This campaign has been one obsessed with change. Obama practically starts every sentence with the word and the liberal left, especially the Obama campaign, criticizes anyone who questions his governmental proposals and political stances of being an advocate of the established Washington ‘good ol’ boys’ rather an agent of change. All this rhetoric while nominating an individual that represents anything but change.

Most people agree on both sides of the aisle that Washington needs to change. This is no new idea. The real question should be: What kind of change and at what cost? Certainly no sane minded person would advocate change for the sake of change. If this were true the implications could potentially be devastating. But somehow we have become blinded that this is exactly what Obama is advocating.

Obama claims to be an agent of change but when one examines Obama he really should be considered the same old liberal politician. Only this time the liberalness and politically failed ideologies are wrapped in a different package; namely a well spoken, young, black politician.

Change? The only real change is that the Democratic Party deviated from the typical old white male candidate. Surely one wouldn’t argue that because Ben and Jerry’s changes their ice cream carton that what is inside is any different than before. This tactic has been tried many times to fool consumers, sometimes successfully, into buying the same old garbage. This is exactly what is being attempted by the Democratic Party. Their nominee possesses the same garbage the party has been trying to force feed America for years only this time a different package is being peddled in an effort to fool voters. So let’s think for a moment. What kind of change does Obama really represent?

Certainly Obama claims to be bipartisan; yet when has he ever reached across party lines? (Umm Never!) In fact, in the short time he has been in the senate Obama has quickly been recognized as the most partisan and left leaning senators. This could be argued as a change since I don’t think anyone has either been considered the most conservative or most the liberal person in congress after a measly 2 years in office so maybe he should get at least some brownie points. Additionally, Obama hasn’t once introduced a single bill in the senate. So how can one call him a bipartisan legislator when he doesn’t even legislate? The simple answer is you can’t. Obama’s tactic has been to sit on the sidelines and pounce on the politicians that actually try to achieve bipartisanship.

Look at Obama’s state legislative record. That proves he is an agent of change. Does it not? Actually this serves to prove the point that he is more of the same. Every time a bill came up in the state legislator that was even somewhat controversial, rather than voting for it or against it, Obama, hundreds of times, voted ‘present’. What does this tell you about a politician? I’m sure the citizens of Illinois are glad to see that although Obama refused to take part in important state legislation he was at least there or ‘present’. Voting ‘present’ on hot button issues merely says that, although this is a hot button issue that needs to be resolved, I’m going to preserve my own skin at the cost of the constituents so that when it comes re-election time I can take any stance I want ensuring success over my adversary. This is exactly the tactic he is pulling against McCain. Remember the “I’ve been against the war from the beginning.” line? How do we know? He was in the state legislature in 2001 and last time I checked the senate of Illinois doesn’t vote on American foreign policy. The fact is we don’t know how he stood. Obama simply doesn’t have a record on Iraq and somehow he distorts this into a consistent stance in an effort to fool voters. This doesn’t seem to prove he is different from any stereotypically politician to me. But, perhaps I’m wrong.

The fact is Obama advocates, higher taxes, large government, socialized healthcare, government control over the free market, and that government should be the end all be all of American society.

The fact is that all these theories are not only antiquated but they have been implemented and have failed miserably. Jimmy Carter in the 1970’s raised taxes to almost epic proportions yet I fail to see anyone claim that during his time as president our economy was ideal. In fact Ronald Reagan came along and signed the largest tax cut in American history and almost overnight our economy flourished and maintained prosperous and significant growth.

Socialized health care? This is hardly a new idea. It has been advocated for years (in fact Hillary Clinton started this wave in America) and implemented in various countries only to fail. In Washington State for instance Canadians are coming to America to have their babies because their country lacks the facilities to accommodate expecting mothers. There are waitlists in Australia and Great Briton for operations that could be done over night in our current free medicine market. Liberals, like Obama often evoke the 30 million Americans without health insurance to justify such a transition from our current system. However we need to be careful when hearing these statistics. America this past year reached a population of 300 million citizens. Basic math brings one to the conclusion that this means 90% of our current population has health insurance. It doesn’t seem compelling to argue that this justifies a complete topple of the current system. Perhaps changes can be made but socialization on a massive scale seems obtuse. Our government can’t manage Social Security or the DMV. What makes you think they can manage the ever changing and complex healthcare system?  Is this the kind of change America desires and deserves? Change for the sake of change is not the answer.

The fact is that Obama is more of the same with inexperience to boot. McCain rather, is, and has been for his entire career, an individual that transcends political boundaries. His judgment and character attest to the fact that he is willing to reach out across the aisle to achieve a common goal for the American people, not just his party. This is why he has been having a rough time with his base, he answers to the American people not just his party. McCain answers to nobody and has verbalized this. He puts his country, not party, first. McCain actually has a legislative record. He has reached across lines to push through the McCain-Feingold legislation on campaign finance reform (something Obama refused to abide by when it was politically beneficial) and McCain-Kennedy.

The fact is that in John McCain you get a person character and honor. Too often this is not exuded in our politicians and is the type of change America wishes to see in their leader. Merely electing McCain will change what is expected in a commander in chief.

 In John McCain you will find an American that is willing to put his country first and has not only preached this but lived it. McCain voluntarily served his country and went to fight in an unpopular war, he put his fellow soldiers first and chose to have his teeth pried out with pliers, his arms broken, and his body beaten, rather than be a piece of propaganda for the communists. What a change it would be to have a proven patriot in the White House. This is the type of honor we need in a president rather than a fair weather politician whose only goal is self advancement as we notice when examining Obama and his record.

How about a president that knows the perils of war first hand? How about a president that can truly empathize with the soldiers’ experiences? How about a president that holds America higher than his party and actually lives and exudes the ideas he speaks? How about a candidate that has actually sought change, worked for change, and has achieved change?

McCain as president - Now that’s change we can believe in. Obama should observe, retreat back to Chicago, with pen and pad in hand, and take notes…

B.V.M.