Does America really want change?

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

Quote:

The two apparent front-runners are now Hillary Clinton and John McCain. If nothing changes, this is the choice we will have for president of the United States.
Hillary is part of the monopoly on the White House between the Clintons and the Bushes that goes back 28 years. Her husband is a two-term president, she’s a former first lady and current member of the Senate. She’s a poster girl for the Washington establishment.
McCain has been a part of Washington for 26 years. A two-term congressman, he’s been a senator since 1986. He’s been running for president for the last eight years. Another Washington insider.
Ask anyone what they think of our government and most people will be happy to tell you. They are angry. I get thousands of letters a week from people angry about health care, immigration, the war, the economy, you name it. The consensus is our government is broken and our country is in trouble.
The problems they complain about exist solely because of the actions of the Democrats and Republicans in Washington. The political establishment, if you will, that is in bed with the lobbyists and the corporations and, quite frankly, couldn’t care less about you.
Except now, at election time, when they need you. They travel the country spewing the same tired rhetoric we have heard for years. And like lemmings, we appear to be on the brink of continuing to send one of them to the White House. Somebody said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well?
Here’s my question to you: When it comes right down to it, why won’t we vote to really change things?

yep, hard to argue with it. i think the problem is that the system is rigged against change.

why does hilary get so much respect? is it her winning personalit? nah, its her connections. in the last 15 years, shes acrued a whole bunch of "i owe you"s.

why do people attatch themselves to a winner? well, michigan went renegade in 2000 in the republic primary, and we double lost (bush won despite us in general two). is it a coincidence that he's done zilch for the state? take this to a micro level. if a union endorses the wrong candidate, what happens versus had they backed the winner?

what is having a president's door open to you mean?

so when someone endorses a candidate, it really is a "what do they have to gain by this" type situation.

ps aristotle lived in probably the purest democracy in the history of democracy and hated it. said if most people were for it then its probably wrong. i think he had a point. only reason we "rock the vote" is because it helps the dems. in reallity, most of these people shouldnt be voting. hell, i consider myself well informed, and even doubt my qualifications as a voter.

No, america doesn't really want change. Occasional tweaks to the system, sure but not wholesale change. A truly different result is neither expected nor desired.

I'd settle for dollars and sense.

If Hill and McCain are the candidates obviously not.

Hill will prolly be Bill and McCain will preside over the country like a Senator not a prez.

Quote:

Here’s my question to you: When it comes right down to it, why won’t we vote to really change things?

I think the change message is more in the Dem camp than in the Rep camp. I've seen it in both places but conservatives generally fear change(kind of a joke, but kind of not). Conservatives like to know what to expect.

So the question is best directed to Dems, imo. And I don't know why Dems aren't rallying behind BO. He's a true blue liberal. He doesn't seem to have any hate or malice, just a good liberal message.

Its a shame Dems don't get behind this guy.

Say what you will, but things have gone decently the past 70 years round these parts.

I mean no disrespect to anyone ... not saying anyone is taking that way either...

but the Dems generally get the younger voters. The younger voter generally wants change...until they get 40 years old with 3 kids and a stable job and home, then they get a lil more establishment type.

my take anyway.

The problem is that the Democratic presidents tend to overreach, thinking that what FDR did in 4 terms was something they could do. Often, they're overreaching for the right reasons and ideals, but the nation just isn't ready for the progressive agenda. Change takes time.

The thing I like about, say, Obama's health care plan is that it's NOT all that overreaching, in contrast to Hillary's money grab for the insurance companies. He's not afraid to propose something less that will work. That seems to be his take on gun control as well -- don't touch it, it's not practical (which isn't as good as Howard Dean's "leave it to the states" approach, but it'll do). He has a good sense of what he can get away with and what he can't.

I'm somewhat less enamored of his "legal driver's licenses for immigrants", but I understand the "hard to fix what you can't even measure" aspect. I love the wildly varying "out my ass" estimates of how many illegal immigrants there are, the current figure being 12-20 million. Driver's licenses are one way to track the problem. If you're illegal and want to give us your fingerprints and where you live and pass a safety test to be street legal... why not? If the answer is "driver's licenses are used for too many other things", fix it with a real ID system (not to be confused with Real ID).

But now I'm rambling...