honor to place his name in nomination at the 1956 Democratic Convention, and I am delighted to have his support and his counsel and his advice in the coming months ahead.

Let me say first that I accept the nomination of the Democratic Party.

I accept it without reservation and with only one obligation, the obligation to devote every effort of my mind and spirit to lead our Party back to victory and our Nation to greatness.

I am grateful, too — I am grateful, too that you have provided us with such a strong platform to stand on and to run on. Pledges which are made so eloquently are made to be kept. “The Rights of Man” — the civil and economic rights essential to the human dignity of all men — are indeed our goal and are indeed our first principle. This is a Platform on which I can run with enthusiasm and with conviction.

And I am grateful, finally, that I can rely in the coming months on many others: On a distinguished running-mate who brings unity and strength to our Platform and our ticket, Lyndon Johnson; on one of the most articulate spokesmen of modern times, Adlai Stevenson; on a great fighter — on a great fighter for our needs as a Nation and a people, Stuart Symington; on my traveling companion in Wisconsin and West Virginia, Senator Hubert Humphrey; on Paul Butler, our devoted and courageous Chairman; and on that fighting campaigner whose support I now welcome, President Harry Truman.

I feel a lot safer with all of them on my side. And I’m proud of the contrast with our Republican competitors. For their ranks are so thin that not one challenger has dared to put his head up in the last twelve months.
 
I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk — new, at least since 1928. The Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free and fair judgment and in my ability to render a free and fair judgment.

To uphold the Constitution and my oath of office, to reject any kind of religious pressure or obligation that might directly or indirectly interfere with my conduct of the Presidency in the national interest. My record of fourteen years in supporting public education, supporting complete separation of Church and State and resisting pressure from sources of any kind should be clear by now to everyone.

I hope that no American — I hope that no American, considering the really critical issues facing this country, will waste his franchise and throw away his vote by voting either for me or against me because of my religious affiliation. It is not relevant.

I am telling you what you are entitled to know: As I come before you seeking your support for the most powerful office in the free world — I am saying to you that my decisions on every public policy will be my own, as an American, as a Democrat, and as a free man.

I mention all of this only because this country faces so many serious challenges, so many great opportunities, so many burdensome responsibilities that I hope that it is to those great matters that we can address ourselves in the coming months. And if this statement of mine makes it easier to concentrate on our Nation’s problems, then I’m glad that I have made it.

Under any circumstances, the victory we seek in November will not be easy. We know that in our hearts. We know that our opponent will invoke the name of Abraham Lincoln on behalf of their candidate, despite the fact that his political career has often seemed to show charity towards none and malice for all.

We know it will not be easy to campaign against a man who has spoken and voted on every side of every issue. Mr. Nixon may feel that it’s his turn now, after the New Deal and the Fair Deal –but before he deals, someone’s going to cut the cards.

That “someone” may be the millions of Americans who voted for President Eisenhower but would balk at his successor.

For just as historians tell us that Richard the First was not fit to fill the shoes of the bold Henry the Second, and that Richard Cromwell was not fit to wear the mantle of his uncle, they might add in future years that Richard Nixon did not measure up to the footsteps of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Perhaps he could carry on the party policies, the policies of Nixon and Benson and Dirksen and Goldwater. But this Nation cannot afford such a luxury. Perhaps we could afford a Coolidge following Harding. And perhaps we could afford a Pierce following Fillmore. But after Buchanan this nation needed Lincoln; after Taft we needed Wilson; and after Hoover we needed Franklin Roosevelt.

But we’re not merely running against Mr. Nixon. Our task is not merely one of itemizing Republican failures. Nor is that wholly necessary. For the families forced from the farm do not need to tell us of their plight. The unemployed miners and textile workers know that the decision is before them in November. The old people without medical care, the families without a decent home, the parents of children without a decent school: They all know that it’s time for a change.

We are not here to curse the darkness; we are here to light a candle. As Winston Churchill said on taking office some twenty years ago: If we open a quarrel between the present and the past, we shall be in danger of losing the future.

Today our concern must be with that future. For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do.

Abroad, the balance of power is shifting. New and more terrible weapons are coming into use.

One-third of the world may be free, but one-third is the victim of a cruel repression, and the other third is rocked by poverty and hunger and disease. Communist influence has penetrated into Asia; it stands in the Middle East; and now festers some ninety miles off the coast of Florida. Friends have slipped into neutrality and neutrals have slipped into hostility. As our keynoter reminded us, the President who began his career by going to Korea ends it by staying away from Japan.

