“Change”
In an interview that aired on ABC yesterday evening, US President George W. Bush said that he would run as “an agent of change” if he’d run for president this year. He dismissed the notion that the Republican candidates that run on a “change” platform are distancing themselves from him: it’s all politics Bush argued.
Q: Do you see this message of change as anything other than a rejection of your presidency? BUSH: No, listen. If you’re running for office, you can’t run for office and not say ‘I am an agent of change.’ It’s just American politics. If I were running for office at this point, I’d be saying, ‘Vote for me. I’m gonna be an agent of change.’
This is a great example of why I always want journalists to talk to politicians who are at the end of their career or have resigned already. They’re honest. And that’s refreshing.
Bush is, of course, completely right. The “change” message isn’t so much about policies as it is about opportunism. You’ve got to present yourself - seemingly - as an agent of change, if you don’t, you can’t win elections.
If you look at the comment at TP you see that people are quite angry with Bush for saying this, but I’d call those people naive… at best. Bush is right and it’s refreshing to hear him talk about elections and politics in such an honest and open manner.
Candidate of change is the 2008 term for "reform candidate". They have been around as long as there have been politics. I been preaching for reform for years. But in reality reform at the POTUS level is almost meaningless unless there is reform at the Congress level also.
There is no change coming. Only one idealogical set of political talking points for another.
“progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society.”
"Progressivism is practical and driven by the values that define America morality and have made our country stronger and better."
From MoveOn.org’s website.
MoveOn’s launched a major campaign to mobilize voters, run ads, and elect a progressive president in 2008.
Most googling turns up that Barak Obama is the most liberal member of congress and though Obama himself claims adamantly that he is not an Idealogue one only has to look at his voting record, his votes in the senate to see that this is not at all true.
Even the Clinton campaign pointed out in addressing the daily KoS.
Hillary’s aides point to Obama’s extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago’s Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants’ rights as subjects for examination.
What appears to me is simply nothing more then one idealogical Liar taking over for another Idealogical Liar in 2008.
The message of change indeed is a message of Change. Lets change from Republicans to Democrats. Lets change from far right to far left.
Abrisaham: I completely agree with your remark. AT least, if Obama continues to advocate very liberal policies once in office. Perhaps he’ll be a different president than Senator and state-senator, who knows, but you could very well be right indeed. If the past is an indicator of the future, you’ll be proven correct I think.
Also: even Dutch friends are starting to notice that Obama is extremely vague. "You want change" "you voted for change"… OK? What change?
It never ceases to entertain me.
Mr. van der Galien one can hope, but within the framework of American politics lies an extremely powerful force that no president has shown he can outdo, overcome or ignore. That is the power of the mandate that all presidents are driven to embrace upon entering the White House.
As a presidential candidate you offer up a platform, a set of values, policies and programs and a somewhat vague direction in which you wish to take the nation. Upon your election this is then deemed a mandate. The American people voted for you because of your program, values, polices and direction.
So if Barak Obama is an extremely liberal senator and is being swept into the White House by a base that is largely extremely liberal then the mandate is secure. He will not be able to govern moderately without abandoning those who voted him into office. He will govern to the base.
Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan are oft pointed too because they are such recent history. Ronald Reagan promised us smaller government but he also offered up to us the USSR as the evil empire and that a powerful military was needed in the wake of Jimmy Carter and prior to that the Vietnam war. As a result Ronnie Reagan abandoned his fiscal principals for the more pronounced establishment status quo. He sold his soul to the GOP establishment in order to govern. By governing to the base he was promised support and the cooperation of vastly powerful senators and representatives and PACs.
Jimmy Carter tried to do just the opposite. He sold his soul to the American Public and tried to fight the establishment. This resulted in the literal abandonment of his presidency by those same powerful senators and representatives and PACs that would have been willing to help him govern. The result was what most have argued is the worst presidency in History. Not that Jimmy Carter was a bad man or did not lack the drive and desire to change. He was not able too because he chose to fight the establishment instead of working with the establishment to succeed in governing.
Barrak Obama once again is coming to us live from the Halls of Montezuma offering hope of change. Yet his message is vague and it is driven by very left policy. I hold out zero hope that he will actually be any candidate that will offer change but instead will only offer what his base is demanding.
To understand Obama one must look at his base and that is what you will have when you put him in office.