You can’t look at Obama’s appointment list of Clinton era retreads, Bush administration carryovers, and of course ‘I haven’t renounced my Iraq war vote’ Hilary herself, without indulging in one very guarded, but nonetheless deep belly laugh!
The current cry of the moonbat is “Change?! What change?! Where?! Where’s my change?!!!”
And in fact if this is a sign of how President-elect Obama is planning to ‘rule’, it does much to temper fears such as those I had, that this would be an overtly anti-constitutional and socialist regime – not allay – but temper.
The reason why my concerns are only tempered, is because he did express his thoughts about the constitution and its role in government – and they were anti-constitutional thoughts and intents. He did express his belief in the socialist sentiment of ‘spreadin’ the wealth around’, he has helped community organizations such as Acorn in their efforts to force institutions to yield to their wishes over their and their shareholders best interests, such as banks, to make loans which made no financial sense in order to promote homeownership (and future financial crisis).
But to think that what Obama said has any direct relation to what he'll do, is to make the mistake which people with principles are prone to make – we assume that others use words to convey meaning. In fact, those without principles use words only as a means to control others, to get them to do what they want them to do, which they otherwise wouldn’t have done except for having thought they heard in what the person speaking said but never meant – saves having to resort to a gun.
If you look at Obama’s own reminiscences of why he began to seek out Marxist professors in college, and the more radical students in the student body, it was because they had power – power of glamour, power of clique, power to command attention. He joined the pacific Rev. Wright's church because it could help him gain power in the Chicago power structure, same with his Alinsky based community organization efforts, as with William Ayers, Tony Rezko, accepting public financing, and so on.
I made the old mistake of assuming that he did this because he wanted power to promote his ideas… when in fact it now seems more likely that he wanted power for the more common reason that most power luster’s want power… because they want to be powerful. Sure, if things aligned well, I’m sure he’d use that power to promote those ideas which he has verbally aligned himself with, doubtless he has a certain fondness for them. But with the economy in an uncertain position, he is more than willing to take the positions needed to keep everyone happy with his keeping his power – but as the moonbat’s are finding out, ‘everyone’ doesn’t mean those who voted for ‘change they could believe in!’, it means ‘everyone’ who has power to help him keep power.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise to myself or the moonbats; the left, as they well know, have no principles, they only have positions and passions, and those are only held because they are things which they want, and they will do whatever it takes to get what they want, hence Power being what the left reveres, over Principle. It’s not as if they think that their policies are actually good policies, that they are right and true, only that they want them.
By the way, I’m not letting the Republicans off that hook either, they only hide their lack of principles from themselves better than the Democrats do. Any ‘free marketer’ who claims to believe in property rights and capitalism, but promotes appropriating trillions of dollars (or even one) in order ‘to fix the market’, never held any real belief in property rights and capitalism in the first place – they certainly didn’t understand it’s principles. As with Bush the 1st, who promised ‘Read my lips, no new taxes’ and then signed on to huge new taxes because he thought it would fix things and make them better ‘for the good of the country’, shows that he had no principled grasp or understanding of principles to begin with; the reason why a principled person would say ‘no new taxes’ is because the good of the country is served by no new taxes, and even more so by repealing taxes and divesting the government of powers it has improperly grabbed… argh.
Back to the future - as long as events make it expedient to promote middle-of-the-road people and policies, then Obama will likely do so and govern very much as did Clinton. On the other hand, as soon as events make it expedient to use a heavy hand to promote his preferences, those sitting back in comfort with his current selections will find themselves flat on their backs with the air knocked out of them, just as the moonbats are feeling it now.
The change we can believe in is that the Obama administration will change as it needs to and wishes to, in order not to let power change hands. It is after all a principle of those who seek power: be unprincipled on principle.
And that is Change! that forever remains the same.