flipped and script
August 3, 2008
Obama flips on oil drilling. Will not debate other than the traditional three.
Critics cite his fear of being off script.
Ooops!
July 29, 2008
A surprising poll released Monday confirms Sen. Barack Obama’s worst nightmare: he actually lost ground to Sen. John McCain after a global trip meant to buck up his sagging credentials in foreign and military policy.
The USA Today/Gallup poll has McCain leading Obama by four points, 49 percent to Obama’s 45 percent, among likely voters.
Obama’s Has Acomplished_____?
July 24, 2008
56.4% of Americans draw a blank when asked to name one thing Obama has accomplished in his career; 47.5% do the same when asked about McCain, according to the July American Pulse Survey of 4,053 respondents. A Vietnam tour of duty and subsequent time spent as a POW is top of mind for 29.1% of Americans who did list an accomplishment for McCain. 9.6% (the largest percentage for those who provided an answer) gave a general statement about political views/bills for Obama.
McCain Gets an Interview with Couric
July 23, 2008
McCain got an interview with KAtie Couric. She had to travel around the world to do it.
McCain says that Obama is simply illprepared to take on the issues at hand here and abroad.
McCain more sincere than Obama?
July 8, 2008
According to the June American Pulse Survey of 4,082 respondents, half of Americans (50.6%) say John McCain is somewhat/very sincere in his campaign promises, compared to 42.5% who say the same about Barack Obama. McCain also fares better when it comes to credibility in his pledges among Independents who may hold the key in a close race this November.
Somewhat/Very Sincere in Campaign Promises
All Adults Republicans Democrats Independents
McCain 50.6% 80.0% 32.8% 50.4%
Obama 42.5% 23.8% 60.6% 44.1%
Source: American Pulse, Jun 08
(For complete complimentary findings, click here: http://americanpulse.bigresearch.com.)
Other key findings:
- Close to half (49.1%) fear terrorists could infiltrate the Oval Office, Congress, CIA, FBI or other high-powered government offices.
Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election:
July 7, 2008
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
MCCAIN
15% (no change)
OBAMA
28 %
CLINTON
24%
How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal w ill adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income.
DIVIDEND TAX
MCCAIN
15% (no change)
OBAMA
39.6%
CLINTON
39.6%
How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama or Clinton become president. The experts predict that “Higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit.”< FONT face=Arial size=2>
INCOME TAX
MCCAIN
(no changes)
Single making 3 0K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - ta x $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
S ingle making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
CLINTON
(reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
How does this affect you? This is pretty straight forward. You will pay more tax on your incom e.
INHERITANCE TAX
MCCAIN
0%
(No change, Bush repealed this tax)
OBAMA
keep the inheritance tax
CLINTON
keep the inheritance tax
How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes.
NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY BOTH CLINTON AND OBAMA
* New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet
* New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren’t high enough already)
* New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity)
* New taxes on retirement accounts
and last but not least….
* New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!!
Can you afford Clinton or Obama? I can’t!
McCain Goes After Obama’s Oil Policy
June 18, 2008
Change Yes We can right back to the Carter era.
John McCain and Barack Obama drilled each over energy yesterday. McCain called Obama a Jimmy Carter clone for proposing an oil-profits tax, but Obama had his own retort as he blasted McCain as a toady of oil barons.
Speaking in Houston, where many energy companies are headquartered, McCain said of Obama, “He supports new taxes on oil producers. He wants a windfall-profits tax on oil, to go along with the new taxes he also plans for coal and natural gas.
“If the plan sounds familiar, it’s because that was President Jimmy Carter’s big-idea tool - and a lot of good it did us. I’m all for recycling - but it’s better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s.”
Mrs McCain V Mrs Obama
June 5, 2008
While Obama’s wife has been hating America, complaining about the war and undermining our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, McCain’s wife has been worrying about her sons who actually are fighting or planning to fight in the war on terror. One, in fact, was until a few months ago deployed in Iraq during some of the worst violence.
You don’t hear the McCains talk about it, but their 19-year-old Marine, Jimmy, is preparing for his ’second’ tour of duty. Their 21-year-old son, Jack, is poised to graduate from Annapolis and also could join the Marines as a second lieutenant. The couple made the decision not to draw attention to their sons out of ‘respect for other families’ with sons and daughters in harm’s way.
Cindy also says she doesn’t want to risk falling apart on the campaign trail talking about Jimmy who was so young when he enlisted she had to sign consent forms for his medical tests before he could report for duty and potentially upsetting parents of soldiers who are serving or have been killed.
The McCains want to make sure their boys get no special treatment. Same goes for their five other children, including a daughter they adopted from Bangladesh. During a visit to Mother Teresa’s orphanage there, Cindy noticed a dying baby. The orphanage could not provide the medical care needed to save her life. So she brought the child home to America for the surgery she desperately needed. The baby is now their healthy, 16-year-old daughter, Bridget.
Though all seven McCain children including two Sen. McCain adopted from his first marriage are supportive of their father, they prefer their privacy to the glare of the campaign trail. Another daughter, Meghan, 23, helps him behind the scenes.
Cindy McCain not only cherishes her children, but also her country, which in an election year filled with America-bashing, is a refreshing novelty. She seethed when she heard Michelle Obama’s unpatriotic remarks that she only recently grew proud of America. ‘I am very proud of my country,’ Mrs. McCain asserted.
She also may be tougher than the other women in the race. While Hillary thinks she’s come under sniper fire on mission trips abroad, Cindy has actually seen violence. She witnessed a boy get blown up by a mine in Kuwait during a trip with an international group that removes land mines from war-torn countries.
Mrs. McCain also is a hands-on philanthropist. She sits on the board of Operation Smile, which arranges for plastic surgeons to fix cleft palates and other birth defects. She also has helped organize ‘relief missions’ to Micronesia.
During a scuba-diving vacation to the islands, Mrs. McCain took a friend to a local hospital to have a cut treated. She was shocked, and saddened, by what she saw.
‘They opened the door to the OR, where the supplies were, and there were two cats and a whole bunch of rats climbing out of the sterile supplies,’ she recalled. ‘They had no X-ray machine, no beds. To me, it was devastating because it was a U.S. trust territory.’
As soon as she returned home, she arranged for medical equipment and teams of doctors to be sent to treat the island children.
Michelle Obama may contribute to CARE, which fights global poverty and works to empower poor women. Cindy sits on its board.
While the Democrat women talk about helping the poor and needy, Cindy McCain actually rolls up her sleeves and does it. Who’s the out-of-touch elitist?
JMac On Obama
June 4, 2008
Keep it rolling JMac, Obama has enough dirt to be able to do one of these releases every day!
SEN. OBAMA ON IRAN’S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD
Obama’s Three Different Explanations For Failing To Support Kyl-Lieberman Equal Failed Judgment
For Immediate Release Contact: Press Office
Wednesday, June 4, 2008 703-650-5550
ARLINGTON, VA — Today, ahead of Senator Barack Obama’s planned address to the AIPAC Policy Conference, McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds issued the following statement:
“In September 2007, over three quarters of the United States Senate joined together in a bipartisan fashion to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Barack Obama opposed this legislation, deciding that playing partisan primary politics was more important than our nation’s security. Even Senators Hillary Clinton and Dick Durbin had the judgment to call our enemies by their name, especially a group responsible for the killing of American troops in Iraq. If Barack Obama does not have the judgment and experience to even identify our enemies, how can we expect him to stand up to them?”
The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps A Terrorist Organization - But Senator Obama Opposed It
The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Called On The United States To Designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) As A Terrorist Organization. The Senate approved the amendment on September 26, 2007 with support from 76 senators, including Sens. Reid, Schumer, Durbin and Clinton. (S.Amdt. 3017, CQ Vote #349: Agreed To, 76-22: R 47-2; D 29-20, 9/26/07)
2007 EXPLANATION: Campaigning For Anti-War Votes In The Democratic Primary, Barack Obama Denounced Kyl-Lieberman As A Justification For Attacking Iran
In October 2007, Obama Described Kyl-Lieberman As A Justification For Attacking Iran. OBAMA: “[The] Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Five Years After Iraq War Vote, We’re Still Foolishly Rattling Our Sabers,” Manchester Union-Leader, 10/11/07)
? Yet Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Said The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Provided No Justification For Attacking Iran. SEN. DURBIN: “If I thought there was any way [Kyl-Lieberman] could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran, I would have voted no.” (Julianna Goldman, “Durbin Says Obama Will Win Iowa Caucus; Disagrees On Iran,” Bloomberg, 10/12/07; S.3017, CQ Vote #349: Agreed To, 76-22: R 47-2; D 29-20, 9/26/07, Durbin Voted Yea.)
