Here’s my response to “Jeff” at the Pajamas Media post “Obama, Palin, and the Meaning of ‘Change'” My response below doesn’t seem to post, so I’ll put it here, it was too much work to lose 🙂
I’m going to take this one head-on. Jeff, take a look in places other than left-wing blogs or even the MSM.
(Jeff the commenter is in bold)
What most people have not notice or fail to notice is that “Change” is coming in this election. But the “Change” is not only being promoted by Obama’s campaign since the beginning, the “Change” is now also in McCain himself, who has seemed to have made a 180 degrees turn in his own transformation. Here are the “Changes” of McCain —
1)McCain was previously against oil drilling in ANWR, Alaska; off the coast of Florida; off the coast of the Gulf of Mexico; and off the coast of California. Now he is for “drill baby drill”.
In answer to this, it’s reasonable to assume that after oil reaching $145 per barrel, a reexamination of priorities was in order. In contrast, Barack Obama openly thought that the high oil prices were just fine, except “they rose too fast”. His proposal would do nothing to ease prices on the oil market – and is fully in line with current policies concerning oil production, which by definition, is not change.
2) McCain was against Federal regulations of America’s largest financial institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG. Now, after these financial institutions are collapsing, he is promoting Federal regulations to control them so that this crisis will not happen again. He now wants more Federal regulations of Wall Street altogether. Wouldn’t this be considered as socialism that most conservatives do not want?
The President in 2003 and McCain again in 2005 attempted to reform oversight of the FMs, and were stalled in the Senate by Chris Dodd and in the House by Barney Frank. They attempted to rein in the risky lending practices that led directly to this. It wasn’t deregulation that caused this, but direct regulation from Congress to banks and mortgage lenders that restricted their ability to expand unless they could prove they weren’t redlining – they were REQUIRED to loosen their lending rules. My caveat – it was a noble goal, home ownership is one of the single best ways to stabilize shaky communities, and the low crime rates of the last 10 years could be seen to bear this out, in part. The overwhelming majority of these risky loans are still being paid on time, so the idea of relaxing the lending rules was a good one – Bush endorsed it with this “ownership society”. It just went too far and caused the bubble and speculation and predatory lending and let the Democrats in Congress fight any attempts to keep it from the edge.
Also, please do not forget McCain’s past involvement in the Keating Five as an example that his future plans for Federal regulations of financial institutions will not work —
From your Wikipedia article:
Democrat Robert S. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the scandal, suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee that it pursue charges against neither McCain nor Glenn, saying of McCain, “that there was no evidence against him.”
And McCain went on to author the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Not that I’m a fan, but it shows he learned a lesson and APPLIED it. BTW, some of the transactions that happened last week, BOA buying Merrill Lynch for example, couldn’t have happened without the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act in 1999. Deregulation at its finest.
3)McCain has said over and over that, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong” in reference to our economy. Now, he states that he was referring to the American workers as being the backbone of our economy? This reference is only made after Obama has contested his refusal to accept that our country is in a financial crisis. Maybe this is McCain’s way of defusing his stance of denial.
In a sense he’s right, this is a fiat economy. Meaning, our confidence in it undergirds its success to a significant degree. This is also a credit crisis as of now, but not a general economic crisis yet. It has tied up so much money that it could spill over into the rest of the economy. He may have understated it some, but Obama is grievously overstating it to score political points and whip up support.
4)McCain has stated since the beginning of the Republican campaign that he will fight a good and honest campaign without resorting to dirty politics of using smear tactics. Now, most of the McCain’s campaign ads against Obama are smear campaigns that even The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, Newsweek, and various other major news agencies have declared as false information using very dirty politics. Most of the Obama’s campaign ads have been on the defense to all of these false accusations by the McCain’s campaign ads.)
He may have pinned a tenuous connection to Raines, but the Washington Post even said he was an advisor, causing them to refute THEMSELVES. The “lipstick on a pig” flap – do you really think Obama wasn’t talking about Palin? He was too cute by half and got caught – and then whined about it. Speaking of whipping it up, how about Obama and Social Security? Even the above august publications had to call BS on that one.
5) For more changes of McCain, please look at the link below —http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/flipflops
If you want to talk flip-flops, how about the significant number Obama has made, especially since clinching the nominations – always with a “I have always said…” He even called the surge “a success” after denying it until it was too obvious. You can’t deny reality, I guess.
He couldn’t even make up his mind (while on vacation!) about the crisis in Georgia. It took him three press releases to come around to the same position John McCain had days earlier. That’s not change, that’s dangerous.
In this election, there are in fact two forms of change. One form of “Change” is being promoted by a candidate who wants to transform this country for the better, while the other form of “Change” is being promoted by another candidate of his own transformation to capture the hearts of the American public. Which form of “Change” do we want as a country?
That’s why the change offered by McCain/Palin is truly better change than that offered by Obama. They fought – publicly – with their own party on issues they could have just gone along with. Palin even quit her partisan job to blow the whistle on corruption in her own party. McCain almost lost this race in the primaries due to his stand on immigration – in distinct opposition to the mandarins of his party. Oh yeah, he literally rammed the surge down the President’s throat, and Bush TOOK it… Now THAT was change even Obama couldn’t deny. Questions, what has Obama done in opposition to his party, based on principle? When has he brought change to the Democrat party? Oh yeah, McCain wants to change government and how it works, Obama wants to change America? Wouldn’t that take a new Constitution? What would it look like?