Real Change

When Obama entered the race for President his main message was “hope and change”. There was little mention of what defined hope and any questions as to what sort of change were treated as if they were racist. The mainstream media, continuing their repackaging of Obama on a daily basis as the campaign went on gave America’s first mocha-toned President what amounted to billions of dollars in campaign support.

---

“Hope and change”. As resonant as that phrase was, it wasn’t the first time affirmative action campaigns used it. I doubt a single reporter active today has a clear memory of Jesse Jackson’s failed presidential bid. The Clinton’s also used a similar slogan back in their day. Every time, it seems, that a liberal runs for high office they try to sell the voters on the lie that change, simply for change’s sake is a good thing. I suppose it depends upon the audience. Some change, frankly, is a bad thing. For example, changing from a market economy to socialism has not been kind, especially where jobs and homes are concerned. Some other changes, however, seem fairly attractive. One example is changing from a Democrat-controlled congress to a Republican one. Another one is changing the couple currently lodged in the White House. I recently watched the Robin Williams movie, Man of the Year. Not as entertaining as the movie Dave, Man of the Year still had enough going for it to punch through several good points. One point is that both of the majority parties have gotten so bloated and corrupt that neither seems interested in being honest with those who put them into office. In many ways they act as if living off the public dollar is their due. A very telling example of that attitude is the reaction of those in Congress when faced with the prospect of having to vote on a term limits bill. Another is when someone has the bad grace to suggest that earmarks should not be added to legislation. Both movies, Man of the Year and Dave propose what sort of change would occur if the next President happened to not be one of the usual suspects. It seems to me that more and more of the electorate are now wondering about that. Clinton was not quite as bad as Bush Senior, but he certainly wasn’t good, and Bush Junior showed that, if the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree, what grows isn’t all that robust. After nearly 30 years of incompetency, the American public is ready for some real change. With that in mind how about putting someone into the White House who has experience in business administration, legislation, mediation, and negotiation? How about electing someone who has been nominated for a world class award for what they actually did, rather than what they “intended” to do? How about voting for a man who has proven his integrity, even when it cost him both power and wealth? How about choosing a man for President who has been endorsed both by the NAACP and the law enforcement community, and who has experience in foreign relations without having to bow before royalty? A man who has the ability to write his own speeches, speak on the issues without the aide of a teleprompter, has proven his firm belief in the integrity of the US Constitution, in treating all as equals regardless of external circumstances, and in the sovereignty of our borders. In other words, how about someone like me?