Friday, January 25, 2008

The 2008 Presidential Election of Change - Or Not

Change is the buzz word of the Presidential election cycle

The conundrum for the Republicans is that it’s difficult to be the party of change when you are the governing party. The problem for the Democrats is that they all come from the Senate. No problem though for politicians to claim change

The most consistent change is in their talking points as they watch which way the wind is blowing in their focus groups

For example, if Iraq seems a quagmire, then the roar of negativity is deafening, but with the Surge a success, all we hear are the Sounds of Silence

How can the Democrats claim to be for change when they still fail to use the “L” word, Liberal, in describing themselves

Change is a code word for anyone but Bush, but the change is that Bush is not on the ballot

Obama is the Agent of Change, but then again, so are Clinton, Edwards, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, and all the Democrats and all the Republicans

Obama’s cry for a gentler, kinder bi-partisan Washington echoes that of Bush 8 years ago

Obama: The change is one of style and rhetoric, but not of substance. His politics are those of the mainstream of the Democratic Party: peace and appeasement, high taxes, socialized medicine, and the rise of the Nanny State

Style can be a decisive factor as shown by JFK in 1960. America fell in love with his style

Change to Harvard after three Yale Presidents

Hillary: Change means return to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton

Edwards has the most genuine call for change even if it comes from a skillful trial attorney owning a mansion. His populist call for change is to return the Democratic Party to the working class roots from the Professional Class it is increasingly responding to

Romney: Change in both his policies and change in how much of his own change he can spend

McCain: No change in his straight-talking, but plenty of tacking in his positions

Giuliani: Change in campaign strategy, ignoring Iowa, New Hampshire and other early contests

The American voters almost always want change

1920 Warren G. Harding and the return to Normalcy

1932 FDR and the New Deal in the depths of The Great Depression

1968 Richard Nixon and Vietnam

1976 Jimmy Carter and Watergate

1980 Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter’s incompetence, malaise, 20% interest
rates, 12% inflation and Iran’s humiliation the United States

1992 Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush’s breach of the “No New Taxes”

2000 George W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes and breaches of the public

The American voters instinctively know that change usually comes from outside the Beltway.

The last sitting Senator to be elected President was JFK in 1960. Prior to that it was Warren G. Harding in 1920

Senators Goldwater, McGovern, Dole and Kerry have received their party nominations since then, but all lost in November

Governors Reagan, Carter, Clinton and Bush were elected. Dukakis was defeated. Coolidge and FDR were also Governors. Hoover was a humanitarian and Ike a general

No one can remember when the last sitting Congressman, much less a Mayor, was elected President

The Democrats will nominate either Clinton or Obama. If the Republicans nominate McCain, then the change will be to a sitting Senator after 44 years

If the Republicans nominate Romney, the next President will either be a sitting Senator or a Mormon

If the Republicans nominate Giuliani, then the next President will be either a sitting Senator or a Mayor, first Italian and only the second Catholic

If the Democrats win, then the next President will be an African-American or a woman. Either marks a tidal change in American politics and culture. If the Republicans prevail in November, the Democratic nominee will still be a major turning point in American history

Will the change result in a Carter or a Reagan? None of these changes tell us anything about whether the winner will be a competent leader of the American people

No comments: