I find it interesting that the candidate that promoted change used all the standard, traditional politics of the last quarter century to win.
- Catchy slogan that doesn't really mean anything but sounds good
- Mud-slinging at a person's past record without pointing out anything about their current record
- Dodging important questions and interviews from opposing points of view
- Promising everything without a viable plan to make the promises work (taxing the "rich" isn't a solution, it's a redistribution of wealth a.k.a. Socialism)
- Spend MILLIONS of dollars on ad campaigns (even going so far as to buy a 30-minute long national time slot) instead of putting that money into useful purpose (like giving it to those same poor and destitute people)
So yeah, let's go for Change! What exactly is going to change though? We won't have Bush, but let's be honest here: McCain voted for Bush 90% of the time, but so did a LOT of people when Bush first got into office. McCain was against a lot of the more psychotic things that Bush did, and he stood against the Republican party and reached across the aisle far more often than Mit Romney ever did. And I can't talk about Obama's track record because he has none. No experience in Washington whatsoever. He's literally just as qualified as Sarah Palin, but at least we know where Palin stands on issues because she wouldn't talk out both sides of her mouth.
The ONLY redeeming quality about Obama is that I
think he's against the Patriot Act, which single-handedly wiped out a whole slew of rights in favor of protection from an invisible enemy. The war on terror is just like the war on drugs. It'll never end, and it's just kind of catchy idea rather than something feasible. It also handily gives us a reason to invade or at least push around smaller countries. If Obama repeals the Patriot Act somehow, I'll be thankful of that and I could accept the ensuing economic crisis as payment for getting back some of my rights.
/rant over