With President-elect Barack Obama's pick for chief of staff, it is now clear what he meant with change: it's change back to the Clinton era.
Don't get me wrong. He has the right to pick whoever he wants. In fact, with his majority he has the right to sign the biggest wealth redistribution plan since the October Revolution in Lenin's Russia of 1917 into law.
My point here is to explain the reasons why he never revealed during his campaign what specific changes he had in mind. You could ask anyone why they vote for Obama, and the answer would always be "he is for change". Asked what changes he is going to make, and the answers would never get quite specific, because nobody knew what Obama's mantra of change really meant.
We now know that Obama's change is getting Clinton's inner circle back into the White House.
And that's why he always kept it his secret. If he had revealed his plans during the Primaries, wouldn't the voters much rather pick Hillary (and with her Bill), to get the real and original Clintons back into the White House?
Personally, I would rather go with the real Clintons. I can picture it in my mind:
Hillary working in the Oval Office. Bill wandering through the hallways of the White House in his bathrobe, the Secret Service working hard to keep him away from the female interns...
5 comments:
"With President-elect Barack Obama's pick for chief of staff, it is now clear what he meant with change: it's change back to the Clinton era"
- Isn't that *good* change. Don't you remember the surplus and booming economy during Clinton era? Well, I bet 8 years of Bush has erased that from your memory! Or is your position that the change that Bush brought was 'good' for this country??
That was left over from Regonomics. Clinton had nothing to do with it. in fact, Regonomics went away when George Bush senior raised taxes, putting an end to Regonomics which resulted in an economic downturn resulting in loss of jobs and him the Presidency. Clinton continued the move away from Regonomics by further tax increases that resulted in the Clinton recession.
According to you when Bush Sr. raised taxes, it put an end to Regonomics resulting in an economic downturn (thus costing Bush Sr. his presidency)- how did we have an economic boom time during Clinton presidency? Clinton was the 42nd president and Bush Sr. was the president before him. This logic makes no sense. It was obviously Clinton cabinet's policies which turned the economic downturn around!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/860170/posts
Clinton's initial "economic boom" was a result of Reagan and Bush Sr.'s work and Clinton's hard work of *undoing* his predecessors hard work resulted in a recession. I am sure we can go back and forth with this this for a very long time. The fact is, Congress is javascript:void(0)accountable for the dollars spent, they have final say in where the money is spent. The president has no authority to appropriate funds; it is entirely congress.
Post a Comment