Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Change? Who needs that!?
James Opens Another Can.

I've really cut back on the posts about the local political landscape, and I've done it on purpose. I find that it tends to make me more negative, and I'm trying to improve in that area.

However, this is about the presidential election, so I'll post for this one.

The post which follows is in response to a blog entry on the local paper's website. The person making the post claims to be a retired janitor with "100 hours of graduate study beyond an M.A. in U.S. history." (anyone else's bullshit alarm going off yet?)

I'm going to do this in a quote and response style. The blog entry is linked above, so feel free to read it if you like (some of his other posts are real winners too).

"Sen. Barack Obama's campaign slogan "Change We Can Believe In" is a nonsense phrase. It has no real meaning.

Am I the only one who thinks that it doesn't make any sense to believe in "change"? I can see believing in religion or love or maybe even music, but believing in "change" makes no sense."

While I don’t think it’s wise to seek change simply for the sake of change, after the last almost 8 years of Bush in office, you bet your ass I’m ready for change in a positive direction. We (at least the sane among us) don’t expect everything to happen overnight, but we do bloody well think it NEEDS to happen.

“Bill Clinton suggested "It's time to change America" when he ran in 1992. I don't recall him changing much of anything, although two years later voters changed Congress by replacing many Democrats with Republicans.”

For someone who claims to study US history, you don’t seem to know a whole lot about it. Under Clinton, we actually had a budget *surplus* which Bush decided to squander when he came into office.

That was quite a change from the previous administrations as well as the current one.

Then again, I’m responding to someone who thinks that Clinton got off from lying to a federal judge because he was the President when the truth is that he was found not guilty because the question had no bearing on the case he was testifying about and therefore had no place being asked.

And this guy claims to have a master’s degree in US history?

“The slogan "Change We Can Believe In" sounds like something a child might consider impressive, but it has no real meaing.”

No, the slogan is a rallying cry for everyone who is sick of a government that is of the Exxon, by the Halliburton, and for the Wal-mart. It is a blatant statement that things need to CHANGE and that if they don’t, the downward spiral we are currently in will only get WORSE.

“Not surprisingly, Obama has more appeal to inexperienced young voters than to wiser older voters who have seen a lot of fast talking phony politicians.”

You have to love how he defines wise people as people who think like him and are in his age group when he shows a decided lack of wisdom. Granted, I may be a wiseassed 20-something, but I’m a politically savvy one (and certainly not gullible) who realizes that THIS IS MY COUNTRY TOO AND *I* NEED TO HELP STEER IT BECAUSE IT IS PART OF *MY* DUTY AS A *CITIZEN*.

Sorry, kiddo, but I’ve been involved in politics since before I was 18 and did it using my own mind instead of making snap decisions.

Guess who I’m voting for. It certainly isn’t McCain, who, despite trying to look like a moderate, is a conservative in the shape of our current “leader”.

That’s something that laughing boy doesn’t seem to get. Then again, he’s also a member of the generation that has the funny habit of deciding that a program is no longer needed after they’re done using it (but that’s a whole other rant).

“Obama a few months ago commented about the psychological state of small town people who believed in religion, etc. What is the psychological state of people who believe in some vaguely defined "change"? “

Religion is a fine thing. However, it has no place in public policy. It is a private, personal matter and should be kept that way.

What Obama was talking about was the fact that people in the Midwest (especially in the rural areas) often try to get their elected officials to pass laws based on their religious convictions.

Try running as a person who is openly non-Christian around here even if you *are* the best person for the job and see if you get elected. In all honesty, you would not only have a huge smear campaign leveled at you but also possibly death threats, physical violence, your property defaced, etc.

As an example, our current governor was smeared for not being the right *kind* of Christian (he’s not Baptist, which seems to be the common denomination here).

Was it poorly worded? Sure. However, it was both sad and true. I should know. I grew up around it and continue to be surrounded by it. The sad fact is that a lot of people are trying to use religion as a political tool and that needs to STOP.

There are plenty of nice people around here, but there are far too many that want to make laws based on their religion, to the detriment of everyone else.

“Obama's supporters must have very empty lives to believe that some vague "change" is going to make their lives better. Do they expect the president to provide them some type of psychological satisfaction?”

No, we expect a change from the way things have been under Bush. Possibly back to something that actually looks and behaves as though it were at least sort of “Of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

However, that is going to require “change” and involvement – most notably from the younger generations which he derides as being naive.

“As an historian I am inherently suspicious of politicians who rely on oratorical ability to reach people on an emotional level.”

This is a good stance to take. However, *all* politicians rely on oratorical ability to reach people on an emotional level. The question is whether or not they can and will work to affect positive change.

“How can we be sure the that Barack Obama is not talking about a "change" designed to reduce the level of democracy in the United States?”

Apparently he really isn’t much of a student of US history. Despite the shenanigans of the current “president,” the answer to that question would be “separation of powers” (i.e. “checks and balances”) and THE CONSTITUTION.

I hate to tell him this, but this is our world as well and will be long after he and his kind are gone.

On second thought, I don’t hate to tell him that. I just wish I could do so to his face. Of course, I’d also be sorely tempted to tell him that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about and that it really shows (not to mention doubting the degree that he claims to have).

Current mood: annoyed
Current music: Tonic - Open Up Your Eyes (it seemed appropriate)

No comments: