Sphere: Related Content
As the viability of Barack Obama proves, many Americans are suckers for rhetoric. Representing the party of rhetoric, the three leading Democratic candidates have insisted that each one of them can bring about "change" and in typical Democratic fashion they prove it by saying the word "change" as much as they can. The four Democrats said the word over 60 times at their recent debate in New Hampshire. I was watching the debate with some friends and we turned it into a drinking game, taking a swig every time the magic word was uttered. By the end of the debate, we were hammered.
Well, I've got some really good news for all of you change-obsessed Dems. Are you ready? Next year, we will have a new president of the United States. It's true. I guarantee it. We will make a change. On Jan 21st 2009, the occupant of the Oval Office will change.This will happen regardless of how many time Hillary Clinton says the word "change".(23)
So when Barack Obama says the word "change" it's completely meaningless and a waste of everyone's time, even though it sounds really, really good when he says it.
But while the Democrats love talking about "change" what's their record when it comes to actually changing things?
Hillary Clinton failed to change our health care system in the early nineties.
She was never able to change her husbands cheating ways.
She voted against a change of strategy in Iraq, which ended up being incredibly successful.
The only things that Hillary Clinton has ever changed is her hairstyle and her accent when visiting southern states.
John Edwards changed from a moderate Democrat with potential to take back the Clinton coalition of southern states for his party, to a socialist who couldn't get elected dog catcher in his own state.
He changed from a supporter of the Iraq war to one of its biggest detractors.
And then there's the golden boy, Barack Obama.
As far as I know Barack Obama has never changed squat. He sure can dance though.
The reality is, that the leading Democrats have no experience in bringing about change and when they try to bring about change, they generally fail.
So, what about the GOP candidates?
John McCain was the major force behind the surge strategy, the change that was needed in Iraq.
Rudy Giuliani took a city that was busting at the seems with crime, corruption and pornography shops and changed it from the inside out. He changed the city's reputation and made it so that Michael Bloomberg can walk the streets at night without fear.
Mitt Romney changed the 2002 winter games from a money losing debacle sprinkled with allegations of bribery, to a profitable Olympiad that Salt Lake City could be proud of. Curling and all.
He has also changed his positions on abortion, gun control and gay marriage.
Mike Huckabee changed the governors office in Arkansas from one which was ridden with scandal from the Clinton and Tucker years and restored dignity to the position.
He also changed his lifestyle when doctors told him he would die if he didn't get healthy. He lost 110 pounds. Take note Bill Richardson.
So for all of you folks thirsty for change, logically it only makes sense that you would vote for one of these four guys, since their record in bringing about change is far superior to that of their Democratic counterparts.
The most worrisome thing about all of this meaningless talk of change is that it's clouding over the most important issue of our time. An issue in regards to which change is not preferable to the status quo.
Thanks to President Bush, the Patriot Act, The United States military, Michael Chertoff, Tom Ridge and others, America has not been attacked since 9/11. If a change in leadership means that this fact will change, then perhaps we should amend the Constitution and give W. a third term.
- Dan Joseph
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by Falling Panda at 4:55 PM