Posted by Scott Malensek on 24 August, 2008 at 9:58 am. 23 comments already!


Some of my friends follow politics closely. Most do not. The Obama campaign has done an absolutely wonderful job of presenting and repeating the message of CHANGE with Senator Obama’s candidacy, but the problem comes when Americans (Democrat, Republican, Independent? No…AMERICANS) see that message of CHANGE, and they ask, “So, what’s he gonna change?”

Yeah, a lotta people think America can be doing better economically. I know I personally could be, and you probably could be too, but how about the nation as a whole? Is it the job of the President of the United States to make sure I have more than just pizza money for tonight? If it’s the President or the government’s job to make sure we have money, then why doesn’t the Federal govt just send us all money? The answer is simple: it’s not their job. It’s mine, and yours. It’s our own responsibility to make sure we have enough money. No doubt we WANT money from the Feds, but do they owe it to us? No. We owe them. We owe them for assembling a military that can protect us better than any other in the world. We owe it to them for a long list of reasons. We all know this, and we all know a President can’t do too much about the national economy, but he can sure wreck it (past Presidents have proven that well). Will Sen. Obama put a chicken in every pot, a pizza delivery at everyone’s? Will he payoff all of our mortgages, get each of us caught up on our bills, maybe make sure every American gets a brand new car for free? Will he make sure that the 4-5% of Americans who are not working can get a job? C’mon. Get real. The national economy is not your economy or mine, and if CHANGEs anything, you’d better be real prepared ask “HOW?”

Ok, he (or any President) can wreck an economy, but what about foreign policy? Will he end the war in Iraq? Newsflash: it’s ending, and it’s ending because President Bush did something at the constant nagging of Senator McCain. Now, whether it’s Bush, or McCain, or Obama…the DNC 2008 platform makes it perfectly clear that all three have the same policy in Iraq: continue the withdrawal of US forces slowly. Bush just agreed with the Iraqis to pull US forces from Iraqi cities by June30, 2009. McCain is broader and more realistic in that he wants US forces out as soon as possible, but it depends on the conditions on the ground-not on some calender date set for a politician to beat his chest and claim that THEY somehow won the war in Iraq. Obama had said he wanted to pull out 2 combat brigades a month, but…apparently he had no idea what it takes to move a combat brigade (or maybe even what one is), and when thousands of Generals in the Pentagon and retired said that such a move was as realistic as making an aircraft carrier fly….well, he changed that to 1-2 combat brigades a month “depending on conditions on the ground”(ie, McCain’s policy since 2005). In the end, if some politician tells you that HE will be The One to end the war in Iraq….he’s kissing your ass and hoping your ignorant because the war is ending, and everyone has the same idea on how to get US troops out. Sometimes they like to tell us that “John McCain wants to keep the war in Iraq going for 100yrs!”, but when they tell you that, they’re liars, and they’re not only assuming your ignorance on the fact, but expecting you to be stupid because it’s not at all what John McCain said. What he really said was that it doesn’t matter how long US forces are in Iraq-they could be there for 10yrs like in Kosovo, or 60 yrs like in Japan, Italy, and Germany, or they could be all out in a year or so, and the reason it doesn’t matter is because what DOES matter is the casualties. If there’s no casualties in Kosovo, Italy, Germany, Japan, or Iraq….then who cares how long those troops are there? Historically, the longer they’ve been in a country, the better ally that country has been, and the more the people of that country have respected the American people.

Afghanistan. Senator Obama loves to tell us that America “took its eye off the ball” and invaded Iraq instead of getting Osama Bin Laden, but the problem is that Osama and Al Queda left Afghanistan in Nov/Dec 2001, and Iraq wasn’t invaded until almost 2 yrs later. Heck, the prep work to invade Iraq didn’t even start until 9 months after Bin Laden and AQ escaped Afghanistan, and when a politician tells you that somehow invading Iraq took forces from Afghanistan…they’re lying. NATO forces came into Afghanistan, so US forces left (had they stayed, politicians would have claimed that the other members of the Coalition of nations fighting in Afghanistan were all small contributors-that’s the line they gave on Iraq). But what will President Obama CHANGE? Despite the intrinsic faux-anti-war sentiment in the Democratic Party base, he’s gonna send as many troops as he can to Afghanistan (ignoring his base, and in direct contradictin to his claims that the US military is overextended and about to break-a claim he’s been making for 3 yrs now). Will more troops help in Afghanista? Sure, but what’s needed there more is reconstruction people, low level diplomats to deal with tribal leaders and village elders, and money. Senator Obama has no plans to send any of those. Just more troops (ie the same strategy that worked so well for the Russians in Afghanistan).

The Russians eh? What’s Senator Obama going to do differently with Russia-especially since they invaded Georgia and are threatening to attack Poland? Well, the DNC platform says they’d follow the same policy as President Bush: back Georgia w rhetoric, and nothing else. Since the invasion, Sen. Obama called on the UN, the UNSC, the EU, NATO, and every other diplomatic collage of coaltions to denounce the invasion. None of that worked. Seems that somehow talk is cheap on a battlefield where the attacker knows completely that no one has the courage to actually take an iota of action towards stopping them.

Iran? Well, Senator Obama plans to CHANGE the way the US deals with Iran’s nuclear program. He wants to get the EU, UN, UNSC, IAEA, NATO, and other countries to present Iran with tougher diplomatic rhetoric (a policy that’s been tried and failed since the Iranian program began during the Clinton years). That kind of tactic didn’t work with Russia, but he thinks it will with a nation that backs suicide bombers, and has 40,000 English-speaking volunteers already signed up to be suicide bombers inside the United States. Sen. Obama also thinks it’d be good to talk to the Iranians. President Bush’s admin tried that, and it didn’t work. In fact, the Iranians LAUGHED at the meeting for all the press corps and world to see. That leaves HOPE and airstrikes as the last options to prevent Iran from making nuclear bomb factories then handing out nukes for suicide bombers to use in Israel, Iraq, inside the US or anywhere. He hasn’t ruled out HOPE, but…..he hasn’t ruled out airstrikes yet either (the same exact policy as President Bush’s past 8yrs and Sen McCain’s-though Sen McCain could actually fly the airstrikes himself).

How about getting Osama Bin Laden? how will that CHANGE w President Obama? Well, President Bush has tried covert operations and airsitrkes in Paksistan w Pakistani permission for the past seven years. That tactic doesn’t work. Sen Obama has said if he has intelligence like what President Bush has had, he’ll unilaterally invade the nuclear-armed Pakistan just to get the one tall Arab guy who has lost most of his power. It’s an ironic CHANGE given the faux-anti-war base of his party, but it appears that President Obama sees getting Osama Bin Laden as more important that starting a nuclear war with a country of 300million people that has nukes.

Ok, what does CHANGE mean?
Same Iraq policy as President Bush
Same Iran policy as President Bush
Same Russia policy as President Bush
A more warmonger-like policy for getting Osama Bin Laden than President Bush
he wants to tax the wealthiest Americans who also happen to the be the employers of most Americans (cuious, will that spur pay raises from people who are getting taxed more? Will the increase in their tax bill inspire wealthy employers to hire more people?)


It’s just a word on a podium, but-to quote Sen Obama, “Words DO matter.” In the case of CHANGE, there is more to it than just a word. There’s an expectation that you (not Democrats or Republicans or indpendents, but AMERICANS) will be too politically apathetic to ask, “What’s he gonna CHANGE?” It’s an expectation that you’re either gullible or lack the courage to ask, “If all politicians spin, distort, mislead, and lie….then how is this man distorting, misleading, and/or lying to me” Or are you gullible enough to believe he’s not?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x