Even after McCain's ridiculous threat of delay, the debate went on as planned.
No huge arguments, no huge gaffes, and not much new. Both candidates stuck with what they have been saying throughout the course of their campaigns (if you don't count McCain's flip-flops from his earlier stances on torture and the treatment of Veterans).
What disappointed me most about the evening was the media coverage of the "results" of the debate. As it ended they were already saying that Obama appeared weaker, and that he agreed too much with McCain. WHAT? The CBS instant poll of undecided voters clearly showed that Obama was more well received then McCain. So why was the coverage saying otherwise?
"Thirty-nine percent of uncommitted voters who watched the debate tonight thought Barack Obama was the winner. Twenty-four percent thought John McCain won. Thirty-seven percent saw it as a draw.
Forty-six percent of uncommitted voters said their opinion of Obama got better tonight. Thirty-two percent said their opinion of McCain got better.
Sixty-six percent of uncommitted voters think Obama would make the right decisions about the economy. Forty-two percent think McCain would.
Forty-eight percent of these voters think Obama would make the right decisions about Iraq. Fifty-six percent think McCain would."
Lets pretend for a minute that all of these numbers add up (66% + 42% =100%?). Overall, the largest percent, 39%, thought that Barack Obama won the debate. Bringing up the rear was John McCain at 27% - even less then those who thought it was a draw (37%). If this is the case (even though it adds up to 103%), Obama clearly "won" the debate, so why was the media portraying it differently?
Many people who are less informed about the candidates turn to the media to find answers. When they watch the debates and struggle to understand what the candidates are saying they depend on the media to help them decode it. This is why I can't stand the media reporting who "won" the debate before people have even vocalized their thoughts.
Another thing that bothered me about the media coverage was that there was not much mention of McCain's refusal to make any kind of eye contact with Obama, well that is except for the wonderfully liberal MSNBC.
That really disgusted me. No matter how much you dislike someone, when you are having a debate or discussion, you need to show them enough respect to at least make eye contact with them. It is just common manners. In the video, if you watch the clip from the debate and ignore Chris Matthew's rant, you can see that Obama was genuinely trying to make eye contact and connection with McCain - but McCain was just standing there smirking, shaking his head, or looking blankly into the audience. It is really hard to try and have a discussion with someone who won't even look at you.
How can we trust McCain to have meaningful talks and discussions with foreign leaders if he can't even look his opponent in the eye? As President, he would face many situations where he would have to talk to someone he doesn't care for. The kindergarten, game-like approach of refusing to make eye contact does not work in the real world. It would be embarrassing and completely unproductive for America to have a president that handles himself in that manner.
The media was focused on what they saw as weakness from Obama. Many media outlets were saying that Obama agreed with McCain too much. They were even showing videos that McCain supporters had put together of all the times that Obama said something to the effect of "I agree with Senator McCain on..."
There is a key word missing in these sentences - BUT. I agree with Senator McCain, but...
Here is an example of one of these sentences in context (from a transcript of the debate)
"And I have to say, Senator McCain and I, I think agree on the importance of energy, but Senator McCain mentioned earlier the importance of looking at a record.
Over 26 years, Senator McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel.
And so we -- we -- we've got to walk the walk and not just talk the talk when it comes to energy independence, because this is probably going to be just as vital for our economy and the pain that people are feeling at the pump -- and, you know, winter's coming and home heating oil -- as it is our national security and the issue of climate change that's so important."
Why is this looked on so poorly? Obama was clear and honest about where he agreed with John McCain on some of the issues, BUT then he would say where their opinions differed and explained his plans to solve the issue. Why do they have to be complete opposites on every issue? I think they can both agree that we are in the midst of a major economic crisis and action needs to be taken, BUT they have different ways of dealing with it. This is how you have a productive conversation. This is talking with someone instead of at them. This is basic respect and the first step at creating solutions. This is what we need in a leader.
I will end this entry with one of my favorite McCain quotes from the debate. It has nothing to do with the rest of my post, but it supplied at least minutes of amusement to my friends and I as we watched the debate.
"And we fixed it and we killed it"
Fixed it AND killed it?
4 days until the Vice Presidential debate (I can't wait!) and 37 days until the election...
McCain announced yesterday that he plans to halt his campaign to help Washington deal with the current economic crisis. He urged Obama to do the same and asked that their debate set for tomorrow be delayed.
