Currently we have a Congress, controlled by the Democrats for the past two years, with an approval rating hovering around the 10% mark and a soon-to-be-departing Republican President with an approval rating under 30%.

Also of interest is the reportedly 60% of Mainers who participated in a poll conducted by the Pan Atlantic Group in July, 2008 and stated that they felt that Maine was going in the wrong direction. This opinion may be reflected in the number of citizen-initiated referendums on the November ballot.

Such information may seem to bolster the idea that the electorate across the nation supports the need for "change" in government, both state and Federal. To paraphrase the late Tip O'Neill, "All politics is local".

Voters might be wise to consider the last Federal election where the mantra of "change" played such a major role.

The year was 1976 and the Democratic candidate was new to national politics and although possessing a thin resume was nearly deified by most of the media. The Republican could have been best classified as a moderate who was not trusted by conservatives and who had distanced himself from the then-current President.

Media idolatry helped Jimmy Carter win the Presidency despite his lack of experience on the national level, his waffling on the issues, voter's lack of knowledge about "who he really is as a person" and his arrogance and uncontrolled ambition.

Carter also managed to cloak his liberal, well to the left of center political agenda and project the image of "a new kind of politician who is against the corrupt Washington system" and whose sympathies lay with "the common man and his problems".

The Carter Presidency then proceeded to bring America double-digit inflation and unemployment, a gasoline shortage crisis, double-digit mortgage rates and a new "misery index" (created expressly to measure the dismal effects of the economy on the population). Carter also provided a weak and ineffective foreign policy that featured the drawn-out Iranian hostage fiasco and strongly contributed to the diminishment of America's reputation throughout the world.

History provides valuable information for those who care to search it out.

The two major-party Presidential candidates for this election present a clear difference in political philosophies.

Sen. Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine, a devotee of the far Left who openly espouses the Marxist mantra of "wealth distribution" and who plans massive government expansion and intervention, paid for by huge tax increases that will exacerbate America's economic woes. His ultimate goal may well be to replace our free market representative republic with a socialist state. He has served less than a full term in the U.S. Senate.

Sen. McCain promises a "maverick" approach to Washington, installing reform where needed and relying more on free market polices to help resolve economic and social inequities. He emphasizes his long record of public service and experience in government and foreign policy as major qualifications for the Presidency.

We have, of course, several other choices when it comes to Presidential candidates, Libertarian Bob Barr and Ralph Nader included. Unfortunately, until the obstacles of media prejudice and special interest money are removed or negated the opportunities for election of a third-party candidate will remain severely limited.

I surely do tire of trying to identify the candidate who will do the least amount of damage if elected.

E-mail this entry to a friend