The Last Word on Dithering
Early into his presidency, the Beltway buzzword describing Barack Obama’s protocol of protracted reaction was dithering. Dick Cheney went one better, terming it waffling as Obama’s dawdling response to the role of American troops in Afghanistan facing an emboldened enemy.
In Obama’s Keystone XL Dithering, US News and World Report columnist Mort Zuckerman wrote of the economic cost of non-implementing a transformative link to American energy independence.
Obama’s most damaging, if not intentional delay came during the two-years Democrats controlled both Houses. With the economy in free-fall, Obama and the more hell-bent Nancy Pelosi, ramrodded, without one Republican vote, his paradigmatically-flawed signature healthcare program into law.
Obama and the State Department’s inaction and cover-up at the onset of the senseless slaughter of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, are as British investigative writer James Boys points out in Two Weeks to a Presidency, [Obama’s] “dithering over the Benghazi tragedy has done little to inspire confidence. His inability to present a comprehensive strategy for the next four years, in over four hours of debates, is equally troubling.”
Dithering has been more aptly replaced by a more conventional description of how Obama thinks, acts, or chooses not to act; leading from behind. In Richard Miniter’s book of the same name, a young, feral, impressionistic Obama is described as adopting the reactionary ascriptions of his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham. As president, Obama’s indecision and moodiness rely on the success or failures of female supporting players Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Valerie Jarrett.
While targeted phraseology promulgate the man and his failings, a second Obama term will further embolden a more disturbing, self-opportunistic pattern this president has already acted on; habitually skirting Congress to implement changes where he believes cooperation is lacking.
In bypassing formal legislation, Obama’s liberal agenda is predominant, witnessed in his executive fiat on welfare-to-work requirements; landmark legislation for its bipartisan efforts in 1996 under Bill Clinton.
The problem a Romney administration faces in rejuvenating the workforce stem from the hangers-on to Obama’s predilection that entitlement exists in being laconic, resentful and rooted in indignation; that welfare no longer represents failure, but failure to go out looking for or preparing for work is rewarded as a condition to receive aid.
Unable to bridge the separation of powers or reach across the aisle, Obama used authoritative action to personally overhaul the Dream Act. As Republicans consolidate their power in Congress after November 6th, an Obama replay would be more of the same, doing whatever it takes to get his way.
Resolute action is not in Obama’s repertoire. Little his defenders say about the number of times he was swift to act are pretentious. His self-proclaimed achievement of hanging Osama bin Laden’s head above his mantle was over 12 months in the making, and impossible without interrogatory information he chastised his predecessor’s tactics to attain.
One possible way for Obama to win reelection is for great numbers of voters to remain ignorant of the true natures of both party candidates on Election Day.
If enough of the nation’s electorate grasp a moderate understanding of the differences between these men, Americans will choose someone who acts fast and purposeful on his directives. It will usher in a new era of economic prosperity and resolve, because Mitt Romney is a man who will not dither. There’s simply no time.