Political Change Or Just Pocket Change?
By JR Dieckmann
Democrats are calling for "change," but isn't that the same
line we here in every election campaign? Don't they like the security and
prosperity we've been enjoying for the past few years? They want to change it?
Are they unhappy that the United States and it's interests overseas have not
been attacked again since 911? They want to change it? Is it really so
disturbing to them that the war in Iraq is now going our way that they want to
change that? Has any one of them offered a single positive change that isn't
based in contrived, imagined, and pessimistic media reporting and negative
Barack Obama says he can unite the country. How is Obama going
to unite a country that is going in two different directions at the same time?
Uniting the Left and the Right in America would be like uniting east and west
bound traffic on the same side of a freeway. It could only result in total
disaster for everyone. Campaign slogans are not going to unite the country. I
don't hear Obama offering anything that would be of interest to conservative
But it's nice sounding campaign rhetoric to those who don't
know any better and think that it is somehow possible to unite traditional
American culture and values with liberal socialism and Marxist philosophy. The
Socialist Democrats have already pushed this country over the edge. No
unification is possible short of a civil war or other major catastrophic
disaster occurring that all Americans can get behind. We'd better start thinking
in other, more realistic terms.
Obama wants change too but never says a change to what. All we
here are a lot of generalizations and platitudes from both him and Mrs. Clinton.
And why do they feel a change is needed anyway? Perhaps Obama believes he is the
second coming of Martin Luther King but avoids letting on that the church he
belongs to teaches it's own version of exclusionary black Christianity with
loyalties to Africa and ties to Louis Farrakhan. Obama doesn’t show it in his
campaign appearances, but by reading his church website,
it’s clear to anyone that this is a race based church. Critical extracts from
the website can be seen here.
Is Obama really speaking to all Americans, or is
he primarily interested in representing just black Americans? The
inconsistencies between Obama’s “uniting America” rhetoric and the agenda of the
church he attends are striking.
In Mrs. Clinton's case, she wants to change back to the way
things were during her husband's administration. In order to do that, we're
going to have to bring back Newt Gingrich and a Republican majority to Congress
like we had in the 90s to prevent runaway spending and liberalism. Then the
Clintons will have to reissue passes to Osama bin Laden, Iman al Zawahiri,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the other leading Islamic terrorists.
One of the funniest things I have heard coming from the mouth
of Mrs. Clinton is how her imagined administration would "restore the morality
and reputation of America in the eyes of the world." Putting aside the
immorality of her husband and his administration, what is it that has damaged
our reputation in the eyes of the world more than anything over the past half
decade? Is it Bush defending the country by going after the terrorists and
terrorist threats against us in the Middle East? No. The greatest damage done to
the moral reputation of America has been caused by the constant anti-American,
Bush bashing criticisms that have come from these same Democrats who claim they
can now save the country. They have spent the past 5 years bashing and blaming
America and the American president for everything that is wrong in the world.
Now Mrs. Clinton wants to correct the damage she and her associates have done?
If America had had to put up with this during WWII, Americans
would have run from Europe with their tails between their legs and Hitler would
have taken over all of Europe. But that didn't happen. Americans untied to
support the war effort and the media promoted positive news on the progress in
Europe. The world loves a winner and it loved us for the sacrifices we made to
rescue Europe from the tyranny and oppression of Nazi Germany.
The only difference was national politics. We didn't have
someone like John Kerry starting a protest revolution against the sitting
president and the defense of our nation for the purpose of hopefully getting
himself elected as a replacement for President Bush. If that had happened during
WWII, he would have been hung, not by the government but by patriotic American
citizens. My, how times have changed, along with respect for our country by many
American citizens who have adopted anti-American, pro communist views over the
past couple of generations. Such a shame and a waste of a once great
If you ask John Edwards, he will tell you that the country is a
disaster area. Children are going to bed hungry and if they get sick they can't
get healthcare and will have to go to the emergency room and wait in line with
all the illegal aliens from Mexico. Their parents can't afford to put gas in the
car to drive to the toy store to get their poisoned toys from China. It's 1929
all over again and people are losing their homes. They would be losing their
savings too if they had any.
They're becoming desperate because they don't know where
they're going to put their wide screen HDTVs, microwave ovens, computers, play
stations, cellphones, or park their SUV when Fanny May and Freddy Mack foreclose
on their homes. And what's worse, they don't know where to tell their credit
card and mortgage companies to send the bills when they move out. Government
must come to the rescue with taxpayers' money to save these people who have been
told it's perfectly okay to live beyond your means.
At least Edwards is honest about what he believes in and wants
for America. The only trouble with that is the portrait of America that he
projects is a complete distortion. We all don't live in the ghetto and federally
funded housing projects, or have bought houses that we can't afford through
Fanny May and Freddy Mack as Edwards seems to think. Yet, from his multi-million
dollar mansion in North Carolina, he claims to be one of them and "feels their
pain." But what is he going to do for the middle class?
The loss Mrs. Clinton experienced in Iowa to both Obama and
Edwards must have come as quite a shock to her and her husband. What neither of
them are likely to accept is that a great many of these votes were not votes for
Obama and Edwards as much as they were votes against Mrs. Clinton. It will be
interesting to see if this same thing happens again in New Hampshire next
On the other side of the political fence we have another
strange odyssey. Republicans across the nation have been demanding a
conservative candidate. So why is all the support being placed behind the most
liberal Republicans in the race? With the collapse of Rudy's campaign, there is
an indication that Republicans are beginning to wise up and are learning more
about the candidates.
