” CHANGE” ARTISTS

”

“CHANGE” ARTISTS
1/6/08

I had always respected the word “Change”, until I finished watching the Presidential New Hampshire Debates last night. First it was overused and then became completely abused by the Republican candidates. Ron Paul was the only real voice of Change in that group. Unfortuately his message was muffled by Fred Thompson , who stood as the status quo, and a McCain VP candidate. Romney looked like a plucked rooster,even his hair got slightly ruffled in the fray. Huckabee stayed cleverly silent through most of the attacks and appeared off center; when Gibson asked him to speak up. McCain was so pleased with himself I thought he would break out in song, or stand up and dance. Guilliani went on and on about Ronald Reagan, trying to steal some Reagan Republicanism for his lack luster campaign, and claiming Reagan gave complete amnesty to illegal aliens. Reagan has no credibility in this campaign. He caused the greatest deficit and military buildup in history. George W. used the Reagan thing in 2000, and had to drop it in 2004. Guilliani is grasping, and gasping at ghosts to keep his dying campaign alive. He not only mocks and abuses Reagan’s ghost, but also the ghosts of the 3000 victims’ souls lost on 911. It is apparent, that these ghosts are haunting the Guilliani candidacy, not helping it.

The only honest words flowing from the Republican panel came from Ron Paul. His message was the only real message of “Change”, but was taken from the 200 year old, Thomas Jefferson Presidential campaign, “small government, non intervention, and constitutional liberties.” The word “Change” had to have been uttered at least 500 times last night by the cacophony of Republican clap traps, and no one had the slightest idea what the , forward thinking, meaning of the word “Change” is. “Change” to a Republican means reverting backwards .

In contrast to the Republican debate the Democrats stated the word “Change” at least twice as often as their Republican contenders. I believe that the idea and commitment to “Change” was more heartfelt, and better understood, at least by Edwards and Obama. Edwards best moment in the debate was his attack against Hillary as being the “Status Quo”, Establishment Democrat, who talks a big game , but is really a sell out to corporate interests and globalist rulers. Hillary came back with a strong rebuttal, but her record, and Bill Clinton’s shadow, diminished her arguement, to the rhetoric of a desperate Corporate Democrat defending the “Status Quo”. John Edwards isn’t interested in being Hillary’s VP. He rubbed his second place victory in Iowa in her face, as proof of his commitment to “Change”, and it’s resonance with the Iowa voter. Unfortunately New Hampshire voters are less intuitive, and more easily flattered by the “Status Quo”candidates. Hillary and McCain are the front runners in New Hampshire as of today’s latest polls. Obama is on par with Hillary. This New Hampshire preference speaks volumes about the so called “Independent Minded ” New Hampshire voter. They misunderstand the meaning of the word “Change” and continue to believe in the translation of the Union Leader newspaper. If they really were Independently Minded, they would know who the real candidates of “Change” were. Maybe New York should be the first primary state? Now that would be a real “Change”. Hillary and Guilliani would be heckled at their speeches in New York, instead of applauded.

Bill Richardson was on another planet. He sat next to Hillary like a chubby Buddha, startled out of his meditation, by Hillary’s emotional defense against the attacks from Edwards and Obama. Richardson never really woke up in the debate. He quipped with a few jokes and a droaning argument for diplomacy over the policy of Preemption. Nothing was mentioned about the failed Imigration Bill, and Democratic plans for amnesty of 20 million illegal aliens. Very little was mentioned about the economy or ways to improve it. John Edwards was the only candidate that attacked the Free Trade policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations , stating they were the problems; as well as corporate greed of oil companies and outsourcing American jobs, also Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy. Edwards promised he would repeal those cuts and vigorously attack corporate welfare. He said that he was the only one on the panel that had a proven track record for attacking and winning against corporations, and likened himself to Teddy Roosevelt in his war against the great monopolies. The problem with John Edwards comparing himself to Teddy Roosevelt is; Teddy was a Republican.

Obama , has so little experience in these areas , he kept silent; until he felt compelled to support Edwards on the anti lobbyist stance, and mention his own involvement in the new Ethics Bill passed in the Senate. That bill caused Trent Lot and Hastert to resign before the bill went into effect in January. Both Lot and Hastert went to work for lobbying firms. Hillary could not defend her close relationship with the pharmacutical firms and health insurance companies, all big donors to her campaign. It is interesting that she didn’t mention her involvement in the passage of the Medicare Bill, or in her own defeated Universal Health Care Bill. None of the candidates dared to go too far in their attacks against each other, for fear of someone bringing up skeletons in their own past. It’s obvious that all of the candidates from both parties have something to hide; as presidential front runners the slightest scandal that comes forward , weither it is true or not, could ruin their campaigns. The mainstream media never devulges the real truth about any presidential candidate, especially a front runner, and avoid investigations for fear of revealing anything serious about a candidate, until it becomes too obvious for the public to ignore, or they are paid off , or ordered to destroy a candidate by their publisher or network CEO, like they did with Howard Dean and the Iowa “Hee Haw” yell.

The word “Change ” was used and abused in the New Hampshire Debates however, “Change” is a good word, and one that most people refuse to diminish, or allow to tarnish or wear out from over use. There are a few candidates for real “Change ” running for president this year, however Ron Paul and John Edwards are not receiving the financial support they need to win. The “Status Quo” know this and have recently stolen the word ” Change” from Edwards and Obama, and included it in their own stump speech rhetoric. Is Hillary really a “Changed” woman? Her campaign contributors prove the opposite. Is Obama a “Change Candidate” ? His donors are different from Hillary’s, but newbies to the election process. Many of Obama’s supporters are the disappointed “Deanie Babies” now entering political puberty. Edwards has commitment and is proving himself to be a ferocious campaigner. He has the experience of six years in the Senate, and an unsuccessful run for the presidency in 2004. He has strong union backing, and a strong campaign . Joe Trippi is his campaign manager, (that is troubling), however dispite his handicaps he is doing very well against the Mega Money Machines of Hillary and Obama.

The “Change” America needs, isn’t going to come from presidential candidates, or from congress. The “Change” America needs can only come from the American people. That change will be made when Americans open their eyes and minds to what is really happening to their country, and are willing to take back their government, by active participation in the election process, and forcefully demanding that the candidates for public office are men and women of integrity and courage and willing to obey the will of the American people. Americans must become vigilant defenders of their constitutional rights, and their nation’s safety ; without depending on, or accepting the rhetorical illusions, of any “Change” Artist running for President.

L.A. STEEL