Sunday, August 03, 2008

10 Reasons Obama Might Not Be Such a Bad President

1. He has no mandate. Yes, he has campaigned on the word change, but change from what to what? His rhetoric is empty. He is not a crusader for bold new programs.

2. He is a social metaphysician. Like that pathetic guy you once knew who agreed with everything you said just to be your friend, Obama is more concerned with what other people think than with the facts of reality. As do Bill Clinton and many politicians, Obama wants to be loved more than anything. Basking in the adoration of mass crowds will be more important to him than reading tedious position papers and actually getting something done. Such a character trait promises mediocrity.

3. He lacks intelligence. I have yet to hear him say anything remotely intelligent or profound. Again, this points to a mediocre presidency of business as usual.

4. He lacks experience. He has done little in his life except run for office, and he will likely continue to do little in the White House.

5. He lacks integrity. He flip-flops on a dime for political expedience. He hasn't the spine to fight for serious change.

6. The Republicans will make his life hell. I expect the evil, obstructionist Republicans in Congress to oppose every breath Obama takes, and to harry him the way they did Clinton. They would not oppose McCain's big government policies the way they would a Democrat's. If the Republicans let us down here, then the entire goddamn party deserves to rot in the wilderness and shrink to marginal importance.

7. His presidency would expose big government. His failures would be attributed to big government liberalism, not to capitalism, as he does not pay lip service to freedom the way Republicans do (who pursue big government as much as the Democrats). A Democrat president would bring more clarity, instead of more of the confusion we have suffered under Bush.

8. He will keep us laughing. He makes so many gaffes, such as saying he has been to 57 states in America, that he will provide much entertainment and much content for this blog.

9. We can get beyond "the first black president." Once we have achieved the cultural milestone of electing the first black president, then race -- at least the black race -- should become a non-issue. No one will campaign to be "the second black president." Future African-Americans will have to campaign on ideas and policies, not their skin color, and that will be a good thing. (The only drawback is that the immediate focus will shift to "the first female president," and you know who that means.)

10. The religious right will suffer a minor setback. Abortion will be safe for the time being. Granted, Obama's judicial nominees will certainly be atrocious statists who view the Constitution as toilet paper and laugh at the concept of property rights... but I'm looking for positives here.

To sum up, we stand at a dangerous moment in America. Both parties have embraced big government. Both McCain and Obama promise to march us down the road to socialism. In such a time, we need a president who will be the least competent in attaining his goals. By every standard of measurement, the major party candidate who promises to be more incompetent and ineffective is Obama. I believe his presidency would be like Bill Clinton's: heavy on symbolism, light on substance.

The greatest irony in an election full of ironies is that the candidate who has campaigned for change will probably be a business as usual, status quo president. Even on Iraq, when you examine his statements, he promises the same things Bush does. Muddling on as we have for decades is not good, but it's not as bad as it would be under a crusading socialist like Ralph Nader.

This post is not an endorsement for Obama -- it's still too early. I want to see the VP picks, the conventions, the debates and the serious mud-slinging in the fall before I decide. But this post shows my recent thinking.


Kyle Haight said...

I see two possible Obamas. He could be a hard-core leftist with deft political skills he uses to make himself look more centrist than he actually is. Or he could be a Peter Keating type, with no real core convictions, who grew up in a left-wing environment and picked his intellectual coloration from those around him.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the latter, as you are. I hope that's what he is, because ideas drive the course of history and an Obama who lacks ideas will wind up a status quo leader.

RyanTheEgoist said...

I think the tenth point is the only really substantial one. The only thing actually positive about Obama is his supposed opposition to Religiosity. However, Obama has been gung-ho on boosting up faith-based initiatives, and we all know know about his Religious leanings in general.
He's just more outwardly an Altruist than McCain.

Anonymous said...

Talk about clutching at straws!! Every one of your ten points is an exercise in either wishful thinking on the one hand ("His presidency would expose big government"-- Huh?#@!) or outright evasion "The religious right will suffer a minor setback" -- only with the ascendency of the even more powerful and firmly entrenched religious left which entity garners no mention in your ten points).

Myrhaf said...

Anonymous, the two points you criticize are probably the two soundest points in the argument. Bush has expanded government, but all the liberal media chooses to focus on, and blame our problems on, is his tax cut -- the best thing he did. Under Obama it would be much clearer that big government is to blame for our problems. And the religious right will suffer a minor setback under an Obama presidency. That is a statement of fact, not an evasion.

I don't know what the "powerful and firmly entrenched religious left" is. Are you talking about that black church -- the one Obama repudiated?

Anonymous said...

Americans will NOT by and large blame government, big or small, for "our problems" because they have been intellectually disarmed to such a degree that the vast majority of them now believe (1) that government is or should be both the primary problem solver and a provider and (2) that problems are the result of an excess of individual liberty. Neither Mr. Obama nor his Republican opponents, however loud they may be, will dissuade the American people of these notions.

The Leftist program stands firmly on religious foundations, namely the Christian charity tradition of the Sermon on the Mount. Furthermore, Mr. Obama's so-called "repudiation" of his Black church and its minister was nothing more than lip-service expediency for immediate political gain: he remains as he has always been firmly committed to the Marxist Liberation Theology advocated by that institution and its preacher(s). Nor is there any evidence to the contrary.

As a final point with respect to this religion issue, one's views with respect to abortion are NOT and have never been the sole or even the primary markers for religiosity or religious faith.

