Breaking News

2 Comments

  1. Jason June 25, 2009 @ 10:47 pm

    I’m sorry… were you referring to George W. Bush? Are you kidding? Wow. I guess I didn’t realize where this site was coming from, but maybe now I do. I’m no fan of Obama, but if you’re trying to sell Shrub as a man of “moral fiber”, maybe you’re the one trying to sell rays of sunshine and bunnies.

  2. Rob June 26, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

    There is a difference between being ethical and being moral. Moral fiber applies more toward ethics than morals in modern culture as a reinforcement of where one’s ideology brings them. He was an existentialist, or as close to one you’ll ever see as a President, in what he believed in and doing things according to those beliefs. As a person, that is respectable. He believed himself correct, and believed in what he did. You cannot fault the man for having a firm stance according to his beliefs. Morally, Bush was a crook. He believed in what he said and did, and when exceptions were made where they shouldn’t have been, he allowed his existential mindset to faulter (no one is a true existentialist, and politicians are among the fewest, being swayed as easily as grass in the wind.) Bush was his own man in comparison to Obama, and that is the only comparison I am making. Where Bush could make the hard decision and live with it, Obama’s decisions change with the tides of opinion and he’s yet to steadfast on anything he’s said, done, or tried.

Obama’s Iran stance upgrades from frownie face to shaking finger

World News Comments (2)

Once upon a time, we had a President from whom we knew exactly what to expect.  He may not have been the brightest bulb in the barn, but he stood by what he said and did what he said.  Many of his decisions ended up being questionable at best, others flat out wrong, while some did ring true as the right course of action.

But those days are over and we have a new monkey-like caricature as the face of our nation.

Unlike Bush’s black and white stance on virtually everything, Obama has taken ‘shades of gray’ and turned it into a political decision making process.

Since his election, Obama has been greeted warmly, given the benefit of the doubt, allowed certain freedoms that previous presidents weren’t given (like his trusty Blackberry), and dinner dates with his wife.  He’s also had ever every one of his policies meet a brick wall of real-world concerns that he needed not contend with while he preached bunnies and magical rays of sunshine during last year’s election campaign.

He’s also been the easiest president in modern history to break under pressure.  Republicans have blasted him for all manner of policy inadequacies; his socialist health care reform, and now his inability to decide foreign policy…or lack of foreign policy, if you don’t count dinner dates with foreign leaders to apologize for the last eight years.  

Until the death of Neda in Iran, Obama has been a spineless diplomat, frowning on the obvious atrocities taking place in Iran, while pushing his cigarette agenda and trying in vain to get people to blindly sign off on socialist reform.

Now, Obama has decided to threaten Iran with consequences if it does not resolve its conflict by the election on June 12, stopping short of cutting off a chance for diplomatic solution.  This comes after Republicans lambasted him for tap dancing around the crisis, essentially labeling Obama an ineffective humanitarian.

I’m not a fan of going in or staying out, but I did appreciate the days where we had a President who had some semblance of moral fiber.

Rob @ June 25, 2009

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>