GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Obama: disinclined to respect “core responsibilities of the presidency”?

by

Barely a week ago, John Hinderaker pondered anointing President Obama as King:

. . . when it comes to foreign policy–it is a safe bet that Obama will do nothing, because doing something would require a decision.

That got me thinking: Obama enjoys being president, and he especially treasures the symbolic significance of being the first African-American president. That’s how his supporters feel, too. I haven’t heard anyone defend his actual performance in a long time, but there is still widespread satisfaction with the symbolic value of his presidency. So why don’t we make him king? If being the first African-American president has symbolic value, just think what it would mean for the first King of the United States to be African-American!

Now, a week later, more and more pundits and parsing his passivity in the face of multiple world crises.  Some have praised the president’s passivity with Jennifer Rubin finding New York Times columnist David Brooks “glorifying Obama’s paralysis“.  (Read the whole thing.)  Ann Althouse, on the other hand, find Obama “disinclined to take positions or actions with respect to the core responsibilities of the presidency.“

Comments

  2. Obama is not a leader, but he tries his best to be Campaigner-in-Chief. Most people are tired of his 2 years of constant campaigns & want real leadership. Unfortunately, Obama will continue to dither on giving his best teleprompter speeches, looking more aloof & cold as ever. Obama’s need to vote “present” is destroying him.

  3. Hi Bruce,
    Brooks: “Prudence can sometimes look like weakness.”
    Hinderaker: “when it comes to foreign policy–it is a safe bet that Obama will do nothing, because doing something would require a decision.”

    I would just add that “doing nothing” at least on the surface, is doing something; the question is whether this “something” is the right thing to do in this situation. If you would like him to do more (say on the situation in Libya), what exactly would this “more” be? And, would it lead to a better outcome than what can be expected now (i.e., Qadafi still in power)?

  5. Let’s see, how many signing statements did the Bush administration authorize? How pathetic were the responses to domestic crisis?

    I’m sorry but I’m perfectly fine with a president focused on domestic issues. We’re not the world police even though neocon advocates would prefer that.

    Now how about criticizing the new Republican house’s pathetic response to the job crisis?

  6. Let’s see, how many signing statements did the Bush administration authorize?

    Oh, yes, let’s, Counterfail.

    Because they just show what a complete and total hypocrite and racist you are.

    You and your pathetic Obama shrieked that signing statements were always wrong and constituted an unconstitutional power grab in every situation, and here you are now endorsing and supporting their use.

    We acknowledge that Obama is inferior and completely incompetent, incapable of meeting any of the standards to which you tried to hold Bush. Might do your reputation and standing here good to do the same.

  7. If you would like him to do more (say on the situation in Libya), what exactly would this “more” be?

    You mean other than going out and playing golf and setting up his NCAA brackets? Easy. Protect US interests. Hint: Keeping the dictator around ain’t it.

  8. Let’s see, how many signing statements did the Bush administration authorize?

    Relevance? How many signing statements did Chairman Obama authorize? Way more than he promised on the campaign trail.

    I’m sorry but I’m perfectly fine with a president focused on domestic issues.

    You mean the war on “fat” kids? His handicap? How much of our money can he piss away in a day? Bullet trains to get the Neo-Kulaks to the “happy camps” faster?

    We’re not the world police even though neocon damn hook-nosed Joo bastard advocates would prefer that.

    Why don’t you just say what you mean?

    Now how about criticizing the new Republican house’s pathetic response to the job crisis?

    If that’s “pathetic”, what do you call the bullshit Chairman Obama’s been doing? How’s that lazer like (pew! pew!) focus on jobs and domestic issues working out for ya?

  9. How pathetic were the responses to domestic crisis?

    Define “pathetic”. I lost count. How many locales have been turned down by Chairman Obama for disaster aid? How many disaster sites has he visited? I seem to recall he was disinterested in Tennesseans and Kentuckians freezing to death as there was Kobe beef at his MTV Crib. Seems like there was something about flooding in Connecticut that he flew over on the way to fundraisers in Maine. Did he bother to go to Nashville?

  10. And I don’t think you can call Bush’s response to crises as “pathetic”, unless you totally forget the clusterfuck that was the GOM response.

  12. Hi TGC,
    “Protect US interests. Hint: Keeping the dictator around ain’t it.”

    Good for you. Now! For the whole enchilada! Given the incredible complexity of the Middle East situation, WHAT EXACTLY, would you have him do to protect US interests? What exactly should be done to not have “a” or “the” dictator in Libya? And what do you see as the consequences of your action?

  14. I’m at the point now where I am very scared for the country. I don’t know how long his gross incompetence can go on. I feel like I’m in a bad dream. I’ve been unable to find a part time job. My last contract job ended in October. I’m subsisting on unemployment; and only because I take temp jobs. I never decline anything.

    I’m now at a stage of anger because Obama is a cumulation of our declining educational, and cultural institutions. They’ve been taken over by leftists. Something bad will happen and lead to a tipping point. I think people are so busy trying to survive, and pay their bills. One day things will blow up.

  15. Given the incredible complexity of the Middle East situation,

    What’s so complex about citizens getting their asses stomped while the Jackass in Chief takes a month to figure out what he’s gonna do? It seems Hillary’s been pushing him to barely any avail.

    And apparently after a month of deciding not to decide, he’s asked the UN to do something.

    Is that why the JiC wouldn’t support the opposition folks in Iran? Freedom from thuggery is an “incredible complexity”? Same thing for pushing hard to return Zelaya to power? Hell, he apparently can decide to ship automatic weapons to the cartels without notifying Calderon, why not ship supplies to the Libyan rebels? Guess it’s not so complex to contribute to the deaths of a bunch of “Beaners”.