NHL0214 said...

Sorry, Myrhaff. I've concluded that the only sensible course of action this November is to abstain altogether from the Presidential election. This is due not only to the fact that both McCain and Obama are committed statists (and, in real terms, indistinguishable ones at that your effort notwithstanding), but because as "Anonymous" correctly points out, the majority of the American electorate now views an excess of freedom to be at the root of the country's problems, and not an excess of government -- there is now a consensus across party lines on this point. A vote either way in November will serve to accelerate that trend and, with it, America's fall.

There is one other thing I'd like to get off my chest. Given that the the sole legitimate concern of an American President must be the individual rights of the citizens of the United States, I was both insulted and, ultimately, horrified by Mr. Obama's recent "coronation tour". While it's certainly true that both Obama and McCain oppose the principle of individual rights, even if for some reason I had been inclined to vote for Obama, that display -- which speaks volumes about his true character and motivations -- would disqualify him from consideration.

Myrhaf said...

Obama's coronation tour was amazing. I was also stunned to learn he had started a transition team -- 100 days before the election! Obama and his people seem to think he is inevitable the next president. They better be careful, as the last person to think she was inevitable was Hillary Clinton. You'd think Obama would have learned something from her failure.

Jim May said...

Point by point, here's my take on these:

1. All that means is that someone will provide one. Remember my Heiden quote?

2. Yes. See above.

3. All that means is that he won't be one of the ones who come to their senses after his first term.

4. That just means he'll lean heavily on advisors. See #1.

5. Redundant. The system selects against men of integrity.

6. Our only hope, IMO -- gridlock. Contingent on who his advisors are though -- see #1.

7. "Expose" presupposes open eyes to see. In short supply, those.

8. If we ever find out about those gaffes. Not many comics out there of independent mind.

9. I have confidence that the race hustlers will come up with a new framework of lies to keep their racket going, from painting his failure at the hands of #6 as "see, whitey still runs things, this was all a show" to calling Obama an "Oreo" ("black on the outside, white on the inside") if he strays too far off the plantation. Some of them are afraid OBama's election will puncture a big hole in their racket, but they are working on patches and workarounds, trust me.

10. Emphasis on "minor".

On the whole, I agree with you -- but there is just so much bloody damned *luck* involved.

Anonymous said...

I don't buy this "Obama is better for gridlock" argument at all. I suspect you'll have as much chance for gridlock if Obama is elected as did the few surviving German Liberals when Hitler's Nazi Party gained control of the Reichstag.

If "gridlock" is what you're after, the better bet is clearly McCain and for a number of reasons: (1) McCain, who does not have the full support of a large segment of his own party (the religionists, in particular, who appear to be aligning with the environmentalists of the Left), would assume the office in an internally weakened state, (2) as a White male McCain has no multi-culti armor with which either to shield himself from opposition or to "rally the troops", and (3) recent history demonstrates clearly that both the House of Reps and the Senate, guaranteed to be firmly in Democrat control, will do whatever it takes to destroy his or any other Republican presidency.

No. I fully expect the Democrats (even Hillary supporters) will quickly goose-step in line with the "Obamaniacs" once their long dreamed-for total, Federal power is attained. Furthermore, the cocoon of "RACE" will weaken whatever opposition there ought to be to a President Obama whether from the few remaining fellow Democrats of good faith (I think there may still be one or two left) and most certainly from any Republican, etc., who dares to question the pronouncements of der Fuehrer . . . er . . . the Messiah . . . er . . . The One . . . er . . . Mr. Obama.

madmax said...

"Furthermore, the cocoon of "RACE" will weaken whatever opposition there ought to be to a President Obama"

I agree with this and think it is a big problem and perhaps reason enough to vote against Obama. Obama is the worst possible Democrat that could have been nominated. He will give voice to black grievance claims nonstop for either 4 or 8 years. White guilt or "white man's burden" will be at an all time high. Unless the argument is that having all that white guilt shoved down our throats will cause a backlash against multiculturalism. Or it just might cause a resurgence of old-school racism; ala the racialists. Whatever the case, Obama's race will prevent much criticism against him. It might make him untouchable. Scary to think of that.

If people were so hell bent on having a black man as president, couldn't it have been a Thomas Sowell, a Walter Williams, or a Larry Elder.

jay said...

I think the presidency runs in cycles, namely:
-good republican(somewhat)
-democrat who can't act like a democrat
-lousy republican
-democrat who fells he can get away with anything.

After Reagan, Clinton wasn't able to accomplish much, because Reagan was so obviously better than carter, that essentially Clinton had to pretend to be a conservative. Now I don't think we are in that position. Bush is like a Nixon, in the effect his presidency is having on the peoples perception of republicans. Both were in office during a war, even Bush had some people calling for his impeachment, both had to deal with an inflationary environment, they couldn't do anything about. Doesn't it just feel like were going to get another Carter?

sky22d said...

Short-sleeved polo ralph lauren is the father of the summer should be prepared to most commonly used item, it has both style and shape of lacoste polo shirts, and vest with a random function, so that in the short-sleeved burberry polos apply to both on many occasions, and the pink and black cheappolos color brought into effect. polo fashion integrates two types of luxury and leisure style, now more and more popular men’s polo logo, most designers have sought to perfect the cut with “cutting” polo shirts in vogue of bones of the body polo women clothing.