Can't Decide Who to Vote For?

"People are going to look at whether or not over the last eight years the country is better off under Republican rule. I think they're going to conclude they're not and they want fundamental change, something that I'm offering and John McCain is not." Barrack Obama

Barrack Obama brings something completely new and fresh to the ugly game of politics. He has a chance to made a real change to our dysfunctional government - where lobbyists and special interests rule - because his campaign has accepted no money from them.

The country needs someone who can bring together the political parties so they can actually start solving problems instead of childish bickering. He has the potential to actually unite the country and even the world by restoring the good name of the United States of America. With his diverse cultural background, Barrack Obama is perfectly suited to help calm the outrage that the Muslim world has against the United States that has been stoked to a fever pitch from the misguided foreign policies of the Bush administration.

We don't need another four years of Bush. What we need is a leader who can heal the country and start solving the many problems that we face after 8 disasterous years. I'm convinced Barrack Obama is that leader.

Who will better represent the American people?

The American people are desperate for a president who acts with their best interests at heart, not those of giant corporations and special interests. (It should be no surprise that Exxon/Mobil has seen record profits during the Bush administration). Unlike Senator McCain, Senator Obama hasn't taken a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest Political Action Committees. John McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign and two of the top three sources for his campaign cash are D.C. lobbying firms.

Since Barrack Obama's campaign has accepted no money from lobbyists, who do you think will better represent the American people and who will represent the special interests? This is a clear indicator that Obama's focus will be on representing the people like you and me, not giant corporations. Under a McCain presidency, it will be business-as-usual by pandering to the special interests

To be fair, we all recognize that John McCain is a great American hero and we honor his service to our country. But that doesn't mean he should be president. George Bush is a "nice guy" and a lot of fun at parties, but that also doesn't mean he should have been president.

Who is Sarah Palin?

Who is Sarah Palin? Nobody really knows yet. But her acceptance speech told us a lot about her. It told us that she can distort the facts and deliver mean-spirited zingers with the best of them. But it didn't tell us the truth about Sarah Palin's extremist positions. The more that people know her far-right views, the less they support her.

It told us that she can be condescending and dismissive of the real work Barack Obama did helping real people on the South Side of Chicago. It told us that she can uphold the long Republican tradition of lying about Democratic tax cuts—even though Obama's plan would give Americans a bigger break than McCain's.

Palin's speech and the reaction to it also made clear why McCain picked her. It wasn't a decision about who's most qualified to serve a heart-beat away from the presidency—it was a political decision about pleasing the far-right base of the Republican party. The plain fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin did a bang-up job delivering a Karl Rove-style political attack speech. That makes her a skilled politician but it doesn't make her views any more palatable for voters. Americans don't really want another far-right, anti-science ideologue in the White House.

Jon Stewart on Sarah Palin Choice

The Old Double Standard

Palin’s Anti-Environmental Record

Palin opposed the Alaska Clean Water Act (ballot measure 4 which recently failed to pass) that would have banned metal mines from poisoning salmon streams. Even the Juneau Empire (a conservative newspaper) came out in favor of ballot measure 4, saying "demanding clean water is the right thing for all of Alaska to do, and now is the time to do it." She decided to choose profits for mining companies over the health of the public.

She supports drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. The ANWR was established in 1960 by President Eisenhower, a Republican, as a “promise to the American people to preserve the area’s “unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values.” According to the ANWR government web site, “the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the last untouched wildlife places on earth. It includes nearly 20 million acres (the size of South Carolina), three Wild rivers, and the largest designated Wilderness (eight million acres) in the National Wildlife Refuge System.”

According to an analysis by the Energy Department, opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel and it would take 10 years for production to begin. Is it really worth destroying one of our few remaining protected wild areas left in the US? Isn’t it time we did something about our addiction to oil by investing in clean renewable energy?

Palin opposed adding polar bears to the endangered species list. Polar bears are starving due to melting sea ice caused by global warming. Of course, the fact that Palin said she doesn't actually believe that global warming is caused by humans may explain her lack of concern. She actually sued the federal government for listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. It just so happens that polar bears live in the wilderness areas where she wants to drill, which would be an inconvenience to the oil companies.

She supports aerial shooting of wolves in Alaska, ignoring Alaskan voters who twice passed ballot measures to halt the barbaric practice of aerial gunning. Yet she approved $400,000 in state funds for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to develop an “educational campaign” that promoted the state’s predator-control programs in a thinly veiled attempt to persuade the public to support her proposal. Palin's $150-per-wolf bounty program contradicted Alaska's bounty laws which were repealed in 1984 and the State had no legal authority to implement the bounties. And to top things off, with Palin’s blessing, for the first time in Alaska’s history the Board of Game approved the hunting of black bear sows and cubs in an 11,000-square-mile area northwest of Anchorage where the goal was to kill 60 percent of the black bear population. If she really cared about nature, she would understand that carnivores play a vital role in keeping natural ecosystems healthy. Watch out Bambi, Palin is on the march.

A self proclaimed pit bull (with lipstick), Gov. Palin sounds like a person with strong beliefs and is apparently very popular in Alaska, but I'm surprised that Alaskans aren't more concerned about the environment. If you’re surrounded by wilderness, I guess you tend to take it for granted - thinking that it will always be there.

Together with McCain, who the League of Conservation Voters gave a score of zero for his environmental voting record in 2007, the McCain/Palin ticket is no friend of the environment, or anyone who cares about the environment. But they'll make quite an attractive ticket for anyone whose priority is drilling for more oil rather than fighting to preserve the environment and investing in clean renewable energy. Their environmental record will likely end up worse than Bush, if that's even possible since he is considered to be the President with the worst environmental record ever. Just like Bush, her answer to our energy crisis is drilling for more oil, regardless of the environmental consequences.

No one can successfully argue that the environment isn't a critical issue that deserves much more attention in this important election. The environment, energy, and health are all intricately linked. The burning of fossil fuels pollutes the air and water and causes major health problems, it increases carbon dioxide which causes global warming (yes, it is caused by humans) and is severely harming our oceans and sea life by making them more acidic. Clean renewable energy addresses all of these issues, but until we can stop our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels, we'll don't stand a chance of stopping global warming. Even if you choose not to believe in global warming and could care less about the environment, reducing our use of oil would be a good thing from a health and economic perspective.

A healthy environment and slowing global warming are critically important issues, especially to future generations who will be the ones suffering for our actions and inactions. It’s perplexing that for someone with five kids, Palin doesn’t seem to be concerned about their future in a world threatened by climate change and environmental destruction. Palin of all people should be just a little bit concerned about what kind of world we're leaving for future generations. Palin being just a heartbeat away from the presidency scares me to death. I have to question McCain's judgment picking this winner.

Below is a September 4, 2008 article from the L.A. Times by By Gloria Steinem about Palin, titled "Palin: wrong woman, wrong message".

Sarah Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Hillary Clinton. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

Here's the good news: Women have become so politically powerful that even the anti-feminist right wing -- the folks with a headlock on the Republican Party -- are trying to appease the gender gap with a first-ever female vice president. We owe this to women -- and to many men too -- who have picketed, gone on hunger strikes or confronted violence at the polls so women can vote. We owe it to Shirley Chisholm, who first took the "white-male-only" sign off the White House, and to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who hung in there through ridicule and misogyny to win 18 million votes.

But here is even better news: It won't work. This isn't the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It's about making life more fair for women everywhere. It's not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It's about baking a new pie.

Selecting Sarah Palin, who was touted all summer by Rush Limbaugh, is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters. Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton's candidacy stood for -- and that Barack Obama's still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, "Somebody stole my shoes, so I'll amputate my legs."

This is not to beat up on Palin. I defend her right to be wrong, even on issues that matter most to me. I regret that people say she can't do the job because she has children in need of care, especially if they wouldn't say the same about a father. I get no pleasure from imagining her in the spotlight on national and foreign policy issues about which she has zero background, with one month to learn to compete with Sen. Joe Biden's 37 years' experience.

Palin has been honest about what she doesn't know. When asked last month about the vice presidency, she said, "I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does every day?" When asked about Iraq, she said, "I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she's won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain's campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn't know it's about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate's views on "God, guns and gays" ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.

So let's be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can't tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.

I don't doubt her sincerity. As a lifetime member of the National Rifle Assn., she doesn't just support killing animals from helicopters, she does it herself. She doesn't just talk about increasing the use of fossil fuels but puts a coal-burning power plant in her own small town. She doesn't just echo McCain's pledge to criminalize abortion by overturning Roe vs. Wade, she says that if one of her daughters were impregnated by rape or incest, she should bear the child. She not only opposes reproductive freedom as a human right but implies that it dictates abortion, without saying that it also protects the right to have a child.

So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Being a hope-a-holic, however, I can see two long-term bipartisan gains from this contest.

Republicans may learn they can't appeal to right-wing patriarchs and most women at the same time. A loss in November could cause the centrist majority of Republicans to take back their party, which was the first to support the Equal Rights Amendment and should be the last to want to invite government into the wombs of women.

And American women, who suffer more because of having two full-time jobs than from any other single injustice, finally have support on a national stage from male leaders who know that women can't be equal outside the home until men are equal in it. Barack Obama and Joe Biden are campaigning on their belief that men should be, can be and want to be at home for their children.

This could be huge.

Experience

If you believe that Obama doesn't have the experience to run the country, I have two words for you: Abraham Lincoln. Before he entered the White House, Abraham Lincoln's experience in elective office consisted of eight years in his state legislature in Springfield, Illinois and one term in Congress - exactly the same as Obama.

In any case, good judgment and intelligence are more important than experience. After all, experience only means that you have more years doing things the way they've always been done and that's the last thing we need. You simply can not judge how well a person will perform in office by his past experience. Take Bush for example. He had 6 years of experience as a governor of Texas, and look where that got us.

Rarely do I agree with George Will, but his February 21, 2008 op-ed gave a perfect example of why experience isn't a guarantee of success.

"The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow."

Certainly McCain has more experience than Obama in Washington. But is that really a good thing when Washington is so dysfunctional? Just because you've had more years playing a game the wrong way doesn't automatically qualify you as a master of the game.

Fiscal Responsibility and the Economy

If you think that so-called tax-and-spend democrats are responsible for increasing our national debt, think again. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and all the other neoconservatives are just plain wrong when they spout off about tax and spend liberals and the facts prove it. Just look at the chart below. Under President Clinton the growth in debt leveled-off towards the end of his term, but note the radical change in direction since George W. Bush entered office.

The steepest upward rises in debt since the end of World War II, started with President Reagan and continued with every Republican in office. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of 3.2% per year, whereas the Republican presidents increased the national debt an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Source

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $1.58 billion per day since September 29, 2006. The estimated population of the United States is 304,455,506 so each citizen's share of this debt is $30,616.29. It's time to take control of this looming financial disaster and put the real fiscal conservatives in the White House - the democrats.

Anyway you slice and dice it, the economy always suffers under a Republican president and under Bush it has been a total disaster. John McCain admits that his strong suit isn't the economy. He actually said, "I don’t understand economics very well." His main economic philosophy is to continue the same tax breaks that George Bush has been perpetuating over the last seven years and that McCain criticized as irresponsible back when he wasn’t running for President.

Let's take a quick look back at recent history. Median household income in the United States rose $6,000 in the eight years of Bill Clinton's administration, to $49,163, but fell to $48,023 during Bush's first six years in office and it's still falling.

The economy grew by an average of 4 percent during the Clinton years and created an average 1.8 million jobs a year. Under Bush, gross domestic product has grown just 2.7 percent a year and created 369,000 jobs a year -- and a recession is probably under way to cut even those numbers.

The price of gasoline in 2001 was $1.39 per gallon. Now, it's $4. The number of Americans lacking health insurance was 38 million; now, it's 47 million. The national debt was $5.7 trillion in 2001; now, it's $9.2 trillion. The dollar was worth 1.07 euro; now, it's .68. The poverty rate, college costs, take-home pay, personal indebtedness, foreign oil dependency and the trade deficit all are worse than they were when Bush took office. Source

Are you paying $4.00 a gallon for gas? Were you a year ago? Gas prices are skyrocketing -- and so are Big Oil's profits. In fact, the country's five largest oil companies made a record-breaking $123 billion just last year -- billions more than they were making just a year ago. Source: Center for American Progress, Report on Big Oil's Profits

So what's Senator John McCain's solution? Raise oil company profits by another 18 cents per gallon -- by eliminating the federal gas tax without guaranteeing that Big Oil won't just keep prices high and take the difference to grow their record profits even more.

That's the same old outdated politics of the past. If John McCain really wants to put money back in our pockets, he needs to take it out of Big Oil's. That means voting to cut their subsidies and using that money to help build the clean energy economy.

Senator McCain is not alone. Republican Senators like Mitch McConnell, Pete Domenici and others are blocking efforts to take back billions in taxpayer-funded giveaways to Big Oil in order to invest in clean, renewable energy. The way to deal with high gas prices is to cut, not expand, giveaways to Big Oil. Shifting to clean, renewable energy will help grow our economy, create over 820,000 new jobs and fight global warming. Source: Blue-Green Alliance Study on Clean Energy Jobs

Taxes

According to a Gallop poll, Americans are more likely to say Obama, rather than McCain, will raise their taxes, but they favor Obama as the candidate better able to handle taxes by 48% to 43%. In part, this may be because a majority of Americans see Obama's policies as benefiting the middle class and the poor the most, while a majority see McCain's policies as benefiting the wealthy. Obama will actually cut taxes for over 95% of American families and offers middle-class tax cuts that are three times the size of McCain’s. Obama’s plan calls for reforming the tax code so that it rewards hard work. That’s why the typical middle-class family will get three times more in tax cuts from the Obama plan than under the McCain plan.

