January 6, 2008

MANCHESTER (APUPI)

In the days leading up to the crucial primary in this crucial state, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney put his money where his mouth is today in the hard-fought race for the Republican nomination.

"I am the candidate of change!," he declared.

"To prove it," he went on, "I am going to use my millions to provide every New Hampshire voter who shows up at the polls on Tuesday with a huge bag of nickels, to spend on whatever you wish, whether it be a down payment on your five thousand dollar fee for John McCain's scamnesty program, or your first month's payment on my mandatory health-insurance plan. We'll even provide a truck to help you carry the loot home."

In related news in the Democrat primary, Senator Hillary Clinton, who used the word "change" at least three hundred and forty times in last night's debate, before transcribers got tired of counting, reiterated her commitment to it in a town hall meeting here today. "I promise that if I don't win this nomination I will really be making change, even more than I have for the last thirty-five years. And in addition, I'll be asking many of you in this audience, 'would you like fries with that'?"

In unrelated news, several Clinton campaign advisors were admitted to the local emergency room with mysterious head injuries that had the appearance of blows from high-velocity table lamps.

[Update after watching the Republican "forum" which is a much better term than "debate']

Rudy points out that "change" is less important, much less important, than what kind of change we get. I'm not in general a Rudy fan, but kudos. I wish that Fred, who spoke before him on the subject, had made at least that brief point.

Rudy points out that "change" is less important, much less important, than what kind of change we get.

Oh, I used to get to wanting to tear out my hair back in 1992, whenever some idiot would tout Bill Clinton because he would bring "change." I wanted to grab people by lapels, shake them until their dentures flew out, and scream, "There is a difference between the meaning of the word 'change,' and the meaning of the word 'improvement!'"

WSJ thinks that the electorate has the 16-year itch and wants an outsider. May they reap what they sow.

Oh, I used to get to wanting to tear out my hair back in 1992, whenever some idiot would tout Bill Clinton because he would bring "change." I wanted to grab people by lapels, shake them until their dentures flew out, and scream, "There is a difference between the meaning of the word 'change,' and the meaning of the word 'improvement!'"

E.g.

Going from living to dead is a change but most people wouldn't think of it as an improvement.

"I am going to use my millions to provide every New Hampshire voter who shows up at the polls on Tuesday with a huge bag of nickels..."

Is this legal?

Change? What's this now; 'grab the first semi-catchy thing the Liberals say, then parrot it a billion times so it becomes somehow relevant?'
Weak As Water!
There are four basic choices in the change department. There is better (my personal favorite), the same, worse, and LOTS worse.
Change for changes' sake is a load of crap.

Bah! I cast a jaundiced eye on the whole operation.

No, it isn't legal - it is a Class 4 felony.