“He is for doing away with pomp and circumstance. Let’s be real -Obama is one cool cat. As the 44th president of the United States, he has changed the face of the Oval Office forever. Many suggest Obama’s casual demeanor and informal interaction with the American people is inappropriate, and even downright offensive. Millions of people, however -me included -perceive his relaxed deportment, humorous candor and outright honesty as a breath of fresh air. In spite of the fact that he is a politician, and the president, there is something about him that makes him real and relatable. Even though he is the most powerful man in the world, he is, at heart, just a man. In almost four years under perhaps the most intense public scrutiny ever placed upon an American president, he has never lost sight of the fact that he bleeds red, just like everyone else.” (Michael Lynch)
First and foremost, positively no one who refers to a sitting president (or any president, frankly) as “one cool cat” is writing (or thinking) objectively. To this end, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people refer to this president by his first name—Barack—rather than his title or his full name. I never heard the two Presidents Bush being referred to as “George.” Did anyone—in any serious conversation—ever hear of Clinton being called “Bill?” I never heard Reagan called “Ron” in any serious context. This “casual demeanor” to which Lynch refers might be comforting, relatable, and FUN, but maybe it’s problematic in and of itself. Is it easy to take someone seriously, when they are not serious about their position? I draw your attention to last week’s display at Nelson Mandela’s funeral:
The President of the United States—in attendance at the state funeral of an international figure—chose to use some of his precious time taking “selfies” with other world leaders. Does it make him “real”? Yes. Does it make him “likeable?” Maybe. Does it make him a good leader? No.
Winning the presidency and governing thereafter wasn’t supposed to be about winning a popularity contest. It was supposed to be about leadership. Just as a child needs a parent and not a “buddy,” the country needs a leader, not a bro. Being a personally likeable person does not exclusively make a good president. It’s part of the equation, to be sure, (nobody wants a bore) but we’re supposed to judge a leader by results, not charisma.
Pomp and Circumstance
For a guy who bleeds red he certainly lives quite blue. From a previous post of mine, post reelection:
“Here’s some perspective for you: while the ENTIRE British Royal Family costs the British taxpayers a mere 60 million a year, the FOUR members of Obama family cost the American taxpayer 1.4 BILLION per year. Billion, ladies and gentleman. As in 20 times the cost of the ENTIRE ROYAL FAMILY. Now, granted, that includes all costs of maintaining the First Family, including the lavish vacations no one seems to want to criticize in these tough times. Sure- the presidency is expensive. But just how expensive is justifiable? According to Robert Gray in an interview with the Daily Caller (as reprinted here) “$1.4 billion spent last year is the ‘total cost of the presidency,’ factoring in the ‘biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,’ and ‘Air Force One ‘running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.’
I realize that presidential vacations aren’t cheap. I realize that with the president must travel a full staff and security, each incurring an extra expense; the difference, naturally, is that when one chooses to simply go HOME rather than on 4 million dollar Christmas trips to Hawaii, there’s a disconnect. ‘But Hawaii IS his home!’ snapped a Democratic strategist on Fox News this evening. Au contraire; Obama hasn’t lived in Hawaii since his younger years; while both Michelle and the family they then had made their life in Chicago. Would it kill the First Family to consider the ‘optics’ (and the price tag of a trip on Air Force One at a mere $181,000 an hour) of a trans-Pacific flight to Hawaii versus a more sensitive cross-country jaunt to their home in Chicago? Whether or not the President chooses to blame himself for the economic straights we’re in, he can’t deny that Americans are suffering. Yet he soaked up the sun in Hawaii anyway.”
“If you like your insurance, you can KEEP your insurance.” – said Barack Obama to the American people . . . 29 times.
Then there’s Benghazi, where he sent administration officials out (including the former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) to claim that there was absolutely no evidence to support the idea that the attack on our consulate was pre-meditated.
There’s the IRS scandal, in which conservative, Tea Party groups were targeted and administration officials proceeded to lie about it.
There’s Fast and Furious where the administration covered up a gun-running scheme that resulted in the death of an American citizen.
There’s the wiretapping of reporter James Rosen, in which it appears that the president’s Attorney General lied under oath to Congress.
Last, but certainly not least, there’s mounting evidence to suggest that the unemployment numbers just prior to the reelection of Barack Obama were tampered with. History shows us that no incumbent president has been reelected with unemployed numbers over 8% . . . so they weren’t. Despite market indicators to the contrary, unemployment took a fairly steep drop to 7.8 percent from 8.1 percent.
To be certain, many of these lies (or, in modern day vernacular: “misspoken phrases”) were uttered by others, and not the President. Where, however, does the buck stop? He hired them . . . he’s responsible for them. How shameful for an American president’s closest staff to be stocked with such a plethora of such epic “misspeakers.” When it comes to Barack Obama and honesty, it’s one of two things:
Scenario 1: If he really didn’t know what was going on, that’s a mark on his involvement level and his leadership skills. No leader can know 100% of what’s going on, but he’d better make it his business to know 99.9999999% of every last painful detail. And in the event that his lack of knowledge of some problem exists, he takes full responsibility. Any company would expect no less of its CEO (male or female).
Scenario 2: If he DID know and “misspoke” anyway . . . that’s someone we folks who ask our children if they “lied,” rather than if they “misspoke,” would call a “liar.”
Either way . . . there’s shame enough to strip the president of the laud that Lynch provides here.
Believe me—nobody (include yours truly) wants to call the president a liar. No one wants to accept the fact that an office we’re all taught to revere and honor could be capable of such acts. Yet, today I present you with the sad reality.
Sneak Preview of Day 8: Red, White and Green All Over