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 [↩]

Ann Coulter is at it again! Man, is this woman running out of things to talk about or what!? All she can do now is bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch. I’m not even going to go into detail about what she wrote because, quite frankly, it’s the usual right-wing, damn near fascist bullshit that I expect from her. It’s a rant without any real substance because there aren’t any hard core facts. The facts are just whatever she makes them out to be. So I’m not even going to waste my time doing a run by run playback of her crap. Instead, I’m going to talk about why she and the rest of the right-wing nut jobs are running scared these days.

Seems to me that Ann and others like her are in panic mode. She and others just like her can see the writing on the wall: McCain’s campaign is over! And how exactly did this happen? Is it because McCain and Palin can’t keep their mouths shut and can’t run a campaign without getting seriously dirty to the point of lying about Obama? Well, that certainly didn’t help but that’s not entirely it.

No, the real reason is that the McCain campaign was poorly managed. The way I see it, management of a campaign starts with the candidate. As such, McCain has no one to blame but himself. The mood and vibe of the campaign starts with him and trickles down to everyone in the campaign. If he’s crabby, lashes out with nasty comments about Obama, and doesn’t want to answer valid questions about the economy and other important issues, what do you think happens to his campaign? Exactly the same thing.

The McCain campaign has wasted money on nasty TV ads that outright lie about Obama. Plus, they built a rather shitty website that says little or nothing about what McCain would really do as President. I know because I have visited the McCain website at least twice a month to see what’s new. You wanna know what’s really interesting? The site has morphed and changed so many times. In fact, the most recent modifications seem to be a desperate attempt to make the site’s design look more like Obama’s site. I guess imitation is the best form of flattery.

And that’s all I can really say about the way McCain is running his campaign. If the guy can’t run his campaign worth a crap how do think he’ll do in the White House? Umm, duh! Sorry, but his style of management doesn’t persuade me to believe that he’s a good leader and is capable of managing the White House in an effective manner.

Now, let’s look at the Obama campaign.

Obama’s TV campaign is far more focused on the issues. Take the most recent ad, a two-minute ad called “Plan for Change” that was release on September 16th and focuses on the most recent economic issues. Although there have been a few questionable ads here and there, the number of ads that cross the line are no where near the level of John McCain’s ads. Yes, Obama’s ads do attack McCain but is mostly what you expect from just about any politician.

The topper though and a direct counterattack for all of the smears from the McCain campaign is a 14 minute documentary called Keating Economics. This was funded by the Obama campaign and appears to be something they kept in their back pocket just waiting to pull out when McCain decided to get nasty. Smart move on Obama’s part. It’s a well put together little piece.Then there’s Obama’s website, a site that hasn’t changed much since day one. The design is rock solid and the content is well organized. Take a look at the Issues section. I’m very impressed by the fact that they offer a really neat PDF called The Blue Print For Change that explains in detail many of Obama’s policies. Every section is very clear and well written, outlining the problem followed by a plan with solutions.   

What’s even more impressive is that the Obama campaign actually came out with their own iPhone app. I about shit a brick when I saw it! What’s even more impressive is that the application is actually pretty good. The design matches his site and it offers some pretty useful features. I especially like the Issues part of the app. Anytime anyone claims that Obama doesn’t have any plans I can whip it out and prove them wrong.  :D

And here is the whopper of all campaign strategies: a 30-minute block of time on CBS and NBC six days before the election! Yep! The Obama campaign’s grassroots funding actually managed to land enough to fund a 30-minute long ad right before the election! 

So where is McCain in all this? Why can’t his campaign be as well managed as Obama’s? The way McCain has managed his campaign just shows that he’s clearly out of touch. I don’t know about you but I would much rather have Obama as the President because, let’s face it, he sure as hell knows more about running and managing a campaign better than McCain. I’ll take that kind of management experience and leadership any day!  :D

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.

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…

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”

As the Presidential election continues, I’ve been thinking a lot about the two candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain. I’ve thought about the philosophies and points of view that are so different between them. Being that I’ve been an IT professional for over six years and a web developer for almost as long, it’s only fitting that I draw a comparison with the current Presidential election to the two operating systems I’ve used intimately for the past ten years or so: Apple’s Mac OS and Microsoft’s Windows.

If you’ve never used a Mac then you might not have a clue what I’m talking about in this post. And when I say used I mean more than just a few hours. Anyone who has spent more than a month using a Mac will know exactly where I’m coming from and why I draw the kind of comparison I’m talking about to the current Presidential election. Comparing Windows users to Mac users is very much like comparing devoted Republicans to Democrats.

I recently read a three-part series of articles entitled From Win32 to Cocoa: a Windows user’s conversion to Mac OS X (part 1, part 2, part 3). This series of articles does a great job of reinforcing my views and illustrates my own experiences that made me switch from Windows to Mac.