The world has been close to war before, but now man, who’s survived all previous threats to his existence, has taken into his mortal hands the power to exterminate his species seven times over.

Here at home the future is equally revolutionary. The New Deal and the Fair Deal were bold measures for their generations, but now this is a new generation.

A technological output and explosion on the farm has led to an output explosion. An urban population revolution has overcrowded our schools and cluttered our cities and crowded our slums.

A peaceful revolution for human rights, demanding an end to racial discrimination in all parts of our community life, has strained at the leashes imposed by a timid executive leadership.

It is time, in short — It is time, in short for a new generation of leadership. All over the world, particularly in the newer nations, young men are coming to power, men who are not bound by the traditions of the past, men who are not blinded by the old fears and hates and rivalries– young men who can cast off the old slogans and the old delusions.

The Republican nominee, of course, is a young man. But his approach is as old as McKinley. His party is the party of the past, the party of memory. His speeches are generalities from Poor Richard’s Almanac. Their platform — Their platform, made up of old, left-over Democratic planks, has the courage of our old convictions. Their pledge is to the status quo; and today there is no status quo.

For I stand here tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that stretch three thousand miles behind us, the pioneers gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their lives to build our new West. They were not the captives of their own doubts, nor the prisoners of their own price tags. They were determined to make the new world strong and free — an example to the world, to overcome its hazards and its hardships, to conquer the enemies that threatened from within and without.

Some would say that those struggles are all over, that all the horizons have been explored, that all the battles have been won, that there is no longer an American frontier. But I trust that no one in this assemblage would agree with that sentiment; for the problems are not all solved and the battles are not all won; and we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier — the frontier of the 1960’s, the frontier of unknown opportunities and perils, the frontier of unfilled hopes and unfilled threats.

Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom promised our nation a new political and economic framework. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal promised security and succor to those in need. But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises. It is a set of challenges.

It sums up not what I intend to offer to the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride — It appeals to our pride, not our security. It holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security.

The New Frontier is here whether we seek it or not.

Beyond that frontier are uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered problems of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus. It would be easier to shrink from that new frontier, to look to the safe mediocrity of the past, to be lulled by good intentions and high rhetoric — and those who prefer that course should not vote for me or the Democratic Party.

But I believe that the times require imagination and courage and perseverance. I’m asking each of you to be pioneers towards that New Frontier. My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age–to the stout in spirit, regardless of Party, to all who respond to the scriptural call: “Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be [thou] dismayed.”

For courage , not complacency, is our need today; leadership, not salesmanship. And the only valid test of leadership is the ability to lead, and lead vigorously. A tired nation — A tired nation, said David Lloyd George, is a Tory nation. And the United States today cannot afford to be either tired or Tory.

There may be those who wish to hear more — more promises to this group or that, more harsh rhetoric about the men in the Kremlin as a substitute for policy, more assurances of a golden future, where taxes are always low and the subsidies are always high. But my promises are in the platform that you have adopted. Our ends will not be won by rhetoric, and we can have faith in the future only if we have faith in ourselves.

For the harsh facts of the matter are that we stand at this frontier at a turning-point of history. We must prove all over again to a watching world, as we said on a most conspicuous stage, whether this nation, conceived as it is with its freedom of choice, its breadth of opportunity, its range of alternatives, can compete with the single-minded advance of the Communist system.

Can a nation organized and governed such as ours endure?

That is the real question.

Have we the nerve and the will? Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction, but also a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space, and the inside of men’s minds?

That is the question of the New Frontier.

That is the choice our nation must make — a choice that lies not merely between two men or two parties, but between the public interest and private comfort, between national greatness and national decline, between the fresh air of progress and the stale, dank atmosphere of “normalcy,” between dedication of mediocrity.

All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we shall do. And we cannot fail that trust. And we cannot fail to try.

It has been a long road from the first snowy day in New Hampshire many months ago to this crowded convention city. Now begins another long journey, taking me into your cities and homes across the United States.

Give me your help and your hand and your voice.

Recall with me the words of Isaiah that, “They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary.”

As we face the coming great challenge, we too, shall wait upon the Lord, and ask that He renew our strength.

Then shall we be equal to the test.

Then we shall not be weary.

Then we shall prevail.

