Article VI Blog

So, yesterday we briefly mentioned how weak Obama is looking on the international stage.  You know,

I Wonder…

…if Obama and Holder realize just how weak their excuse of, “It’s a big organization, we cannot know all of what goes on,” really makes them look – and by extension the nation?  I wonder if they are capable of doing the geopolitical calculus that would lead one to conclude that such apparent weakness is why countries like China are feeling expansionist?  I wonder if they understand that China may suspect the US no longer has Japan’s back when it comes to defending Okinawa?

These people are supposed to be in control of their own organizations, after all.  If they are not, if the organizations they run are so out of their control that scandal after scandal after scandal can erupt without their ever knowing what is going on, then they are weak indeed.

Either Obama and Holder appear not smart enough to know that their excuses weaken the nation, or they really are not in control of the organizations.  Either way they actually weaken the nation – hugely.  Either way…

…I Am Amazed…

…at how unsophisticated they apparently are.  It’s not just that they cannot see the effects their excuse making is having on the international stage.  It’s that the scandals themselves are so brutish as to make Watergate look like the work of genius’.

It takes an amazing combination of hubris and self-absorption to think that what amounts to political thuggery would go undetected.  Hubris that they are somehow above such concerns, and self-absorption in their total inability to entertain things outside their proscribed viewpoint, like the fact that a diplomatic post might be under actual attack.  Did they really think they had the press in such thrall that they would not object to the wholesale interference with the collection and dissemination of news?  (Actually that is not amazing, that is shocking – the press lives on a high horse – their apparent Obama thrall is not about Obama, it’s about the high horse of his color.  You would think even the proud, self-absorbed Obama was smart enough to know that double crossing that bunch would backfire.)  Did they really think Americans would stand by idly while they squelched our most basic rights using the oppressive powers of the IRS?

Where are the double-blinds, the cut-outs, the misdirection, and the other craft that even organized crime, not the most educated individuals in the world, seems to be smart enough to have in place when they engage in this sort of brute force thuggery?  I am amazed at how unsmart this gang really seems to be.

But most amazing is the timing, one magic year keeps creeping up as the genesis of all this scandal – 2010.  Well, except for Benghazi which was about 2012.  Yep, Obama got his electoral head handed to him in 2010 (largely by Tea Party types) so he turned thug to survive in 2012.  All this scandal was not in service to an ideology, or some other imagined greater good.  It is purely an attempt to hold onto office.  Turns out Mr. “Satisfied to be a one term president” was not so satisfied after all.  The press is turning on him faster than an Indianapolis race car turns left.  I wonder if the leftie ideologues will be far behind?

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, character, Governance | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

… or YES, WE ARE THE WORLD’S POLICEMAN

The weakness of this administration greatly precedes the breaking scandals of the last  couple of weeks.  But along with those scandals, other related issues are coming home to roost.

Our diplomats are being arrested and accused of spying and China make s a play for Okinawa.  This stuff is not a response to terrorism – no mere religious expression this.  These are not a bunch of [insert your derisive and dismissive description of jihadis here] killing a few people with bombs and airplanes. This is the game of nations.  This is trying to change the map of the world.

And you can bet your bottom dollar that this aggressiveness on the part of our global competitors is directly related to the this administration’s ever weakening response to terrorism and and the trouble that Obama finds himself in domestically.

This kind of stuff is why Nixon resigned.  Obama better clean house and he better do so quickly or this kind of stuff will only increase.  The world cannot afford it.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, character, Governance | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

One seeks the office of President of The United States in order to serve the people of the United States.  It is a sacred trust.

There is no more important nor deeper service to the nation that one in such office can undertake than the direct protection of the lives of the nations citizens.  Many, even most, presidents are not afforded the opportunity to so directly and demonstrably offer such protection by simply putting the military between the citizens and the enemy.

This president, Barack Obama, and the likely next Democrat candidate for the office, Hillary Clinton, were offered such a rare and sacred opportunity in Benghazi Libya.

THEY FAILED!

