My thoughts on Obama's victory

[Raede]

As seen on my blog, Resolution181.
----------------


Well, I can't really get on his case for not really saying anything of substance in his St. Paul, MN victory speech tonight, because the purpose of a victory speech such as this is to bring people together and inspire them, not to gain more support.

However, he has NEVER said anything of substance.  He's a parrot of the progressives, pledging to care for the sick, stop global warming, create more jobs, fix our schools, pull out of Iraq, and turn America back into the great America of the past.

But how?  He hasn't said.  He's going to "chart a new course for America" and "change Washington," but he has yet to reveal his methods.

He claims that McCain will not acknowledge his accomplishments, but what accomplishments is he talking about?  He's sponsored one bill in the Senate, and that is one that aided a country in Africa that his relatives are supposedly from.

McCain said today that Obama's pledges are one thing, but his agenda is another.  He says he can unite the country and reduce the political polarization of the country, but nothing on his voting record can affirm this.  It seems to me that he is nothing more than the physical incarnation of the most naive and ignorant progressive ideas in America.

Obama may be able to fool the ignorant with his broad, unfounded pledges, but if McCain can effectively address and refute these claims, people will start to realize the irrationality of these promises.  For now that seems to be a problem, given the quality of McCain's speech tonight.  But his strength is in debate, which in turn is Obama's clear weakness.  That will be the turning point.  McCain needs a clear-cut strategy to expose Obama's faults, naivete, and ignorance of reality.

Obama is painting a McCain victory as four more years of the Bush administration.  This is clearly not the case, but McCain needs to make this known.  Both candidates are pushing for change, but as McCain regularly says, there is a big difference between the right change and the wrong change.

Obama's idea of change is to revert to "change" of the past, such as enlarging the social safety net, taking down corporations, and appeasing our enemies, all of which have been proven to fail.

McCain's idea of change is to move forward, to find other ways in which to accomplish these goals, instead of ones that history has already proven will fail. 

Obama says he is new and innovative, but he's not.  He just believes that he can do better than his predecessors with the same policies with which they failed before him.

But that's not really change, is it?