Thank you.

Right off the heels of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, many right-wing personalities and politicians who have greatly applauded Powell in the past are now slamming him. Why? Again, I’ll let Keith Olbermann take over on this one:

Trouble viewing the video? Read the transcript here.

For those who have an open mind and little bias towards any of the Presidential candidates and/or a specific political party, it’s pretty obvious that Obama won last nights debate. Now, I could go on and on about the why’s but I’d rather not. I could also go on and on about why both McCain and Palin are not the best choice. I could tell you that McCain is too old and too out of touch. I could also tell you that Palin is under-qualified and that she simply would not make for a good President were something to happen to McCain. I could list all the reasons why Obama’s judgment and plans are so much better than McCains. But to be honest, I simply don’t have the time nor the energy to go on about it. At this point, I think the point is very clear: Barack Obama will likely be the next President of the United States.

What I will mention though is one talking point that has erupted out of McCain’s campaign. It has to do with how McCain is handling some of the more radical supporters at his rallies. I agree whole-heartedly with Keith Olbermann’s views on this issue^[1]. So rather than just rant about what I think, I’ll let Keith do it for me:

1. Olbermann: McCain, suspend your campaign [↩]

Recently, I read an article on Reuters about how Obama ripped McCain for joking that $5 million is a fit definition for being rich. But it wasn’t the article that caught my eye but rather a comment left by a reader:

If you want 4 more years of George Bush policies, vote for McCain. If you like the price of oil, google the enron loophole, and see how Phil Gram (McCains econimic advisor) gamed the system. Google the Keating 5 and John McCain. Google McCain cheating on his wife. Google McCain graduating at the bottom of his class. This guy is not qualified to be president.

Pretty bold statements. But is he right? Let’s see what Google reveals.

Phil Gramm and the Enron Loophole

Sounds like a title from a serialized mystery novel series, doesn’t it. Given that Phil Gramm is/was John McCain’s top economic advisor, there’s a certain level of scrutinization to be made with this guy. Although McCain claims that Gramm is no longer part of his campaign that still doesn’t mean that Gramm still doesn’t play an influence behind closed doors. The real question is: What role has Phil Gramm played in our political system?

In 1999, then Senator Phil Gramm worked on a bill known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that would effectively gut the Glass-Steagall Act. The end result would be that commercial banks, investment banks, and insurers would be allowed to merge, an act that would have violated antitrust laws under the Glass-Steagall Act. Gramm was the primary sponsor of this bill since he had received over $4.6 million in donations from different finance, insurance, and real estate institutions over the previous decade. After the Act was passed, many banks and other financial institutions merged almost immediately, as if they were just waiting for this legislation to be passed.

To make matters even worse, Gramm, along with four other co-sponsors, helped draft and pass the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Part of this bill, what has become known as the “Enron Loophole“, exempts energy speculators who make trades electronically from US regulation. The loophole was drafted by Gramm in cooperation with lobbyists for the Enron Corporation. This little loophole is what many claim to be the very thing that allow for the Enron scandal to happen. But the real kicker is that, at the time when the bill was drafted, Gramm’s wife was on Enron’s board of directors.

After his Senate career, Gramm was (or still is) a vice-chairman for UBS, a Swiss-based investment bank. At the time when Gramm was advising McCain, Gramm was being paid by UBS to lobby Congress about the current mortgage crisis. Because of his association, Gramm has been partially blamed for helping to deregulate the banking industry that allowed financial institutions like UBS to practice the sort of predatory lending practices that cause the mortgage crisis to begin with. 

Obama has called for the closing of the “Enron Loophole“. Then again, so has McCain. But the question is: Why would McCain allow someone like Gramm to offer him economic policy advice given Gramm’s record? Doesn’t make any sense.

The Keating Five

During the U.S. Savings and Load crisis in the 80’s and 90’s, a gentleman named Charles Keating was being investigated for the corrupt mismanagement of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association in Irvine, California. Due to the deregulation of savings and load associations in the early 80’s, Keating was able to make highly risky investments with money from deposits in the form of land, equity in real estate development projects, and high-yield junk bonds. By 1984, Lincoln’s assets had increased from $1.1 billion to $5.5 billion. In the end, Keating served a five year sentence in prison due to his corrupt practices.

