Time For A Change

During his convention acceptance speech in 2000, one of Dick Cheney's applause lines was that "it was time for them [Clinton & Gore] to go." Well seven years later the American people have decided it is time for Bush and Cheney to, or as Sen. Barack Obama put it in Kansas City - it's time for a change.

Approximately 3,000 people paid $25 a piece to hear a speech by Obama in Kansas City on Saturday, more than eight months prior to the Missouri primary. For comparisonn, Sen. John Kerry filled the same hall in 2004 around the Missouri primary, yet the event was free.

The Kansas City event, and many others around the country, must be the Republican's worst nightmare - for the crowd was made up of a cross section of America, not just the committed political veterans.

One can understand why Republicans worked so hard to limit access to the voting booth. They know they are outnumbered and if the people ever showed up to vote they would have little chance any election.

According to a Newsweek poll the top three Democratic candidates (Obama, Edwards & Clinton) all would defeat the top GOP candidates, with Obama and Edwards winning by an easier margin. Edwards and Obama offer hope for a better future for the country, which for nearly half of the country, has been missing since late 2000.

The major question is whether the changes in the primary system will allow Hillary Clinton, who would make a fine president, but would set the right into a scare mongering campaign that might fool just enough people to elect a Republican, to win the nomination.

If the press had acted responsibly in the 1990s there is no way George W. Bush would have been close enough to "win" the 2000 election and it is difficult to believe the press would act any differently around the Clintons this time around. If anything, the press would be out for blood for being proved wrong and for that many in the public realized they are in part responsible what has taken place in the last seven years.

It's time for a change.

Bush: Success is when violence is a nusance

In 2004 when Sen. John Kerry suggested America would be safe when the country gets "back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance" the Bush campaign reacted with ad taking his words out of context and Dick Cheney called the remarks "naive and dangerous."

Yet how does Bush now describe success in Iraq? "The definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not, no violence. There are parts of our own country that have got a certain level of violence to it. But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. And that's what we're trying to achieve."

So success is a level of violence where people feel comfortable about living their daily lives. Sounds like saying terrorists are not the focus of our lives.

Yet what did President Flip Flop say in 2004 was his goal for Iraq? "Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorists, and spreading freedom and liberty around the world."

But then who takes Bush & Cheney seriously? How did other Republicans react to Kerry's comment? "The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening," said Rudy Giuliani.

So the question now is will the media remind those politicians of their words? Don't hold your breath.

It's much easier to beat up on a Democrat for making a common sense statement then to show a Republican is a hypocrite for first criticizing that statement for political purpose then later their policy is basically the same thing.