h/t to Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll
Update. Here's an interesting article by Walter Russell Mead at The American Interest: "Can This Presidency Be Saved?" Mead, who appears to be largely sympathetic to the Obama presidency, says that Obama has blundered into unforced errors, setting goals for himself which he has failed to meet. Just one example: remember the "days, not weeks" remark about how long we would be involved in the Libya campaign?
Mead contends that Obama's image as president has become "fuzzy and perplexing." What does he stand for--really? "What [the American people] aren't hearing from President Obama is a compelling description of what has gone wrong, how it can be fixed, and how the policies he proposes will take us to the next level." No kidding. All of those things are what comprise leadership, a quality that Obama has shown he clearly lacks, to the point where his administration spokespeople tout his actions as "leading from behind"--supposedly a good thing, although I think most people would call that "following," something we do not expect from an American president, either at home or abroad.
Says Mead, "At a time of historic anxiety and tension like the present, the President of the United States cannot be an administrator, a fence-sitter, a finger-pointer. He must first and foremost stand for something--and he must be able to make that something resonate with the voters. The President's job is to lead." Too bad all you swooning Obamabots voted in a guy whose main strategy as a senator, when he wasn't out campaigning, was to vote "present." If you hadn't been so self-congratulatory and blinded by voting in your big, big historic FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT, maybe someone would have vetted this guy and found out that leadership wasn't part of his thin resume. Can this presidency be saved? Not a chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment