Monday, December 1, 2008

CHANGELINGS

Change, change, change. That was the mantra of the Obama campaign. It also was the buzzword of the Obama-maniacs. That group of faithful followers who cried at all his speeches, took all his words to heart and looked at him as the Messiah who would lead this country to Utopia. Now, nearly a month after the historic elections, change has come to the Obama camp, but it's not the change they thought. That change was from flighty idealist to realist.

It's not really Barack's fault that some people projected unrealistic expectations upon him, those people are seldom grounded in reality anyway. They are people who believe war is never the answer, even when avoiding war is more costly. They are people who think you can force the rich to do your bidding, even as they admit the rich run this country. They believe you can pry power from the powers-that-be simply by voting in a President, even as they admit that we have a balance of power and a Constitution that keeps a President from doing whatever he wants. To all those people, I dedicate this piece.

The problem is, for the most part, that they are ignorant (and I don't mean that in a degrading way) of the way our government runs. Because of that, they don't understand how hard it is for a President to get his agenda through. They have been told by their Left-Leaning Media that G.W. is single-handedly responsible for the War in Iraq, the price of oil, the state of our economy, and probably believe that Bush hired-out the attacks on 9/11. If Bush could do all that, they reason, then why shouldn't Obama be able to push through Universal Healthcare? Better distribution of wealth?

The truth is, and you Liberals should probably sit down for this one, Bush didn't really control all those things himself.

The War in Iraq was pushed through by a cabala of people from Rumsfeld to Bush Senior. Poor G.W. was just their pawn. It was planned and agreed upon by the RNC with the help of other nations and even some Democrats that were sick of bowing for oil and sick of the troublesome example that Sadam set forth in the Middle-East. After 9/11, they saw their chance and used, let me repeat that, used, not created, the event to their advantage. You people who believe that Bush orchestrated 9/11 have a real problem sorting fact from conjecture and I can't do a thing to help you. As hard as I have tried. If it wasn't 9/11, it would have been something else. Our Presidents can't get away with a blow job or a burglary much less something that would require the Pentagon to kill it's own people. God, I can only hope none of you end up as part of a jury.

The price of oil, and thereafter the price of your gas, is manipulated by world factors such as supply and demand, OPEC, and the value of the U.S. dollar. Most of this oil (77%) is in the hands of Governments who have their own agendas which are contrary to ours. Bush couldn't control that if his life depended on it. Do yourself a favor and spend some time researching where oil comes from and how much we (the U.S.) consume. It'll do you a lot of good.

What really happens is that these ideas are hatched over years and through politics and money, people are brought on board until they have enough people to make it happen. Then they sell their idea to the unwitting public through their media sources. It's as simple as that. Without those people in Congress, without the support of your party and without the lobbyists to pay for it, ideas die. Some things have tons of support from the public (like ending abortion) but aren't supported by either Party because it might dry up the well of lobbyist monies that both sides get from hotly contested issues. Change in Congress is for sale to the highest and most organized bidder. No one can do it alone, including President Obama.

For this reason, President Obama has carefully tried to craft a cabala of his own. One that he hopes will be powerful enough, connected enough, and financed enough to pass the ideas that he holds closest to his heart. In looking at his options he has to consider the politics involved. Will he piss off others in his Party that expect power through seniority? Will he lose their support on key issues? Are there people on the other side of the aisle willing to join him? Can he trade positions for support? This is not change, but it is reality. For Obama to get anything done, he needs to enter the very world he threaten to change. Fortunately for him, all his fellow politicians understand that "Change" is simply the keyword used by every politician to take a position held by the other Party. Especially when things are going wrong.

So don't be too hard on Barack, you Changelings. He's just doing what he has to do to get any change at all. He picked ex-Clintonites for posts because he had to. He picked Hillary for Sect. of State to unify his Party, and he's cutting deals just like every politician before him. It's true that it's not change, but it's what he has to do. The best we can hope for is that he will keep our best interests at heart. But most importantly, don't blame him for not bringing the change that you hoped for in the blink of an eye. After all, it's you that didn't understand how hard it is to "change". H.C.

4 comments:

lime said...

we have a balance of power and a Constitution that keeps a President from doing whatever he wants

didn't seem to prevent bush from trampling it with the unpatriotic act. and yes, i grasp that there had to be a great deal of cooperation to ram that through the legislature so he could get his hands on it and sign it into law. capitalizing on fear in the immediate aftermath of attacks. shameful.

and hilary as sec of state, now slick willy's magnanimous offer to accept some sort of role if it is offered. puhleese....the whole thing makes me ill. i was not so naive as to think obama would be able to deliver on all his promises but the clintons worming their way in was something i truly hoped would not occur. if that had been prevented that would have been a significant change in my mind.

The H.C. said...

Hi Lime,
You make a couple of different points, let me address them one at a time.

"the clintons worming their way in was something i truly hoped would not occur."

I agree with you 100%, I would have liked to see them both trot off into the horizon, but we both know that's not realistic. On the Democratic side, the Clintons are, in some ways, the Democratic Party. There's barely anyone that's been elected in the past 15 years on the Dem side that doesn't owe the Clintons something. For Barack to ignore them would have created a rift that couldn't possibly help him in any way. I have to agree with Rush Limbaugh on this one (yikes!) it guarantees that she won't be any trouble for him in this cycle or the next. It's a good move as much as I hate to see it myself.

"(it) didn't seem to prevent bush from trampling it with the unpatriotic act."

I don't really know how to react to that statement. Was the Patriot Act unconstitutional? There were a few Federal Judges that said "Yes, it was" to parts of it, but they were all in far left areas like California and New York. The first Patriot Act was voted in overwhelmingly with the support of both Dems and Reps (98-1-1 site; http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313) So it seems hard to put all the blame on Bush.
I know a lot of people (including me) felt it went way too far and should have never been allowed to become permanant, (I was in favor of it always having sunset provisions) Wasn't it really just the American public demanding something be done to protect us and Congress reacting? If the Democrats were so against it why did they all stand there for the pictures when it was politically advantagous? I blame all of them for that, not just Bush. But educate me if I'm missing something, I'm always willing to listen.

Anonymous said...

Hippie,

As I've said before: the sad reality on the ground is that the general electorate is politically stupid. So when they hear things like "Bush did this and that..." or "Obama's gonna do this and that...", they usually have no clue that the Constitution doesn't even allow the President to wipe his own backside unless Congress approves it. It's even worse when the candidates themselves juxtaposed "their" positions with "George W. Bush's" policies. That kind of rhetoric only convinces the general, non-politically scientific electorate even more of the sole powers of the President.

Perhaps President-Elect Obama's supporting cast of a largely Democratic Congress can help him get many of his policies implemented. That way, the general electorate can go on continuing to believe that one person made all the difference.

*I was being sarcastic here*

"He picked ex-Clintonites for posts because he had to. He picked Hillary for Sect. of State to unify his Party, and he's cutting deals just like every politician before him."

I don't completely agree that he had to pick a bunch of Clintonians. At least not from a political standpoint. If anything, there are so many Clinton folks in his cabinet because - quite frankly - the Clintons were the only hot ticket in town for DC Democrats over the past several years. It's hard to find somebody who knows their stuff who wasn't involved with the Clinton machine at one point or another. But I wouldn't say they were all chosen out of some kind of necessity. Just sayin'.

The H.C. said...

Hey Dre,
Well, I didn't mean to imply that the President is completely powerless either. He still can summon the press en mass anytime he wants, he can use the bully pulpit and he has executive orders. However, he has to decide early on if he wants to fight for very little or barter for much more. Having a relatively unified Democratic side will make that all a lot easier. In that regard, I think that he did have little choice but to patch-up with the Clintons. But I agree, he could have fought....but I wouldn't have recommended it to him. It's too hard to fight your own Party and the other side. Thanks for your thoughts!