Bill Siegel contends that Americans by 2012 are likely to have had it right up to here with Barack Obama’s smooth, cool, and artfully glib insincerity. He could very well be right, and it seems to me that when he talks about the stylistic and substantive opposite of Obama, he’s really talking about Dick Cheney.
Obama, the proficient law student and law lecturer, is well trained in â€œissue spottingâ€ â€“ being able to articulate both sides of an issue. Perhaps his most effective public manipulation lies in his ability to briefly state something worth recognizing on the other side of an issue, thus convincing the audience that because he can see the complexity of our problems he must know the best solution.
Obama will frequently answer a tough question by saying â€œon the one hand we want X, while on the other we certainly must be concerned with Y.â€ He will avoid a clear answer, inviting the audience to trust to him on the presumption that, because he could mention something of value to both sides, he must be best suited to work out the optimal compromise. The liberal media fell completely for this simple and cheap trick. Meanwhile, Obama, the hustler, never intended to solve any problem with any solution other than one from the far left. …
He has been the consummate salesman, or â€œflim-flam man,â€ coming into town ready to sell whatever the audience will accept, only to later figure a way to weasel his way out of living up to his word. After awhile, those who look at him with open eyes bounce between fear to panic and back as they realize the country has elected a leader who, along with his close staff, is willing to sacrifice the most fundamental priorities of the nation with the most shocking cold-heartedness. His complete lack of â€œrealâ€ emotion, covered up by a false, almost Las Vegas â€œRat Packâ€ veneer, has recently become apparent to more and more of the nation.
Finally, â€œchangeâ€ has been Obamaâ€™s calling card. And, as with any hypnotic induction, vagueness can powerfully bind many a subject when left to the mind of the listener to clarify. Nevertheless, many Obama supporters are beginning to realize that the â€œchangeâ€ he or she imagined the president to have suggested is different from the almost complete overhaul of our national fabric that Obama and his minions have been pounding out. As more of the country discovers this, they are becoming less interested in a radical and massive transformation of the country and more interested in simple â€œbaby stepâ€ improvements while maintaining the integrity of our system.
All of this leads one to consider whether what is truly needed to beat Obama is to have someone who doesnâ€™t resemble him. Perhaps what will emerge for Republicans is not a charismatic, dream-laden salesman who knows how to wow audiences, handle Oprah, and romance NBC â€œnewsâ€ personalities, but rather someone who is simple and, perhaps, not very good looking or stylish at all.
Perhaps they should choose someone not looking to be on Mt. Rushmore before he can ease the economy and address the true faults in our health care system while not destroying it. Perhaps someone who doesnâ€™t claim to be open and transparent while keeping under wraps critical aspects of his past; one whose past is easily understandable and relatable. One who, to his core, is American, from America, and, most importantly, loves America. One who is strong enough to fight for America, show he is prepared to fight, believe in its exceptionalism, and no longer apologize for any so-called â€œharmsâ€ upon which the worldâ€™s numerous â€œvictimâ€ groups have cast their identities. One who sees clearly the dangers of â€œradicalâ€ Islam and has tired of pretending it is anything other than what it says and does. And one who tells the truth and loves the truth.
Read the whole thing.