His Imperial Majesty
This article from The White House Dossier says that, as of yesterday, President Obama “has not taken a serious question from the White House press corps in nearly seven weeks.” Now, President Obama has certainly taken at least some questions, but they have not been “serious” questions. As he goes on to state, it “points to a campaign-style White House operation that is seeking to insulate the candidate from tough cross examination.”
Now, others have pointed out that Mr. Obama has long been “The Campaigner-in-Chief.” He’s held a (dare I say it?) unprecedented number of fundraisers. Virtually every speech he gives is a campaign speech, no matter the subject or venue. He is the master of straw-men. And, as shown previously, gets very huffy when he’s actually challenged on anything.
This is not the behavior of a President. It is the behavior of a Tyrant. That is a tyrant in the classical sense. If you’ll forgive the history lesson, the classical Greek tyrants were men who, through charisma and clever words, would rally “the people” to overthrow governments. They lasted only so long as they maintained their charismatic hold over the people. Eventually, they (almost without exception) all descended into the modern definition of tyrant- someone who ruled with an iron fist and could brook no disagreement.
That Mr. Obama fit that classical mold of tyrant was obvious to anyone who viewed his lack-of-a-record. He constantly voted “present” in both the Illinois and US Senate. He refused to take an on-the-record stand on almost anything of substance. Even since becoming President he has voted “present” as often as possible.
If we needed any more evidence that he absolutely must avoid any controversial issue, and knows it, we could look at this bit of transcript (from the linked article) from questions he took after a Cabinet meeting on July 26
Q Mr. President, can you tell us, if what the Colorado shooter did was entirely legal, how do you do more on this subject without any new laws?
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. I’m sure we’ll have more opportunity to talk about this.
He could have just come out and said, “FYNQ.” At least then he wouldn’t be being coy about it. Mr Koffler, of the Dossier, then takes the media to task- a valid angle on this issue. I, however, am struck by exactly what this says about the President.
Mr. Obama seems to believe that he owes no explanation to the people for his positions. He owes no discussion of how he plans to square the circle of his promise not to pursue new gun control laws while simultaneously attempting to make it more difficult to pull off an attack like that in Aurora, Colorado. And he refuses to clarify because he knows the issue is controversial. He knows that whichever stand he takes, it will be unsatisfactory to some, which is a blow to his charismatic image.
Let us be clear, here. Mr. Obama has no accomplishments in his first term in office. Certainly he has had legislation passed, but it has all failed to do what he claimed it would do. The $787,000,000,000.00 stimulus failed to get the economy going and reduce unemployment. Indeed, unemployment is now worse than his economists claimed it would be if no stimulus had been enacted at all. He stood silently while pro-liberty forces in Iran attempted a revolt, and then supported pro-Islamist revolutions in the rest of the Middle East. His signature law- the Orwellian-named Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act- has already increased premiums and decreased coverage for millions of Americans, and promises to do more of the same.
So it is only as long as he can maintain his veil of “likability,” of charisma, that he has any chance of a second term.
His actions are not those of a President, but those of a Monarch with a precarious perch on power. They are those of a tyrant at the end of his reign. I’m pretty sure we fought a war to prevent that kind of behavior. I think I read about that in some books in school.