Tuesday, January 8, 2008

the "Candidates of Change"

Barack Obama has started a firestorm of political rhetoric referring to "change." He has officially positioned himself as the "candidate of change." Hillary and all the other candidates are jumping allover the "change" bandwagon as well. They're all nuts.

Personally I think it's all disgusting. What the hell does being the "candidate of change" mean? In Obama's case all of his speeches and debate performances have been more vague than I thought possible. He's the "candidate of change" and is going to "move America in a new direction" and maybe he has a new "vision for the country."

The problem is, who says change, especially radical change, is a good thing? Hitler brought promises of hope, change and prosperity to people yearning for it. Lenin and the Communists brought"change" for the proletariat, and Mao had a vision of change for China. How'd all that change, hope, and new vision work out for everyone? I'll give you a hint. They didn't all end up holding hands afterwards singing kumbayah.

Besides, what political candidate doesn't have a "vision for the country?" Seriously, you can't profess much weaker, empty and blindly idealistic language than that. Obama is like an empty suit. He's a "candidate of change" but when you look at his policies and voting record (which he never discusses) the "Change" he wants is to re-try the failed worldwide experiment of socialism in the U.S. I've got news for you buddy, that's not change it's regression.

All of us gun guys know he'd like nothing better than to disarm us. His record on guns is about as bad as you can get, and he's advocating for a federal law outlawing CCW. Like socialism, gun control is always a failure, unless you consider rampant crime and the unarmed being murdered by their own government a "success."

If Obama truly wants "change" maybe he should look at the lessons of history for an idea of what works and what doesn't instead of insisting that failed policies will work now because "this time the right people will be in charge." Maybe he should consider re instituting the principles of liberty, freedom, property rights and responsibility that made this country great rather than espousing the supposed virtues of policies that have historically destroyed other nations.

No comments: