Ch-ch-ch-changes

.
Change is a foreign policy that doesn’t begin and end with a war that should’ve never been authorized and never been waged. I won’t stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what’s not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years — especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

Beginning at the beginning, we actually conducted two invasions and we're still in both countries. I'm not sure why our troops being there for a hundred years isn't an option. McCain was not talking about continually fighting a counter-insurgency for a hundred years. He was talking about maintaining a strategic presence there as we have all over the world since World War II. Now, whether we should or shouldn't is worth debate, but understanding the terms of the argument is a nice place to start. Is every other threat really being ignored? We've been taking the Colombia-Venezuela crisis pretty seriously and people have been worrying about Bush invading Iran for a while. We negotiated with North Korea and got them to shut down their nuclear reactor. Say what you will about the success or failure of any given foreign policy initiative undertaken by the administration, but they haven't been solely focused on Iraq.

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in — but start leaving we must. It’s time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It’s time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It’s time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda’s leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century — terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That’s what change is.

If they're ready to take over, sure, getting our troops home (aside from those we plan to post at permanent bases, assuming we do decide to do that) is a good idea. If not, then we've just created a new terror state. Which member of the administration is against care for veterans? Probably Cheney. Asshole. It would be nice to pacify Afganistan completely, but al Qaeda's leadership is in Pakistan. Digging them out would require an invasion, and Pakistan has nukes. You think Iraq was bad? Wade into that fucking pirahna-filled lake. I like that he thinks Iraq is somehow separate from our fight against Islamic freakshows. The argument could have been made prior to the war, though I disagreed with it then and still would, but that argument is impossible now. Climate change is on an equal footing with terrorism and nukes. Awesome. Poverty: Unheard of until the 21st century. Ditto, genocide and disease. We've been end all of those things for my entire life. Exactly how the hell is that change?

Change is realizing that meeting today’s threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy — tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn’t afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That’s what the American people want. That’s what change is.

There are a lot of things one might say about Bush and by extension McCain, but that America's stance towards petty dictators is unclear is not one of them. We don't like them and may very well depose them if we feel like it.

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It’s understanding that the struggles facing working families can’t be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It’s understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was President.

American workers: Uncompensated since 2001. Working families: Struggling since 2001. For what it's worth, pretty much all of the working families I know are doing alright. Tax breaks are fine with me. I resent corporate welfare, but across the board tax breaks are good things by and large. We do need to fix some roads and bridges and what not in this country, but is that what he's talking about when he says "infrastructure"? And "transforming how we use energy"? Does he mean like heating and cooling our homes? Lighting them so we can see at night? Are there a lot of people misusing their energy by, like, running bandsaws 24/7 for absolutely no reason? And why do I get the feeling that "fiscal responsibility" has nothing to do with how the government dispenses its rather sizeable income? Lastly, does any of this sound like anything that hasn't been said a zillion times by a billion politicians?

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy — cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota — he’d understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

So, Obama's going to force factories not to shut down? Our economy has been steadily shifting away from manufacturing jobs for at least the last 30 years, probably more like 35 or 40. Those kinds of upheavals probably suck for the people in those fields, but you can't wave a magic wand and make it all back the way it was. Also, recreating the past is a kind of change I suppose, but it's hardly forward-looking.

Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can’t pay the medical bills for a sister who’s ill, he’d understand that she can’t afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That’s the change we need.

And the slow takeover of the health care industry begins. I'm not even going to bother arguing against this. State-run health care is inevitable.

Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he’d understand that we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future — an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. That’s the change we need.


But God forbid we drill anywhere for oil. Let's just regulate and tax the hell out of businesses. Actually, McCain and he are pretty close on this particular issue, though I think McCain would be willing to allow drilling at least in ANWR and possibly move towards nuclear power for our electricity.

And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he’d understand that we can’t afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That’s the change we need in America. That’s why I’m running for President.

Huh, more money for schools. That's the first time I've ever heard of such a proposal. Change indeed. Is it that schools are underfunded or that they mismanage those funds? Or does education tend to suck in communities where parents just don't give a shit and flourish where they do? And the college thing, what fucking planet is he on? Here is a rather ugly chart of how many college students enroll each year. It's been 2 million or more every year since 1970. I'm thinking that nearly everyone capable of succeeding in college gets that opportunity along with a lot of people who can barely write a sentence or do basic math.

The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don’t deserve is another election that’s governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon — that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

You surely will not. You will hear some class warfare rhetoric, but nothing about religion or patriotism. Seriously though, this is a nice message. We'll see if it's upheld.

That's pretty much it for the interesting stuff. It closes with some more pretty fluff. Join me next time when I parse S. 2593, THE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION ACT.