When Barack Obama was inaugurated, a Republican president had taken the peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses of the Clinton years and given us two wars, a devastated economy, and an almost trillion-dollar deficit. Obama was going to be our Franklin Roosevelt, our Winston Churchill—a visionary leader who would give America hope again. Instead, he has turned out to be the Neville Chamberlain of American politics, drifting toward national catastrophe, one compromise at a time.In other words, Obama has failed because he was not ardently liberal enough.
In the 1930s, desperate to keep the peace, Chamberlain caved in to every German demand. And he got war anyway. Let me be clear: the right-wing radicals in control of the Republican Party of course are not Nazis. But Obama is like Chamberlain. A decent man who values peace and civility at any cost, he’s no match for his Republican adversaries.
The piece goes on for many more paragraphs with their Neville Chamberlain comparison, and then wraps up with this:
Americans aren’t inspired by well-meaning weakness. We like strong leaders, particularly in desperate times. FDR was trapped in a wheelchair and faced far greater challenges than Obama, yet he never gave the impression of being at the mercy of events. He set a course and followed it. He went out and got the votes he needed. So did Reagan. So did LBJ.Let me repeat the way I closed the Gallup poll post from yesterday:
Chamberlain did one bold thing. He finally realized he was not the right man to lead Britain in dangerous times. He resigned so that Churchill could take over. There is one bold thing Obama could and should do. He should bow out of the race for reelection and throw his support behind Hillary Clinton—the leader we should have chosen in the first place.
Oh Hillary? Hillary? The Democrat Party turns its lonely eyes to you....
Posts
2 comments:
First, remember Dana Milbank's column 'Obama, lost in thought' from April 26? That was just four months ago! The liberal writer happily compared Obama to Chamberlain, happily compared Bush to Churchill. After all, when you really think about it, Chamberlain was -as Obama is -a complex thinker. No, really!
“Obama’s strengths and weaknesses come from his high degree of 'integrative complexity'.”
“A simple thinker such as Winston Churchill, for example, was a better answer to Adolf Hitler than the complex Neville Chamberlain.”
Second, where do they get the idea that Bill Clinton handed Bush 'peace and prosperity'? Even after the USS Cole and embassy bombings, Clinton's singular focus was to get oral from a submissive White House intern -he was just too busy to notice that al Qaeda was setting up terror cells all over New Jersey.
Additionally, both Churchill and Bush got the boot as soon as the threat they were handed was perceived to have passed.
The Won's so smart (how smart is he, Johnny?) that he's too smart for his own good! Our good, too.
Post a Comment