Evidently the GOP thinks this is a winning message: President Obama is not leading. Google obama "no leadership" right now, and you get 331,000 hits.
So they keep saying it: Obama is not leading. He is not leading in foreign affairs. He did not lead when it came to the riots in Egypt. He is not leading now, in Libya.
Nor is Obama leading in domestic affairs. He is not leading in the budget battle.
All this is true. That isn't my question. My question is: how is this bad?
Of course it is bad in that it shows him to be a wretchedly poor president. But — well, duh. We here at BibChr knew he'd be a wretchedly poor president when his name was first mentioned. We knew it before the election. We knew it after the election. We know it today.
How? Simple. He had the wrong worldview, the wrong philosophy, and no real qualifying experience. Next?
So what has changed now, to make us want him to "lead"? Has he repented, accepted Christ as Lord and Savior, and completely revolutionized his worldview? Short of that, has he had an epiphany that's moved him to see the brilliance of the Founding Fathers, and of the core documents of this nation? Of either, there is no evidence.
And experience? He is still the least-qualified person in any room he enters... unless the topic is fooling enough dupes to get elected.
So where would Obama lead, if he led? In foreign affairs, he'd lead us in apologizing to everyone, deferring to everyone, and trying (personally, individually, for himself alone) to be liked by everyone. We want that?
In domestic affairs, Obama would lead us towards utter and complete totalitarianism under the rigid, iron fist of the elite, with him, personally, at the top. We want that?
So sure, I wish we had a president who knew where he should lead, and would do that.
But as long as Obama sits in the big chair in the Oval Office?
I say: keep voting "present," Mr. President.
Posts
23 comments:
I still maintain we would have been better off with Inanimate Carbon Rod as president. He wouldn't do anything good, but at least he wouldn't have done anything bad, which puts him waaaaaay ahead of what we have now.
Uhh...I thought this blog was about Biblical Christianity. What did Jesus (not) say...about government?
"The one thing wrong about this country is Herod's poor leadership".
That said, I agree with your basic points, it's just that they also should be applied to Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, all the way down the line.
Seems someone in the White House agrees with you - they tried to lock him out while he was gone.
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/national/president-barack-obama-locked-out-of-white-house
Former Bush press secretary Dana Perino retweeted this yesterday:
@DanaPerino Breaking News: President Obama to visit the United States of America this week and is expected to be here for several days.
This post is right on, DJP. The sad thing is that those who would harm us see this lack of leadership and perceive it as weakness. This is very dangerous and it will take e a strong successor - a Reagan even - to dig us out of this pansy hole we're in now.
This post might help you, Julian.
Jesus never said we couldn't discuss our leaders. If we're to pray for them, then shouldn't we also talk about what we need to pray for - and why?
I, for one, at times appreciate cultural discussions. If we are to have a worldview as Christians, then how we view the world is worthy of discussion on occasion.
Julian,
You might want to check out Wayne Grudem's Politics - According to the Bible. I haven't read it yet, but I recently listened to an interview with Grudem about the topic that gave me a better understanding of the issue.
He makes the case that Christians should have a significant influence on government, especially in countries where we are permitted and have the responsibility to do so.
Thanks for the disclaimer. Just note that before I decided to "enter the shark tank" I did indeed scan your sidebar for such a purpose statement that might enlighten me to why it seemed you would go off-topic. And I didn't see one. Without that helpful context, I felt obliged to post. So thanks again for alerting me to the fact that this blog is not about "Biblical Christianity" but about what you (and probably many other) Biblical Christians think about things.
Wrong, and right, respectively.
Perhaps allow yourself some time, read over the 1600+ posts, have an informed opinion to express.
Dan, in the meantime, forgive me for expressing my uninformed opinions on your blog. I should rather express them on my own blog, but I'm too lazy to do anything but cherry pick and then no one will read them anyway.
@DJP: First, I think that leading a good campaign does, in fact, demonstrate leadership. Second, I'm not personally all that overwhelmed with the lack of experience argument. After all, some of the worst politicians have lots of experience (and I'm thinking of two from CA off the top of my head). I also see a couple rookies that have real potential. The real issue is as you say, he has the wrong worldview and the wrong philosophy.
Part of the problem with him being gone is that he lets his appointees, who are arguably worse than he, run the show. But then again, it seems that's how it is when he's around.
My opinion about the lack of leadership is that the President is more about the trappings of being President and less about the work itself.
@Paula
You know, that's how all Christians felt about government up until Munster. Thereafter, there was a bit of a split in thought but American Christians seem amazingly anemic.
Dan,
Obama's biggest problem is that he has a great fear of man while having no real fear of God. That is the first thing that comes to mind when I encounter people who want everybody to like them and are overly concerned with not offending people. And that naturally leads into this:
"The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." (Proverbs 1:7)
I think we can all work out the implications of that verse with Mr. Obama...
Some say he's drifted into the Bush camp lately... personally I see a lot more of Pat Paulsen in his demeanor.
Jeez, Julian makes a mild point and hes skewered. I happen to agree with him. And calling him uninformed was rude. Are you going to toss an "open letter" at him too?
Really, he was skewered somewhere? Yikes. Sorry to hear it.
You agree with him about what?
Um... when is it bad to suggest that someone is (as he admitted he was) uninformed, and point a path to becoming informed? Do you already know everything, mwh?
I think Dan and I can agree on the principles outlined in his response to the September 13, 1996 edition of "Right and Wrong".
http://www.bibchr.com/collection_of_articles.html#politicalparty
I'll leave my disagreements about who (or what) best embodies these principles to another forum.
For over 60 years now I have heard preachers complain about the president that has been in office. 60 years later you are still doing it. Leadership! Worst than any U.S. President are preachers and pastors who have failed to preach the Word of God to bring people to holiness. How else do you think the President was voted in? Do we really expect the unsaved to act any different? No.
Well, I wish that I could say the same.
Here in South Africa our president leads the way to selfish enrichment, promiscuity, lies and denial.
At least he leads by example.
Test
Fail
actually, I passed. It worked.
As a comment, however, it's a fail.
I know...but I needed to make sure future comments get posted properly after Google made account changes.
Post a Comment