About Me

Name: Virginia Daddy
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Obama-- Our Star In Chief

Off the top of my head, what has President Obama done since being in office?  Besides the normal filling a cabinet, which he had a difficult time with, I am not sure.  I know he addressed Congress in his pseudo-State of the Union speech, but I am not sure what else he has done to govern.  What I do know is that he has given at least two prime time interviews, appeared on Leno, given several speeches to garner support for his policies, and held an online townhall meeting, this on top of his egregiously showlike campaign.
 
People have said that he is still campaigning.  Yes, I agree with that.  I feel he has not really gotten out of campaign mode.  But to me, its become even more fundamental than him constantly campaigning.  Rather, it looks as if he is so intent on being the star that its like governing is an after thought. 
 
Is anyone else as bothered by this precedent as I am?  Does it not raise questions as to how seriously he takes the position?  Does it not show that he may not care about us as much as he led on?  Is it possible that he's more concerned with what people think of him than he is about the state of the economy or the war?  I think to answer these questions, a simple yes would suffice. 
 
I write this open enough to know that we are but 60 days into his four year term.  A lot can happen in that time.  But his early precedent is disturbing as to where his priorities are.  Are they with the country?  Or are they to glorify his name?  He may have done some things I am not aware of.  As a first year law student, there is much I miss out on.  I do know he seeks to put more troops in Afghanistant, and that he supports the stimulus.  But it is fascinating how the first thing I remember, and probably most of the nation, is that he has appeared on Leno and a few other TV spots.  Actually, more people probably know he was on Leno than  his thoughts on Afghanistan or what is in the stimulus, or his failed attempts to fill the Cabinet.
 
It does bother me that Obama is doing so much to cater to and thus encourage this mass stupidity than he is holding up the job of President of the United States.  It bothers me that so many seem to buy it hook, line and sinker.  Sooner or later, when they see nothing coming from the Oval Office, they will wake up and see they've been had.  They've been had by a man too arrogant to care about anything else except seeing his face on TV, and those smiling faces staring back up at him.  How long will the star last?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (89) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Race and Legislating Morality

I just finished reading Grutter v. Bollinger (539 US 306, 2003).   As I read the majority opinion in this sharply divided case as written by Justice O'Connor, I couldn't help but think of the criticism often thrown against conservatives for wanting to legislate morality. 
 
For those who may not be familiar with Grutter, it was the 2003 case at the University of Michigan Law School that allowed it to continue with its amorphous affirmitive action admissions policy that essentially gave 'points' for being a minority, where such a classification was a 'plus' to their candidacy.  This, it was argued by the university, supported the goal to allow a 'critical mass' of minority students. 
 
I do not want to critique the opinion itself, but rather wish to use it as an example of the left's hypocritical stance on legislating morality.  As conservatives, we have all heard the critique that you cannot legislate morality.  However, it occurred to me while reading this case that this is exactly what the left does when they try to legislate various initiatives to reach equality in society.
 
Despite the argument that such measures, similar to what UM instituted, give opportunities to the disenfranchised and also force different racial groups together in order to break down barriers, they seek to force on people and idea that only one way of life is correct.  Now, I do not wish to say that I think racism of any kind is good, for it is not, but my immediate objection is indicative of why the measures in actuality legislate morality.  Morality is something that someone holds true as a way of life, and if the government is dictating that it is wrong to live a life in a given way, it is legislating morality.
 
Personally, I think it is natural and unavoidable that government do so, because government should be reflective of what society deems the appropriate way to live.  Thus, I have no strong objections to government stating, for example, that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  I also do not necessarily strongly advocate for that position coming from our government, instead, I think it must first be a decision on a personal level.  So it is with discrimination-- I think it first ought to be a matter of the heart of the individual, not coming down from a governmental imposition.
 
Of course, it must be ceded that a big difference between what the right seeks to legislate and what the left seeks to legislate is based on 'progress' and 'equality'.  But even in admitting these differences does little to change the problems with the criticism coming from the left.  To start with, who does not want to progress and who does not want equality for all?  Sure, we can point to the radicals on either side, but that is fruitless and I will not talk about it here.  It is the vast majority of rational thinkers that grant these two ideas.  However, defining progress and how to achieve equality get us immediately into the realm of morality. 
 
Progress to me is to focus on what got us where we are in the first place, thriving on the principles of virtue, hard work, and responsibility, all driven by faith in a Creator who rewards such behavior.  This is vastly different than many people out there.  To me, equality is only achieved when people recognize others for who they truly are, regardless of any percentage or number, and is only seen when people see with their hearts, not their eyes.  This may be the end goal of the liberals who espouse legislating equality, but they never state how we will get out of the circle, nor when.  O'Connor in Grutter stated that in 25 years "racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the itnerest approved today."  Amazingly absent is a discussion of how that will happen, and it relies on an expectation that people will forget the benefits they recieve from such legislative policy. 
 
