The title pretty well says it all, but let me expand.
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.