Monthly Archives: September 2012

In last week’s “60 Minutes” appearance by our respective presidential contenders, both interviewers framed a question around historian David McCullough and his thoughts on the Presidency:

“The historian, David McCullough, says that great presidents learn from the history of the office. What have you learned from the history of presidents in the White House?”

The point of this inquiry was more than just the delivery of a softball question (one of many for the president, one of few for the governor) to wrap up the interview.  It was asked to reemphasize what McCullough and so many historians, politicians and actual presidents have pointed out in the four centuries spanning the nation’s existence: the Office is bigger than the man.

Though this has been the prevailing sentiment since Washington first swore to uphold the Constitution in Manhattan in 1789, President Obama currently, and for most of his presidency, has not felt beholden to this standard.  On the contrary, he has clearly showed his disdain for it.

This attitude was apparent early in Mr. Obama’s first term, but to be fair, this is a trait every new president possesses.  The President-elect rides into Washington on a high few people have ever felt.  Voted into office as the leader of the free world, every president who has entered the White House since Truman has felt unstoppable upon his arrival, and often considered himself simply smarter, and more able, than those who came before.  This rarely holds true, and the cruel reality soon sets in that the position is unlike any other in the world.  The challenge to lead weighs heavier than any personal ambition possessed by the man.  Thus far, President Obama has refused to accept this reality; it has severely affected his ability to govern, and may destroy his second term if re-elected.

This piece of Mr. Obama’s character first came to light in his opening meeting with congressional Republicans mere days into his first term.  The minority leaders hoped to bring ideas to the table for the drafting of the January 2009 stimulus bill, which the President had designated priority one as the country reaped the whirlwind of the previous September’s financial collapse.  Upon suggestions made by Republicans that the bill promote more tax cuts for the middle class, less spending on democratic pet projects and simply make it smaller, the President after a polite nod or two abruptly dismissed their requests with the response “I won.”

The president, on that electoral high from November, quickly forgot the soaring speeches he gave on the campaign trail about hope and change he had delivered only months before.  He quickly forgot the 2004 speech about one America that propelled him to the national stage.  He quickly forgot that our divided government was instituted to protect the minority so it could not be steamrolled by those in the seat of power.  Mr. Obama forgot all of this and quickly exercised this power, asserting the dominance of a Democratic party which controlled the House, the Senate, and now the Presidency.  It officially marked the end of the all too short lived Era of Hope and Change.

With the release of Bob Woodward’s new book The Price of Politics this month detailing the Obama presidency thus far, we see a man who naively believes he is above the fray of American politics- as if descending to the depths of compromise, or even forming a congenial relationship with the opposition, would render him a mere mortal.  This was on display during the healthcare reform negations where he chose to hastily dismiss criticism made by now Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan.  Adulation for the President’s once vaunted “cool” by the liberal media has transformed into allegations of disinterest and even rudeness.  Fast forward to today.

President Obama addresses the U.N. this week in New York City. (Photo credit: http://www.Washingtonpost.com)

Over the last two weeks, one can easily think of the chances the President has had to lead, especially at the U.N., inresponse to the various crises in the Middle East.  Doing so could have possibly guaranteed his re-election, as an incumbent president never looks more presidential than deftly handling matters of foreign policy.  Yet, the president’s disinterestedness in his relationships with world leaders is just another example of his choice to act as if he is above the duties imposed upon the office of the President.  Such blatant acts of disregard rarely go unnoticed:

1) His decision last week to decline a meeting with Prime Minister Bebe Netanyahu of Israel, of whom his relationship is already strained, for the bright lights of Letterman and the glitter of a Jay-Z/Beyonce fundraiser.

2) This week his refusal to meet with any world leaders during the U.N. summit, while simultaneously appearing on the T.V. show “The View” in New York City.

3)  His insistence at the U.N. in harping on the dreaded “video” that triggered the atrocities in Benghazi and protests around the world- a now all too common exhibition of Mr. Obama in which his rejection of reality is asserted to forward his administration’s preferred narrative.

This past week was a small window into the mind of a President who does not feel the obligation to deal with the encumbrances of the office.  Voting for another four years of a leader who seems only to be impressed by his own resume could have dire consequences for the Republic.  The American people deserve better.  The Office of the President deserves better.

– John P. Burns

“I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of Egypt.  I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.”­- President Barack Obama, opening greeting in prepared remarks to the Muslim world.  Delivered in Cairo on June 4, 2009.

