- College: Great for Sharpening Beer Pong Skills, Not Always a Good Financial Bet - October 25, 2012
- Slackers: The real employment problem - October 10, 2012
- Why Does Obama Seem Apathetic About His Own Re-election? He Didn’t Build That - October 8, 2012
The consensus is pretty clear from Wednesday’s debate that Mitt Romney wiped the floor with Barack Obama. While Romney clearly had better facts and was more articulate, Obama’s real problem was his apathy. He gave the impression he didn’t want to win, or even care much about the outcome.
This merits attention because it’s very unusual in the world of politics. After all, love them or hate them, other liberal Democrats at least fight hard. The Clintons, Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank, for instance, will do anything to further their objectives. They would sell their souls for a vote, and carry the scars from many ferocious political battles to prove it.
But Obama is cut from a different cloth. He won his first election on a technicality, getting his opponent thrown off the ballot. He then had some cakewalks in a few uncompetitive Illinois elections, followed by perhaps the easiest presidential race ever in 2008. (It was easy because of the economic situation and the incompetence of the McCain campaign.)
Interestingly, Charlie Sykes presented his book, “A Nation of Moochers,” at Heartland’s Chicago headquarters immediately before the debate. It was a timely appearance given how much the culture of handouts has grown like a plague in our country.
It’s especially ironic when Obama is placed in this context: What if our current president is a giant moocher? What if his entire political career was given to him the same way a welfare check it given to someone who refuses to work? What if he’s apathetic toward the presidency precisely because he didn’t earn it? What if he knows in his heart it doesn’t belong to him because he didn’t build it, and couldn’t have built it? What if his entire career was the work of other men and women?
Judging by Wednesday’s performance, that is exactly what has happened. For much of his childhood, Obama was passed from one left-wing radical to another: his mother, his grandfather and then Frank Marshall Davis. He then was given an Ivy League education, granted a prestigious position at the Harvard Law Review and had his political career launched by accomplished leftist William Ayers. One of the world’s richest men, George Soros, then personally funded his ascent to the heights of power.
Obama was passive for all of this. He didn’t achieve it or plan anything. He didn’t have to win hard elections or build legislative coalitions. All he had to do was go along for the ride. That’s why Obama seemed so annoyed in the debate. He’s accustomed to being given things, and Romney gave him nothing.
It also means he doesn’t have any sense of ownership in the office of the Presidency. Like anyone who’s given something for nothing, he doesn’t appreciate what he has. In fact, he resents it, and that resentment was clear on Wednesday night. Obama is like the child who inherited a fortune from a rich parent and now doesn’t know what to do with his life.
Speaking as a human being, I think it’s tragic what various left-wing elites did to this man. They never let him be his own person, instead implanting their narcissistic ambitions where his hopes and dreams should have grown. The same callous disregard they had for our society, laws and constitution, was also inflicted on Barack Obama. So, yes, he does have many reasons to be angry — but not toward America. It should be toward those people who hijacked his life to advance their agendas.
Our president should be pitied, that’s for sure. But he should not, under any circumstances, be reelected.