Leadership

I’ve been wanting to write this article for months, but now it’s not necessary.

Geoffrey P. Hunt has really put his finger of the problem of the Obama presidency.  In the following article he give great insight into why the Obama presidency, which began with such hope and promise, has become such an abysmal national failure.

Hunt’s conclusion is simple: Barack Obama is not one of us.

Apparently the American people are starting to agree. This week President Obama’s approval rating has dropped to an historic low.

The following article is loaded with insight on what makes an American leader. Hunt is correct that Barack Obama is failing because he is not a real American–a person whose life has genuinely intersected with God, faith, character, hard work, and the principles of liberty. Because he is not truly one of us in his personal story, he cannot lead us into a future filled with hope.

By-the-way: The main reason the secular press has gone out of its way to dismiss and discredit Sarah Palin is because they know that  she is one of us. That’s what they’re afraid of.

Another by-the-way: Woodrow Wilson’s failed presidency and Barack Obama’s poor leadership have one major commonality. Both men are radical secular progressives. If you don’t know what that means, then start paying attention to Glenn Beck.

American is an exceptional nation precisely because we were built on the reality of “In God We Trust.”  Our national narrative rests of that unique foundation. If, as president of the United States, you’re not a part of that “house,” you won’t make us feel at home and will not be able to guide us.

Let’s pray in 2010 and 2012 for a true rebirth exceptional American leadership.

Another Failed Presidency – Geoffrey P. Hunt, American Thinker 

(http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/another_failed_presidency.html)

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.

In the modern era, we’ve seen several failed presidencies–led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait– they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

George Bush Jr didn’t fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School.  Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate — thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big.  Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal  put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them.

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What’s going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn’t have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn’t connect with us.  He doesn’t have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us.

All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don’t align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.

But not this president. It’s not so much that he’s a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task– all contributory of course.  It’s that he’s not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn’t command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don’t add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don’t make sense and don’t correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we’ve been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he’s dissed just about every one of us–financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: “For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn’t give me enough time; if only I’d had a second term, I could have offended you too.”

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state–staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there’s always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them.

The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

[Editor’s note: The author is not the not the same person as Geoffrey P Hunt, who works at the Institute for Scientific Analysis as a senior research scientist.]

Scott Brown’s stunning victory in Massachusetts on January 19, denying the 60-vote stranglehold in the US Senate and possibly dooming the government takeover of health care, is the secular progressive’s worst nightmare.

That’s because Scott Brown is the male version of Sarah Palin–and that doesn’t bode well for their desired future for America.

Let’s remember for a moment why the liberal media tried to destroy Sarah Palin.

Since Governor Palin joined Fox News team, she has been asked repeatedly why she was so viciously and unfairly attacked in the 2008 presidential campaign and why the hatred persists. She says she’s not sure, but that it has something to do with her “common sense” solutions to the nation’s problems.

That answer is true–but it goes much deeper than that. Sarah Palin’s emergence on the national state in 2008 was an absolute nightmare for those who want to change America. Here are some of the reasons:

1. She was the wrong kind of woman–a conservative female. After the liberal establishment’s desire for an African American president (Barack Obama), their second choice would have been to nominate a liberal woman (like Hillary Clinton). The left in this country loves diversity of color and gender–but is completely intolerant of diversity of worldview. For a conservative woman like Sarah Palin to become Vice President of the United States–and then possibly run for president–was absolutely unthinkable. Hence the all out assault on her family, beauty, clothes, intellect, and governorship which eventually led to her resignation from Alaskan politics and “re-loading” of her career and influence. Secularists love feminism–but only women with statist views.

2. She was an evangelical Christian. The battle for America future is actually rather simple. On the one side is the historical Christian worldview which is America’s political, economic, and religious foundation and the reason for American exceptionalism. The United States has played a unique role in history because we have chosen to honor the God of the Bible in our political structures, economic system, individual liberties, families, and social life. The US is a Christian expression of civics–certainly not a complete one–but a unique role model in history. The competing worldview in America is secularism (now taught almost exclusively in our government-run schools)–a belief that there is no God, truth, absolutes, and thus man becomes God through an ever-increasing and all powerful State (read “government takeover”). In the 2008 election, Barack Obama ran on the secular platform. Sarah Palin, even more so that John McCain, symbolized America’s Christian heritage and future. Thus Sarah Palin had to be chopped down to size by those who long for a secular progressive socialist vision.

3. She was a common person with everyday common sense. This was her preferred answer to the liberal slander, and it was true. Most Americans related to her Cinderella story and working class background. She was one of us–thought like us–valued our same traditional (i.e. Christian) values–and wanted to bring those common sense solutions back into American political life. Statists really don’t respect the common person though they talk incessantly about policies that will “help the people.” But they really believe they’re smarter than their subjects, know what’s best for us, and tend to rule with elitist demagoguery. Classic example: the present health care bill which the American people oppose but that the liberals nearly crammed down our throats via bribes, kick-backs, sweetheart deals, and Chicago-style politics.

Which brings us back to the Massachusetts Miracle–something the secularists should deeply ponder and should lead them to faith. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 3-1–where a Republican senator had not been elected in forty years–in a seat held by far left senator Teddy Kennedy who was the strongest advocate for nationalized health care, Scott Brown decisively and providentially  ran away with the prize.

The Massachusetts Miracle was stunning. Historic. Unbelievable. Exhilarating.

And he won, partly, because Scott Brown is the male Sarah Palin. The secularists were stopped in their tracks in the bluest of blue states by the male version of the former Alaska governor. What is this nation coming to?

The answer: It’s coming back to its senses and roots. 

The comparisons between Sarah Palin and Scott Brown’s are numerous:

• They both come from normal, working class American backgrounds.
• She drove her SUV all over Alaska meeting the people and relating to their concerns. Scott Brown drove his now famous “200,000 mile” truck into every corner of the Commonwealth to meet and greet the people of Massachusetts.
• She was a popular gal from the small town of Wasilla. Scott Brown was well-liked in his hometown of Wrentham, Massachusetts.
• Both were star basketball players with Sarah leading her team to a state championship and Scott being a star at Wakefield High School (where he also ran track and still holds a school record). In her basketball career, Sarah was known as “Sarah Barracuda.” Because of his shooting ability, Scott Brown’s nickname was “Downtown Scotty Brown.”
• Sarah won some beauty contests and Scott worked as a male model, even appearing in Cosmopolitan magazine at the age of 22.
• Both are strong on the military and the need to keep America safe from terrorism. Sarah’s son has served a tour in Iraq and Scott has served for over thirty years in the Army National Guard.
• She was a pit bull with lipstick; He ran as a Doberman with mousse.
• Both are big on freedom and the need to lower taxes. Sarah follows the tax-cutting principles of Ronald Reagan. Scott agrees with the tax-cutting values of John F. Kennedy (the fiscal conservative of Camelot).
• One’s from a Red State–and one’s from a Blue State. Parties don’t matter much to either and both are loved by Independents.
• Both attend evangelical churches. Scott’s home church is Grace Chapel in Franklin, and he also has ties to a Catholic order in Wrentham.
• Both Sarah Plain and Scott Brown are pro-life and pro-family. Brown’s stance is weaker than Palin’s on various points, but that would be expected due to the difference in their home states.

To state it simply, both Sarah Palin and Scott Brown are average Americans who are people of faith, hard work, common sense, believe in limited government, strong defense, and traditional values. They’re also articulate, good-looking, down-to earth, and want to represent the rights and opinions of the people of the United States.

The Secular Left should be scared to death of them because they appear to be the future.

In 2010, we need to find to find 535 Sarah Palins and Scott Browns for the US House of Representatives and thirty for the the United States Senate. We need to work and vote for other everyday, common sense, traditional value people for mayor, councilmen and women, state reps and senators, and governors across the land.

And in 2012 we need one of them–or someone like them–to run for president of the United States to lead this nation back to common sense greatness.

Can the Massachusetts Miracle become the Washington, D.C. Miracle?

Yes it can.

Peggy Noonan is a gifted writer who worked in the Reagan administration and has written voluminous political commentary since. She has an amazing ability to bring an issue down to its simple basics. In this article she rightly gauges the Obama presidency and calls him to responsibility. I hope this article made it to his desk. It could save his presidency–if he is willing to “change.” RB 

It’s His Rubble Now

And the American People What Him to Fix it

By Peggy Noonan

At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency—all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them—was his. The American people didn’t hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it. This is part of the reason the image of him standing on the rubble of the twin towers, bullhorn in hand, on Sept.14, 2001, became an iconic one. It said: I’m owning it.

Mr. Bush surely knew from the moment he put the bullhorn down that he would be judged on everything that followed. And he has been. Early on, the American people rallied to his support, but Americans are practical people. They will support a leader when there is trouble, but there’s an unspoken demand, or rather bargain: We’re behind you, now fix this, it’s yours.

President Obama, in office a month longer than Bush was when 9/11 hit, now owns his presidency. Does he know it? He too stands on rubble, figuratively speaking—a collapsed economy, high and growing unemployment, two wars. Everyone knows what he’s standing on. You can almost see the smoke rising around him. He’s got a bullhorn in his hand every day.