As violent Islamist protests rage around the world outside of American foreign consulates and embassies, the American media has been asking the big question all week: how will Mitt Romney respond?  This inquiry has already been answered, about as swiftly as Mr. Romney delivered a response the night of the events.  As a result from his own propensity to shoot without aiming, the American media has now ruled Mr. Romney’s premature comments as clearly deaf to reality, and almost certainly lost him the election last week.

For those of you who might be asking considering the concentration on Mr. Romney, the answer is No, today is not January 23, 2013.  Mitt Romney is not the President of the United States.  When Mr. Romney made his remarks eight days ago, he correctly challenged the apologetic statement issued by the United States Embassy in Cairo preceding the protest.  His position as the Republican nominee for President though, holds absolutely zero authority in the United States government.  Despite this fact, his reaction last week has been subjected to the mainstream media microscope as if he is already the presiding executive directing our foreign policy.  Mr. Barack Obama, the President of the United States of America, does in fact have such command.  But, because of the manipulation of coverage engineered by the country’s media establishment, our citizenry is grossly uninformed of the President’s role in the matter.

The duress which a sitting president running for re-election would experience in these present circumstances should be palpable to the American people.  On the eleven year anniversary of the attacks of 9/11, four agents of our State Department, notably Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, were brutally murdered in Benghazi.  Their consulate was ransacked as they were bound captive, and later killed, in a gruesome display of bloodlust by barbaric Islamist militants.  In Cairo the same day, radical Islamists marched under the guise of protest in response to a degrading American made movie trailer about the prophet Mohammed.  These protesters did not get inside, but were determined enough to tear down the embassy’s American flag, burn it, and subsequently raise a black flag representing Al Qaeda which read, “The only god is God, and Mohammed is his Prophet.”  Paging Mr. Obama, we have a bit of a situation on our hands.

Cairo protesterss climb the walls of the American Embassy, contrasting flags in hand. (USA Today)

But why bother the President?  On September 12, after learning of these riots and the tragic deaths that followed, Mr. Obama hopped on his plane to Vegas to attend a campaign event.  If it were another president, the media may have suggested that the Commander-in-Chief stay in the capital to oversee the situation, as opposed to leaving for campaign duties promoting his own brand.  From a campaign standpoint, Air Force One landing in Sin City isn’t exactly the picture Jim Messina wants juxtaposed with Mr. Stevens’ body being dragged through the streets of Benghazi.  Not to worry though: the media is hot on Mitt Romney’s tail, and it is clear this situation has Mr. Romney’s campaign in crisis.

Indeed, what is the sense of making the story about President Obama?  He, like the rest of us, was only forced to watch protests damming the United States throughout countries in the Middle East and northern Africa, where demonstrations were made that included chants such as “Obama, Obama, we are all Osama.”

Mr. Obama campaigned and entered office promising to ease American tensions with the Muslim world.  His audacity of hope was fueled by the President’s confidence in his oratory, wrapped in the dangerously naive belief that his travels to Muslim nations in his youth solidified his bona fides as a world healer.  Together, these factors would enable the new president to convince radical Islamists to view him more favorably than they had his predecessors, and consequently, the nation as a whole.

This untested self-assurance in his ability to forge a new understanding between the two cultures was on display in the President’s remarks to the Muslim World that were delivered at Cairo University in 2009.  The coup de grace occurred in the speech where Mr. Obama felt it was necessary to include a section condemning actions taken by the United States in its war on terror, as if to show we had officially turned the page:

“And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.”

Aside from his failure to close Guantanamo and his choice to brand the enhanced interrogation tactics that would prove essential in acquiring the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden as torture, the media lauded the speech as one that would define his presidency.

Three and a half years later, we are not seeing the dividends.  Islamist extremist riots, seemingly orchestrated by Al-Qaeda, have resulted in the murder of four State Department officials, on the anniversary of September 11^th.  Couple what happened last Tuesday with riots and protests still raging in Northern Africa, the Middle East and disturbingly somehow the Queen’s commonwealth of Australia, and we are witnessing a firm rejection to President Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world.

This breakdown serves as evidence of another broken promise by a President up for re-election, with the media running pass block for him on every play.  If fires raged outside U.S. embassies in September 2004, with the death tolling rising in Iraq (like today in Afghanistan) and a close election in the stretch run (ditto today), it is improbable to believe the American media’s main concentration would focus on John Kerry’s criticism of the Bush administration during the crisis.  They would focus any and all criticism on the current administration alone.

As it is being reported, the attention given to Mr. Romney during this crisis is allocated as if he is the President of the United States.  Hopefully come January 23, 2013, this media illusion becomes reality.

– John P. Burns