So what does this have to do with McCain? As it turns out, McCain knew Keating prior to the scandal breaking out and became personal friends with Keating after meeting in 1981. Since then, McCain received $112,000 in political contributions from Keating and McCain’s wife, Cindy, and her father invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center a year before McCain met with regulators. 

The story broke and five Senators (Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, Donald W. Riegle, and John McCain) were being accused of improperly aiding Keating. The reason for these accusations was due to a meeting that the five Senators had with regulators in 1987 to discuss the government’s investigation of Lincoln. It wasn’t until this meeting that McCain and others learned that Lincoln was under criminal investigation, at which point McCain severed all ties with Keating. 

McCain was cleared of any wrong doing but even McCain himself admitted that it looked bad. If anything, McCain was guilty of having bad judgement in his affiliation with Keating and allowing himself to be entangled in a very unusual meeting with regulators.

Ditching the First Wife

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that McCain has had a problem with infidelity. Although it’s true that McCain urged his first wife, Carol, to grant him a divorce so that he could marry Cindy, it is not known whether his marriage was already estranged prior to him dating Cindy. As far as anyone knows, him and Carol remain on good terms. Whether he cheated on Carol or not is mere speculation. No know knows the full details except him and his family. Quite frankly, regardless of whether anyone likes McCain or not, this isn’t really anyone’s business anyways. He’s now married to Cindy and has been married to her for quite sometime.

Underachiever?

McCain has joked in the recent past that he graduated in the bottom fifth of his class. Although this isn’t all that critical now, it is ironic that McCain’s academic achievements aren’t great, especially considering that he’s a candidate for the President of the United States. McCain attended the United States Naval Academy where he had conflict with higher-ranking personnel, didn’t always obey the rules, and ended up with a low class rank (894 of 899). Showing little interest in improving, McCain did well in subjects that he was interested in but only did enough to pass the sujects he didn’t like. McCain graduated in 1958 and went on to serve as a naval pilot on the USS Intrepid and USS Enterprise.

So what does all this mean? For starters, no one can question McCain’s military record. There’s no doubt in my mind that McCain has served his country well while in the Navy. And there’s no question that McCain has a wealth of experience due to the 16+ years of time he has spent in Congress. But what I question though is the 16+ years he has spent in Congress. Do we really need someone who has spent that much time as a Senator in the White House? It’s clear that McCain has made a few poor choices in judgement and, granted, no one is perfect. But stack that up against some of the folks McCain has associated himself with recently and in the past and you start to wonder whether he’s fully qualified to serve the highest office in the land. 

By comparison, Barack Obama may not have as much experience nor the military record McCain has, but what Obama does bring is an impressive academic background (with 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor), a sense of integrity and vision, and a determination to work with all members of Congress to solve this countries biggest problems. Given the severity of the problems in the United States, I honestly believe that the “safe choice” isn’t all that safe. Take a chance, have a little faith, and vote for Barack Obama.

Today, my mother forwarded me an email she received from a friend entitled Obama mocking the Bible. Included was a link to a YouTube video and the following words:

DEFFINATALLY SHOWS HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN !!!!! THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY !!! DO NOT LET HIM CHANGE IT!!!!!!!!!!

It’s clear that this person is ignorant, not just because he/she can’t spell but because his/her viewpoints are way out in left-field. And as Obama pointed out it’s as if people like this take pride in their ignorance.

Here’s the video in question:

The problem with this video is that the whole thing is taken completely out of context. In no way did Obama mock the Bible in any shape, fashion, or form. Anyone who has heard or read this speech would know that he was talking about the problems associated with religion and politics, the importance of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, and the importance religion has in many people’s lives including his own.  Below is a excerpt of his speech that includes the part shown in the video:

Excerpt from the ‘Call For Renewal‘ keynote address:

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do — some truths they need to acknowledge. 

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles. 

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now, ask yourself: Is he correct? How much do you know about the 1st Amendment? What freedoms do you think are protected by the 1st Amendment? Can you name just one?

Last time I had jury duty, the judge who presided over the court gave us a little booklet that included a copy of the Constitution as well as a print out of an article from USA Today entitled “God and the Constitution“. A survey of about 1,000 people was taken in which they asked “What specific rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment?”  Here are the results of that poll:

What shocked me was that 55% believed that the Constitution “establishes a Christian nation”. Even more disturbing is the assumption of special status of just one religion, that the Constitution protects only Christianity. Here’s some other startling results of the poll:

• 98% said the right to speak freely about whatever you want is essential or important. But 39% would muzzle public statements that might be offensive to religious groups, 42% would bar musicians from singing songs others might find offensive, 56% would outlaw public statements that might be offensive to racial groups, and 74% would prohibit public school students from wearing a T-shirt that others might find offensive.
• 97% said the right to practice the religion of your choice is essential or important, but only 56% said freedom of religion applies to all religious groups.
• 93% said the right to be informed by a free press is essential or important. But 37% would not allow newspapers to freely criticize U.S. military strategy or performance; 61% would impose government requirements on balancing conservative and liberal commentary in newspapers.

And exactly what does the First Amendment say?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Freedom of religion, separation of church and state, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, and the right to petition. These are rights guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.

And you mean to tell me that we’re strictly a Christian country? Not according to our Constitution.

Here’s something else you probably don’t know: Before Barack Obama became a state Senator in Illinois, he was a constitutional law professor for twelve years and the University of Chicago Law School. Do you think maybe he knows a little something about our Constitution and how our government work? I can guarantee he knows a hell of a lot more than you and I do.

Keep in mind, I’m not just defending Barack Obama. I’ll defend any outright lies and misquoted statements made about John McCain as well. Context is important, folks. I want the facts, not a whole lot of propaganda and lies that don’t amount to anything. Before you allow anyone to simply tell you what to think (like the gentleman in this video), learn the facts and draw a conclusion of your own. Although an opinion does not have to be based on fact, it certainly helps.

In the case of politics, it greatly helps to have an educated opinion. Learn the facts about who the candidates really are. Rather than letting some left-wing or right-wing whackos tell you who they are, learn the facts for yourself. And I’m not just talking about Barack Obama and John McCain.  I’m talking about all candidates. When it comes time to vote, you won’t be voting just for the President. You’ll also be voting for other seats. Who are the candidates for state Senator and the House? What about your state government officials? Find out. That’s what being part of the process is all about.

I don’t really have much this week. However, I did watch a video called The Commander In Chief Test. Granted, it’s humorous and in good fun, but it does illustrate one point: McCain doesn’t stand a chance of winning this election.

This week, John McCain has sunk himself into a pretty deep hole. The biggest hole though comes from an interview he had with Katie Couric on CBS News. Well…just watch for yourself and you’ll see what I mean:

What’s most troubling about this is the fact that CBS deliberately edited the interview. As to the motivations for doing so, I don’t know. This is a level of journalism though that is, frankly, complete and total bullshit. You either report the news as it is or you don’t. If you can’t bother to show me an unaltered, unbiased interview then don’t bother even reporting it.

Once the unedited version broke out though, many members of the media and press pointed out that McCain didn’t have his facts right regarding the Anbar Awakening and the surge in Iraq. It didn’t take long for McCain to respond to this bit of criticism. However, the response he gave was even more troubling:

Umm…what? I mean, what the f#$k is he even talking about? I have no idea!

And what is that behind him? Cheese! McCain be spoutin’ some cheese, man! Can I get some string cheese on my cracka, John!

Ok, ok. Maybe I took it a little too far in that last bit. But I digress.

The point is that McCain had no idea what he was talking about. But rather than simply admitting that he was wrong, he rambled on in an attempt to try and sound like he knew what he was talking about. That’s the absolute worst thing McCain could have done in this situation…and he did it anyways! That, my friends, is simply poor judgment.
Regardless of how anyone can attempt to fix McCain’s mistake, no matter how many ways you can try and spin it, McCain simply exercised poor judgment and failed to use three words that would have been a hell of a lot more respectful for him to say in this case: “I don’t know”. Instead, McCain chose to bullshit the American people rather than admitting his mistakes, which is not a good sign of proper leadership.

As much media coverage as Obama has received, you’d think that we would have heard Obama try and bullshit us just once. Ironically, I have not heard him talk about things for which he knew nothing about. He’s very good at articulating his thoughts and, in fact, I’ve heard Obama say “I don’t know” on a number of occasions. I respect that. I respect the fact that Obama has no problems admitting when he doesn’t know enough about a topic. I also respect him for admitting when he is wrong or when he mispoke and poorly phrased his statements, which doesn’t happen nearly as often as one would think. If anything, Obama has proven that he is human, that he’s going to make mistakes, but that he will learn through them and try not to repeat them. That, my friends, is a great sign of good leadership. Regardless of whether I agree with all his policies or not, he’ll have my vote.

