04.23.2012 in Politics by NetRight Daily 1

What Obama’s ‘change’ really is

Obama's ChangeBy Adam Bitely — When Obama campaigned for the presidency in 2008, he ran on the now worn promise of “Hope and Change.” After almost four years of being President, Obama is now telling us that the “Change” part of that promise has and is being carried out.

That’s news to me. I haven’t noticed anything differently in the way that the federal government does its business or the way that the political system functions.

Speaking at a campaign fundraiser earlier this week at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan, Obama identified the change he has brought as follows:

Change is the decision we made to rescue the American auto industry from collapse, when some politicians said let Detroit go bankrupt. … Change is the decision we made to stop waiting for Congress to do something about our oil addiction and finally raise fuel-efficiency standards on cars. … That’s what Change is. … Change is the first bill I signed into law … Lilly Ledbetter — a law that says women deserve an equal day’s pay for an equal day’s work.”

What Obama is calling “change” is actually more of the same. He says that bailing out bankrupt car companies is “change,” but isn’t that just a continuation of Bush’s policy of bailing out companies that he called “too big to fail”?

Obama says mandating fuel efficiency standards on cars is change, but again, this is something that his predecessor George W. Bush did as well.

When it comes to “change” in ensuring that women are paid equally for their work, Obama’s White House pays female employees nearly 18 percent less than male employees. Is that the “change” he is talking about?

Obama’s change is really just a continuation of many of the policies started by George W. Bush. And I thought Obama was opposed to everything his predecessor had done.

I wonder what all of the people who voted for “Hope and Change” 2008 would think about this list of what Obama thinks “change” really is. Were voters in 2008 calling for more bailouts that were started by George Bush? Were voters clamoring for Obama to ensure that even though he signed a law that says women deserve equal pay, that he would deny them that pay if they were to work for him?

So I guess Obama has something new to blame Bush for — creating most of his policies.

Adam Bitely is the Editor-in-Chief of NetRightDaily.com. You can follow Adam on Twitter at @AdamBitely.

  • topeka

    Adam,

    Bush has something new to blame Clinton for — creating most of his policies – and so on.

    Bailouts in particular have a long history. Clinton and LTCM, Reagan and Chrysler, and NY was bailed out before that using a sleight of hand method. I am sure there are more.

    Usually, I like to point out – that we defend Bush the liberal-lite because he was a better POTUS than his more progressive, more liberal, more socialist, more corrupt counterparts; extending “him” to his appointees and czars and other administrative and organization decisions.

    But you are right: We can gaze upon the partly full glass and say Obama is “Bush-Heavy.” Of course this feeds the Bush Derangement Syndrome, and overall it is an unfair characterization of Mr. Bush… but there is evidence for those who want to use it.

    Thanks for the article…
    :-)

Back to top

Copyright © 2008-2014 NetRight Daily