Ordinarily, I find Chris Stirewalt of Fox News on-line to be a level headed, clear thinking writer who filters issues well in delivering opinions regarding current news events. I also sense no real bias in his writing, just commentary's presenting his thoughts on the matters at hand.
However, I think today he plowed right into his article without taking a step back and giving enough consideration to his subject, the incumbent, consequently giving the POTUS far more credit than he deserved. I write that because I too made some observations on the same issues, but reached considerably different conclusions .
At the outset, I certainly agree with Mr.Stirewalt when he states that “The president has paid little attention to the ideological and philosophical structure of the Democratic Party and will not leave the kind of legacy in the party that the Clintons and other Democratic presidents have.” However, Mr. Stirewalt then goes on with, “But Obama is seemingly preoccupied with what the Republicans think and say and do, finding almost all of it unacceptable.”
The columnist further opines that “Obama is hoping to force Republicans back to their pre-Reagan and pre-George W. Bush posture as a moderate party that exists mostly as a check on Democratic excesses – the loyal opposition. Obama envisions the GOP as American Tories, in agreement with Democrats on the role of the government as an instrument of social justice and on an interventionist, internationalist foreign policy but quibbling over expense and execution.”
Mr. Stirewalt then adds his thought that, “But another part of this is about Obama’s personal desire to impose his will on Washington. The president apparently believes his liberal critics who say that he was too conciliatory in his first term and is getting ready to begin round two by throwing haymakers.”
Now, where my train of thought moves in another direction stems from my taking the time to consider who Mr. Stirewalt is really talking about. Because, no matter how you analyze choices the incumbent makes, I believe you have to consider that he’s absolutely unqualified to make most executive decisions because he has neither the experience nor capability required, nor has he grown into the job he now holds.
So, I really don’t think there’s any strong ideological basis involved in anything the incumbent does. I would also not be surprised if most conclusions emanating from the oval office were made by someone else. Because I simply can’t see how someone who hadn’t an iota of experience required in preparation for the job could suddenly become qualified purely because they were elected to that position.
Consequently in conclusion, while I can certainly understand someone like Mr. Stirewalt who’s used to commenting on those who hold positions they merit, I think in this case he got a bit carried away. And that’s why I also believe that if he takes a few moments of time to consider who he’s really writing about, he’ll conclude as I did that there’s no political agenda on the incumbent’s part whatsoever, because he hasn’t the knowledge, experience or wherewithal to understand or employ one.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment