In my opinion, President Obama has turned out to be the greatest fraud perpetrated upon a populace since Toto pulled back the curtain in Oz. He is snake-oil, a wooden nickel and a rubber check, all rolled into one.
His lack of leadership, coupled with his desire to spend, spend, spend our way out of debt, make him not only unfit to lead our country, but unfit to run the convenience store near my house.
There are two articles out which buttress my point on these observations.
The initial one was from Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal, in a post titled “The Un-President”.
So came the moment late in the Hofstra debate when moderator Candy Crowley looked at Mr. Obama and asked: “Does the buck stop with your secretary of state as far as what went on here?”
Staring back, the president clutched for a second. He looked like a fourth-grader being confronted in front of the whole class by Miss Crowley of all our childhood nightmares. That moment revealed the problem: At the core of Barack Obama’s persona and his presidency is a constant instinct to deniability.
It’s not my fault.
He comes across as one of those smart kids who always had some elaborate excuse to disperse responsibility for anything bad in his vicinity. And so it was in [Obama’s] answer to Miss Crowley: “Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president. And I’m always responsible. And that’s why nobody is more interested in . . .” By the end, he said it was Mitt Romney’s fault for bringing it up!
In contrast, the bin Laden takedown was accompanied by a Lady Gaga-like White House P.R. blitz in the media.
Who among us hasn’t seen/known/worked for someone like this? Not necessarily a bad person, merely a weak one. Capable of many things, but never, never accepting criticism. It’s impossible to truly respect an individual like that, and more impossible still when he/she is purportedly your leader.
Such is the case we have now: a President who loves to bask in the limelight with celebrities, and who enjoys being seen as involved in the “tough” decisions, like: “Do I kill the #1 terrorist in the world, keeping in mind that this politically would be incredibly popular?”
But ask him about his involvement in Benghazi? Yeah, not so much.
Which leads into our 2nd article, penned by George Will.
‘Tis said two things not worth running after are a bus or an economic panacea, because another will come along soon. Obama’s panacea is to cure what he considers government’s unconscionable frugality. Nothing in Obama’s campaign has betrayed an inkling that anything pertinent to Social Security or Medicare has changed since they were enacted 77 years and 47 years ago, respectively.
Four years ago, Obama said he would slow the oceans’ rise but this year has not sought a mandate to cope with — he has barely mentioned — the supposedly onrushing calamity of climate change. He says this emergency (like everything else) justifies giving government huge new dollops of power, yet our Demosthenes evidently despairs of persuading the benighted public.
His only notable new idea in this campaign is to alter the First Amendment in order to empower government to restrict the amount of permissible political speech — speech about the composition and conduct of government. Nancy Pelosi pledges that if Democrats control the House, they will pass this constriction of the Bill of Rights on the first day.
Since we can ill afford to let down our guard at this point, I urge you to read and share these articles if only to re-remind everyone YOU know to vote, and ask them to do the same with everyone THEY know.
I’ll leave you with this final statement from Henninger’s WSJ piece:
For much of the American electorate, this began as an ideal presidency. But there is an institutional flaw at the center of Mr. Obama’s understanding of the presidency. He accepts the best of it but not responsibility for the inevitable worst of it. It is making his incumbency smaller than he thinks it is.
His misfortune is that in the election’s last lap, the public has begun to notice.