I’ve used Windows since Windows 95 and was a staunch supporter of Microsoft, defending them even when criticism was at an all time high during the late 90’s and into the turn of the century. But after spending three years as an IT Supervisor for a small architectural firm, dealing with day to day issues with the administration of Microsoft software, and beta testing Microsoft’s latest OS, Windows Vista, my philosophy started to change.

The first change came when I got sick of dealing with Microsoft’s .NET platform for doing web development. I felt that there had to be something easier and just as powerful to use. So I ended up switching to the use of Apache web servers, PHP, MySQL, and Linux/Unix-based servers as my platforms of choice for web development.

The final change came when I went out and bought a Mac Mini out of frustration. The tools I was using for web development just weren’t working right on my Windows-based PC and I really wanted a change. I was already highly familiar with Linux and Unix-based operating systems so a Mac wasn’t that much of a jump for me. Once I got up and running I haven’t looked back ever since. I even formatted my old PC and turned it into a Linux server.

So how does this translate to the current election?

When I was beta testing Vista, it became clear to me that Microsoft was giving me more of the same. They were more or less trying to candy coat everything in a slick package and attempting to solve all of the users problems with band-aids. What they ended up with was a bloated mess of an operating system that required twice the horse power that Windows XP required. As such, anyone who wanted to use Windows Vista would have to buy all new hardware….including businesses, who are Microsoft’s biggest customers. What’s worse is that there are so many similarities to Mac OS X. They practically ripped off ideas from Apple. Yep, there’s lots of pork in Vista.

From a developers point of view, writing applications for Windows is a trying experience. I certainly remember my time trying to get a .NET web application working. I felt like I spent more time dicking around with the configuration than I did actually writing code. As Peter Bright points out:

Windows is dying, Windows applications suck, and Microsoft is too blinkered to fix any of it–that’s the argument. The truth is that Windows is hampered by 25-year old design decisions. These decisions mean that it’s clunky to use and absolutely horrible to write applications for. The applications that people do write are almost universally terrible. They’re ugly, they’re inconsistent, they’re disorganized; there’s no finesse, no care lavished on them. Microsoft–surely the company with the greatest interest in making Windows and Windows applications exude quality–is, in fact, one of the worst perpetrators.

Microsoft has always been a company that would have you believe that Windows and other products like Microsoft Office are the only solutions to consider for your business and personal life. They pretty much invented the use of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Anytime a competitor has threatened their core business, they do what they can to either stomp it out or entice their users to keep using Windows with a little FUD (”Are you sure that’s wise?”).

The thing is that Microsoft doesn’t care about the conscientious developer or the home user. They only care about making their primary core customers happy: corporate enterprise customers. As such, Microsoft doesn’t really have to re-invent themselves if their corporate customers are happy. Corporate users are happy with “good enough”, which is exactly what Microsoft gives them.

Candy coating, band-aids, bloat, pork, inconsistent, disorganized, poorly managed, corporate loving, FUD, disillusioned user base, copycat design, more of the same, good enough. Gee…is this starting to sound like the Republican Presidential campaign?

Apple, on the other hand, is a company that is about forward, outside-of-the-box thinking. Their products speak for themselves. All you have to do is pick up an iPhone and realize just how much time and attention went into it. Apple is a company that attempts to solve problems by creating computers and gadgets that are well designed and highly usable. Much of their success has a lot to do with their leadership:

Apple is Apple. Apple, as a company, prides itself on being a leader, not a follower. As Steve Jobs famously quoted Wayne Gretzky, “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been”. So the charismatic (some might say dictatorial) Apple leadership wants the company to be seen as one that looks forward, not backward.

Apple practices good, solid user-centric design in every product they create. I’ve read many books about application and product design for my web development practices and Apple is always used as an example of good design. Good design is about communication. A well thought-out, well designed product communicates to you by showing you how it will solve your problem. In times like this, the product speaks for itself. What makes Apple’s products so good is that they accomplish something that many other companies fail to do: to make a product that is easy and fun to use and addresses the needs of what most people need.

Apple’s products are honest and direct. For Apple, less is more. You don’t need every bell and whistle. You don’t need a bunch of useless features that you’ll never use. So they get rid of the fluff and bloat and leave behind only what is necessary to get the job done. What you’re left with is a clean, usable product that is a joy to use.

Granted, Apple isn’t perfect. They do make mistakes and they are flawed in areas, and Steve Jobs would be the first to admit it. Most users don’t really know what they want till they see it so Apple tries to anticipate what users will want to use in the future by asking questions and creating new products based on new ideas and innovation. Many times they succeed, but sometimes they fail. But they learn from their failures and move on. Part of their failures includes listening to their users and asking them why a product wasn’t good. That’s just good management and good business.

Leadership, forward, outside-of-the-box thinking, communication, well managed, honest, direct, clean, usable, fallible, innovative. I don’t expect perfection but I don’t want something that’s just “good enough”. I just want it to work and work well and solve my problems. Apple give me that. I think Barack Obama will give me that as well.