Out of any office in the land, the one position where I feel that it’s critical that one be a good public speaker is the United States Presidency. Being a good speaker, though, is more than just being able to deliver a good speech. It’s also about being able to articulate your thoughts in an eloquent manner in the moment, whether that be in an interview, in front of a foreign dignitary, or another situation of equal importance. The President is, for all intents and purposes, the speaker for the American people both domestically and abroad. As such, he/she best be able to speak well in an effort to articulate properly the message of our government and, more importantly, the people.

John McCain simply isn’t a good candidate to represent our country. I’m amazed that so many Americans think of him as the safe choice. Why? How safe can he be when he can’t even say “I don’t know” and can’t admit that he doesn’t know enough to answer a specific question? If McCain were to become President, he would have to exercise good judgment each and every day. When he addresses the American people, he would have to use straight talk and tell the American people the truth each and every time.

As it is though, the only straight talk McCain is giving us is a straight talk about Jack and shit. Unfortunately for McCain though, Jack just left town.

It’s been a while since I’ve done any political posts on McCain. To be honest, I’m getting to a point where I’m so burned out on even trying to get any reasonable research to post. The kind of research I was aiming to do takes a lot of time to collate and put together in a form that’s presentable on the web. We’re talking tons of material from The Library of Congress on both candidate’s Senate records and each candidates positions based on the material freely available on their websites. Frankly, I think anyone who wishes to have an educated opinion on each of these candidates really needs to get on these sites and take some time to really read up on them. For now though, I’ll keep my posts centered on very specific areas.

Last week, my wife forwarded me a post made on The Carpetbagger Report entitled

“Jukebox John changes his tune every few minutes“. Author Steven Benen talks about how McCain has not been very consistent with his position on different policies and lists 60 different issues McCain has flip-flopped on. It’s quite an extensive list but, to name a few, here’s some of the ones (and perhaps the most dangerous ones) that really stick out for me:

1. McCain thought Bush’s warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.
2. McCain believed the U.S. should engage in diplomacy with Hamas. Now he believes the opposite.
3. McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”
4. McCain was against expanding the GI Bill before he was for it.
5. McCain defended “privatizing” Social Security. Now he says he’s against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)
6. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn’t.
7. McCain’s first mortgage plan was premised on the notion that homeowners facing foreclosure shouldn’t be “rewarded” for acting “irresponsibly.” His second mortgage plan took largely the opposite position.
8. McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.
9. John McCain initially argued that economics is not an area of expertise for him, saying, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues; I still need to be educated,” and “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” He now falsely denies ever having made these remarks and insists that he has a “very strong” understanding of economics.
10. McCain said in 2005 that he opposed the tax cuts because they were “too tilted to the wealthy.” By 2007, he denied ever having said this, and falsely argued that he opposed the cuts because of increased government spending.
11. McCain supported the Lieberman/Warner legislation to combat global warming. Now he doesn’t.
12. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.
13. McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.
14. McCain supported his own lobbying-reform legislation from 1997. Now he doesn’t.

Be sure and visit the site and read the others. Links are provided to legitimate sources that cite each of these positions.

Sure, people change their minds everyday, but for one man to constantly go back and forth on so many issues, that’s more than just simply changing your mind. It would seem that McCain’s position changes if it suits him politically. But, unlike McCain, Obama has always seemed very consistent in his positions. And when he has changed his mind he’s always been pretty good at explaining why. Not so with McCain.

Keith Olbermann some weeks back on Countdown mentioned many of the same points:

This weekend, I plan on posting another blog entry as sort of a followup to this post. I think my main criticism of McCain is that McCain is not a good representative of the Republican Party. Hell, I don’t think even the Republican Party is a good body of representation for true Republicans and conservatives alike, much less McCain. This is what I’ll be targeting with my next post. I think once you read it you’ll clearly understand where my criticism of McCain is coming from and why I think it’s unwise for so many Republican’s to embrace him simply because he is a Republican.

More on that later…

OMG! This is so damn hilarious! I don’t care which side you’re on, Republican or Democrat, you have to admit this is pretty damn funny:

Still have a lot of research to do in regards of the two Presidential candidates. So, for this post, I’m gonna let Keith Olbermann do all the talking. This one really hits home for me:

SPECIAL COMMENT: “NOT TOO IMPORTANT”