Views on politics and life from a conservative point of view. Working to keep government limited, and our freedoms strong.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
President Obama in a recent interview with Dianne Sawyer said, "he'd rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre two term president." Let's dissect that statement a bit and try and figure out what he's trying to say. Before Obama was elected we had 43 presidents, and not all were elected. Some succeeded to the presidency after death, resignation or assassination, but only 7 who had been elected, attempted to, but failed to win reelection...John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Harrison, William H.Taft, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George HW. Bush. Grover Cleveland served two elected terms but not consecutively, and after his second term did not seek reelection.
Of those 7 presidents who were elected to a single term and lost their reelection bid, do any of those names stand out as a quote, " really good one term president?" You could make the case that George HW. Bush had success running Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, but his broken promise of no new taxes, and the third party candidacy of Ross Perot caused his down fall. The rest are not really household names, and other than the answer to obscure trivia questions, nothing stands out about their presidencies. There are also many presidents elected to two terms that historians would describe as mediocre. Now if president Obama is saying he'd rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre two termer, isn't that phrase "a really good one term president," an Oxymoron. There are many known oxymorons... Jumbo shrimp, a fine mess, boneless ribs, forgotten memories, alone in a crowd, half empty, etc. "Really good one term president" seems to fit. The idea that a really good one term president wouldn't get reelected is ludicrous.
Maybe he's trying to tell us more. Wouldn't history have shown that those infamous seven were vindicated over time if they'd taken that bold initiative, that history proved right, but was rejected contemporaneously, and cost them reelection. Is he saying he's willing to forgo a second term to do what's right for the American people? Or is there a hidden message in that phrase and an explanation behind it? I vote for the later. Those presidents that failed at reelection didn't really have a distinguished or historic first term, unless the historic nature of their presidency was not a good thing in the minds of the electorate.
We all watched with anticipation the president's state of the union address Wednesday night, and many of us hoped that we would see a moderation and a definite pivot from policies that lost the democrat party two state house and one senate seat over the last three months. No one can deny that those elections were a rejection of the Obama agenda and the democrat leadership in congress. But instead we saw a defiant president, willing to double down on his signature agenda items of health care reform, cap and trade and a continual expansion of government and record deficits. It's clear he can't accept the conclusion that most Americans have already come to. And that conclusion is less Obama, and more freedom. So what is he trying to tell Diane Sawyer?
I don't pretend to be Dr. Phil, but what we see in this president is a continual hubris that defies description. If it's true he's willing to forgo a second term to become in his words , "a really good president," He has basically dismissed the entire, or a least a majority of the electorate as imbeciles. They are neanderthals, that lack the evolution and intelligence that only he and his Kool-aid drinking sycophants possess. They are unaware of his historic purpose here on earth, and as the first messiah was rejected by the chosen people, he finds himself in a similar dynamic. If only they understood who he was, and why he's here. He came to change America, and the world, and it was all going so well. The campaign saw women fainting at his appearances, and countless thousands waiting for hours to catch a glimpse of him. His Berlin speech announced his appearance to the rest of world. The Nobel committee understood his mission and gifted his arrival as a fulfilled promise like the maji of long ago.
Now he's left to sacrifice his power to one four year term, which is one year longer than the first messiah's ministry on earth. He came to change America for the good of the people, and un-clinch the fist of our enemies, kind of like, "peace on earth, good will toward men." He told Harry Reid after he complimented him on another masterful speech, "I have a gift," and now he's saying that gift may be to sacrifice long term power form what he considers long term gain, and to remake America. What are the American people left to conclude from what has transpired over the last twelve months? Is he the one, that gifted orator and intellectual giant, that came to save us from ourselves, and usher in a new age , an egalitarian utopia, a transformational historic figure? Or is he just another narcissistic elite, that suffers from a messiah complex and delusions of grandeur? Once again I vote for the latter, and recommend we grant his wish, "to sacrifice a second term for good of the people." Check out my other blog....Con Men 4 Palin Link