It’s his now. He gets the credit and the blame. How do we know this? The American people are telling him. You can see it in the polls. That’s what his falling poll numbers are about. “It’s been almost a year, you own this. Fix it.”

The president doesn’t seem to like this moment. Who would? He and his men and women have returned to referring to what they “inherited.” And what they inherited was, truly, terrible: again, a severe economic crisis and two wars. But their recent return to this theme is unbecoming. Worse, it is politically unpersuasive. It sounds defensive, like a dodge.

The president said last week, at a San Francisco fund-raiser, that he’s busy with a “mop,” “cleaning up somebody else’s mess,” and he doesn’t enjoy “somebody sitting back and saying, ‘You’re not holding the mop the right way.'” Later, in New Orleans, he groused that reporters are always asking “Why haven’t you solved world hunger yet?” His surrogates and aides, in appearances and talk shows, have taken to remembering, sometimes at great length, the dire straits we were in when the presidency began.

This is not a sign of confidence. Nor were the president’s comments to a New York fund-raiser this week. Democrats, he said to the Democratic audience, are “an opinionated bunch.” They always have a lot of thoughts and views. Republicans, on the other hand—”the other side”—aren’t really big on independent thinking. “They just kinda sometimes do what they’re told. Democrats, y’all thinkin’ for yourselves.” It is never a good sign when the president gets folksy, dropping his g’s, because he is by nature not a folksy g-dropper but a coolly calibrating intellectual who is always trying to guess, as most politicians do, what normal people think. When Mr. Obama gets folksy he isn’t narrowing his distance from his audience but underlining it. He shouldn’t do this.

But the statement that Republicans just do what they’re told was like his famous description of unhappy voters as people who “cling to guns or religion.” (What comes over him at fund-raisers?) Both statements speak of a political misjudgment of his opponents and his situation.They show a misdiagnosis of the opposition that is politically tin-eared. Politicians looking to win don’t patronize those they’re trying to win over.

But the point on the We Inherited a Terrible Situation and It’s Not Our Fault argument is, again, that it is worse than unbecoming. It is unpersuasive.

How do we know this? Through the polls. In all of the major surveys, the president’s popularity has gone down the past few months. A Gallup Daily Tracking Poll out this week reported Mr. Obama’s job approval dropped nine points during the third quarter of this year, that is between July 1 and Sept. 30, when it fell from 62% to 53%. It was the biggest such drop Gallup has ever measured for an elected president during the same period of his term. A Fox News poll out Thursday showed support for the president’s policies falling below 50% for the first time. Ominously for him, independents are peeling off. In 2006 and 2008 independents looked like Democrats. They were angry and frustrated by the wars, they sought to rebuke the Bush White House. Now those independents look like Republicans. They worry about joblessness, debts and deficits.

The White House sees the falling support. Thus the reminder: We faced an insuperable challenge, we’re mopping up somebody else’s mess.

The Democratic Party too sees the falling support, and is misunderstanding it. The great question they debated last week was whether the president is tough enough: Does he come across as too weak? It is true, as the cliché has it, that it’s helpful for a president to be both revered and feared. But this president is not weak, that’s not his problem. He willed himself into the presidency with an adroit reading of the lay of the land, brought together and dominated all the constituent pieces of victory, showed and shows impressive self-discipline, seems in general to stick to a course once he’s chosen it, though arguably especially when he’s wrong. His decision to let Congress write a health-care bill may yield at least the appearance of victory. And if Mr. Obama isn’t twisting arms like LBJ, and then giving just an extra little jerk to snap the rotator cuff just for fun, the case can be made that day by day he’s moving the Democrats of Congress in the historic direction he desires. All his adult life he’s played the long game, which takes patience and skill.

The problem isn’t his personality, it’s his policies. His problem isn’t what George W. Bush left but what he himself has done. It is a problem of political judgment, of putting forward bills that were deeply flawed or off-point. Bailouts, the stimulus package, cap-and-trade; turning to health care at the exact moment in history when his countrymen were turning their concerns to the economy, joblessness, debt and deficits—all of these reflect a misreading of the political terrain. They are matters of political judgment, not personality. (Republicans would best heed this as they gear up for 2010: Don’t hit him, hit his policies. That’s where the break with the people is occurring.)

The result of all this is flagging public support, a drop in the polls, and independents peeling off.

In this atmosphere, with these dynamics, Mr. Obama’s excuse-begging and defensiveness won’t work.

Everyone knows he was handed horror. They want him to fix it.

At some point, you own your presidency. At some point it’s your rubble. At some point the American people tell you it’s yours. The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up: That’s the American people telling him.