Mike Huckabee won in Iowa for one reason only, religion. In the
middle of the Bible belt, he won the support of all of the evangelicals because
of his religious experience. Evangelicals seem to think that a preacher would be
a good president. That's what they thought in Iran too and we've seen the
results of that.
All of the Republican primary candidates are trying to present
themselves as real conservatives. This seems to indicate that they all got the
message of the 2006 congressional election where Republicans lost control of
Congress for not being conservative enough. Perhaps the average Republican voter
or poll responder just hasn't yet learned the truth about these candidates, and
who the real conservatives are. Many simply say "I don't follow politics and
will decide in the voting booth." That is the real problem.
I too was impressed with Huckabee's performance in the debates.
He sounded like a real conservative. Then I began learning more about his record
as Governor of Arkansas. It turns out that neither Huckabee nor Romney governed
as conservatives in their respective states. Just like with Arnold
Schwarzenegger in California, once elected they compromised on conservative
values and gave in to the left. They abandoned conservative principles for sake
of "reaching across the aisle" to liberals who no longer even see themselves as
Americans but rather as just a segment of a global community.
Huckabee impresses me as a "compassionate conservative." People
see him as a likeable and intelligent "nice guy". Haven't we had enough of
"compassionate conservatism" over the past 7 years with George W. Bush? My
concern is that not only will Mike be too compassionate with the liberals, he
will also be too compassionate with the terrorists.
A nice guy is not what is needed to lead this country. You Star
Trek fans may recall the episode where Captain Kirk was split into two separate
beings. One had all of the compassion and caring traits while the other had the
selfishness, ambition, and meanness. As it turned out, the "good" Kirk couldn't
command the ship and make the hard decisions without his negative, mean half.
This is why we need a president who is not merely a "nice guy,"
but a leader who can make the hard decision and step on toes when necessary to
get things done. I don't believe Mike Huckabee has these qualities and will
continue to be a "nice guy" in the White House, trying to give everyone what
they want and afraid to step on toes. Especially liberal toes.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, I believe will not be afraid of
stepping on toes, I just don't trust him at his word. He has supported too many
liberal policies as governor of Massachusetts. He is a great and successful
business manager and could, no doubt, get things done with the economy, but what
about his domestic policies? Would he be just as effective in betraying
conservatism on a national scale? I realize that to win the governorship in
Massachusetts, Romney had to appeal to liberals. Now he wants to appeal to
conservatives and tells a different story. If chosen as the Republican
candidate, would he again go back to appealing to liberals? He has flip-flopped
on a variety of issues and were he to be elected president, there is no
guarantee he would support conservative values. He's a good talker but I just
don't trust him to support my values.
Coming in third in the Iowa caucus was Fred Thompson although
you would never know it from the media coverage. Some networks are even saying
he tied with John McCain and ignoring his several hundred vote lead. Fred is the
only true conservative in the top tier. He doesn't come off as a particularly
"nice guy" but he does demonstrate his consistent devotion to conservative
values and his strength of command to run the country effectively and in
America's best interests. Fred's only philosophical rival for the position is
Duncan Hunter who just hasn't been able to get a foothold in this campaign
season. Either one would make an excellent president for the country.
There is only one reason why Fred Thompson isn't currently the
number one choice among conservatives, media coverage. The media simply doesn't
want to give air time to a real conservative. During the Iowa Caucus, Fox News
had reporters at all leading candidate headquarters except Thompson's. Why?
You'll almost never see Thompson mentioned on CNN or NBC either. Some of this
may be Fred's own fault as well. Thompson doesn't like the media and it shows. I
can't say that I wouldn't feel the same way in his shoes. Media reporters with
their liberal bias will not give a conservative like Thompson a fair shake, but
rather will look for sound bites to try to make him look bad.
Fred is well aware of this and because of his sheer honesty,
doesn't try to hide it like the other candidates. He won't play their game. He
simply won't give them what they want if not given the opportunity to fully
explain his answer. "Then I'm not going to answer," said Fred, to the reporter
host of the debate in Iowa when she refused to give him a minute to answer her
"hand raise" question. It was the highlight of the event. That is exactly how
these reporters should be treated instead of treating them like royalty the way
Bush does at his press conferences. Most politicians know that reporters won't
give them "good press" if not treated the way they want to be, but Fred doesn't
care about that. He's not going to play anyone's game but his own. He won't be
diplomatic with reporters simply for the sake of good press. If he won't give
them what they want, they simply won't cover his campaign.
And that is the kind of president Thompson would be if elected.
He will be guided by his advisors but like Ronald Reagan, he will make the final
decision and all decisions will be final. That is the mark of a good leader.
Fred's vast experience with government and foreign policy will guide him, not
conflicting reports from the CIA and the Department of State. Their input would
be considered, of course, but it is the judgment of the president that will
direct the country, not the State Department or public opinion. We elect a
president to make those decisions for us and that is why the presidency cannot
be trusted to anyone less than a strong and committed leader like Fred Thompson.
This election is too important to waste on someone who depends
on public opinion to make decisions, on thinking he can unite the country by
moving the Right further to the Left, by pandering to the poor and their
children, or by pretending to be the conservative that they are not. There is no
guessing with Fred Thompson. What you see is what you get. He stands today for
the same things he stood for over the past 4 decades. He is the only candidate
for president that we can really trust to say what he thinks and do what he
says. The rest of them are simply pocket change.
is Editor, Publisher, Writer, and Webmaster of
GreatAmericanJournal.com. He also works as an electrician in Los Angeles, Ca. He has been writing
and publishing articles on the web since 2000. His articles appear on other
publications such as: The Conservative Voice;
Real Clear Politics; New Media Journal; Mich News; Daley Times-Post;
and other conservative websites.