What If Obama Can’t Lead?
Why the president’s defenders are wrong when they argue Obama is impotent.
By Ron Fournier
July 31, 2013 | 6:00 a.m.
Two New York Times reporters recently posited for President Obama this grim scenario: Low growth, high unemployment, and growing income inequality become “the new normal” in the nation he leads. “Do you worry,” the journalists asked him, “that that could end up being your legacy simply because of the obstruction … and the gridlock that doesn’t seem to end?”
Obama’s reply was telling. “I think if I’m arguing for entirely different policies and Congress ends up pursuing policies that I think don’t make sense and we get a bad result,” he said, “it’s hard to argue that’d be my legacy.”
Actually, it’s hard to argue that it wouldn’t be his legacy. History judges U.S. presidents based upon what they did and did not accomplish. The obstinacy of their rivals and the severity of their circumstances is little mitigation. Great presidents overcome great hurdles.
In Obama’s case, the modern GOP is an obstructionist, rudderless party often held hostage by extremists. So … get over it. His response to The New York Times is another illustration that Obama and his liberal allies have a limited—and limiting—definition of presidential leadership.
I call it the White Flag Syndrome.
https://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-if-obama-can-t-lead-20130731
What if Obama was is not and never was eligible for the office of POTUS because he was not born in the country of parents who were its citizens (i.e., the actual definition of NBC as set forth by the Supreme Court in 1875)? What then? Well, all of the laws he signed become null and void, including Obamacare, as do all of his appointments, including the wise Latina and her sidekick ‘Pat’.