Until this week’s hearings, I had assumed that such failings were a result of incompetence.  I had assumed that they had failed to construct the appropriate communications infrastructure to know what was going on – that they were so focused on other policy that the mechanisms of government simply kept this in the background until it was too late.  The cover-up of the failings was apparent, but standard issue, even weak, stuff when the government messes up.  I figured the cover-up was the crime, not the underlying incompetence.

But no more.  The lack of action on the administration’s part now seems calculated and purposeful.  We know that Clinton spoke to people on the ground in Libya as the attacks were occurring.  We must assume she kept the president informed.  We know talking points were altered.

Peggy Noonan this morning:

The Obama White House sees every event as a political event. Really, every event, even an attack on a consulate and the killing of an ambassador.

Because of that, it could not tolerate the idea that the armed assault on the Benghazi consulate was a premeditated act of Islamist terrorism. That would carry a whole world of unhappy political implications, and demand certain actions. And the American presidential election was only eight weeks away. They wanted this problem to go away, or at least to bleed the meaning from it.

Because the White House could not tolerate the idea of Benghazi as a planned and deliberate terrorist assault, it had to be made into something else.

Let me rephrase that just a little.  The administration put its own political gain in front of the lives of American citizens.  They violated the most sacred of trusts in the office.  They did not just fail to measure up to that trust – they purposefully violated it.

Michael Gerson:

The administration’s handling of the Benghazi attack was politically effective, but not without real world costs.

Gerson seems still to think incompetence.  I agree with him there is no criminality here, but the violation of trust between the people and its government is much deeper and more extraordinary than Watergate.  The “real world costs” here were American lives.  In point of fact I have been trying since the hearings to think of a greater historical violation of the trust invested in the office than this one.   To date I have not come up with one.  Bigger mistakes perhaps, but remember this no longer appears to be a mistake – this was purposeful.

We wrote a lot on this blog during the campaign season about Romney’s abundance of character, in contrast to Obama’s relative lack of it.  I thought that was evident even before now, though I have expected Obama’s second term to add considerable evidence to the pile.  I never expected that evidence to include human lives.

I am ashamed.  These particular deaths occurred before the election.  No amount of work or effort on my part – on Romney’s behalf – could have saved these lives.  But how many more will there be before this administration ends?  How many more might there be in pursuit of a Hillary Clinton administration?  That is why I am ashamed.

We all should be – our nation is supposed to be better than this.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, character | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Says Time of yesterday’s presser by the president in the wake of the defeat of a gun control measure in the Senate:

Calling the defeat of his gun control efforts “a pretty shameful day for Washington,” a defiant and angry President Barack Obama announced in the Rose Garden Wednesday that the fight would go on.

Stoned faced and curt, the President used unusually pointed words to criticize the 45 Senators, including four Democrats, who successfully defeated the bill, which would have expanded mandatory background checks to gun shows and online sales. Obama said the bill met his own test of worthwhile gun regulation, but “too many Senators failed theirs.”

Frankly, I think they are being kind. Here’s the video:

It was a childish, petty and petulant little fit worthy of any toddler that has had his or her toy taken away.

Says Ecclesiastes:

The end of a matter is better than its beginning;
Patience of spirit is better than haughtiness of spirit.
Do not be eager in your heart to be angry,
For anger resides in the bosom of fools. (Eccl 7:8-9)

Yesterday, President Obama abandoned all pretext of leadership.  Our nation has to rise above this sort of churlish tantrum and whine fest if things are to truly get better.  A president leads a nation, not merely asks for laws and executes those that exist.  This sort of behavior on the part of the president leads the nation down paths it does not want to proceed.  Much more of this and the nation will resemble nothing so much as a pre-school.

Not to mention the fact that he threw this little tantrum before the dead of the Boston Marathon bombing have even been buried.  Does the grief of the Newtown families outweigh the grief out of Boston?  And who the h^%$ is he to decide if it does?

There was shame in Washington yesterday alright.  But I’m thinking Obama tried to lay it on the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, character | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Mitt Romney from his interview with Chris Wallace this morning:

“I lost my election because of my campaign, not because of what anyone else did. … I see my mistakes and I see my flaws

Res ipsa loquitor

Posted in Candidate Qualifications | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, leadership, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, The Way Forward | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post