Just over two months into his term, the media is waking up to the fact that Obama is, in fact, incompetent.
The Economist endorsed Obama during the election. Now they are seeing what was obvious at the time.
His performance has been weaker than those who endorsed his candidacy, including this newspaper, had hoped. Many of his strongest supporters—liberal columnists, prominent donors, Democratic Party stalwarts—have started to question him. As for those not so beholden, polls show that independent voters again prefer Republicans to Democrats, a startling reversal of fortune in just a few weeks. Mr Obama’s once-celestial approval ratings are about where George Bush’s were at this stage in his awful presidency. Despite his resounding electoral victory, his solid majorities in both chambers of Congress and the obvious goodwill of the bulk of the electorate, Mr Obama has seemed curiously feeble.
The essence of affirmative action is that the image is more important than the substance. Time and again minorities are set up to fail by affirmative action’s focus on the image.
Obama had no executive experience, had accomplished nothing and was an unashamed socialist. Nothing in Obama’s past suggested he was capable of being a successful president.
The media endorsed a crafted image with no substance because it was a great story and it fit their world view. Now they have the gall to be upset that the affirmative action president they endorsed and elected can’t handle the job?
There are many competent minorities that would have been great candidates for the Democrats and likely would have been competent presidents. But for some reason the media focused on Barack Obama, a man of no substance.
When socialism doesn’t work this time (and it never does) they can just say it’s because Obama was incompetent.
“Next time we’ll get it right.”