Replies

You had me nodding all way up to word “ineligible” and it went downhill from there. Nothing destroys a political opinion piece like unfounded allegations. Obama was an ill-advised choice who bamboozled a majority of voters to vote for him, aided by a fawning and predominantly liberal media, despite having the shady past you rightly mention and no demonstrable managerial or leadership skills. His predictably disastrous performance is reason enough to convince the voters that we need someone with a clue to get us out of this fix, but calling him a usurper does nothing to help in that cause. Sorry to be so critical, but flogging the birther line is not in the best interest of the American people.

One need only have watched the Sunday shows yesterday to appreciate the parallel universe inhabited by the elite media. Yes, they understand that the economy is in terrible condition and that people are jobless and suffering and that the people are losing their homes.

But they do not get that Obama is illegitimate. Whether he is constitutionally eligible or not, he is unqualified by experience and biography and, more importantly, by philosophy for governing America. The problem with Obama is not that he is unintelligent, he is intelligent enough. Nor is the problem that he is inarticulate, one need only watch a few of his one-on-one interviews to see that he sounds and looks presidential and has mastered that art. The problem is that Obama is a psychically incapable of governing America properly.

When the talking heads on the Sunday shows, one after the other each in his turn, recite with approval shopworn nostrums for the repair of the economy which are but anemic reprises of the same failed policies already imposed on an unwilling America by Obama, all with the connivance these media elites, one cannot but conclude that there is utterly no disposition on the part of the elite media to change course.

They simply do not get it.

At best, they are tentatively musing about how they could have once again supported the wrong socialist because, if they had chosen the correct socialist, those same policies would surely have succeeded.

We The People have completely forgotten the lessons of our K-12 education years, specifically what we were supposed to learn during Civics class. (For scouts, there is also the Citizenship merit badge lessons, too.) Specifically, what the office of the President of the United States was intended, by our Founding Fathers, to be. And the current election cycle shows the same stigmata of ignorance on the part of the people: the President does not make law, he implements law as passed by Congress.

So there is almost zero discussion in the various fora about the fitness of the candidates running for the office to be an executive. Instead, we care about the views about law that the candidates hold, a discussion that has little relevance to the real job. That's why I was so disappointed in both parties during 2007: one candidate was showing virtually no executive ability, the other a complete mystery.

What the current President has done is make an end run around Congress and the Constitution, and implemented policies that have had a negative effect on the economy using loopholes in the law Congress has passed before. One reason that we are in this mess is that Congress is at war with itself, so that it can't do the right things to pour water on the troubled waters of business environment, particularly to rein in the excesses of the regulatory agencies.

So until the people wake up and realize this is not a popularity contest, but a serious and consequential choice for the right person for the original job, we will continue down the path toward a failed Republic. And the failure can happen with either political party.

Inconceivable, you say? I direct your attention to Robert Heinlein's 1940 short story of Nehemiah Scudder, a fictional character in If This Goes On—, about how a preacher is swept into office of the President in the 2011 election [interesting tie-in!] by intelligent use of mass communications, applied psychology, and helped along by a hysterical populace... and proceeds to convert the United States into a religion-based dictatorship, to the point that there were no elections held from 2015 on.

So, how do the various candidates stack up with successful executive experience? I'm impressed with only two against the criteria. And neither of those people have (D) after their name.