Before this week, I've often contemplated how it's possible Bush or indeed any President could be elected by more than the Electoral College held above popular vote even by the Constitution drafters; thus, Bush and any President seems beholden to basically do all things any Congress by majority vote puts through, with a White House imprimatur or with lawful Congressional override if none given...if that's the case, then Bush insofar as domestic policies has faithfully performed as even Democrats desire, and well, this "CHANGE!!!!" sloganeering seems fairly bereft of its own definition(s) from mouths using it.

 

Perhaps this "change" would be in terms of what the Bush White House thinks should be faith-based funding use even if some in Congress or States disagree in private, or change would be in factoring assorted anarchist and other suspects by collectives rather than modus operandis, or both; I respectfully submit I cannot ascertain.

 

But it does seem Democrats have a theme they're pushing which involves making "corporate fatcats" liable, helping immigrants, the poor, and struggling middle to low upper classes together, in a way that will not aggravate the "Shigalov" factors of leaders abroad amid de-construction of USA defenses and border security.

 

Yes, one way or the other, of course it's natural to eventually decrease military interests in Iraq, like eventually happened with every other place the USA has gone since 1776...decreased as USA and global security prudently demand. But that is not what some officials seem to think will, alone, "cure" interests of foreign leaders against the USA...some feel more "earnest" apparently must be shown to other leaders, whether foreign source(s) demand same or not.

 

Apparently some feel that re-regulation ala pre-1985...though it worked very well compared to modern times...would be going just too far against "corporate fatcats", and would lead to giddiness in the masses which then leads to over-blown sense of dignity and rights and lineage building, and therefore need for more cash down the line; thus, these same some infer that a more static existance as behooves "societal health" should come to be. The Global Poverty Act is just a continuation of this thinking: reduce most to no or not enough cash, societal expediency, raise a few to lots of salary/income, and that way the masses won't get too giddy or spendthrifty with the economy as prices further will remain at least as high as they are today and "right-minded" nomenclatura are exempted; thus avoiding the "dangers" of deflation known only to those who claim there's no way to control costs, leave folks with pre-911 rights, and expect them to not "overuse" their liberties, dignity, and equities.

 

Well, that would be one way to change the Bush way of free enterprise, to say the least. Apparently some feel it MUST be offered so that Congressional, State, local, and global leaders of like minds can homoginize the way ALL nations handle folks; currently, such talkers seem to be saying major religious faiths demand the people of earth live simply, and further same are saying those who don't believe such religious views are likely "of interest" one way or another. Oh, and those are just rumors of crazy local Pastors and such who claim police tell them who to help or not; likewise, the rumors of States offering bills allowing them to direct distributions of faith funds over control of any faith. So far, such "religious" caretaking of those who dictators would otherwise torture or dispose of (we are told) does not seem to have been much use against the "Shigalov" factor re Chavez, e.g., despite all the Democrat claims that it's helping us, Latin America, and Hispanic and other immigrants (where similarly persecuted outside the USA), and even if that means truning the USA into the same kind of place Chavez etcetera run so a "borderless USA can remain safe from foreign threats, and improve its image among leaders abroad".

 

I respectfully submit to Democrats and others seeking office this November that in the absence of any other articulated change(s) they self-generate or offer, I will presume within foregoing without a "busybody" President snooping ARE the gravamen and gist of any such alleged "change", and will support Conservative or Moderate-Right candidates in 2008; of course, in the absence of enumerated and well-specified "from this to that" change(s), I continue to support the economic and national security efforts of George Walker Bush.