I hope she is right, but I must state that such a goal is a moral goal, and allowing such affirmitive action provisions to continue, is just as moral as seeking to legislate that only men and women can marry.  As I close, I thought of but one more difference between these goals-- only one is universally accepted.  For who really objects to the idea that whites, blacks, and any other group is truly more or less capable than another?  So, why do we need Congress or the Supreme Court to tell us that this is so?  Possible answers exist, but that I will leave for another time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (36) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Has Obama Already Failed?

There has been much broo-ha-ha over Rush Limbaugh's comments that he wants Obama to fail.  I say the Dems are playing an obvious game that anyone with half a brain should see through.  Of course, it is probable that most of Americans either don't have half a a brain, or just don't want to use it.  But that's another story.
 
I wonder, though, if Limbaugh is already going to be rejoicing, because I wonder if Barrack Obama, the man who came promising the world on a magic carpet, has already failed.  Lets look at a few things: his ego, his treatment of the media, his delegation, his failures to unite, failure to fill various positions, his thoughts on Gitmo, his other "new" personell choices, and probably most importantly-- the economy.  After all of that, I will raise a simple question, too-- based on these failings, is he even running the show?
 
First, his ego has already been shown to be large.  We knew this from before he was elected, though it has only become more manifest since his inauguration.  He doesn't take kindly to those who disagree, and he has certainly trumped himself up. 
 
Second, he has already shown disdain for the media, cutting them out of much of the process and showing favoritism to those who share certain thoughts...  The attack on Limbaugh is indicative of this tendency, but it goes even farther and closer to the White House.  He is already calling the shots on what will be presented through the 4th branch of government.
 
Third, he has delegated quite a bit.  The stimulus bill is a good example-- he basically seems to have told Congress to go at it, and come back to him with a good plan.  There are other examples, and the results have been less than what the public expected.  Congress is not willing to play the same game he is, yet he is staying out of the firing range.
 
Fourth, he has not united Congress.  At best, it remains as staunchly divided as it was before he took office.  I'd actually say that the GOP will be more vocal and be less willing to comprimise now than before.  At the same time, the Dems will certainly be less willing to work with the GOP since they have less to lose by sticking to their guns.  And because Obama is staying out of the fight, he is doing nothing to bring folks together, beyond saying people should do so.  He is not involved enough to make that happen.
 
Fifth, he has had trouble filling various positions, most notably Commerce Secretary.  In fact, some of his nominees have only called into question his wisdom and trust.  By them failing to pay taxes (not just one), his decisions and appointments have really called into question his decision making abilities. 
 
Sixth, his rush to judgment on Gitmo really is interesting.  He pretty much immediately says we are closing it down in one year, but when asked what he would do with the prisoners, the response is aking to "I dunno."  And unless things have changed, he as having trouble finding alternatives- other nations didn't want them, either.  And then when his advisors go check it out, the response is actually that these guys are treated pretty darn well.  Go figure.
 
Seventh, how much new blood has he brought in?  I think it is well documented how many Clinton holdovers he has, who certainly do not indicate change is a comin'.
 
Finally, the economy.  Isn't interesting how it has not stabilized like most thought since he took office?  Heck, even I held out hope for it to find some bottom and stay there pretty quickly after a) his election and b) after his inauguration.  We have seen a market that is anything but stable, and the bottom continues to drop.  We were just at a 12 year low.  I hate to put something on a president specifically, as to be fair, he typically has limited influence.  But this is different, I'd say.  Businesses are scared and confused as exactly what this man might do to them.  The market reflects this uncertainty, and I think it is fair to place much of the blame on the new president for creating this fear.
 
So, what does all this mean?  It means we have a president who doesn't seem like he knows what he is doing, and that is full of empty promises.  It means he really is an empty suit.  OK, he may well pull things together and save the nation.  But that looks like a distant dream. 
 
Here's why: people rarely change.  Obama has shown some character traits that are likely to dominate his term as president.  His ego and short leash on those who disagree with him are not likely to go away.  He will rush to decisions again, and he will allow Congress to act so he can wash his hands over their policy mistakes.  Despite his lofty rhetoric, he has not instituted an ounce of change, and likely will not attempt to bring it any more than he has.  And despite the rhetoric, he will not be able to change the conservative movement against him (something Bush experienced going the other way). 
 
So, through all of this, I really wonder how much Barack Obama is truly calling the shots.  I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I think he is heavilly influenced by his most trusted advisors.  I think many in the Democratic party saw early on a dynamic candidate and a person who could draw a crowd-- to his credit, Obama is a great speaker.  They found someone who perfectly fit the mold as a change candidate-- a "black" man with a Harvard education who came from a poor background, who could speak of unity like few others, and who had no problem bringing attention to himself or doing whatever he needed to win. 
 
And I think they, as much as him, will drive decisions in the White House.  They got him there (I don't think he could have done it without the likes of Axelrod), and they will continue to pull strings.  A great example is the current outcry against Limbaugh.  They cater to the portion of our population who either does not care, or who doesn't know enough to care.  I do think everything has been calculated to this group, and my bet is that when they start to see who they really elected, they will turn.
 
So, do I know that he has already failed?  No.  There is no way to know.  But I think he's heading that direction.  Rush Limbaugh, you may well get your wish.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (24) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »