With No Other Real Choice, Obama Will Be Re-elected

First, in my opinion, most congressmen/women and senators are simply legally supported thieves. Ron Paul, and I hope Ran Paul, seem to be exceptions, and I am sure there are a few more--but most are inveterate liars and hooked on spending other people's money, ignoring the rules that everyone else has to follow, and having people constantly offer them bribes for their vote. Barack Obama became president because Hilary Clinton--who was even more PC than Obama--screwed herself out of the White House because of her inability to hide her incredible entitled arrogance. That was her one and only chance, and she flubbed it--and she knows it (good!). Obama then became the poster child for breaking new PC ground in the US, especially since it was clear that he was extremely well versed in the political ‘two-step’ of the Big Chicago Machine, which no one could deny is rife with corruption. No matter, Obama was a smooth, well educated, tall, and not quite black or white candidate who people could successfully paint as a 'wunder kind'. Obama is what I call a 'reactive' president. He waits around to see where the political hay can be made and then uses--women's favorite--consensus to make decisions. He takes no real chances or risks because he involves a thousand people in creating a program. Do people want affordable healthcare--of course! But since ‘we have to work with “everybody” to make it happen’ and because of extreme partisan politics in DC, any major bill will be so compromised by powerful lobbying that it will have no teeth in the end—‘sorry can’t help it’ (boo hoo). If Obama were a real leader, he could persuade congressmen and senators (CS) go along with what's really in the nation's best interest (at least his version of it). Bill Clinton, for instance, even with his enormous lack of personal judgment, was able to work with CS to, for instance, have a balanced budget and even a budget SURPLUS in his second term. Under Clinton we had eight years of peace and prosperity, and there was no doubt that his leadership cache was largely based on his well and often demonstrated intelligence in, for instance, speaking cogently on so many issues. He can still speak for two hours on a subject without a single note in front of him. Sorry, Obama pales in comparison. Yes, Obama can try to blame his situation on Bush--and Lord knows Bush spent us into the ground--but I'm sorry, when you become the President of the United States it is time to accept your responsibility--regardless of who is to blame--for getting the job done. When a president whines about a past president he loses some of my respect--it's just too childish. Obama can also try to blame CS for not backing him, but again it's just deflecting people away from his inability to really persuade others. If, as is so often touted, Obama had the overwhelming confidence of the American people, then this would translate into his bills being passed (good or bad) intact--because CS would see their re-election as resting on supporting a very charismatic president. But in contrast to what happened under Reagan and Clinton, this president just doesn’t have the gravitas. Not to worry, Obama, short of a major faux pas, has no chance of not being elected to a second term. This is for two major reasons: a) he still holds all the PC cards and easily climbs into bed with big money so the ultra-powerful profiteer cabal in the US—who really make presidents—will back him; and b) Mitt Romney is unelectable due to his tendency to come off as a childish, whiny, and entitled little boy—zero personal power, zero. At this point in US politics, the best news may be that, until a true leader comes along (my vote used to go to Colin Powell, for instance), it will be only a matter of degrees of incompetence rather than outright success or failure. It is important to realize that CONFIDENCE is the issue with leadership, rather than the exact nature of the programs supported by a given president. Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Dwight David Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Ronald Wilson Reagan, and William Jefferson Clinton—democrats and republicans—all held the critical mass of confidence from the American public, and were therefore enormously successful at working with CS. Reagan, in particular, regardless of making a lot of bad choices, made both old and young feel safe with his personal and comforting charm. What made him so successful was that he really did believe in an America where people were kind to each other and valued hard work. Reagan obviously could have been acting, but no matter, he successfully communicated those things that Americans really needed to hear and had the strength to translate those hopes into a way of life—it was called ‘the 80s’ and it was great, not because it was perfect, but because ‘everyone’ was in a good mood and life was nice for a balance of Americans. Until we see such a leader again, we won’t have another happy and safe era.
Southpaugh Southpaugh
3 Responses Apr 7, 2012

Thanks for doing your part to destroy America you idiot !

I agree that there is a big segment of American society that needs to "feel" that their leaders are projecting strong manly vibes. How else to explain someone who can feel equally as confident in leaders as diverse in their policies as JFK, FDR and Reagon? But the idea that we as a society can only be governed successfully by a stylistically authoratative leader is scary, simplisitc and, thankfully, not true.<br />
<br />
But really, Obama needn't bother changing his image. How silly that would be, he is an extremely confident man and would never stoop to pandering in that way. He has his ba<x>se, his record, his vision and the good fortune of running against a GOP electoral strategy that is floundering and fast rushing along the sewer drain of low blow stylized politics. <br />
<br />

You and agree on many things. <br />
Republican candidates tell us how bad obama is and that they will change things. But they don't tell us how they plan to do it.

I think all the republicans that would make a good president are avoiding this race like the plague. We really need a FDR or a JFK right now. We need someone that can unite us again. I've need seen my country so divided. Its never been this divided since the civil war.

To me, the whole approach to getting elected into office--local, state, national--has changed into 'backing into victory'. FDR, Kennedy, and Reagan didn't change their tune every time someone criticized, they just cogently and passionately reiterated what they believed and why. With the exception of a few, everyone is a now chameleon--wait ten minutes for them to 'rephrase' that position. Equally bad is that people buy this nonsense. The problem with those very few politicians who are unwavering in their views is that they lack the leadership charisma (&amp; sometimes the common sense that God gave a lamp post) to influence the public. Rick Santorum, although a true conservative, seems like an indignant little boy to me, and Ron Paul is just not polished enough (&amp; he's creeping up on dementia). I also see as a big flaw for most candidates, their inability to rein in their enormous egos--Newt Gingrich, Hilary Clinton, Herman Cain, to name a few. Gingrich could have debated Obama off the floor and that would have at least made the American public THINK. But why take the pay cut? Gingrich is his own boss now—and who needs all the criticism of being president anyway? Jimmy Stewart's movie character in Harvey (the rabbit) said, 'in this world, you have to be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant. I recommend, oh so pleasant.' It sure worked for Ronald Reagan ;)