This time it's Beloit.
On one hand, Republicans and their supporters who tend to call themselves Conservatives have painted up Hillary Clinton and her policies as radical. Yet everyone else, particularly those democrats divided enough to throw their support to Obama in the democratic primary, have painted her up as the “establishment.” On top of all this, Obama is supposed to be “thee” agent for change. But change exactly from what? He just keeps telling us over and over that things are broken and if you stand up with him, change will automatically fix things. So in this regard, Obama seems like the radical candidate.
His supporters say we need an end to the partisan battles, so I can only assume here the change they want is something different from the past. They apparently want an already pliable and seemingly back-boneless Democratic Party to stand down and surrender.
Just last year, Obama thought Democrats needed to get closer to God. This year he thought Reagan set America on an upward trajectory. His brand of change seems to have handcuffed fellow democrats from standing up with the unity that is absolutely crucial for us to compete in the most partisan of arenas. We are finally near the end of a presidency that ironically ran on nearly the same kind of "uniter" rhetoric.
The more I hear about Obama’s brand of change, the more it sounds like he seriously means it’s the democrats that need "changin" into something he can identify with. The more he begins to pander towards the changeless center. The more he begins to sound like the same old – status quo.
Interesting Quote
JM Excerpt:But when you're building bridges with tax cuts, who would want to risk using them?
(McCain) can't be vague; he needs to pinpoint exactly what he intends to do to build bridges." -- Wis. State Sen. Neal Kedzie, R-Elkhorn
No comments:
Post a Comment