Dick Cheney made the following statement after the Supreme Court awarded Nameless the Presidency in 2000. "We won. It's our due." Of course, he was describing the resultant grab for unprecedented power which included ignoring the precepts of the constitution that both he and Nameless were sworn to uphold. What then began at that moment in time was a massive mental reorganization of our federal government that became dedicated to staying out of the way of big business. Regulate? No, big business will do what is right for the people of the United States because it will be in business' best interests to do so. Example A of how this system worked in Nameless' mind was his compliment to the head of FEMA following the Katrina debacle. "Good job, Brownie." It must be admitted, if your viewpoint is that government shouldn't be doing anything about catastrophes like Katrina, you can certainly understand why Nameless said what he said. This view point undoubtedly explains why Nameless can still find 20% of Americans who view him favorably. I could go on and on with examples, but I need to get to the point.
Both candidates for the presidency seem to recognize and advocate change. The basic bottom line is that the massive experiment of Nameless and his cronies simply hasn't worked and has harmed America in so many ways that it is virtually impossible to list them. The basic function of government in an organized society is to temper the animalistic impulses of members of that society for the good of all. This would include tempering the greed impulses of soulless major corporations which are treated like citizens, but exist solely for the purpose of generating profit. With a short time before election day, I am convinced that Obama perceives that need for change. I am not so certain about McCain and his talk about change. His basic approach to everything is the same as Nameless; to cut taxes and eliminate pork, and seems a poor fit at this point in time to undo the real damage that Nameless has done to our people. Both men are men of honor and insist personally that they want the electorate to decide on the basis of the differences in their policies, which are ample. If that is so, is it not a reflection of character that McCain permits the nasty attempts to degrade Obama's character in a manner and form equivalent to what Nameless did to him in South Carolina in 2000? Do what want someone who does that as our beacon of change as we try to undo the damage of Nameless? I don't think so and the real danger of the next couple of weeks is that voters may be fooled again by the spirit of demagoguery that has permeated the soul of this country since 2000. We need real change.