Keep the change

Believe it or not, for the last year I’ve been rooting for Hillary Clinton. She’d be an ideal Democratic nominee. With half of U.S. adults saying they’d never vote for her, including 21 percent of Democrats and 48 percent of independents, her negatives are so high that she’d almost certainly lose the general election, even if the GOP nominated a trained monkey. Mike Huckabee, for instance. \nI’ll admit, though, it’s loads of fun watching her lose primaries. She has such a craving, such a burning lust for the presidency. She expected to be swept into office just by showing up. It was just “her turn.” It’s a cheerful thing to see her put in her place. By the way, what’s she ever done to deserve the presidency? The one reason she’s ever even been considered is because of who she’s married to. Some feminist she is.\nHow is Mrs. Clinton losing to a man with three years of Senate experience? \nIt’s all about change.\n“Change” has been this campaign season’s biggest buzzword, and Barack Obama is seen as its likeliest agent. Now, if you want to get excited about change, that’s fine, but just remember that the Bolsheviks brought “change” to Russia in 1917. “Change” is meaningless, unless it’s change for the better. And Obama’s idea of “change” is for the U.S. to embrace the liberal policies that have stunted growth and progress in countries around the world and in major American cities.\nI don’t have the space to detail the ways that leftists have ruined Europe and Latin America over the last century, and if you really need me to spell them out for you, then it’s doubtful you’re going to agree with anything I write anyway. \nBig cities are notoriously run by Democrats, and you can judge for yourself whether New Orleans, Detroit and St. Louis are models of positive “change.”\nThe best change that occurred recently in a major U.S. city was under Republican mayor Rudy Giuliani in New York City. There may be another success story here in Indiana in the next few years. In November, Indianapolis voters rebelled against years of inept Democratic leadership in favor of a no-name Republican outspent 11-to-one by an incumbent. That’s change.\nConcerning energy policy, Obama would bring change by regulating energy companies and increasing spending. Positive change would consist of getting the government out of the way, and letting the guys who know what they’re doing continue to create efficient solutions. Positive change would include drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and along our coasts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We should also build more refineries to increase the supply of gasoline.\nObama wants to change health care too, by removing the incentives that come from personal responsibility, in favor of more control by the consistently inefficient federal government. Like Rudy pointed out in a debate, if we adopt the plans advocated by the Democrats, where will Canadians go for good, timely treatment?\nI’m not any happier with the federal government over the last eight-plus years than anyone else, but when it comes to Obama, you can keep the change.