What Changes are the Candidates Talking About?

 Cross posted on Grizzly Groundswell

 Most of the Democrat candidates are saying that they are the candidate of change. Obama was the first candidate to use the term. Once this theme started to gain momentum, Hillary Clinton decided to glom onto the theme, much like John Kerry decided to turn anti-war when Howard Dean was using that to gain momentum in the polls. She is trying to say experience leads to change. She wants us to believe that because she is a Washington insider that she can bring change, while Obama say that not being a Washington insider is the way to bring change. I have to say, Obama has her beat on this one. She was running on experience until Obama gained momentum with a message of change so she has shifted her rhetoric to try to include change with experience.  Even Mitt Romney and other Republicans are starting to use the term to try to gather momentum and lay claim to being the real candidate of change.

 This got me thinking as to what do they mean by change. So far no candidate has told us what the change would be, only that there would be change. No matter who wins the Whitehouse there will be change. The old president will be leaving and the new one will be taking the oath. That in itself is change. And as far as I can tell, that is the only change that will be made. Not one of the candidates have told us what the change would be. Rudy touched on this a little bit in the last debate. He asked what kind of changes are the Democrats talking about. He said something to the effect of, and I don’t remember his exact words, “raising taxes would be change, bad change”. I thought he hit the nail on the head.

 Simply talking about change without saying what the change would be or how you would implement change is nothing but an empty promise, campaign rhetoric. I don’t want change for the sake of change. I want real ideas put forth, I want to know what the candidates are proposing. For all I know Obama is talking about changing his underwear.

 Voting for a black man would be change, voting for a woman would be change. There has to be something behind the candidates though, there has to be something to believe in. People are starting to believe in this message of change without even knowing what it is. Perhaps they prefer it that way. Just tell them what they want to hear and they will never question you. They don’t stop to ask what changes, they don’t stop to ask how. Hell they don’t even stop to ask if it is necessary or right, as long as it’s different.

 Change may be necessary in Washington, but only the right change. As Rudy said, change isn’t always good. We know the Democrat candidates will raise taxes by not renewing the Bush tax cuts, that’s change. We know the Democrats will weaken our national security, that’s change. We know the Democrats, and John McCain, will grant amnesty and in state tuition to illegals, that’s change. We know the Democrats will not be strong leaders in the fight against Islamo-fascists, that’s change.

 All of those things are changes, none of them good. So unless Obama or Hillary come out and tell us specific changes they will make I will have to assume those are the ones they are talking about.

 Before you go to the polls and vote for change, ask youself- what are the changes I am voting for?