the Empty High Chair POTUS.
>> I too have become disillusioned.
>> By Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San
>> Francisco Examiner)
>> Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama
>> as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, the result of a baffling
>> breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle
>> How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional
>> accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the
>> world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military,
>> execute the world's most consequential job?
>> Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
>> ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and
>> test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer";
>> a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement
>> (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote
>> "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United
>> States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential
>> He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature
>> legislation as a legislator. And then there is the matter of his
>> troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who
>> for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual
>> terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is
>> easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on
>> Earth was such a man elected president?
>> Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz
>> addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure,
>> no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater
>> of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill
>> Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black,
>> and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberal Dom to have hung out with
>> protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit
>> extreme, he was given a pass. Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass
>> - held to a lower standard - because of the color of his skin.
>> Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history
>> matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself
>> had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to
>> become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism
>> to rest?
>> Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama
>> phenomenon - affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But
>> certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action
>> laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white
>> people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
>> Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
>> themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools
>> for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the
>> inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.
>> Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't
>> around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self-esteem
>> resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes,
>> racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the
>> color of his skin - that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if
>> that isn't racism, then nothing is.
>> And that is what America did to Obama. True, Obama himself was never
>> troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have
>> noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite
>> undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough
>> for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he
>> was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate.
>> All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough
>> for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.
>> What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display
>> every time Obama speaks? In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked
>> executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory
>> skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people - conservatives
>> included - ought now to be deeply embarrassed.
>> The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when
>> he has his Teleprompters in front of him; when the prompter is absent
>> he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever
>> issued from his mouth - it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that
>> has failed over and over again for 100 years.
>> And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and
>> everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
>> inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing
>> to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own
>> incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never
>> been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act
>> In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither
>> the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you
>> understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current
>> erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone
>> otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office