McCain Palin Reform Ticket Tackle Change
September 8th, 2008 at 10:05pm KMorrison
Reform: 1.the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc.: social reform; spelling reform.
Change: 1.to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone: to change one’s name; to change one’s opinion; to change the course of history.
From Dictionary.com
There is a difference in the promise of a change versus the promise of a reform. First, a reform ticket acknowledges the good of the initial structure, and seeks to route out what has corrupted it. The promise of change simply says things will be different; possibly better, possibly worse, but definitely different. Change lacks specifics, reform seeks the goal of fixing the problems. While reform includes some change, the basic promise differs, and this is evident in the two campaigns. The Obama campaign promises to be different than President Bush. Different how? In party affiliation, in political philosophy, a broad sweeping promise to not be ‘him’. However, the McCain campaign says through reform they’ll fix Washington. Washington is ‘broken’, but it is not inherently bad. The government structures of America are quite remarkable, however, with power comes corruption and the McCain/Palin ticket seeks to rectify problems of waste and corruption. The ‘reform mantle’ take a sliver of the ‘change argument’ and focus it on specifics. The idea of change is often appealing, but change can be good and it can be bad. Simply promising not to be ‘that guy’ is not concrete plan for what type of change one seeks.
McCain Palin Reform Ticket Tackle Change
Entry Filed under: Barack Obama, John McCain, Sarah Palin



5 Comments Add your own
1. Joe | September 9th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
He’s been waiting 26 years to “fix” it? Why couldn’t he “fix” things while his party was in power?
What is to make you think that being President will all of the sudden make him “fix” Washington?
If he wanted to “fix” things, he could have started any of the last 26 years. Instead, he went ahead and put lobbyists in high positions in his campaign.
As for Obama’s “change” that you dismiss as just a word. I think he has pretty much laid it out. You just need to look. Start with his website.
“Change” on foreign policy. No longer shoot/sabre-rattle first… negotiate first.
“Change” in tax policy. Trickle-down has never worked. No more tax cuts to the wealthy in hopes that a few jobs come out of it. Give tax cuts to those that will spend the money forcing jobs to be added in order to meet demand.
“Change” in economic policy. No more borrowing to pay for tax cuts.
“Change” in evergy policy. “Drill baby drill” is nothing but a slogan, it isn’t a policy. It is a small part of the solution, not THE solution.
Change and Reform are pretty damn close to being the same thing. Do we really need to parse definitions to figure out exactly how they differ?
I don’t care what word you use. McCain has had 26 yrs to do something and failed to do anything. He claims to be a “maverick” (I am so tired of that word), but what exactly was he so “maverick-y” on? Immigration? Gee… didn’t hear much of that at the GOP convention. What makes him so “maverick-y” in general? When you vote party-line so often, can you actually be considered a “maverick”?
2. KMorrison | September 9th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Frankly Joe, I think you often do a better job at laying out Senator Obama’s positions than his campaign does. I can understand why you’re sick of the maverick tag, but I’m also sick of hearing ‘change, change, change’ without the accompanying ‘how, how, how’.
Senator McCain has made reforms in Washington, and is considered one of the most effective legislators in the Senate. He’s been a champion against corruption and waste, and he could do that much more effectively as President as being an effective 1 of 100, still doesn’t come close to being President.
Maybe the article sounds like splitting hairs, but a reform ticket is fitting for Senator McCain, and I’m glad to see him finally push that angle. I’m not trying to argue that Obama doesn’t have concrete positions, but that the idea of change often is frequently put forward as ‘I’m not Bush’, which really isn’t a statement about what he is.
3. Joe | September 9th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
thanks for the compliment KM.
“Maverick”
4. congressive | September 11th, 2008 at 5:23 am
I laugh every time I see Republicans calling McCain a “maverick”. McCain’s “maverick-ness” stems from his older history of telling the Republicans where to go from time to time. And all the Republicans smile and point and say “isn’t he great? He just told us to go to hell! Don’t cha just love that guy!”
And be sure to vote for the Republican who used to remind other Republicans that Republicans are often dead wrong. That’s the Republican Republicans want in office.
Maverick. Bwahahahahah!!!!!!!
And Sarah Barracuda :
bar·ra·cu·da : \ˌber-ə-ˈkü-də, ˌba-rə-\
1 : any of a genus (Sphyraena of the family Sphyraenidae) of elongate predaceous often large bony fishes of warm seas that includes food and sport fishes as well as some forms frequently causing ciguatera poisoning
2 : one that uses aggressive, selfish, and sometimes unethical methods to obtain a goal especially in business
You guys have bumper stickers for Sarah Barracuda… bwahahaha!!!!!!!
5. Joe | September 12th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Why no posting on Palin’s interview with Charles Gibson? We can debate her foreign policy knowledge!
I live next to the ocean, so I must be qualified to be a Marine Biologist.
McCain —
Oh my.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed