What Kind of Change Do You Want?

(This post was originally published on Friday night, October 24, and was temporarily lost during our server migration.)

While watching the engaging documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side, on HBO the other night, (it is a film that recounts in gruesome detail America’s descent into the madness of torture) I realized how thankful I was to soon be rid of the Bush Administration.

Here’s the trailer for the movie:

Anyway, I started thinking today in depth about what I want to change from the current Bush Administration. Number one on my list?

A restoration of the rule of law. One of the principle reasons the Bush Administration was able to do what it did towards shredding the Constitution, trashing habeus corpus, and ignoring the Geneva Conventions was the lack of effective, courageous oversight by the Congress. A Republican in the White House and a Republican controlled Congress–House and Senate–produced zero oversight. In fact, there were very few Republicans who dared to speak out against George Bush. Like him or not, the fact is that John McCain was one of the few Republicans to challenge the Bush Administration abuses. McCain insisted on establishing a 9-11 Commission and McCain spoke out strongly about the Bush Administration’s tacit endorsement of torture. He spoke up here:

And here:

McCain has demonstrated in word and deed that on issues such as torture he is not willing to ignore the Geneva Convention and he would take on his own party, even at risk of his political standing.

When I look at Barack Obama I see a guy who has cut corners on fundraising laws, worked closely with an unrepentant terrorist, and buddied up with a racist minister. One of these could be an aberration. But taken together they constitute a pattern of moral and ethical deficiency. As Matt Weaver detailed in an earlier piece today, Obama has not taken the minimal step to ensure that his campaign erects a system to collect cash that will filter out illegal foreign and domestic contributions. But why should that surprise us? This is the same guy who arranged a sweetheart deal with Tony Rezko, even though he knew at the time that Rezko is being investigated for corruption and bribery. You may think these are minor matters but for me they are important indicators of Barack’s character and what he will do when the pressure is on.

Can we point to one instance where Barack has stood up to Democratic party leaders? The answer is a resounding “NO.” Not once, not ever.

What else do I want when it comes to “change?” I want someone who is willing to stand up and challenge his party’s special interests. When you compare the money Barack Obama has received from the likes of Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and other titans of the financial industry against what John McCain has scratched out from those folks, there is no doubt that Barack has been bought and paid for. Barack in his tenure has raised at least four times as much money from these folks than McCain has in the past 22 years. Barack squeezes out more dollars in 3 years than McCain can in 22 years. And I have not even raised the fact that Barack was king of the hill when it came to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions. Barack is in a league of his own.

There is a reason that lobbyists, including Republican lobbyists, despise John McCain. He has refused to play the earmark game. So, on this count as well, McCain has the decided advantage.

I am troubled by some of the advisors surrounding John McCain–folks like Randy Scheunemann and Jim Woolsey have a troubling neo-con pedigree. But Obama has not exactly surrounded himself with the “anti” neo-cons. With the likes of Colin Powell, who sold the world the lies that led to the Iraq war, and Ken Adelman, a hardcore neocon cheerleader who celebrated the U.S. invasion of Iraq while hoisting a drink in Dick Cheney’s Washington home, Barack has not shunned the unsavory characters who helped create the nightmare of the last seven years. In fact, he has welcomed them aboard. He promised to take advice from Colin Powell. Jesus Christ!! That’s the last thing any President should be doing.

What else do I want to change? The spendthrift culture in Washington. I strongly oppose the Republican record from 2002 thru 2006, which produced unchecked growth in the money spent by the Federal Government. McCain was one of the few to speak out in opposition to this. Barack, for his part, did nothing to demonstrate a reluctance to spend Federal dollars. Although a junior Senator with little standing, he racked up a considerable record of bringing bacon home to Illinois. He surpassed many in the Senate with his penchant for earmarks. Does anyone seriously believe that Barry Obama is a steely-spined guy with the fire in his belly to quash demands from legislators like Barney Frank to expand government spending and boost taxes? Remember, this is the same Barack who sat passively in Jeremiah Wright’s congregation while Jeremiah damned America.

If Barack is elected then all of his supporters who rejected McCain and worshipped the Golden Child because they sought “change” will likely be chagrined rather than cheered by his subsequent performance in office. Despite his words and assurances, Obama is not an agent of change. Nope. He is a consummate panderer who shares more in common with George Bush, including some of the personality traits that helped secure W’s legacy as one of the worst Presidents in the history of America. Barack is not change I can believe in. He is more of the same. And with a Democratic controlled House and Senate Obama, like Bush, will not face congressional scrutiny and oversight. Like W, Barack Obama will have the freedom to ignore the rule of law and embrace policies that will further imperil this country. Deja vu all over again.