When I first heard this news I couldn't believe it. More games and politicizing of issues. Does he seriously believe that he and Obama will play such a pivotal role in the decision being made in Washington that they couldn't possibly go on with the scheduled debate? Obama's response to his request really hit the nail on the head,
"It is going to be part of the president's job to deal with more than one thing at once. I think there's no reason why we can't be constructive in helping to solve this problem and also tell the American people what we believe, and where we stand, and where we want to take the country."
YES! Our President should be able to have a handle on two things at once! I personally think that there were two main factors driving McCain's attempt to delay the debate.
(1) He wants to be known as the hero that put "America First"
He wants the American people to think that his number one concern is them, but in reality he saw himself slipping in the polls and decided to do something drastic. He already chose Sarah Palin as the VP nominee, so now he had to try something else. After missing an appearance on David Letterman's show in order to fly to Washington to focus on the crisis (a.k.a do another interview in NY), Letterman made a funny, yet true, observation on his show
“We’re suspending the campaign. Suspending it because there’s an economic crisis, or because the poll numbers are sliding?"
McCain is putting "Campaign First" not "America First", and his attempt to delay the debate shows this clearly. We only have 40 days left to learn about the person who will lead our country for at least the next 4 years - McCain needs to learn how to multi-task and not neglect his commitment as the Republican party's nominee. If the debate was something like a fundraiser, or typical speaking engagement, I would understand - but this is a nationally broadcasted debate. This is one of the few times that the nominees will be able to talk to millions of people about serious issues that will directly affect America's future. McCain should realize this and stop making a serious event into a political game. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said,
"We need leadership, not a campaign photo op"
(2) He is scared to death to have Sarah Palin debate Joe Biden
McCain has already gone through great lengths to make the VP debate easier on Sarah Palin. The New York Times reported that the McCain campaign stuck a deal with the Obama campaign to allow free-flowing style debates between the Presidential candidates in return for a softer, more structure styled debate for the Vice Presidential candidates.
"At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden, will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates."
The McCain campaign has made it clear that they do not have confidence in Palin's ability to speak to the press, and now they are making it clear that they do not have confidence in her ability to compete in a debate. This is just sad. How do they expect anyone to trust her to lead this country if they can't even trust her enough to speak in a debate?
Her Katie Couric interviews make it clear why they lack confidence in her abilities.
She gets frazzled at every question. She won't even admit that listing Alaska's proximity to Russia as Foreign Policy experience is a joke. The few interviews that the McCain campaign have allowed her to do explain why they are afraid for her to debate. This does not bode well for someone who has over a 30% chance of becoming the next President if McCain gets elected.
With only 40 days left until the election, if tomorrow's debate gets delayed there is a good chance that the VP debate will have to be canceled all together in order to allow time for the 3 Presidential debates, and McCain knows this.
McCain's campaign suspension and his request to delay the debate is desperate attempt to regain momentum. The debates are they way we really get to know the candidates. We get to see how they interact with each other and with others, and how they react when put on the spot - important things to know about our next President. I understand that the financial crisis is a huge deal, but so is deciding who will lead our country the next 4 years. McCain is not putting politics aside by doing this. Instead, he is infusing more politics into the debate and into the important negotiations being held in Washington.
As Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist, said to CNN,
"It's preposterous that we can't have a presidential debate in the middle of this economic crisis. We had a presidential campaign in 1864, when Sherman was marching on Atlanta. We had a presidential election in 1944, when D-Day was going on in Normandy. We can have a debate on Friday. In fact, it's probably the most important thing McCain and them could be doing, would be to debate the issues."
Only a matter of hours until the debate (hopefully) and only 40 days until the election...
Ok, so I would probably be willing to go farther - but I have a swing state just 4 hours away.
This is the third Presidential election that I have voted in, but the first that I have followed actively. In case you didn't notice the now infamous Shepard Fairy poster to the right, I support Barack Obama. I truly believe in Obama's message. Throughout this election he has shown the leadership, compassion, motivation, intellect, poise, and good judgment that America really needs in a President. His message of change has motivated me to help however I can.
