Long carried and then fumbled by Obama, "change" was recovered by McCain as the key word in the election.  A scrum ensues for possession which is a bit silly because the “duh” factor is at play.  What I mean is every election is about change, it’s really only a matter of degree. 

Of all the rhetoric and bloviation on the subject I like Rudy Guiliani’s comment, in calling out Barrack Obama for his lack of specificity, “change is not a destination and hope is not a strategy”.  There were some pretty good zingers during the convention but that one had heft, and struck close to the near fleshless bone. 

Since both parties have taken change as their mantra, voters will listen closely for answers to the obvious questions; change to what, and how? 

Not anticipating the Palin surge, the flat-footed Obama camp thought this election would be won with the primary, and after that, it was no more complicated than to position McCain in Cheney’s heir apparent slot, call it Bush’s third term, and waltz into the White House.  A lot of external factors, and the reliably compliant press, made this scenario plausible. 

Given the eight years of successful negative branding and an anemic economy that assumption wasn't all that goofy. But there is one stubborn obstacle that blows that plan out of the water; from personality to policy, anyone who looks at Bush and McCain and sees twins is either literally or willfully blind, and those two groups do not a majority make. 

I think the left might be victims of their own success.  We are seeing the results of their eight-year Bush destruction program working too well.  The non-stop hateful vilification, Bush lied people died, Hitler, blood for oil, worst President in history, war criminal, idiot, etc. etc. has been so successful that Satan himself would be an upgrade.  So by that standard even John McCain would be an improvement.  I tend to repeat this point repeatedly but, the Democrats overplayed their hand. Old Faithful erupted, the sun rose in the east.  What a surprise.

Now that they realize the election will not win itself, and their novelty act is all but obliterated since voters can make history with a vote either way, fleshing out actual details of change has become necessary. 

Unfortunately for him, the more we hear about Obama’s ideas about change the more it is plain it will require more spending and bigger government.  Doesn't sound all that different than compassionate conservatism, but that’s just me, my irony antennae tend to work overtime.

The change he’s talking about is really nothing more than warmed over wealth redistribution schemes reminiscent of LBJ’s Great Society and FDR’s New Deal. That’s not change, that’s regression, and to abuse a shop-worn adage, sans lipstick thank you very much,  - - you can call regression change, and you might even be right, technically, but it’s still regression.

If Obama wins the only change we’re likely to get is what we find under our couch cushions.  He’ll have more difficulty making real change than a high school store clerk.    

Isn’t it amazing? With all the creative talent in Hollywood to help develop the message, a lap-dog mainstream press to deliver it, academia to rubber stamp it’s gravitas and praise it’s genius, and union foot-soldiers to hand deliver it to every porch in the land, and yet, the best they can deliver is Karl Marx version 6.0.  It really does make one wonder whether they prefer distractions to debate when this is the best they have. 

Conservatism, on the other hand, is the antithesis of regression because it’s never truly been tried.  Yes, you read that assertion correctly, and I do remember the eighties, and I was paying attention.  Conservatism has never been attempted on a large scale.  I can hear it already, what about Reagan?  Well, despite sincere attempts, St. Ronald, when all was said and done, grew both the budget and size of government, except more slowly, grudgingly and with more panache.  But let’s not confuse slowing liberalism with growing conservatism when the only difference is between massive and huge government.

It may not come right away and I, along with many Goldwater conservatives, have well-founded misgivings about McCain’s conservative credentials, but the reaction to his Vice Presidential nominee proves conservatism is an attractive product in this race.  Granted, the packaging certainly helps, more than anyone could have imagined, but its presentation is as important as the product itself.  One needn't look further than Obamania for proof of that theory.  In this regard McCain’s choice of Palin is no less than brilliant.  He gets mucho kudos for the selection.  Now let's see what he does with the reaction.  The future of the conservative movement is at stake. 

My unsolicited advice to the GOP ticket: leave the name-calling to the other side and campaign on the virtues of conservatism.  It is the first thing to truly energize the campaign.  Take advantage of the media spotlight and double down.  Sing it’s praises on smaller government, on constructivist judges, on lower taxes, on less spending, on bringing the fight to the terrorists, on school choice, on market oriented health care and energy solutions.  These are all winners.   

With its basic tenants grounded in the constitution, and cultural tenants grounded in traditionalism, in any non-agendized forum, the conservative position wins.  The simultaneous decline of traditional and rise of new media make this the least agendized forum in my lifetime, or perhaps ever.  The planets may never align this way again and with a new star as our guide maybe conservatism’s time has finally arrived.  I guess one can, er, hope? 

Who’d a thunk that in June eh?  I told you this election would be barnburner.  And to think only now it’s starting to heat up.  Better fasten those chins straps folks, it’s gonna be a helluva ride from now til November.

Have a nice weekend.