? Obama’s Website Still Describes The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment As A “Reckless” Justification “To Attack Iran.” “Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran.” (Obama ‘08, http://www.barackobama.com, Accessed 6/2/08)
2008 EXPLANATION: This Week, The Obama Campaign Said Barack Obama Opposed The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Because Of Troop Levels In Iraq
On Monday, The Obama Campaign Said That The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Would Urge Our Military In Iraq To Actively Counter Iran. “Obama opposed Kyl-Lieberman because its language said the US military in Iraq should be used to counter Iran, while in fact it has strengthened Iran.” (”Obama Camp Response to McCain’s AIPAC Speech,” Time’s “The Page,” http://thepage.time.com, Accessed 6/2/08)
? Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Does Not Do Anything Of The Kind. AMENDMENT TEXT: “The manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences … in particular with regard to the ability of the Government of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region.” (Sec. 1538 of HR 1585 (Engrossed Amendment As Approved To By Senate), 9/26/07)
? Senator Lieberman, The Amendment’s Author, Removed Provisions From A Draft Version Specifically To Accommodate This Concern: “Because some of our colleagues thought paragraphs three and four of the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran, Senator (Jon) Kyl (R-Ariz) and I have struck them from the amendment. … That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.” (Jake Tapper, ” The Persian Conundrum,” ABC News, 10/8/07)
ANOTHER 2008 EXPLANATION: In Preparation For His AIPAC Speech, Barack Obama Is Insisting He Always Supported Designating The IRGC As A Terrorist Organization
In Their Response, The Obama Campaign Stated That Obama Has Taken A Consistent Position. “Obama Has Consistently Urged That Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Be Labeled What It Is: A Terrorist Organization.” (”Obama Camp Response to McCain’s AIPAC Speech,” Time’s “The Page,” http://thepage.time.com, Accessed 6/2/08)
? After The Kyl-Lieberman Vote, Barack Obama Often Criticized The Amendment Without Mentioning Any Support For IRGC Designation. (Sen. Barack Obama, “Five Years After Iraq War Vote, We’re Still Foolishly Rattling Our Sabers”, Manchester Union-Leader, 10/11/07; “Interview With Barack Obama”, New York Times, 11/1/07; NBC’s “Meet the Press”, 11/11/07)
? Before Responding To John McCain, Obama’s Website Provides No Indication That Obama Favors Designating The IRGC As A Terrorist Organization. (Obama ‘08, http://www.barackobama.com, Accessed 6/2/08)
The Obama Campaign Points To Barack Obama’s Co-Sponsorship Of The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act (S.970) As Evidence That He Favors Designating The IRGC As A Terrorist Organization. “Obama Cosponsored The Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, Which Would Designate The Iranian Revolutionary Guard As A Terrorist Organization.” (”Obama Camp Response to McCain’s AIPAC Speech,” Time’s “The Page,” http://thepage.time.com, Accessed 6/2/08)
? There Has Been No Floor Action On S.970 Since 3/22/07 And It Has Never Been The Subject Of A Floor Vote. (S.970, Introduced 3/22/07, Referred To The Committee On Finance, 3/22/07)
Sen. Hillary Clinton Supported The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment Arguing That It Would Advance Diplomacy
Sen. Clinton: “Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that, as they are in the sponsorship of terrorism. So some may want a false choice between rushing to war — which is the way the Republicans sound; it’s not even a question of whether, it’s a question of when and what weapons to use — and doing nothing. I prefer vigorous diplomacy, and I happen to think economic sanctions are part of vigorous diplomacy. We use them with respect to Nor th Korea. We use them with respect to Libya. And many of us who voted for that resolution said that this is not anything other than an expression of support for using economic sanctions with respect to diplomacy. You know, several people who were adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq, like Senator Durbin, voted the same way I did and said at the time that if he thought there was even the pretense that could be used from the language in that non-binding resolution to give George Bush any support to go to war, he wouldn’t have voted for it. Neither would I.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 10/30/07)
? Click Here To Watch The Video
Sen. Clinton: “My understanding of the Revolutionary Guard in Iran is that it is promoting terrorism. It is manufacturing weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. It is certainly the main agent of support for Hezbollah, Hamas and others, and in what we voted for today, we will have an opportunity to designate it as a terrorist organization, which gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran.” (Sen. Hillary Clinton, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Hanover, NH, 9/26/07)
? Click Here To Watch The Video
Obama’s Weak And Inconsistent Judgment In Regard To The IRGC Fits With An Established Pattern of Changing Positions On Key National Security Issues In Recent Weeks
At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders Of Iran, North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations “Without Precondition.” Question: “[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” … Obama: “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.” (CNN/You Tube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)
In The New York Times, Barack Obama Claimed “I Didn’t Say That I Would Meet Unconditionally.” Obama: “I didn’t say that I would meet unconditionally as John McCain maintained, because that would suggest whether it was useful or not, whether it was advancing our interests or not, I would just do it for the sake of doing it … That’s not a change in position, that’s simply responding to distortions of my position.” (Jim Rutenberg And Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Seeks To Clarify His Disputed Comments On Diplomacy ,” The New York Times, 5/29/08)
John McCain Speech to Launch General Election
June 4, 2008
A Leader We Can Believe In
June 3, 2008
ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following remarks as prepared for delivery tonight in New Orleans, LA:
Good evening from the great city of New Orleans. Tonight, we can say with confidence the primary season is over, and the general election campaign has begun. I commend both Senators Obama and Clinton for the long, hard race they have run. Senator Obama has impressed many Americans with his eloquence and his spirited campaign. Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach. I am proud to call her my friend. Pundits and party elders have declared that Senator Obama will be my opponent. He will be a formidable o ne. But I’m ready for the challenge, and determined to run this race in a way that does credit to our campaign and to the proud, decent and patriotic people I ask to lead.
The decision facing Americans in this election couldn’t be more important to the future security and prosperity of American families. This is, indeed, a change election. No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically. But, the choice is between the right change and the wrong change; between going forward and going backward.
America has seen tough times before. We’ve always known how to get through them. And we’ve always believed our best days are ahead of us. I believe that still. But we must rise to the occasion, as we always have; change what must be changed; and make the future better than the past.
The right change recognizes that many of the policies and institutions of our government have failed. They have failed to keep up with the challenges of our time because many of these policies were designed for the problems and opportunities of the mid to late 20th Century, before the end of the Cold War; before the revolution in information technology and rise of the global economy. The right kind of change will initiate widespread and innovative reforms in almost every area of government policy — health care, energy, the environment, the tax code, our public schools, our transportation system, disaster relief, government spending and regulation, diplomacy, the military and intelligence services. Serious and far-reaching reforms are needed in so many areas of government to meet our own challenges in our own time.
The irony is that Americans have been experiencing a lot of change in their lives attributable to these historic events, and some of those changes have distressed many American families — job loss, failing schools, prohibitively expensive health care, pensions at risk, entitlement programs approaching bankruptcy, rising gas and food prices, to name a few. But your government often acts as if it is completely unaware of the changes and hardships in your lives. And when government does take notice, often it only makes matters worse. For too long, we have let history outrun our government’s ability to keep up with it. The right change will stop impeding Americans from doing what they have always done: overcome every obstacle to our progress, turn challenges into opportunities, and by our own industry, imagination and courage make a better country and a safer world th an we inherited.
To keep our nation prosperous, strong and growing we have to rethink, reform and reinvent: the way we educate our children; train our workers; deliver health care services; support retirees; fuel our transportation network; stimulate research and development; and harness new technologies.
To keep us safe we must rebuild the structure and mission of our military; the capabilities of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies; the reach and scope of our diplomacy; the capacity of all branches of government to defend us. We need to strengthen our alliances, and preserve our moral credibility.
We must also prepare, far better than we have, to respond quickly and effectively to a natural calamity. When Americans confront a catastrophe they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. Firemen and policemen should be able to communicate with each other in an emergency. We should be able to deliver bottled water to dehydrated babies and rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity. Our disgraceful failure to do so here in New Orleans exposed the incompetence of government at all levels to meet even its most basic responsibilities.
The wrong change looks not to the future but to the past for solutions that have failed us before and will surely fail us again. I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought in to so many failed ideas. Like others before him, he seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn’t trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. It’s the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people. That attitude created the unresponsive bureaucracies of big government in the first place. And that’s not change we can believe in.
You will hear from my opponent’s campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I’m running for President Bush’s third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it’s so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it’s very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false. So he tries to drum it into your minds by constantly repeating it rather than debate honestly the very different directions he and I would take the country. But the American people didn’t get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Senator Obama. They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They’ve seen me put our country before any President — before any party — before any special interest — before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always.
I have worked with the President to keep our nation safe. But he and I have not seen eye to eye on many issues. We’ve disagreed over the conduct of the war in Iraq and the treatment of detainees; over out of control government spending and budget gimmicks; over energy policy and climate change; over defense spending that favored defense contractors over the public good.
I disagreed strongly with the Bush administration’s mismanagement of the war in Iraq. I called for the change in strategy that is now, at last, succeeding where the previous strategy had failed miserably. I was criticized for doing so by Republicans. I was criticized by Democrats. I was criticized by the press. But I don’t answer to them. I answer to you. And I would be ashamed to admit I knew what had to be done in Iraq to spare us from a defeat that would endanger us for years, but I kept quiet because it was too politically hard for me to do. No ambition is more important to me than the security of the country I have defended all my adult life.
Senator Obama opposed the new strategy, and, after promising not to, voted to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job of carrying it out. Yet in the last year we have seen the success of that plan as violence has fallen to a four year low; Sunni insurgents have joined us in the fight against al Qaeda; the Iraqi Army has taken the lead in places once lost to Sunni and Shia extremists; and the Iraqi Government has begun to make progress toward political reconciliation.
None of this progress would have happened had we not changed course over a year ago. And all of this progress would be lost if Senator Obama had his way and began to withdraw our forces from Iraq without concern for conditions on the ground and the advice of commanders in the field. Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he’s ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn’t traveled to Iraq to meet with General Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse.
I know Americans are tired of this war. I don’t oppose a reckless withdrawal from Iraq because I’m indifferent to the suffering war inflicts on too many American families. I hate war. And I know very personally how terrible its costs are. But I know, too, that the course Senator Obama advocates could draw us into a wider war with even greater sacrifices; put peace further out of reach, and Americans back in harm’s way.
I take America’s economic security as seriously as I do her physical security. For eight years the federal government has been on a spending spree that added trillions to the national debt. It spends more and more of your money on programs that have failed again and again to keep up with the changes confronting American families. Extravagant spending on things that are not the business of government indebts us to other nations; fuels inflation; raises interest rates; and encourages irresponsibility. I have opposed wasteful spending by both parties and the Bush administration. Senator Obama has supported it and proposed more of his own. I want to freeze discretionary spending until we have completed top to bottom reviews of all federal programs to weed out failing ones. Senator Obama opposes that reform. I opposed subsidies that favor big business over small farmers and tariffs on imported products that have greatly increased the cost of food. Senator Obama supports these billions of dollars in corporate subsidies and the tariffs that have led to rising grocery bills for American families. That’s not change we can believe in.
No problem is more urgent today than America’s dependence on foreign oil. It threatens our security, our economy and our environment. The next President must be willing to break completely with the energy policies not just of the Bush Administration, but the administrations that preceded his, and lead a great national campaign to put us on a course to energy independence. We must unleash the creativity and genius of Americans, and encourage industries to pursue alternative, non-polluting and renewable energy sources, where demand will never exceed supply.
Senator Obama voted for the same policies that created the problem. In fact, he voted for the energy bill promoted by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, which gave even more breaks to the oil industry. I opposed it because I know we won’t achieve energy independence by repeating the mistakes of the last half century. That’s not change we can believe in.
With forward thinking Democrats and Republicans, I proposed a climate change policy that would greatly reduce our dependence on oil. Our approach was opposed by President Bush, and by leading Democrats, and it was defeated by opposition from special interests that favor Republicans and those that favor Democrats. Senator Obama might criticize special interests that give more money to Republicans. But you won’t often see him take on those that favor him. If America is going to achieve energy independence, we need a President with a record of putting the nation’s interests before the special interests of either party. I have that record. Senator Obama does not.
Senator Obama proposes to keep spending money on programs that make our problems worse and create new ones that are modeled on big government programs that created much of the fiscal mess we are in. He plans to pay for these increases by raising taxes on seniors, parents, small business owners and every American with even a modest investment in the market. He doesn’t trust us to make decisions for ourselves and wants the government to make them for us. And that’s not change we can believe in.
Senator Obama thinks we can improve health care by driving Americans into a new system of government orders, regulations and mandates. I believe we can make health care more available, affordable and responsive to patients by breaking from inflationary practices, insurance regulations, and tax policies that were designed generations ago, and by giving families more choices over their care. His plan represents the old ways of government. Mine trusts in the common sense of the American people.
