Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

It depends on the meaning of “Hope” and “Change”

The One was all about Hopenchange this election.  Apparently, “Hope” was a reference to Hope, Arkansas, and “change” means “a slew of Clintonistas, which isn’t really a change, but what’s another lie among good friends?”  Details here.  Ed notices, too:

For a man who ran on change and the future, Barack Obama looks more like a president with a yearning for yesterdays.  His early appointments lean heavily on Clintonistas, returning to the inside-the-Beltway clique of Democrats rather than on the kind of outsiders he promised would change the business model for the federal government.


November 16, 2008 - Posted by crushliberalism | Obama, hypocrisy

4 Comments »

  1. Oh, please.

    There’s a dramatic difference between “change” and “hiring White House staffers who don’t know how the place works.” If anything, Obama’s staffing plan is fixing a major, Clintonian mistake – Clinton put off choosing his staffers, so that they had to struggle to get into the swing of things, after the transition. Obama’s being smart by handling the staffers now, so that everyone will be ready to get things done, when he takes over.

    Really, the problem here is that so many people on the right plugged their ears and started shouting down anyone who tried to tell them that “change” was actually the by-word for concrete ideas. It doesn’t mean that we’re going to throw out everyone who’s ever worked in Washington. It means we’re going to put some one new in charge of the whole thing – Obama himself – and pursue policies and a political tone that are vastly different than those of preceding administrations.

    Comment by N.S. Allen | November 16, 2008

  2. I suspect he realizes he’s in over his head.

    Bill, help! I didn’t think I’d really win this thing!

    Comment by The Truth Hurts | November 16, 2008

  3. “change” was actually the by-word for concrete ideas.

    Pffffffff-bwahahahahahaha! Man, you gotta warn me before saying something so patently absurd like that! :lol: The man spoke in glittering generalities, and when he did reference “concrete ideas” such as socialist redistributionism, he back-pedalled. So yeah, “concrete ideas”. Is that what they teach you at the University of Chicago? :?

    and pursue policies and a political tone that are vastly different than those of preceding administrations.

    Oh, the tone will be different, alright: Heavy handed authoritarianism, unbridled socialism, and Orwellian power-gathering. Fortunately, I’m vested in the afterlife and not this worldly life. Good luck to you, pal.

    Comment by crushliberalism | November 17, 2008

  4. Dang, I missed that first comment. My “absurdity filter” must be working.

    Comment by The Truth Hurts | November 18, 2008


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »