Love him or hate him (and I know where the preponderance of opinion lies), George W. Bush was a leader. He made decisions based on merit and/or personal conviction, and what's more, he stood by those decisions. When raked across the coals by the media and the hyperventilating liberal punditry cabal in the form of lunatic rantings from the Olbermanneasque crowd, Bush responded exactly as a leader should: he ignored them. He did not lash out against private citizens, he did not encourage Congress to legislate tightly focused punitive taxes, he did not attempt to deflect blame for his own actions by demonizing corporations, and he did not blame problems that he "inherited" (9/11, Iraq, etc.) on the clearly culpable previous administration.
Obama has brought change with him to his Presidency. Now it is common to single out private citizens that voice opposition to his policies for public approbation. Now it is a daily occurrence to hear turgid, obfuscatory prose read from a prepared speech laying the blame for any failure on his part on the Bush administration. That is not leadership; that is cowardice. Ah, the audacity of hope. Atrocious and appalling, is it not?
So what are we left with? We now have a Chief Executive that "leads" by responding to headlines and polls. We've seen this before, of course, in the form on one William Jefferson Clinton, but I would contend that Obama has reached new heights of louche dealings with the press. He seems to believe that his "mandate" from the people, which in reality is nothing more than an indication of what a horrible candidate John McCain was, allows him to come forth with a ukase targeted against the devil du jour whenever the urge or political necessity hits him. This is not the leader that we needed. Nor, if I may be so bold, is it the change we were looking for.
Makeovers: sometimes color isn’t best
15 hours ago