Saturday, January 12, 2008

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Change. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Change.....

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

Sphere: Related Content


Diane said...

Good one Dan!

Anonymous said...

re: "But while the Democrats love talking about "change" what's their record when it comes to actually changing things?"

I know you think your childishness is funny, but your problem is with your facts. Here's the change the Democrats are talking seriously to the America people about:

When Democrat Bill Clinton finished his two terms in office, 70% of America thought we were going in the right direction.

After seven years of Bush Republicans in control, 70+% of America thinks we are going in the WRONG direction.

Here's the biggest problems that Republicans have this year:
McCain = Bush Republican
Romney = Bush Republican
Giuliani = Bush Republican
Thompson = Nixon Republican
Paul = Too Libertarian for the GOP
Huckabee = Too compassionate for the GOP

Good luck!
I hear that Karl Rove has The Math again.
I predict another Thumpin'.

dan said...

Yes Clinton was popular when he left office and a majority of people thought the nation was on the wrong track at the time of the 2004 election.

On both occasions Bush beat the Democratic standard bearer.

What does that tell you?

Roughly 70% of the American people also supported the initial invasion of Iraq, so based on your proclivity to belive that polls are always an indicator of which policies are right and which are wrong, I assume that you were a big surporter of the war from the very beggining.
7:44 PM

Hickory said...

I would add Huckabee changed the Arkansas schools ranking from 39th to 8th in the Nation. Nice Change.
This was a great blog article.

Anonymous said...

re: "Roughly 70% of the American people also supported the initial invasion of Iraq [...] I assume that you were a big surporter of the war from the very beggining."

Actually, again, you have your FACTS wrong. 82% of the American people supported the invasion of Iraq.

The reason why 82% of the American people once supported the initial invasion of Iraq was because of crap like this:

On Aug. 26, 2002, Dick Cheney publicly told the American people that he knew where the wmd's in Iraq were located.

What do you think?
Was he lying, or is he simply an idiot?

I didn't support the invasion of Iraq because I had a shipmate blown apart on the USS Cole, so I had a unique prospective against invading Iraq.
I don't blame people who believed their President; I blame their President.

My husband, who is a combat vet, enforced the no-fly zone over Iraq on a Navy Destroyer loaded with Tomahawks.
He considered the invasion of Iraq the stupidest decision of any C-in-C under whom he's ever served.

He left the Navy immediately.
Therefore, he's not one of the nearly 4000 combat-trained U.S. servicemembers who have been blown up in Iraq over Dick Cheney's non-existent wmd's.

If you disagree with a combat vet, I really doubt it's because of your military training.
I'm guessing it has to do more to do with the flavor of kool-aid they served you yesterday.

George W. Bush promised you that he would find Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive.
Has he failed you?

There's a reason why Ron Paul is getting more campaign donations from the active duty U.S. military than any other Republican candidate.

I consider you just another Bush Republican who refuses to hold your god accountable for being a miserable failure. Sad.

RudyVasalino said...

demos want change? To what? what we had when they held the WH last?

RudyVasalino said...

I dont want to change, at least if that means changing to what we had when demos last held the WH. On clintons last day we were in recession, the market was crashing due to the great stock market robbery of the late '90s, and alqeda WAS HERE, in our country, planning and training for 9-11.

OR, maybe they want to change to what we had on the last day that demos had the WH, AND the congress? Remember ol' peanuthead, that fun guy? On his last day we had 18% interest rates, 12% inflation, and nearly 10% unemployment. We also had hostages in their 444th day. Maybe that is what liberal want to change back to? Not me.

Anonymous said...

Well, this seems a little biased doesn't it...Clearly it seems like authentic frontier gibberish to me... I may not accept all of CLinton's policies but maybe one reason she failed to bring about healthcare during the 90s was partly due to the fact that the republicans didn't want to have anything to do with it... they seemed to be happy with stalling untill they got the WH back.... Hum, you see, you are one great example of what is wrong with todays politics: you try and paint one party as just talk, really blame it on one political party...but you see, politics is way more complicated than that. But then, congratulations on continuing with this divisive ranting that really has divided our country...

Shannonymous said...

YAY RON PAUL!!!!!!!!! =D I love him. Not as much as Obama, but he is terrific. If it came down to those two, I'd have a tough time. If it comes down to Hil and McCain though, I'm voting with you, Dan.

Falling Panda said...

The further into history that we go, the more we will realize just how beneficial to both the Middle East as well as the world, the democratization of Iraq was.

I have said this all along and I've been subject to much scorn and derision by the majority who see the problems, which have defined the conflict, and who have become understandably squeamish.

Recently, our success in the region which includes the decimation of Al -Queda as well as the abandonment of weapons programs by rouge nations such as Iran, North Korea and Libya have served to strengthen my belief that this war was the right thing to do at the beginning, it was the right thing to do in the middle and it's the right thing to do now.

Abraham Lincoln got his strategy wrong too. For four years he went with generals and a flawed plan, which caused many in the North to abandon the cause, believing the Civil War unwinnable. Then he hired Grant and history now defines the war as it ended, not as it was in the middle when thousands upon thousands of Americans lost their lives.

I believe that history will judge the current president in the same way.

Ron Paul is a good man, albeit an eccentric and old fashioned one. His policies mirror those of the early 1900's when ideas such as the gold standard and American isolationism were popular and possible.

However, the gold standard is not a realistic concept in a $13 trillion economy and we have seen the effects that American isolationism has had on the rest of the world during the bloody conflicts of WWI and WWII. To think that the Middle-East would be any less angry or any less fundamentalist if it lacked an American presence is naive.

We helped save Afghanistan in the early 80's from Soviet rule and yet Bin Laden and the Talliban still hate us.

We didn't intervene when the Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1978 and it has lead to a fundamentalist Iran which even today serves as a threat to the world as well as to the stability of the Middle-East.

The people of Israel have every right to live in peace and yet an irrational hatred of Jews, used by Arab leaders to deter their citizen's focus from their own shortcomings onto someone else has succeeded.

We need a presence in the Middle-East to ensure peace in the region, economic stability throughout the world and to prevent the type of backward, Islamic thinking which lead to 9/11to fester and eventually become strong enough to hold the world hostage with dangerous weapons and suicide bombers in our American Cities.

As for Hillary, her single payer health plan in the early nineties would have had an adverse effect on economic growth as well as our ability to sustain the worlds most powerful military.

I'm sure that Ron Paul would agree that the Constitution's most important tenant is the protection American citizens.

Nowhere does it cite the right of American's to free health care.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately the Republicans can't change anything, not even their underware.

Rockyspoon said...

Way back when Richard Nixon was president the popular phrase was "the Democrats get the action and the Republicans get the rhetoric". That's as true today as it was 40 years ago. So when the nation has a Dem for a president, EVERYTHING is GOOD, regardless of how vile that man is or the problems the nation has. When the nation has a Repub for a president, EVERYTHING is BAD, regardless of how good that man is or the accomplishments the nation does. The Dems are famous for slandering America (in the name of the "loyal opposition", mind you). Someday people will wake up and see the enemy in our midst.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the Republicans know how to change a budget surplus into a record deficit, a well-contained dictatorship into a haven for terrorists, the Constitution into toilet paper, and American jobs into Chinese jobs. Yay GOP!