Senator Obama pretends we can address the loss of manufacturing jobs by repealing trade agreements and refusing to sign new ones; that we can build a stronger economy by limiting access to our markets and giving up access to foreign markets. The global economy exists and is not going away. We either compete in it or we lose more jobs, more businesses, more dreams. We lose the future. He’s an intelligent man, and he must know how foolish it is to think Americans can remain prosperous without opening new markets to our goods and services. But he feels he must defer to the special interests that support him. That’s not change we can believe in.
Lowering trade barriers to American goods and services creates more and better jobs; keeps inflation under control; keeps interest rates low; and makes more goods affordable to more Americans. We won’t compete successfully by using old technology to produce old goods. We’ll succeed by knowing what to produce and inventing new technologies to produce it.
We are not people who believe only in the survival of the fittest. Work in America is more than a paycheck; it a source of pride, self-reliance and identity. But making empty promises to bring back lost jobs gives nothing to the unemployed worker except false hope. That’s not change we can believe in. Reforming from top to bottom unemployment insurance and retraining programs that were designed for the 1950s, making use of our community colleges to train people for new opportunities will help workers who’ve lost a job that won’t come back, find a job that won’t go away.
My friends, we’re not a country that would rather go back than forward. We’re the world’s leader, and leaders don’t hide from history. They make history. But if we’re going to lead, we have to reform a government that has lost its ability to help us do so. The solution to our problems isn’t to reach back to the 1960s and 70s for answers. In just a few years in office, Senator Obama has accumulated the most liberal voting record in the Senate. But the old, tired, big government policies he seeks to dust off and call new won’t work in a world that has changed dramatically since they were last tried and failed. That’s not change we can believe in.
The sweeping reforms of government we need won’t occur unless we change the political habits of Washington that have locked us in an endless cycle of bickering and stalemate. Washington is consumed by a hyper-partisanship that treats every serious issue as an opportunity to trade insults; impugn each other’s motives; and fight about the next election. This is the game Washington plays. Both parties play it, as do the special interests that support each side. The American people know it’s not on the level. For all the problems we face, what frustrates them most about Washington is they don’t think we’re capable of serving the public interest before our personal ambitions; that we fight for ourselves and not for them. They are sick of the politics of selfishness, stalemate and delay, and they have every right to be. We have to change not only government policies that have failed them, but the political culture that produced them.
Both Senator Obama and I promise we will end Washington’s stagnant, unproductive partisanship. But one of us has a record of working to do that and one of us doesn’t. Americans have seen me put aside partisan and personal interests to move this country forward. They haven’t seen Senator Obama do the same. For all his fine words and all his promise, he has never taken the hard but right course of risking his own interests for yours; of standing against the partisan rancor on his side to stand up for our country. He is an impressive man, who makes a great first impression. But he hasn’t been willing to make the tough calls; to challenge his party; to risk criticism from his supporters to bring real change to Washington. I have.
When members of my party refused to compromise not on principle but for partisanship, I have sought to do so. When I fought corruption it didn’t matter to me if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. I exposed it and let the chips fall where they may. When I worked on campaign finance and ethics reform, I did so with Democrats and Republicans, even though we were criticized by other members of our parties, who preferred to keep things as they were. I have never refused to work with Democrats simply for the sake of partisanship. I’ve always known we belong to different parties, not different countries. We are Americans before we are anything else.
I don’t seek the presidency on the presumption I’m blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the office with the humility of a man who cannot forget my country saved me. I’ll reach out my hand to anyone, Republican or Democrat, who will help me change what needs to be changed; fix what needs to be fixed; and give this country a government as capable and good as the people it is supposed to serve. There is a time to campaign, and a time to govern. If I’m elected President, the era of the permanent campaign of the last sixteen years will end. The era of reform and problem solving will begin. From my first day in office, I’ll work with anyone to make America safe, prosperous and proud. And I won’t care who gets the credit as long as America gets the benefit.
I have seen Republicans and Democrats achieve great things together. When the stakes were high and it mattered most, I’ve seen them work together in common purpose, as we did in the weeks after September 11th. This kind of cooperation has made all the difference at crucial turns in our history. It has given us hope in difficult times. It has moved America forward. And that, my friends, is the kind of change we need right now.
Thank you
More McCain 
flipped and script
Obama flips on oil drilling. Will not debate other than the traditional three. Critics cite his fear of being off script. Read More →
Ooops!A surprising poll released Monday confirms Sen. Barack Obama’s worst nightmare: he actually lost ground to Sen. John McCain after a global trip meant to buck... More Mac »