Does anyone else find it painfully ironic that John Kerry — a man who the American people found, via the electoral system, unfit to lead — is engaging in pointless commentary, while waging baseless claims against Sen. John McCain?

Over the weekend, Kerry called McCain “unfit to lead.” Am I incorrect in my assertion that it was Kerry who approached McCain in 2004, asking him to join in the formation of a bi-partisan ticket? Here we are four years later and John “The Flapjack” Kerry is at it again, flipping and flopping faster than a speeding light (whatever that means). On CBS’ Face The Nation, Kerry said:

“John McCain has changed in profound and fundamental ways that I find personally really surprising, and frankly upsetting.”

Ironically, I am not surprised to find Kerry acting as childish and irreverent as ever. Kerry and Obama are totally fringe, but for some reason the Democrats continue to nominate their kind. They were and are two of the most liberal senators, as they stand firmly grounded on the left wing of the American political spectrum. Bipartisanship? Not from these guys. And during a time when we need nothing short of extreme collaboration and inter-party cohesiveness, the fact that the Democrats continue to nominate wing-nuts is extremely disconcerting.

In the interview, Kerry went on to bash McCain, citing the familiar “Bush’s third term” diatribe. I’m not sure if the Democrats realize this yet, but that statement is tired at best. Everyone knows that there are profound differences between McCain and Bush, so continuing to drive home an invalid point is useless. Kerry then proceeds to state the following:

“If you like what has happened to oil prices, John McCain is going to continue that policy. If you like what you see about health care, John McCain has no health care plan.”

Aside from the fact that McCain has an energy plan that greatly differs from George W. Bush’s (which is common knowledge), one wonders if Kerry has even glanced at Obama’s energy plan. Allow me to pull out a snippet for him:

“Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.”

Now, let’s explore ethanol in brief:

“… producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy — most of which comes from coal. Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources. Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with major environmental harm.”

And I’m not even going to touch healthcare. McCain does have a plan, but Kerry’s probably too bitter over his 2004 loss to take the time and read it. And then there’s Iraq. Kerry has plenty to say about McCain’s judgment on the war:

“Kerry criticized McCain’s continued support of the occupation, given the effect of a continuing presence of U.S. troops on the situation in Iraq and the region at large. He pointed to remarks by leaders in the Middle East who told him during a recent visit, “You, America, have served up to Iran Iraq on a platter.”

And this is where Kerry loses me entirely. The surge has worked and that’s something that Obama is going to have to contend with come November. Continuing to lament the war, while demanding that the troops come home immediately is nonsensical. When success is so close, why would we exit the region? Doing so would mean a total disservice to the Iraqi people. Leaving Iraq would surely “serve up to Iran Iraq on a platter.” Is this not common sense?

I suppose that writing this piece has given Kerry credence he simply doesn’t deserve. In the end, he’s proven himself painfully irrelevant. Not much has changed since 2004.

“Hope.” “Change.” “A new kind of politics.” Barack Obama’s promise to implement these ideals has led him top of the Democratic pack, as millions of Americans have contributed to his highly successful campaign. And who can blame Americans for jumping on board? On the surface, a platform that promises the invoke hope and change is surely enticing — especially after eight years of political and social turbulence. But, what do “hope” and “change” actually mean? If actions count for anything, Obama’s promise to ignite a “new kind of politics” is laughable at best. So, why are the American people missing all of the cues?

From race relations to the federal tax system, Obama continues to prove that his policies and allegiances possess the characteristics of nothing more than typical, run-of-the-mill political fodder. He’s no different from a traditional politician, yet for some reason his charismatic nature has inebriated my generation, in particular, severely impairing rational exploration of his actions, inactions and incessant flip-flops. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“While Barack Obama campaigns as an anomaly not corrupted by Washington politics or special interests, he has repeatedly contradicted this illusion by accepting big bucks from convicted entrepreneurs as well as oil company executives, steering millions of federal earmark dollars to his wife’s employer and a top donor and hiring powerful corporate insiders to run his campaign.”

When we talk about proposed tax systems, Obama fares not much better than McCain. According to the Brooking Institution and the Urban Instutite, McCain’s plans would cut receipts by $3.72 trillion from over a 10 year period, while Obama’s plans would cut revenues by $2.73 trillion during the same time frame.

And what about a more general sense of fiscal discipline? The sad reality is that neither of the candidates’ proposals would balance the U.S. budget:

“The left-leaning Tax Policy Center concludes: “Obama’s generosity comes at a price. … He’d raise the national debt by a staggering $3.3 trillion over the next decade, and that includes more than $900 billion in promised revenue raisers that TPC could not verify.”

Obama’s spending plans for health care, infrastructure, education and energy aren’t even included in TPC’s estimate. With Social Security and Medicare in grave danger, allowing our officials to manage a health care system in the current political climate is frightening at best.

But his hypocrisy transcends these issues and extends into nearly every facet of his campaign. Last week, he went back on his word and announced that he would be forgoing more the $85 million in public financing — a move that has McCain and many others (even Obama supporters) frustrated and disheartened. So much for bi-partisan negotiations. According to OpenSecrets:

“Last March, before Obama became the candidate to beat in the money race, his campaign said he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election” if he were to win his party’s nomination.”

And while I’m at it, allow me to mention his insane endorsement of ethanol as a viable fuel alternative. I can’t imagine that he has missed the media’s coverage of the destruction that has been caused by the utilization of ethanol. Damaging the world’s fuel supply and potentially worsening the alleged global warming phenomenon apparently doesn’t matter to Obama. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“It turns out that Obama’s national campaign co-chairman, former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and his top advisor on environmental issues, Jason Grumet, used to work for a bipartisan initiative (National Commission on Energy Policy) that strongly supports ethanol…Obama is also very tight with Illinois agriculture giant Archer Daniels Midland, the nation’s largest ethanol producer…”

I suppose forgetting to mention Rev. Wright would be irresponsible of me. See, Obama attended the same church for years. He listened to anti-American and anti-white statements and seemed completely content with his pastor’s rants — that is, until his church membership hurt his campaign. It was not until pressures mounted that Obama formerly removed his allegiances to Wright and company.

Are we supposed to believe that Obama was never happy at his church — that he always differed ideologically from Rev. Wright? Believing such an idea would be nonsensical. No one stays at a church if they disagree with the leading pastor. And if by some chance Obama did stay despite some difference in opinion he surely wouldn’t have allowed his pastor to marry he and his wife or baptize his children. And wasn’t Wright an inspiration for one of his books? Obama agrees with Rev. Wright entirely — he just can’t admit that to the American people.

Perhaps Judicial Watch said it best: “Somehow, the charismatic young lawmaker that the mainstream media loves to portray as a sort of rock star doesn’t seem any different than most Washington heavy hitters.”