If there is one thing that the 2004 election taught me, it is that I live in my Bay Area bubble. I realize that I live in an area where I am surrounded with people who share many of my political views. In 2004, I genuinely thought that there was no way that Bush would be elected for a second term...how could he? Everyone I talked to hated him. Kerry losing the election in 2004 opened up my eyes to the sad possibility that Barack Obama isn't necessarily a shoe-in to win this election, no matter what my Bay Area bubble may tell me.
Now, back to Nevada. It's close, it's a swing state, it's only worth 5 electoral votes - but hey, in this election every electoral vote counts. On Obama's website they present some great ways for Californians to get involved and help out in Nevada. Here are two that I plan on participating in:
Making Telephone Calls
The Neighbor to Neighbor program lets Obama supporters from California call voters in Nevada. The website says
"In all states, you'll be able to immediately start calling potential supporters. Once you select a campaign on the right, you'll get a list of voters either in your state or in an important battleground state. You can pick up the phone and get calling immediately."
I have to say that I am a little nervous about calling people. I expect to be hung up on, yelled at, and I might even befriend a few crazies during this process - but if I help to motivate even one person to vote for Obama - I will call it success.
Don't worry Dad - I won't be overly persistent or annoying, those people annoy me as much as they annoy you. I won't make it my duty to change the minds of hard-core Republicans. I just hope to talk to a few people who are interested in finding out more about their choice in this election.
Drive For Change
Obama supporters in California also have the chance to Drive for Change. If you are in Northern California you can drive to Reno or Carson City, and if you are in Southern California you can drive to Las Vegas. Here is a short description from the website:
"There are a number of activities for which the Nevada Campaign for Change needs volunteers, most which involve a lot of walking door-to-door. These include voter registration, voter contact and persuasion, and Get Out The Vote efforts."
Again, I'm a little nervous to do go door to door, but at the same time speaking face to face with people has been shown to be the most effective way to communicate and connect with people. I will have to try to overcome my shy, anti-social tendencies and speak to a lot of scary people I don't know.
I'm not sure how much of a difference making phone calls and going door to door in Nevada will make, but I feel like I have to try to help somehow. The thought of a McCain-Palin White House scares the crap out of me, and has driven my boyfriend to research what it would take to get us Canadian Visas.
With only 42 days left until the election, now is the time to help...
Barack Obama recently released a two minute ad where he talks about America's economic problems. In the video he lays out his plan to fix the economy by focusing on 5 important issues: taxes, Wall Street, energy, lobbyists, and Iraq.
For a while, both campaigns were doing more mudslinging then focusing on the issues. It was visible that Obama and his campaign were a little thrown by the announcement of Sarah Palin as VP nominee and the media frenzy that ensued. I am glad to see that he is back to talking about what is important instead of constantly being on the defense.
Obama has laid out a clear, different plan to deal with the economic downturn we are currently facing. McCain speaks of change, but most of his economic plans are either the same as we have seen for the last eight years, or a turn from his traditional standings in order to convince people that he is capable of changing things. How are we supposed to trust someone who has shown such bad judgment, and subscribed to the failed policies that have lead us to where we are today?
Obama's video left me wondering how the two candidates compare on the 5 important economic issues he spoke about. What is Obama's plan of action, and how does McCain propose we deal with these issues?
Taxes As in every election, taxes are one of the major issues. Obama says he will:
"Reform our tax system to give a $1,000 tax break to the middle class instead of showering more on oil companies and corporations that outsource our jobs."
Obama wants to give tax breaks to those who are in need of that relief, and only raise taxes on those in the top 1.1% income bracket. His plan is to tax the oil companies that have been making ridiculous amount of profits off of the ever increasing gas prices and give that money to the working people. He will also eliminate income taxes for senior citizens making less then $50,000 per year.
The Washington Post put together a chart that compares Obama and McCain's tax plans
Obama's tax plan really only raises taxes on those making over $600,000 per year. The majority of people, over 80% of people, and over 95% of families, will see a much needed tax break.
McCain's plan, on the other hand, seems to be completely backwards. He gives the greatest tax cuts for those who need it the least, and he gives the smallest tax cuts to those who are struggling the most. Plus, he is only supplying tax reliefs and doesn't increase any taxes at all. We already have a gigantic deficit, so how is he going to give so much tax relief, continue a multi-billion dollar-a-month war, and reduce America's debt? The "trickle-down effect" of giving tax cuts to the wealthiest and hoping that everyone will eventually benefit does not work. This isn't change, this is the failed policy that has lead to the economic crisis we are facing today.
Wall Street The last few days have shown us that there is a real problem on Wall Street. Obama wants to
"End the 'anything goes' culture on Wall Street with real regulation that protects your investments and pensions."
John McCain now says that that he also supports regulation on Wall Street. On Tuesday when speaking in Tampa he said:
"In my administration, we're going to hold people on Wall Street responsible. And we're going to enact and enforce reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place."
But this is much different then what he has said in the past. McCain has made it clear that he was a supporter of deregulation and less government involvement. An article in The Washington Post gave an example of his history:
"In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.
That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments."
McCain's flip-flop, and history of fighting for deregulation do not instill confidence in his judgment and his ability to create an effective economic plan.
Energy Energy and the environment are huge issues that need attention. Now that it is effecting people financially, both candidates are taking stands on the issues - but only one is presenting the change we need. Obama wants to:
"Fast track a plan for energy 'made-in-America' that will free us from our dependence on mid-east oil in 10 years and put millions of Americans to work."
He wants to free us from our dependence on foreign oil by focusing on the development of clean and renewable energy. His plan will really have three tiers of benefits: breaking our dependence on forign oil, creating new jobs, and helping to protect the environment. Obama and Biden lay out their plan on their website:
"Obama and Biden will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. The plan will also invest in America's highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the first wave of green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world."
So what is McCain's plan? He wants to "drill, baby, drill". In the briefing paper of his economic plan (found on his website) he lists offshore drilling first. Renewable energy falls further down on this list and doesn't include many specifics:
"To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until renewable energy has progressed to the point that it is competitive with conventional energy sources."
Where is the sense of urgency? He is making it sound like he will keep things as they are and hope for the best. Without making it a main focus, and creating a specific plan to support its development, renewable energy sources will never become competitive with conventional energy sources.
Drilling is not the answer, and by no means is it sustainable. If we start drilling now, we will not see a drop of oil for five to eight years, and the oil that is there would only last us another 10 years at the rate we use it. If we put all the focus on drilling for new oil, we won't make any progress with renewable energy. We are already waiting until the last minute to make the necessary changes, and the financial and environmental implications will become irreversible if we wait much longer.
Lobbyists If you ask me, one of the benefits of electing Barack Obama as the next President is that he doesn't have the history in Washington that other politicians have. He is able to keep a fresh viewpoint and not be swayed by lobbyists. His running mate, Joe Biden, has been in congress much longer - but considering that he is the second poorest in the Senate after all his time in Washington shows that he too has been able to avoid corruption. In his video, Obama said that he wants to:
"Crack down on lobbyists – once and for all -- so their back-room deal-making no longer drowns out the voices of the middle class and undermines our common interests as Americans."
As Obama has mentioned in multiple speeches, many of McCain's closest advisers are lobbyists. McCain's rebuttal to this is that they are not "currently" lobbyists. The truth is that they were lobbyists before the campaign, and most likely will be lobbyists after the campaign is over (unless McCain wins and appoints them otherwise). He just made it a rule that they couldn't lobby during the campaign. The corruption is still there, whether or not they have taken a short break from it.
Iraq And finally, there's the issue of Iraq. We are spending BILLIONS of dollars EACH MONTH on a pointless war. This money needed much more elsewhere - helping the American people with the everyday hardships they face like healthcare costs and unemployment. Obama says he wants to:
"Bring a responsible end to this war in Iraq so we stop spending billions each month rebuilding their country when we should be rebuilding ours."
Obama outlines a clear plan on his website for the removal of troops from Iraq:
"Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began."
Now, I could post the section of the quote from McCain saying that he wants us to spend 100 years in Iraq, but I won't - because I don't want to take things out of context. Instead I will take information directly from his website. Unfortunately, it doesn't sound much better:
"It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively. We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East. Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran. These likely consequences of America's failure in Iraq almost certainly would either require us to return or draw us into a wider and far costlier war."
Al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before we started the war. So what does McCain want us to do? Stay in Iraq and hunt for Al Qaeda when are troops would be better off back at home or at least somewhere else, like Afghanistan, with the focus on fighting terrorists - not Iraq. A plan with such vague goals, and an indefinable definition of victory, really could leave us in Iraq for 100 years. "America's failure" would not be ending the war Iraq. Failure would be staying in Iraq for pointless reasons.
