Maturity... please?

And we all said that George W. Bush was a flip-flopper. Check this out. McCain isn't too far from his Republican cohort.

Following the 2008 presidential election campaign has been interesting so far, but recently I read an article regarding immigration and the views of each of the candidates. (McCain and Obama) What I read surprised me for sure. You would think that someone running for president would have a little bit more confidence in his own opinion.

Senator John McCain, last year, was co-sponsoring legislation to be passed, that of which regarded immigration policies and illegal aliens. When it stalled last year, his 'reason' for no longer supporting the bill was that "it was not popular with [the Republican] party."

Maturity? Please? In order to win the nomination for the Republican party, Senator John McCain put aside something that he had been working for that would be good for the public, the American citizens, and those who would like to become citizens of the United States. This was something vital, something important and needed for the country to improve... how could someone put it aside just because people wouldn't like you for it? I can understand teenagers in high school worrying about what people think about them, but then you have to realize that the reason teens do this is because of the example that our leaders make for them... but I digress.

Although I am a fan of Senator Obama, I can't say that he's being the most mature either.

"'When he was running for his party's nomination, he walked away from that commitment,' Obama told a gathering of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, at which the two candidates appeared separately to woo Hispanic votes." -The Trail

Once again, a system that should be formal and convincing has been shown to be a mere popularity contest with all the immaturities of high school... only without the slang and ripped jeans.

Free Speech and Limits: Crossing a Line?

Reading this brought some interesting thoughts to mind.

As much as I would like to disagree and say that the interpretation of the first amendment should be in the eye of the beholder, being anyone who chooses to use or abuse it, I cannot.

Al Franken knowingly abuses this right of free speech, as do many other citizens of the United States. The founders and framers may not have seen it coming, and they might not have had any clue that it was going to happen... but the world has changed, does change, and will still change in the future.

As to a line being drawn, it must be. However, no matter how liberal or conservative one could be with drawing this line, someone will think differently. And as this is one of the greatest things about U.S. culture, it is also what separates a united people into groups. So all anyone could really do is sit around and pretend to play a game of 'keep everybody happy.'

The only solution is no solution... and I promise that makes sense.

People can be as outspoken as they would like to be, and when it offends you, stop listening. Although someone might be offended, others might find Al's jokes to be absolutely and totally hilarious. The opinion is a dangerous concept, but the greatest thing about it is that everyone has their own. Every person will have their own idea of what the first amendment should be interpreted as, and many of them will be conflicting. However, as mentioned earlier, it seems now that no solution is the only solution.

Campaigning... How bad could it be?

Browsing the newspaper, and reading over some articles about the current presidential campaigning going on, I began to wonder what campaigning really was. The only thing that I really could come up with was that the concept of campaigning was a process of winning votes by telling the public what they want to hear.

Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary describes a campaign as such:

campaign: 1: a connected series of military operations forming a distinct phase of a war 2: a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result

Now, assuming that elections are not meant to be wars, we know that the second definition is that which describes campaigning for our purpose. However, one must also consider how similar the two definitions are, especially comparing to campaigning and debates going on in the presidential election process this year.

The primaries were bad, we all thought; with all the contrasting views between opponents and neck-to-neck politics... but is it going to get any better now? It's down to McCain and Obama, but it seems now that the competition is cut-throat.

Campaigns in a Skirmish Over Terrorism and Law, an article written by Michael Cooper for the New York Times, talks about the recent political debates between Senator McCain and Senator Obama, including the tensions between them and their opinions on how to keep our country safe during the next presidential term.

Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy and national security advisor to Senator McCain, recently accused Obama of acting as though he is in a "September 10th mindset," an accusation made toward John Kerry by George W. Bush four years ago in the 2004 election.

Senator Obama brushed off the cruel criticism and devised a response to the effect of... 'this coming from the people that beat around the bush when we could be catching those responsible.' This would be a prime time for an "oh... you need some butter for that burn?"

