HillBuzz, one of my regular PUMA sites, poses the question. They expand the question with more questions:
A few days ago, someone wondered in another thread “what happens when the unprecedented and historic “first black president” is acknowledged as a miserable failure?”. If the media thinks it’s so important to junk all their credibility to become the White House’s Ministry of Truth, then someone, SOMEWHERE, must think society itself will collapse if the “first black president” fails.
Are they afraid people will start calling his entire presidency, ‘The Affirmative Action Administration”, the way people refer to the Nobel Prize now?
What is this doing to the concept of Affirmative Action itself?
What will it do to other black candidates running for office?
What will it do to the Race Industry in the long run?
How much longer will Liberals be able to shout RAAACISM! whenever a black person doesn’t get something he or she wants, or doesn’t deserve something the Race Bullies are trying to force others to give them?
What do you think the chart at the top of this post will look like one year from now?
It seems to me that they are framing the questions wrongly. Obama isn’t failing because of his bi-racial heritage, or the color of his skin, or “racism” on the part of his political opposition.
Obama is failing because he is not up to the job. He came to the job with a Marxist outlook (“spread the wealth around“) and less executive experience than Joe the Plumber, let alone Sarah Palin.
Take his dithering on Afghanistan. An experienced executive would have gone with the advice of professionals in the field. An inexperienced executive will dither when confronted with conflicting advice. The professionals say “go for it, or we lose” and his leftist advisors say “get out of Afghanistan because our core supporters want us out”. The experienced executive knows she answers to her shareholders (i.e. the citizens of the United States) whereas the inexperienced executive answers to the same people as he did before his promotion (i.e. his core supporters).
To resolve the conflict, the inexperienced executive will try to split the difference. That’s what Obama did on his Afghanistan decision. The pros get 75% of what they wanted and the core supporters get a time-table for withdrawal. Meanwhile, the Taliban get fewer highly trained professionals fighting them and a timetable they can use to wait out the US. I suppose the only good news that can come from such a poor decision process is that the professionals in the field are forced to find a way to beat the Taliban before the expiry date.
Oops, I forgot the rules of engagement, which cede every advantage to an enemy that has no respect for the Geneva conventions, no respect for the rule of law, no respect for civilians and no respect for an enemy that cedes them such advantages. Under Obama, troops will have to read unlawful combatants their Miranda rights before capturing them. Should our troops decide that their personal safety requires that they kill said unlawful combatants, they will likely find themselves facing a court-martial. Obama has tipped the balance in favor of our enemy even more than Bush did.
Osama bin Ladin must be saying Hallelujah to all of Attorney General Eric Holder’s former law firm partners busy defending Gitmo “detainees”. Andy McCarthy is suitably outraged:
Of all the infuriating aspects of the decision to transfer five 9/11 war criminals to civilian federal court, the one that grates most is the contention that the Obama administration is finally moving forward after “eight years of delay” — as Attorney General Eric Holder put it at his Friday press conference — during which the Bush administration managed to complete only three military-commission trials.
This is chutzpah writ large. The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts. Many of those lawyers are now working for the Obama Justice Department. That includes Holder, whose firm, Covington & Burling, volunteered its services to at least 18 of America’s enemies in lawsuits they brought against the American people. (During 2007 alone, Covington contributed more than 3,000 hours of free, top-flight legal assistance to our enemy detainees.)
Almost from the moment President Bush authorized military commissions in 2001, this legion of litigators flooded the courts with habeas corpus petitions, contending that military detention and trials violated the Constitution, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Geneva Conventions.
Holder has an obvious conflict of interest in “his” decision to move KSM’s trial to civilian court. The GOP is remiss in not pursuing him on this. Obama is even more remiss in not thinking through the decision from the point of view of the American people.
I’ve analysed one of Obama’s many failures in some detail. I did it with no regard to race. I could go through his economic failures without having to mention race. I’d have to mention SIEU, UAW, TARP, GM, Chysler, Fannie May, Fannie Mac, CRA, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, but race wouldn’t come into it. Inexperience combined with a Marxist world-view would.
Conservatives, at least, recognize that Obama’s failures stem from his Marxist outlook, not his race. Thomas Sowell would likely agree.
I’ll reframe the question for HillBuzz:
What if our first Marxist President fails?
To which I would reply:
Obama wins or the United States of America fails. Take your choice.