I am all for clear and productive messages like the one Obama sent in his ad. It is refreshing to hear two minutes of actual straight talk about the issues. Lets hope this is a trend that continues.
If there is one thing that I can't stand, it is sexism - but over the course of the last few weeks I have discovered something that is even more insulting, claiming sexism where it doesn't exist in order to get ahead.
Since Sarah Palin was named as his VP pick, John McCain and his campaign's defense to anything brought up against her is to cry sexism. You think she doesn't have enough experience? You must be belittling her accomplishments because you are sexist. You don't agree with her opposition to teaching sex education in schools? You must be picking on her because her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, and that is sexist. You question John McCain's true intentions by choosing her as a running mate? You must be sexist.
The way McCain campaign cries sexism at every turn makes it virtually impossible to critique or question her in anyway. The way they have gone about introducing and campaigning around Palin makes it completely clear that choosing her for VP was a strategic choice based on her being a woman.
As a woman, I am insulted by this in many ways. Here are just a few:
(1) The thought that women who voted for Hilary Clinton will vote for her simply because she is a woman.
THIS is sexist. Even though I have been a Obama supporter since the primaries, I understand that Hilary Clinton is an extraordinary woman. She has experience, dedication, and has done so much not only for women, but for this country. To think that women would vote for McCain simply because he has a female on his ticket - someone who doesn't even compare to Clinton - is disgusting. It shows no respect for women, or the American people.
(2) Claiming that Palin is more relatable, simply because she is a working mother.
I find this to be reverse sexism. Are people forgetting that Obama, Biden, and even McCain are all fathers? Palin is praised for being a working mother, but for some reason the same doesn't happen for Joe Biden, who was for years a single, working father. A father so dedicated to his family that to this day takes the train home every evening from DC to Delaware. How is it that people won't relate to his story, but will relate to Palin's story?
Barack Obama is also fantastic father, you can see it in the way his daughters interact with him. At their age that isn't something that can be faked, those girls adore their father. He is motivated out of love and the hope to see them grow up in a world that provides for them and treats them fairly. So why isn't he praised as much as Palin?
(3) Portraying innocent statements as sexist.
McCain's campaign is trying to make Obama and Biden walk on glass over everything that they say about Palin. I find this ironic, considering she, herself, compared hockey moms to pit-bulls in lipstick, and released a picture of herself in a shirt that says "I may be broke, but I am not flat busted" over the chest of it:
If either of these statements were said by anyone else, the Republican party would have jumped all over it.
And of course, as soon as Obama uses any phrase referring to lipstick - he is being sexist, or attacking Palin. The other day he used the phrase "pig in lipstick", as he has done in the past, and the McCain campaign instantly called it an attack against Palin. Here is the quote in its entirety.:
"John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're really going to shake things up in Washington. That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."
This is clearly about McCain's policies, not Palin. John McCain himself used the expression “lipstick on a pig” in October 2007 when speaking about Hillary Clinton’s health-care plan, but if you talk to the Republicans, somehow this time it is "different". McCain needs to stop playing games and start focusing on issues. It is getting offensive, old, and pathetic.
Months ago, before Palin was nominated, she said the following about Hilary Clinton's claims of sexism and unfair media coverage:
"When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or, you know, maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, man, that doesn’t do us any good. Women in politics, women in general wanting to progress this country. I don’t think it’s, it bodes well for her -- a statement like that."
Oh, but how things change once the roles are reversed. I do agree with her though (probably the only time I will say that), this does not help women to progress. Especially the fake sexism claims that are happening now. As a woman, I find it embarrassing. Putting so much focus on these fake, pointless claims makes it that much harder to identify and address legitimate claims. Sadly, when having a women nominated to be Vice President should push the Women's Movement forward, stupid campaign games and attempts to manipulate the public, are actually pushing it back.
Finally, I find it incredibly hypocritical of John McCain to claim that Obama is sexist considering his own history. He has made many ACTUAL sexist remarks of his own. For example, at a GOP fundraiser in 1998 he made the joke:
"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? -Because Janet Reno is her father."
Let's stop the games and false claims, and get back to the issues.
