Change We Can Believe In
By Monte Kuligowski (10/28/08)
The promise of change has been a theme of politicians since politicking began. Yet, in the 2008 presidential campaign, Barry Soetoro a/k/a Barack Obama has claimed title to the word “change.” He feels he owns it, and claims we can believe in it.
Aside from the talking points of every Democrat candidate – eight years of Bush is enough; it’s time to pull out of Iraq and “redeploy” in Afghanistan, etc. – Obama is careful to not define his version of change. But now, thanks to Joe the Plumber and the recent discovery of the 2001 WBEC radio interview in which Obama speaks candidly of his redistribution of wealth agenda, we are finally getting some detail as to what Obama means by change. Of course, change is an open-ended word and we have only a hint of Obama’s intentions.
As important as it is to ask about the specifics of the change Obama would bring, equally important, is the question of why we should “believe” in Obama’s “change.” Apparently, it has not occurred to those mesmerized by Obama, to ask, “Why can we believe in this change?” Supposedly, we are to hope, but why? What exactly are we to believe in?
Obama supporters have failed to notice that their hero’s campaign slogan is not, “A Proven Record of Change.”
Other than his own political advancement, can anyone point to anything Obama has changed? He brought no change to the Chicago political machinery; in fact he was a part of it. As an Illinois lawmaker, Obama failed to take on corruption in Chicago politics, education and wasteful government spending and voted “present” 130 times on controversial issues. He was an enabler, not a reformer. As a rookie U.S. Senator, Obama has only worked a measly 143 days, spending the rest of his time raising money, campaigning and speaking of change. Yet he has brought no change to Washington.
None.
Obama talks about change, yet we have no basis to believe him because he has no record of bringing about change. That is why Obama has been transformed into a god-like figure. His words must be taken by faith. We must believe in his change, not because we can point to his record and rest assured in his past performance, but because The One has spoken. We can believe in his change because he so powerfully says that we can believe in his change. That’s enough for the cult of Obama. He is mixing a mystical faith and politics like no American candidate ever has. There is no reason to believe, but go ahead and hope for hope’s sake.
Ironically, and to the sheer animus of the left, the Obama slogan of “Change We Can Believe in,” applies naturally to John McCain and Sarah Palin. Let’s consider how the slogan specifically applies to Palin inasmuch as she has become the target of nonstop attack and trivialization by an army of so-called mainstream journalists. Though you would never know it from listening to the establishment “news” media, Gov. Palin has brought actual change to Alaska. We can believe in change as applied to Palin because she in fact has a record of bringing real change.
Considering the fact, incidentally, that Palin enjoys an approval rating above 80% as governor, the change she brought to Alaska must have been “good” change. Palin is the most popular governor in the United States. Compare that with Obama’s approval rating in the U.S. Senate which is barely above 10% (much lower than even Pres. Bush’s rating). Obama is a proud member of the Democrat-controlled do-nothing-Congress.
After serving two terms as a city lawmaker and two terms as mayor, Palin was appointed by the governor as the ethics commissioner of the Alaska Conservation Commission which regulates the oil and gas industries. Palin discovered corruption in the Commission and took on her own party, resulting in the fining and resigning of a top official and a standoff with the sitting governor.
After becoming governor, Palin again took on corruption within her own political party and the oil companies. Pat Forgey notes that, “the oil industry has spent millions fighting Palin, who successfully worked with a coalition of Democrats and some Republicans to overcome state GOP leaders allied with the oil industry. The result has been billions of dollars flowing into state's coffers instead of those of the companies. That's come despite bribes paid by oil field services company VECO Corp. to several legislators, including the representative from Palin's own hometown - Vic Kohring, R-Wasilla - who was captured in FBI surveillance tapes holding out his hand for a wad of $100 bills.”
Governor Palin created Alaska’s Petroleum Systems Integrity Office for oversight and the Senior Benefits Program to provide support for elderly low-income Alaskans. When oil and gas prices skyrocketed, Governor Palin suspended the state's fuel tax and sent tax refunds from the state’s oil revenue back to the people of Alaska ($1200 per person).
Governor Palin also brought reform to end earmark spending in Alaska. She has vetoed nearly a half a billion dollars in wasteful spending.
And via Palin’s remarkable ability to negotiate, as John McCain notes, against all odds, “work has begun on a $40 billion natural gas pipeline – the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history – to help lead our country to energy independence.”
Now, that’s a brief sampling of change we can believe in.
You can see why Palin’s enemies in the Obama mania media are desperately trying to present Palin as a wasteful spendthrift. Sarah is somehow an extravagant Fifth Avenue spender who just happened to sell the former governor’s state-funded luxury jet and eliminate the positions of personal chef and personal driver upon being elected to the governorship. Nice try New York Times. “Nice” is a figure of speech, we all know the recent “reporting” was a “malicious try.”
So far as Obama is concerned, you can keep hoping against hope that he will bring the right kind of change, if you’re so inclined to believe.
Monte Kuligowski
(Printer friendly version) 