If you are a family making less than $250,000, Obama’s tax plan will not raise your taxes – not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. In fact, you are overwhelmingly likely to get a tax cut – one that is larger than what McCain is proposing. Click here to calculate how much of a tax cut you'll get under an Obama presidency.

McCain Offers Tax Plan That Ignores 101 Million Middle-Class Households But Not The Oil Industry, Which Would Receive A $4 Billion Tax Break. McCain’s economic platform rests on the premise that the nation’s economic challenges are minor and primarily psychological. McCain has not even proposed a short-term stimulus to help working families. His tax cuts ignore middle-class workers — about 100 million households, including 37 million seniors, would get no relief. Instead, McCain would spend nearly $2 trillion over a decade in tax breaks for corporations, including $4 billion a year for the oil industry. [McCain Town Hall, 1/24/08, West Palm Beach, Florida ; Obama Campaign Analysis, “Comparing the Obama and McCain Tax Plans”; Robert Gordon and James Kvaal, “Five Easy Pieces and Two Trillion Dollars,” Center for American Progress Action Fund, March 2008; “The McCain Plan to Cut Oil Company Taxes by Nearly $4 Billion,” Center for American Progress Action Fund, 3/27/08]

McCain Wants To Continue Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy That He Once Criticized As Too Tilted To The Wealthy. Under the McCain plan, the wealthiest 0.1% of households – those making more than $2.8 million per year – will get a tax cut of nearly $600,000, while the average middle-class family would see a tax cut that is only one-third the size of Obama’s plan. In 2001, McCain said that he couldn’t vote for the Bush tax cuts in good conscience because they were too skewed to the wealthiest Americans.[MSNBC/FAU GOP Debate, 1/24/08; New York Times, 3/3/08; WSJ, 6/12/08; Nashua Telegraph, 6/12/08; Congressional Record, 5/26/01]

The Iraq War

Occupying Iraq is not making us more secure. In fact, it is causing even more hatred against the U.S. and inflaming those that don't want their country occupied (can you blame them? How would you feel?) We don't belong there, and they don't want us there.

Some say we need to stay in Iraq to fight terrorism, otherwise the terrorists win. But that's really a false choice. What we really need to do is take the fight to Afganistan where the terroists have always been. We also need to take the money were spending in Iraq and secure our country's potential targets like our ports, power plants, and chemical facilities, and put it towards our front-line law enforcement. That would be real homeland security.

Obama: As a state senator, he spoke out against Iraq war, before the war started. Has long favored a phased withdrawal. "We need to begin this withdrawal [from Iraq] immediately is because this war has not made us safer. I opposed this war from the start in part because I was concerned that it would take our eye off al Qaeda and distract us from finishing the job in Afghanistan. Sadly, that's what happened. It's time to heed our military commanders by increasing our commitment to Afghanistan, and it's time to protect the American people by taking the fight to al Qaeda."

McCain: Supports Bush's surge, in fact, calls for more additional troops than Bush recommends. "The Iraq war was worth the price in blood and treasure. One of the obligations, unfortunately, of being a great superpower is that we have to take care of the world's security." Really? At any cost? Is that in the constitution? Is that really what our forefathers envisoned for our country - a superpower that polices the world?

Many think that if you don't support the war you are unpatriotic. Yet there are millions of patriotic Americans who support the troops but oppose the war. In no way does this disrespect the service and sacrifice of the troops and the Iraqi people. You can't hide behind the flag and declare that only true patriots support the war, not if you actually believe in the first amendment. True patriots stand up and speak out when they see something that is harming their country. And make no mistake; the Iraq war is harming the country in a big way. The only disservice being done is to the American people by the politicians who continue to sustain the Iraq war.

It's time for a reality check. The fact is, starting a war with Iraq was a huge mistake, and most Americans agree. Every poll shows that 6 in 10 Americans believe that going to Iraq was a mistake, so Obama is not the only one to question the irrational decision to invade a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and never had WMDs, which were the original reasons sold to the American people for attacking Iraq. Liberating the Iraqi people was an afterthought that was drummed up after plan A didn't pan out. In fact, Bush was never in favor of humanitarian efforts in other countries. In January 2001, he said "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem."

Not only was the reason for going to war based on false premises, there was never any thought put towards a strategy for political reconciliation of the Iraqi people, nor was there an exit strategy. Why didn't Bush bother to actually develop a plan to win instead of just occupy? Because based on what has since been uncovered, we now know that securing the oil in the region was the real reason for the invasion. The architects of the Iraq war no longer even bother to deny that oil was a major motivator for the invasion. Fadhil Chalabi, one of the primary Iraqi advisers to the Bush administration in the lead-up to the invasion, described the war as "a strategic move on the part of the United States of America and the UK to have a military presence in the Gulf in order to secure oil supplies in the future". But invading Iraq to seize its natural resources is illegal under the Geneva conventions. So now the US is financially responsible for rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure - which means you and I paid for destroying Iraq and are also paying to rebuild it - to the tune of $12 billion a month.

And while Bush has been distracted with Iraq, al Qaeda is flourishing in Afghanistan - the real terrorists behind 9/11. So, ask yourself, after the human suffering and expenditures of billions of dollars, are we really safer?

Criticizing Obama for being one of the few vocally opposed to going to war from the beginning is totally misplaced and inappropriate. To me, it just shows his good judgment and foresight. McCain maintains that "The Iraq war was worth the price in blood and treasure." But has anyone really benefited from this war, except of course Halliburton and the other war profiteers? Let's see. In the process of executing this ill-conceived war, over 3,300 troops have been killed in combat with over 100,000 wounded, it's estimated that over 1 million innocent Iraqis have been killed, countless wounded, with over 4 million Iraqi refugees, and $121,000 per American per year coming straight out of the American pockets, fueling record deficits and devastating our economy. Conservative estimates show that the total bill for the Iraq war is likely to top $3 trillion. Still think that the Iraq war is "worth the price?"

Support for War Vets

Senators Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel proposed the new GI Bill, which would bring back WWII-style standards of providing vets with full tuition, room and board. And that is why 51 senators have signed on, including 9 Republicans like John Warner, giving this GI Bill tremendous bipartisan support.

But it isn't enough. Faced with unprecedented filibusters, the only way to ensure Senate passage of the GI Bill is to get 60 co-sponsors. So far, John McCain has refused. The same McCain who insists he supports our troops. The same McCain who is voting lockstep with the Bush administration (who have also resisted this bill).

The Environment

A healthy environment and slowing global warming are critically important issues, especially to future generations who will be the ones suffering for our actions and inactions.

There’s an old Indian proverb: “We don’t inherit the earth from our grandparents. We borrow it from our children.” We need to stop borrowing from our children’s future.

Obama: introduced or cosponsored nearly 100 eco-related bills on issues ranging from lead poisoning and mercury emissions to auto fuel economy and biofuels promotion. Along the way, he's racked up a notable 96 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Obama supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005. Obama supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 88 percent in 2005. He is a cosponsor of the most aggressive climate-change legislation in the Senate, which would reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

McCain: The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) released the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard giving Senator McCain a score of ZERO. According to the scorecard, McCain was the only member of Congress to skip all 15 crucial environmental votes scored by LCV.

McCain's LCV score exposes the real record behind the rhetoric -- a lifetime LCV score of 24, a history of siding with the polluters and special interests, and a consistent pattern of ducking important environmental votes. Out of 535 Members of Congress, John McCain is the only one who chose to miss every single key environmental vote last year.

Both McCain and Obama have long said that climate change is a top-priority threat that requires real action now. But now, after he picked Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, he is suddenly silent on the subject.

When he was talking about climate change, McCain said he supports a 60 percent emissions cut by 2050. But it is doubtful his proposed approach would actually deliver such large cuts, since his cap-and-trade system would give most permits away for free, a provision environmentalists attack as a corporate giveaway. Obama would sell all emissions permits at auction. Obama is also much less enthusiastic than McCain about nuclear power as a response to climate change.

Obama favors what science says is necessary: an 80 percent cut in emissions by 2050. As President, Obama would achieve this through a "cap and trade" system that sells corporations permits to emit greenhouse gases and then invests the resulting revenue in green energy development and rebates to Americans hit by higher energy prices.

But his lifetime voting record, as measured by the League of Conservation Voters, reveals a senator who did not vote consistently for the measures supported by environmental groups. His lifetime score is 24%, compared with 86% for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. In 2007, he scored a zero, out of a possible 100, primarily because he missed votes on failing measures that might have passed if he had been on the Senate floor and not out campaigning.

This year, he's championed a gas tax holiday that major economists, environmentalists and think-tank analysts have derided, in part because it will encourage more oil consumption at a time when the nation needs to find a way to reduce its dependence on oil.

And,his current stance on global warming is more tepid than that of the Democrats vying for the presidency. Both Obama and Clinton have articulated a goal of reducing greenhouse gas pollution by 80% by 2050, whereas McCain's last stated goal was 60%.

In the Post piece, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund executive director Rodger Schlickheisen describes McCain not as a maverick who bucks the Republican party line to support the environment, but instead as erratic. LCV's executive director, Gene Karpinsky, says McCain is "not as green as you think he is." In the Journal piece, Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope called McCain "dramatically better" than most Republican senators, but "dramatically worse" than the average Republican governor on environmental issues.

"An examination of McCain's voting record shows an inconsistent approach to the environment," the Post concludes. "He champions some "green" causes while casting sometimes contradictory votes on others."

Below is an article from the LA Times titled "John McCain walks a fine line on the environment"

Clean Energy

We need an energy policy that reduces dependence on foreign oil and helps families cope with high energy prices.

Obama

McCain

FLIP: McCain Said Ethanol "Has Absolutely, Under No Circumstances, Any Value Whatsoever." According to Roll Call, "John McCain, R-Ariz., called ethanol "a product that we have created a market for which has absolutely, under no circumstances, any value whatsoever except to corn producers and Archer Daniels Midland and other large agribusinesses." [Roll Call, 5/2/04]

Taking on Big Oil

Obama

McCain

John McCain only has the interests of Big Oil at heart. That's why he has over 22 Big Oil lobbyists advising him. That's why he favored lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling -- a move that prompted Big Oil to donate over $1 million to his campaign.

McCain Donations from Big Oil

Oil and Gas Campaign Contributions: McCain has Taken At Least $1,069,854 from the Oil & Gas Industry. According to a Campaign Money Watch analysis of campaign finance data provided by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics Center, John McCain has accepted at least $1,069,854 from the oil and gas industry since 1989. [Center for Responsive Politics via Campaign Money Watch]

At Least 22 Top McCain Advisers & Fundraisers Have Lobbied For Big Oil

John McCain has at least 22 people working for his campaign, either as top fundraisers or as senior campaign staff, that have lobbied for Big Oil.

* Carlos Bonilla was forced to leave the campaign as an adviser because of his lobbying activity

** Eric Burgeson was forced to leave the campaign as an adviser because of his lobbying on energy issues, but McCain has not given any indication he intends to return the money raised by Burgeson

*** The Phillips Petroleum Company has since merged with Conoco to form ConocoPhillips

McCain's Policies and Votes on Behalf of Big Oil

McCain's Tax Plan Gives Top Five Oil Companies $3.8 Billion A Year In Tax Breaks. According to a study conducted by the Center for American Progress, "The McCain plan would deliver approximately $170 billion a year in tax cuts to corporations, including some corporations that are very large and profitable. Just one of the proposals-cutting the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent-would cut taxes for five largest U.S. oil companies by $3.8 billion a year." [Center for American Progress, 3/27/08]

McCain Voted Against Reducing Dependence On Foreign Oil. In 2005, McCain voted against legislation calling on the President to submit a plan to reduce foreign petroleum imports by 40 percent. [Senate Roll Call Vote #140, 6/16/05]

In 2005, McCain Voted Against a Windfall Profit Tax on Oil Companies At Least Twice. McCain voted against a measure that would have provided an income tax rebate to Americans by taxing enormous oil company profits temporarily on an sale of crude above $40 a barrel. [S 2020, Vote #331, 11/17/05; S 2020, Vote # 341, 11/17/05; Houston Chronicle, 11/17/05; Las Vegas Review-Journal, 11/18/05; Environment and Energy Daily¸ 11/18/05]

McCain Voted Against Taxing Oil Companies To Provide $100 Rebate To Consumers. In 2005, McCain voted against an amendment to impose a temporary tax on oil company profits from the sale of crude oil. The funds would be used to provide every taxpayer with a $100 non-refundable tax credit for 2005 for each person in their household. The amendment failed 33-65. [S 2020, Vote #341, 11/17/05]

McCain Voted Against Temporarily Taxing Oil Companies to Finance Tax Rebate For Consumers. In 2005, McCain voted against an amendment to would impose a temporary 50 percent tax on oil company profits from the sale of crude oil. Funds collected from the tax would be used to provide a consumer tax credit for petroleum products. The amendment failed 35-64. [S 2020, Vote #331, 11/17/05]

Offshore Drilling

McCain Now: McCain Called For Lifting The Off Shore Drilling Moratorium. During a press availability in Arlington Virginia, John McCain called for a lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. McCain said, "I think that's a subject of negotiation and discussion. But right now, as you know there's a moratorium. And those moratorium, in my view, moratoria, have to be lifted. And they have to be lifted so that states can make those decisions. I'm not dictating to the states that they drill or they engage in oil exploration. I am saying that the moratoria should be lifted so they have the opportunity to do so. And by the way, I would also like to see perhaps additional incentives if the states, in the form of tangible financial rewards if the states decide to lift those moratoria." [McCain Press Avail 6/16/07]

Houston Chronicle: McCain Announced Drilling Stance To "Make Amends With Texas Energy Producers." The Houston Chronicle Reported, "Republican presidential candidate John McCain, seeking to make amends with Texas energy producers who did not support him during the 2008 GOP primary season, said Monday he wants to end a federal moratorium on offshore drilling and create "additional incentives" for states to approve new exploration ventures." [Houston Chronicle, 6/17/08]

McCain Said Coasts "Should Be Open To Exploration and Exploitation." John McCain said, "So I do believe that there are places in the world, as I said, that we should not drill. But I certainly think there are areas off our coasts that should be open to exploration and exploitation. And I hope that we can take the first step, by lifting the moratoria in order to do so." [McCain Press Avail 6/16/07]

McCain Then: He Opposed Off-Shore Drilling At Least Three Times, and Twice Supported Florida Efforts To Prevent Drilling Off Their Coasts.

McCain Voted Against Off-Shore Drilling. In 2005, McCain voted for an amendment that would strike language instructing the Interior Department to conduct a comprehensive inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and natural gas resources. The amendment failed 44-52. [H.R. 6, Vote #143, 6/21/2005]

McCain Voted Against Off-Shore Drilling. In 2003, McCain voted against a provision requiring a survey and inventory of possible off-shore oil and natural gas deposits by the Secretary of the Interior. He voted for an amendment striking the provision. The amendment failed 45-53. [S. 14, Vote #221, 6/12/2003]

McCain Voted for One-Year Moratorium on Oil and Gas Exploration in North Aleutian Basin. In 1989, McCain voted for a bill making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1990, and for other purposes. The bill contained a total of $956.4 million for the Bureau of Land Management of which $442.1 million is for management of lands and resources; $535.5 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service. The bill also imposed a one-year moratorium on oil and gas exploration and development in the North Aleutian Basin and ensured that the Department of the Interior will continue its assessment of damage from the Exxon Valdex oil spill through September 30, 1990. The bill also contained $1.5 billion for the Department of Energy, which includes $422.1 million for the fossil energy research program; $192.1 million for the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves; $413.3 million for energy conservation. The bill passed 91-6. [H.R. 2788, Vote #241, 10/7/1989]

McSame As Bush: Bush Administration Called For End To Off Shore Drilling Ban. The New York Times reported, "The Bush administration proposed on Monday leasing out millions of acres along the coasts of Alaska and Virginia to oil and gas drillers, a move that would end a longstanding ban on drilling in those environmentally sensitive areas. ... ‘The outer continental shelf is a vital source of domestic oil and natural gas for America, especially in light of sharply rising energy prices,' said Dirk Kempthorne, secretary of the interior." [New York Times, 5/1/07]

Where was John McCain on the Clean Energy Vote?

On February 7, 2008, one vote prevented the Senate from advancing an economic stimulus package that included important clean energy incentives -- a key addition to the package passed by the House last week.

Even though John McCain was in Washington, he was the only Senator who missed the vote, and he insured its defeat. This latest vote against clean energy comes at a time when McCain's speeches are full of promises to increase America's use of clean energy and calls to his fellow Senators to pass the stimulus package "to get some people back to work, and get our economy going, and get some investment in our economy." [PBS, NewsHour, 2/1/08]

If Senator McCain had voted yes, he could have helped America have an economic stimulus package that saved jobs and our environment at the same time. That $5.7 billion package included:

When 99 other Senators showed up to vote and clean energy lost by a single vote, where was John McCain?

In the 110th Congress, out of 450 votes, McCain missed 56.7% of them. The only one who missed more was a senator who had a brain hemorrhage. His spokeswoman said that the senator would have voted against the stimulus package anyway. By missing the vote, however, he didn’t have to go on record denying benefits in the bill for 20 million seniors and 250,000 disabled vets — both key blocs of support for his campaign. I suppose supporting clean energy isn’t as important as getting votes.

John McCain Should Be Ashamed

This certainly doesn't’t bode well for McCain’s campaign promises and it sounds alarmingly familiar. One of Bush’s campaign promises was a “commitment to a new era of environmental protection” and to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. But in record time he broke his promise by refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty limiting global warming gases. This was the most significant environmental commitment made under his campaign, and the president walked away from it in exactly 53 days.

For example, McCain is now breaking the law by ignoring the campaign spending restrictions for the Republican primary that came when he asked for federal matching funds -- funds he used as collateral on a loan that helped keep his campaign going.

A few months ago, John McCain applied for and was approved to receive federal matching funds. Because he couldn't find enough people to fund his campaign, he was also forced to apply for a $4 million line of credit, which he secured by using the federal matching funds as collateral.

By taking the federal funding, he agreed to spend no more than $57 million until the Republican convention. But so far, his campaign has spent at least $49 million -- leaving him with less than $10 million to campaign with through September.

But now that the lobbyist and special interest money has started pouring into his campaign, he's trying to back out of the promise he made just a few months ago. They're feeding so much cash into his bank account, this "reformer" wants nothing to do with federal campaign finance laws anymore.

Now that he's won the nomination and has the support of the Republican lobbyist and special interest machine, he's trying to ignore that the whole thing ever happened. He recently wrote a letter to the FEC telling them that he was backing out, even though the FEC is very clear that any request to withdraw from the agreement must be approved; you can't just change your mind and take it back -- legally, you have to be given permission.

McCain isn't asking because he knows he'll never be granted permission, and he doesn't want to have to accept the funding restrictions he agreed to when he used the money as collateral for a loan. He's ripping a page right from George Bush's playbook: ignoring the laws when they aren't convenient and hoping no one will notice.

Trying to back out shows a total lack of integrity and honesty -- he made a deal with the American people to to abide by the law, and in return, he was guaranteed taxpayer money that he used to back a loan. American taxpayers made a deal with John McCain -- now that he's flush with lobbyist cash, he wants to pretend that it never happened. He can't change the rules in the middle of the game because he doesn't like how things are going for him.