After watching both the DNC and the RNC, it seems that the word “change” is being thrown around right and left - no pun intended. While Barack Obama has been running on a platform of change since the start of his campaign, John McCain and his campaign have just recently started to focus on change - probably an attempt to dissociate himself with a largely unpopular President. Obama summed up this switch while speaking to supporters in Indiana,
“Everywhere I go we’ve been talking about change, that’s been the theme of this campaign, and we must be on to something, because I notice now everyone’s talking about change now.”
The New York Times counted theme specific words used at both the conventions. Below is a picture of the results:
Change, as expected, was a reoccurring theme at the DNC. A little more surprising was the use of it at the RNC. Previously, McCain wasn't running on the platform of change, but more on the platform of experience. Now it is one of the most talked about topics, falling only behind God and taxes.
So, what does "change" really mean to McCain? Below is a look at a few of the change issues that were discussed at the RNC, and the truth behind the issues presented.
McCain refers to himself as a Maverick, reaching over party lines to get things accomplished. He says that the government needs to move away from its partisan ways and unite as Americans. The truth is that McCain used to be somewhat of a Maverick, but in the recent years, and especially during this presidential campaign, he has changed his stance on multiple issues in order to become more electable in the Republican party. John Kerry mentioned this in his speech at the DNC:
"Candidate McCain now supports the wartime tax cuts that Senator McCain once denounced as immoral. Candidate McCain criticizes Senator McCain’s own climate change bill. Candidate McCain says he would now vote against the immigration bill that Senator McCain wrote. Are you kidding? Talk about being for it before you’re against it.
Let me tell you, before he ever debates Barack Obama, John McCain should finish the debate with himself. And what’s more, Senator McCain, who once railed against the smears of Karl Rove when he was the target, has morphed into candidate McCain who is using the same 'Rove' tactics and the same 'Rove' staff to repeat the same old politics of fear and smear."
As the Democrats mentioned multiple times during their convention, over the last eight years McCain has voted with President George Bush over 90% of the time. In fact, in 2008 he has voted with Bush 100% of the time. During his speech at the convention he said:
" We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children."
It is laughable that someone who has been continuously voting with our current President can talk so urgently about the need to change. In recent years, McCain has been more of a follower and a conformer then a Maverick and a reformer.
John McCain also spoke about breaking our dependence from foreign oil. I think that both Obama and McCain can agree that this is a change we need, but they have different ways of going about it. McCain wants to put more focus on domestic offshore drilling, and some focus on renewable energy sources. One of the most memorable chants from the RNC was "drill baby, drill" which came out of Giuliani's speech.
The main focus should be away from oil and onto renewable and clean energy - for our environment and for our energy independence. The more that we depend on oil, the slower we will be to discover and develop alternative energy sources. If any drilling does need to happen, it should be seen as secondary, and brief way to subsidize energy until we have the alternative methods ready. If we put the main focus on drilling, we will be back in the same boat 10 years from now, and our environment will be that much weaker and harder to revive. The energy change that really needs to happen is the type of change that Barack Obama will bring.
Another change that McCain presented were tax cuts to stimulate the economy. He wants to give tax cuts to large corporations and is banking on the trickle-down effect to increase jobs and economic well being for those facing tight times. This tactic isn't change at all. It is the unsuccessful tactic used in years past. One of Bush's strongest talking points in 2000 was tax cuts like these. The years have proven that giving tax breaks to the richest is not an effective way to stimulate the economy, and it definitely isn't change.
I won't even get started on Governor Sarah Palin; I am sure that will be another post. I do want to point out that she mentioned change three times during her speech at the RNC, but never talked about what needed to change - only saying that their ticket would create change. That really represents the majority of what I saw during the RNC, a lot of talk and mud-slinging, but no specifics or concrete examples of real change.
This blog is a place for me to discuss/vent/share my thoughts on politics, happenings in the news, books, fun internet finds, and basically anything on my mind. Big thanks all of my readers (mom and dad) for taking the time to read my thoughts.
How can we trust McCain to have meaningful talks and discussions with foreign leaders if he can't even look his opponent in the eye? As President, he would face many situations where he would have to talk to someone he doesn't care for. The kindergarten, game-like approach of refusing to make eye contact does not work in the real world. It would be embarrassing and completely unproductive for America to have a president that handles himself in that manner.