However, John McCain still pushes the 'Sept. 10 mindset' in describing his opponent because in his opinion, Obama treats terrorism as a mere criminal matter and doesn't give it the attention it deserves. What is difficult to understand is that Obama is the one that wants to fix the problems, arrest those responsible, and basically 'nip it in the bud.' My view of this is that McCain is trying to protect himself from getting critisized for not being like Obama with his go-get-'em attitude.

This is only one of the many issues that have been and will be debated from now moving into this coming November, and already we have immature accusations being put forth.

Did I get what I was looking for in actually pulling out the dusty red dictionary? Is this what campaigning and debate should be like? Because when looking at the definition on paper, I think it would make sense to place faith in the second option which seems to be about elections, but when I see today's debates and read the newspaper to find articles such as the one I saw today, I begin to question whether a war would better describe campaigning.

Will Clinton take the blame if Obama falls?

In this article about finger-pointing and reasons behind it, Ben Adler, a staff writer for Politico, suggests that Clinton would be an object of blame if Barack Obama does not win the presidential election in November. While some think that yes, Hillary Clinton will take the blame if Senator Obama does not come out victorious, others think that this is a moot point, and that the democratic party will be completely united by that time.

It is naive to think that the entire democratic party will unite for Barack, but considering that his platform was/is 95% the same of what Clinton was holding up, it is possible that a majority will come together. If Clinton will uphold her word and really support Obama in the rest of the election process, then he will come out victorious. There is no doubt that there is a huge possibility for a major democratic landslide. At this point, she is campaigning for him and with him, and trying her best to get her public votes to transfer. However, it might not be so necessary because of how similar the platforms were during the primary. Most of the public has the notion that Obama is a good man with a sensible head on his shoulders. It would be completely absurd to think anything otherwise, as he has avoided all lingering clashes and confrontations so far, and handles everything with sensibility.

My opinion: Obama will win this election in a landslide if he keeps moving foward the way he is now. If it doesn't happen, the blame will fall more on McCain, not Clinton. (if she keeps campaigning for him the way she has started)

To the polls?

This editorial in the Austin American Statesman adresses the value of the voter in Austin. Fighting head to head for a seat on the city council, Laura Morrison and Cid Galindo would need the majority of the vote. Unfortunately, only about 25,000 citizens of Austin are voting for these such things. This wouldn't be an issue except for the fact that the percentage of the population that is voting is a miniscule 3.5%.. The main issue is the number of votes and the value of a single vote. We live in a city with such dynamic people with huge, independent opinions. Why don't people vote then? It is the duty of the citizens to vote! And especially in Austin, where opinions are so out-there, wouldn't people want their opinion heard, no matter how crazy? My opinion? Vote. Take to the booth and vote. The Austin American Statesman's editorial board is in favor of Morrison and her democratic ideals in a largely democratic city. Galindo wants a "green home tax" which would require homeowners to use energy upgrades before selling their houses. Morrison is not in agreement with this tax and says that she would never burden homeowners in that manner. So what will it be? A republican who wants to impose a tax on homesellers with the house economy as bad as it is? or will it be Morrison? One can't really say that she doesn't have a leg up on Galindo in even just that she is a democrat.

Clinton to End Bid and Endorse Obama

Today, Hillary Clinton announced her endorsement of Barack Obama as she dropped out of the race for the presidency. Now a vice-presidential hopeful, she is directing all her fundraising and all the votes she can towards Senator Obama in the hopes of a democratic victory in November. The democratic party is now in full support of Senator Obama in his endeavor for the United States presidency.

This article is extremely significant in the politics of today and in the essence of the future governmental systems of the United States. At this point in the election process, it is necessary to be solidified in the interest of one presidential candidate. In choosing the candidate most prepared to serve and lead our country, we, as Americans, are choosing our future leaders and placing our trust, freedoms, and rights in their hands. This is just one reason why it is so eminent to be informed on today's political happenings.

readers can access this story at

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/04cnd-campaign.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1212811200&en=9c9dbf4b1565a36c&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin