Hogs with "Change" lipstick

After spending the weekend and early part of this week watching the financial crisis in the US and pretty much ignoring the meaningless comments of both presidential candidates on the problem since it hits home very directly---why can't they just admit that they have no clue of what should be done but are hoping for political gain---I came across this quote by Heritage foundation research fellow John Tkacik this morning in the Japan Times: (This article is nothing more than a list of guesses by people who don't really know what either candidate will do).

"McCain understands the realities of America's dwindling influence in Asia, but I understand he believes that by reinvigorating strong Pacific alliances, America, Japan, (South) Korea and other Asian democracies can balance China," he said.

"Obama will probably follow his aide's advice, which apparently is to work with China in Asia — and essentially to let China do what it will," Tkacik said.

So perhaps we can assume that McCain will continue the militarization of the US/Japan relationship at the expense of every other relationship in the area? China will be our replacement for the Soviet Union threat, and we will continue to encourage Japan to rearm and to hell with what other countries in the region mean think/fear about that. God forbid that we work with China in Asia.

Obama has said nothing that I have seen that suggests he will do anything significantly different---he can't---so the "change" that either candidate claims is mostly wishful thinking.

The article states:

...in April 2007, Obama made a welcoming speech [for ex-PM Abe] in the Senate.

He portrayed the Japan-U.S. alliance as "one of the great successes of the postwar era" and stressed the need for Americans to embrace "a Japan that is a 'normal nation' — one that has its own identity, vision and goals"...

What does that mean? Do Americans who know anything about Japan not already know that? Does it mean that we will take a neutral position on Japan rearming and accept that there may be different goals? Do we embrace Japan as it tries to exclude the US from various economic groups/agreements in the region? Will we recognize the the right in Japan does not hold US/Western values of democracy or human rights, or accept any responsibility for Japan's actions in WW2. Would we stop assuming that the right in Japan is our friend just because they are willing (more than willing)to go along with rebuilding the military and taking a view of China as an enemy? Or does it mean nothing, just part of a welcoming speech.

From his Foreign Affairs article of last year:

...As China rises and Japan and South Korea assert themselves, I will work to forge a more effective framework in Asia that goes beyond bilateral agreements, occasional summits, and ad hoc arrangements, such as the six-party talks on North Korea. We need an inclusive infrastructure with the countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity...

Sounds nice, but does it really mean anything?

And the man who promises change, the man who does not engage in the old ways of thinking wrote:

...A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace...

More than ANYTHING! That's how New Zealand has survived.

Six months ago I thought we would have the best candidates for president that we have had in decades. Perhaps we do, but that is not saying very much. Two pigs wearing Change brand lipstick.