Change? Or More of the Same?

Today, in an internet video, BHObama made the decision to forgo public financing for the upcoming Presidential general election. I guess the good news is the federal government doesn't have to write the Obama campaign an $84 million dollar check. What? A good-government, fiscally conservative position? No, you say? What am I missing?

He did what? Over the years he has been a steadfast proponent of publically financed campaigns? Further, on several occasions (and as recently as last week) he pledged to his supporters that he would accept public financing to limit the amount of money he can raise from special interests like the AFL-CIO and Trial Lawyers? Hmmm, I didn't know that.

He broke his word? But he is for Change. Change agents don't lie, do they? Change agents don't flip flop. Oh, unless by Change, you mean Change your mind every other week. Or by Change, you mean the $84 million that John McCain will have to spend on his campaign (he is accepting public financing) is pocket Change compared to the jack he's able to raise from Hollywood's elite and his other liberal friends like LeBron James.

Change, huh. Politicians saying one thing and doing another? C'mon.

"It's not an easy decision, especially because I support a robust system of public financing of election," Obama said.

Let me get this straight. He supports the system for others, but not for himself because he learned in the primary election that he can raise ALOT more than his opponent. Obama suggests that the system is broken, that 527 groups like those that "Swift-boated" John Kerry in 2004 are destroying and "gaming" the system. He says he'll have to spend more money than his opponent, Senator McCain, because these groups will spend millions and millions to come after him.

Well good god, man, what do you call groups like the AFL-CIO, and those political thugs at MoveOn.org?? Will they not spend millions upon millions to lie, twist and distort McCain's record?

Obama continues to lie to the American people. This is more evidence that Obama is no agent for change. He's more of the same--perhaps even worse because he is pretending to be someone he isnt. Let's see if the media calls him on it--anyone take that bet?

Here's what pisses me off even more. He wants to impose a windfall profit's tax on oil companies. How about, Barrack, we impose a limit on what the MEDIA can charge on air time and ads. Look, why do candidates have to raise so much money? Because air time is E-X-P-E-N-S-I-V-E!!! If you do that, you drastically decrease the amount of money (at least in theory) that a candidate would need to raise to get his "message" out to the public. Yea, he won't make that suggestion, will he?

Let's be honest, if I were Obama, and I knew I could raise $200 million before the November election, I'd forgo the $84 million too. At the same time, if I claim to be an agent for "Change", I'm going to tell the truth about my decision. It's not against the law, so just tell it like it is and move on (.org).

This guy is trying to sell the American people a bill of goods--defective goods. He's no agent for change. Unfortunately, I'm afraid he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's praying on the fears, concerns and hopes of the American people. In a time where we're getting killed at the pump, and our soldiers are in harms way, and floods are overwhelming the Midwest, and people are being evicted from their homes, he's making promises he has no intention of keeping---like his promise to accept public financing for his general election campaign.

The sad thing is, it's a small lie. It's a lie that didn't have to be told--just like the lie he told about not knowing the nature of the sermons of his family minister, the Reverend Wright. Lying to lie. There is a clear and disturbing pattern emerging. Change indeed...

--G