Using government programs when it's politically convenient and breaking the rules when it's not ... remind you of anyone? Just like George Bush, John McCain thinks he's above the law. McCain poses as a reformer, but seems to think reforms apply to everyone but him.

Health care

It is outrageous that over 47 million Americans don't have access to affordable health care. Emergency rooms are overburdened with the uninsured, and people are dying.

Obama: "Too many hard-working Americans cannot afford their medical bills, and health-related issues are the number one cause for personal bankruptcy. Promoting affordable, accessible, and high-quality health care is a priority for Obama."

Stem cell research

The lack of federal funds for unrestricted stem cell research is severely hampering medical progess in fighting disease that could help millions of suffering people.

McCain: Supports stem cell research on existing lines of stem cells, but not new lines.

Woman's Rights

We've seen the exit polls. We've read the unequivocal quotes. Many women who are avowed Hillary Clinton supporters are declaring they won't vote for Barack Obama in the fall.

I get the anger and the disappointment. But to quote SNL's Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers: Really? You'd rather vote for John McCain, a man who has a 25-year history of voting against a woman's right to choose? A man who over the last eight years that NARAL has released a pro-choice scorecard has received a 0 percent rating (in his time in office, Obama has received a 100 percent rating)? A man whose campaign website says he believes Roe v. Wade "must be overturned"? A man who has vowed that, as president, he will be "a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement"?

In Clinton vs. Obama, the policy differences were minor (hence the overriding focus on minutiae like flag pins, Bosnian sniper fire, and the real meaning of "bitter"). In McCain vs. Obama, the differences are enormous. Staying the course in Iraq vs. ending an unnecessary and immoral war. Universal health care vs. less regulation for insurance companies. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts vs. making them permanent.

And nowhere is the difference more profound than with reproductive rights. For anyone -- male or female -- who cares about reproductive rights, family planning, and women's health issues, the choice this fall is not even close. And yet many voters have no idea how extreme McCain's position on these issues is.

In a poll that Planned Parenthood had commissioned of women in 16 battleground states, the results are startling:

Over half of all women in these states have no idea what McCain's positions are on reproductive health. Forty-nine percent of women in battleground states who currently favor McCain are pro-choice. Twenty-three percent of them believe McCain agrees with them on choice.

The good news is, 36 percent of pro-choice McCain supporters are less likely to vote for him after learning that McCain opposes Roe v. Wade and favors making most abortions illegal. That number hits 38 percent when those voters learn that McCain has also consistently voted against expanding access to programs that reduce pregnancy and the need for abortion, consistently voted in favor of abstinence-only programs, and against legislation requiring insurance companies to cover birth control.

The poll's encouraging conclusion: The simple arithmetic of these findings suggests that just filling in McCain's actual voting record and his publicly stated positions on a handful of key issues has the potential to diminish his total vote share among battleground women voters by about 17 to 20 percentage points.

Clearly, when it comes to this key issue, the more voters learn about McCain, the less they like him. So let me add to the educational process:

Since 1983, in votes in the House and the Senate (where he has served since 1987), McCain has cast 130 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues. 125 of those votes were anti-choice. Among his voting lowlights:

He has repeatedly voted to deny low-income women access to abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life (although McCain is now wavering on trying to put these exceptions into the party platform).

He voted to shut down the Title X family-planning program, which provides millions of women with health care services ranging from birth control to breast cancer screenings.

He voted against legislation that established criminal and civil penalties for those who use threats and violence to keep women from gaining access to reproductive health clinics.

He voted to uphold the policy that bans overseas health clinics from receiving aid from America if they use their own funds to provide legal abortion services or even adopt a pro-choice position.

Of his anti-choice voting record, McCain has said, "I have many, many votes and it's been consistent," proudly adding: "And I've got a consistent zero from NARAL" through the years. And last month he told Chris Matthews: "The rights of the unborn is one of my most important values."

What's more, McCain has made it very clear that if he becomes president he will appoint judges in the Scalia, Roberts, Alito mold. His big judicial speech earlier this month was filled with coded buzz words that make it clear that, if given the chance, he'd replace 88-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens with an anti-choice Justice who would tip the scales against Roe v Wade. Throw in an additional anti-choice replacement for the 75-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and you can kiss the right to choose good-bye for a long, long time.

The only way John McCain can win is if his reactionary views on choice and women's health issues remain obscured by his faux maverick reputation and the blinding disappointment of Clinton die-hards.

There is too much at stake to let that happen. Be sure you know what you are voting for before casting a ballot for McCain.

Fair Pay Act

Senator John McCain opposed the Fair Pay Act—a bill that would help guarantee women equal pay for equal work. The bill simply would have restored critical anti-discrimination rules that the Supreme Court struck down in a recent decision, and failed by just three votes.

Adding insult to injury, McCain said that the solution to employment discrimination was for women to get more "education and training." Maybe that made some sense in his day, but today with women outnumbering men on college campuses, it makes none. Study after study has shown that women are paid less than men for the same work, even when they have the same education and training. Senator McCain and his Republican allies have chosen to stand in the way of enforcement of a law that's been on the books protecting women for 40 years.

Senator McCain's statements aren't just misinformed—they're a sad reminder that a lot of politicians are totally out of touch with the hard realities facing working women.

The Reverend Wright situation makes you wonder when we will finally be able rise above the issue of race and treat everyone the same. But the reality is we are all unfairly judged on who we associate with, especially those who live in a fishbowl like presidential candidates. Are we supposed to disown people when they say something that we disagree with? How many times have you been in a situation where someone says something hateful and cruel that you find detestable? How many times do you stay quiet just to keep the peace? How many times have you just let the comments pass - inwardly thinking that if they really stopped and thought about what they said, they might reconsider.

So it is with Barrack Obama's situation on the Reverend Wright comments. Obama knew it was just a matter of time before race became controversial issue. He decided to address the issue in a speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008. I watched the speech and was so impressed that I wouldn't be surprised if one day history shows it to be one of the greatest of our generation. The speech is perceptive and eloquent, but mostly it is an opportunity to gain some insight from a different perspective and just maybe help us grow as individuals and as a nation. Regardless of your political leanings, everyone should watch it if for no other reason than to gain a better understanding of race relations in this country as a critical step to working towards a solution. All you need is 37 minutes and an open mind. It is time well spent.

Read the text of the speech by Senator Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union'

In the Interest of Fairness

Is it fair that Obama got slammed for attending the church of Rev. Wright when John McCain has embraced the political support of right-wing evangelist John Hagee but we've heard nothing about it on the news? Hagee said "Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans?" Most reasonable people agree that Hagee's position reeks of intolerance and bigotry.

John Hagee pretends to know God's will as a way to rationalize his own bigotry and hatred. But it is the ultimate hypocrisy - pretending to be religious when in fact he is nothing more than a sanctimonious hate-monger. Unfortunately, many who consider themselves moral and religious either agree with his hateful rhetoric or are completely fooled by it.

It gets worse. Rev. Rod Parsley, the televangelist megachurch pastor from Ohio who openingly says he hates Islam. He has called on Christians to wage war against Islam, which he considers to be a "false religion." In the past, Parsley has also railed against the separation of church and state, homosexuals, and abortion rights, comparing Planned Parenthood to Nazis.

John McCain actively sought and received Parsley's endorsement in the presidential race. McCain has called Parsley "a spiritual guide," and he hasn't said whether he shares Parsley's vicious anti-Islam views. Somehow, McCain gets away with aligning himself with religious leaders who's called for an all-out war on Islam. and draws no distinctions between Muslims and violent Islamic extremists, an extremely dangerous point-of-view.

The real difference here is that John McCain has fully accepted the endorsement of both Hagee and Parsley, but Obama has disavowed Wright. In fact, McCain's strategy is intentional - he's been trying to court far-right leaders despite their hateful views. Even when he was pressed about Hagee's views, McCain said he was "glad to have his endorsement." What does that tell you about the character of John McCain?

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has "evolved," yet he's continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1

2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain "will make Cheney look like Gandhi."2

3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3

4. McCain opposes a woman's right to choose. He said, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."4

5. The Children's Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children's health care bill last year, then defended Bush's veto of the bill.5

6. He's one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a "second job" and skip their vacations.6

7. Many of McCain's fellow Republican senators say he's too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: "The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He's erratic. He's hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."7

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his "spiritual guide," Rod Parsley, believes America's founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a "false religion." McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church "the Antichrist" and a "false cult."9

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10

McCain's Flip-Flops

It's obvious that the McCain campaign and the RNC have decided to go after Barack Obama as a flip-flopper. What's equally obvious, though, that Republicans couldn't have chosen a worse narrative.

McCain & Co. seemed to stumble on this line of attack almost by accident. They'd experimented with a variety of memes in recent months, none of which had any real salience. The right settled on "flip-flopper," in large part because it's the closest available, already-written Republican narrative, and in part because McCain staffers haven't been able to think of anything else.

The irony, of course, is that the McCain campaign couldn't have picked a more hypocritical line of attack. Below you'll find a comprehensive list of reversals from the Republican nominee, numbered and organized by category for easier reference.

Remember, McCain recently said, "This election is about trust and trusting people's word." Just a few days prior, the McCain campaign admonished Obama for trying to "have it both ways" on issues.

I should note that there's nothing offensive about a political figure changing his or her mind once in a while. Policy makers come to one conclusion, they gain more information, and then they reach a different conclusion. That is, to be sure, a good thing — it reflects a politician with an open mind and a healthy intellectual curiosity. Better to have a leader who changes his or her mind based on new information than one who stubbornly sticks to outmoded policy positions, regardless of facts or circumstances.

So why do McCain's flip-flops matter? Because all available evidence suggests his reversals aren't sincere, they're cynically calculated for political gain. This isn't indicative of an open mind; it's actually indicative of a character flaw. And given the premise of McCain's presidential campaign, it's an area in desperate need of scrutiny.

The perception people have of McCain is outdated, reflective of a man who no longer has any use for his previous persona. What's wrong with a politician who changes his or her views? Nothing in particular, but when a politician changes his views so much that he has an entirely different worldview, is it unreasonable to wonder whether it's entirely sincere? Especially when there's no other apparent explanation for six dozen significant reversals?

McCain has been in Congress for more than a quarter-century; he's bound to shift now and then on various controversies. But therein lies the point — McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned literally dozens of positions he used to hold. The problem isn't just the incessant flip-flops — though that's part of it — it's more about the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the incessant flip-flops. That the media still perceives McCain as some kind of "straight talker" who refuses to sway with the political winds makes this all the more glaring.

1. McCain thought Bush's warrantless-wiretap program circumvented the law; now he believes the opposite.

2. McCain insisted that everyone, even "terrible killers," "the worst kind of scum of humanity," and detainees at Guantanamo Bay, "deserve to have some adjudication of their cases," even if that means "releasing some of them." McCain now believes the opposite.

3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country."

6. When Barack Obama talked about going after terrorists in Pakistani mountains with predators, McCain criticized him for it. He's since come to the opposite conclusion.

11. McCain is both for and against a "rogue state rollback" as a focus of his foreign policy vision.

12. McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty's behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

14. McCain recently claimed that he was the "greatest critic" of Rumsfeld's failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as "a mission accomplished." In March 2004, he said, "I'm confident we're on the right course." In December 2005, he said, "Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course."

15. McCain has changed his mind about a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq on multiple occasions, concluding, on multiple occasions, that a Korea-like presence is both a good and a bad idea.

16. McCain was against additional U.S. forces in Afghanistan before he was for it.

17. 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."

18. McCain has repeatedly said it's a dangerous mistake to tell the "enemy" when U.S. troops would be out of Iraq. In May, McCain announced that most American troops would be home from Iraq by 2013.

20. McCain staunchly opposed Obama's Iraq withdrawal timetable, and even blasted Mitt Romney for having referenced the word during the GOP primaries. In July, after Iraqi officials endorsed Obama's policy, McCain said a 16-month calendar sounds like "a pretty good timetable."

21. McCain defended "privatizing" Social Security. Now he says he's against privatization (though he actually still supports it.)

22. On Social Security, McCain said he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Soon after, asked about a possible increase in the payroll tax, McCain said there's "nothing that's off the table."

23. McCain wanted to change the Republican Party platform to protect abortion rights in cases of rape and incest. Now he doesn't.

24. McCain supported storing spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Now he believes the opposite.

26. In 1998, he championed raising cigarette taxes to fund programs to cut underage smoking, insisting that it would prevent illnesses and provide resources for public health programs. Now, McCain opposes a $0.61-per-pack tax increase, won't commit to supporting a regulation bill he's co-sponsoring, and has hired Philip Morris' former lobbyist as his senior campaign adviser.

28. 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.

33. In 2005, McCain endorsed intelligent design creationism, a year later he said the opposite, and a few months after that, he was both for and against creationism at the same time.

34. And on gay adoption, McCain initially said he'd rather let orphans go without families, then his campaign reversed course, and soon after, McCain reversed back.

35. In the Senate, McCain opposed a variety of measures on equal pay for women, and endorsed the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision. In July, however, McCain said, "I'm committed to making sure that there's equal pay for equal work. That … is my record and you can count on it."

36. McCain was against fully funding the No Child Left Behind Act before he was for it.

38. McCain said the Colorado River compact will "obviously" need to be "renegotiated." Six days later, McCain said, "Let me be clear that I do not advocate renegotiation of the compact."

39. McCain was against Bush's tax cuts for the very wealthy before he was for them.

40. 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.

42. 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.

43. McCain thought the estate tax was perfectly fair. Now he believes the opposite.

44. McCain pledged in February 2008 that he would not, under any circumstances, raise taxes. Specifically, McCain was asked if he is a "'read my lips' candidate, no new taxes, no matter what?" referring to George H.W. Bush's 1988 pledge. "No new taxes," McCain responded. Two weeks later, McCain said, "I'm not making a 'read my lips' statement, in that I will not raise taxes."

46. McCain believes Americans are both better and worse off economically than they were before Bush took office.

48. McCain recently announced his strong opposition to a windfall-tax on oil company profits. Three weeks earlier, he was perfectly comfortable with the idea.

49. McCain endorsed a cap-and-trade policy with a mandatory emissions cap. In mid-June, McCain announced he wants the caps to voluntary.

50. McCain explained his belief that a temporary suspension of the federal gas tax would provide an immediate economic stimulus. Shortly thereafter, he argued the exact opposite.

53. McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants' kids who graduate from high school. In 2007, he announced his opposition to the bill. In 2008, McCain switched back.

54. On immigration policy in general, McCain announced in February 2008 that he would vote against his own bill.

55. In April, McCain promised voters that he would secure the borders "before proceeding to other reform measures." Two months later, he abandoned his public pledge, pretended that he'd never made the promise in the first place, and vowed that a comprehensive immigration reform policy has always been, and would always be, his "top priority."

56. McCain said he would "not impose a litmus test on any nominee." He used to promise the opposite.

57. McCain's position was that the telecoms should be forced to explain their role in the administration's warrantless surveillance program as a condition for retroactive immunity. He used to believe the opposite.

59. In June, McCain rejected the idea of a trial for Osama bin Laden, and thought Obama's reference to Nuremberg was a misread of history. A month later, McCain argued the exact opposite position.

60. In June, McCain described the Supreme Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush was "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." In August, he reversed course.

62. In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving "feedback" on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he opposes his own measure.

63. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

64. In May 2008, McCain approved a ban on lobbyists working for his campaign. In July 2008, his campaign reversed course and said lobbyists could work for his campaign.

65. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist John Hagee. Now he doesn't. (He also believes his endorsement from Hagee was both a good and bad idea.)

66. McCain wanted political support from radical televangelist Rod Parsley. Now he doesn't.

68. McCain is both for and against attacking Barack Obama over his former pastor at his former church.

69. McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as "an agent of intolerance" in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans "deserved" the 9/11 attacks.

70. In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending "dirty money" to help finance Bush's presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

71. McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

72. McCain decided in 2000 that he didn't want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he "would taint the image of the 'Straight Talk Express.'" Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

73. McCain believed powerful right-wing activist/lobbyist Grover Norquist was "corrupt, a shill for dictators, and (with just a dose of sarcasm) Jack Abramoff's gay lover." McCain now considers Norquist a key political ally.

74. McCain was for presidential candidates giving speeches in foreign countries before he was against it.

75. McCain has been both for and against considering a pro-choice running mate for the Republican presidential ticket.

Number	Name of Lobbyist	Campaign Role	Firm or Company	Oil Clients
1	Rebecca Anderson	Women for McCain Steering Committee	Williams & Jensen	Sunoco
2	Wayne Berman	National Finance Co-Chairman	Ogilvy Government Relations	Amerada Hess Chevron Texaco American Petroleum Institute
3	Charlie Black	Senior Political Adviser	BKSH	Occidental Petroleum Corp. Yukos Oil Chinese National Off-Shore Oil Corp.
4	Carlos Bonilla*	Economic Adviser	Washington Group	Chesapeake Energy
5	Eric Burgeson**	Fundraiser	Barbour Griffith & Rogers	BP
6	Kerry Cammack	Fundraiser	Cammack and Strong	Exxon Mobil
7	Frank Donatelli	McCain Pick as Deputy RNC Chair	McGuire Woods	Exxon Mobil Dominion Resources
8	Melissa Edwards	Fundraiser	Washington Group	Chesapeake Energy
9	John Green	Congressional Liaison	Ogilvy Government Relations	Amerada-Hess Chevon Texaco El Paso Energy American Petroleum Institute
10	Robert Harding	Fundraiser	Greenberg Traurig	Chevron Murphy Oil Phillips Petroleum Company***
11	Richard Hohlt	Fundraiser	Hohlt and Associates	Chevron
12	James "Jim" Hyland	Fundraiser	Pennsylvania Avenue Group	BP America Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Assoc. Occidental Petroleum Corp. Independent Fuel Terminal Operators Assoc.
13	Peter Madigan	Fundraiser	Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart	Shell Oil
14	Susan Molinari	Women for McCain Steering Committee	Washington Group	Chesapeake Energy
15	Jack Oliver	Fundraiser	Bryan Cave Strategies	Shell Oil
16	Nancy Pfotenhauer	Adviser	Koch Industries	Koch Industries
17	Steve Phillips	Fundraiser	DLA Piper	BP America Occidental Petroleum
18	Elise Pickering	Women for McCain Steering Committee	Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti	Koch Industries
19	Sloan Rappoport	Fundraiser	Downey McGrath Group	Koch Industries
20	Matt Salmon	Fundraiser	Greenberg Traurig	El Paso Energy
21	Randy Scheunemann	Defense and Foreign Policy Coordinator	Scheunemann and Associates	BP Amoco
22	Jeffrey Weiss	Fundraiser	BKSH	Yukos Oil Company

Facts that will Convince you to Vote for Barack Obama

Let's Compare - Obama vs. McCain

Who will better represent the American people?

Who is Sarah Palin?

Jon Stewart on Sarah Palin Choice

The Old Double Standard

Palin’s Anti-Environmental Record

Experience

Fiscal Responsibility and the Economy

Taxes

The Iraq War

Support for War Vets

The Environment

Clean Energy

Obama

McCain

Taking on Big Oil

Obama

McCain

McCain Donations from Big Oil

At Least 22 Top McCain Advisers & Fundraisers Have Lobbied For Big Oil

McCain's Policies and Votes on Behalf of Big Oil

Offshore Drilling

Where was John McCain on the Clean Energy Vote?

John McCain Should Be Ashamed

Health care

Stem cell research

Woman's Rights

Fair Pay Act

Barrack Obama's speech on race and the Reverend Wright controversy

Read the text of the speech by Senator Barack Obama: 'A More Perfect Union'

In the Interest of Fairness

More on McCain

10 things you should know about John McCain (but probably don't):

McCain's Flip-Flops

More Videos