President Obama Was the Wrong Person, at the Right Time

Posted: Apr 06, 2014 12:01 AM

I find it excusable that this nation would overlook the warning signs when they first embraced Barack Obama as their president. Electing this eloquent, Harvard-educated husband, father, and United States Senator was America’s attempt at validating the racial reconciliation where she believed herself to have finally arrived. Barack Obama was, simply put, exactly the wrong person to come along at exactly the right time.

While our traditions and the founding fathers’ wisdom reject the notion of royalty, we appreciate resplendent statesmanship in a president and pageant respectability in the first family. People saw an opportunity to rekindle several unrequited aspirations in a single election. It was not so long before 2008 that America’s short-lived chapter of Camelot had come to an abrupt and tragic end in Dallas. One year earlier and just 245 miles to the south, at Rice University, John Kennedy delivered the landmark vision for his presidency by declaring that “We choose to go to the Moon.”

Kennedy’s challenge was to become the pinnacle achievement of the Twentieth Century. The associated development of technology would advance civilization, improve everyone’s quality of life, provide an enormous return on investment, and drench every American in patriotic pride. “The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. Technical institutions, such as Rice, will reap the harvest of these gains.And finally, the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great number of new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Space and related industries are generating new demands in investment and skilled personnel, and this city and this State, and this region, will share greatly in this growth.”

Kennedy’s astronomical inspiration dwarfs the signature achievement of the Obama presidency. While benefiting nearly everyone on the planet for the foreseeable future, the Apollo program cost Americans around $25 billion. Over a similar period of time, Obamacare is projected to cost 100 times that amount – while declining the quality of healthcare – while deceiving the public – while dividing the nation – while intimidating and punishing citizens through IRS enforcement.

It is one of life’s great quandaries that the very nation who elected John F. Kennedy would also invite Barack Obama back for a second term. We knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of ours. And, Mr. President, you’re no Jack Kennedy.

So did the country lose its mind in 2008 and again in 2012? I say, “No.” Election campaigns are 50% science and 50% art, matching the makeup of the electors’ judgment mechanism. Americans were presented with poor choices, and they were left with only poor decisions. Let’s hope for a break from that pattern in 2016.

There are three constants in presidential elections: the ideological right who will reliably vote for the Republican nominee, the ideological left who will reliably vote for the Democratic nominee, and the passively enslaved who will also reliably vote for the Democratic nominee. Then, we have the three variables; the cheaters, the uninformed unaffiliated, and the constitutional conservatives.

The cheaters will make a difference in close races. They are equipped and encouraged by Democratic lawmakers at the state level who pave the way for shenanigans by organized liberal scofflaws. The tools provided by Democratic state legislators include no-photo-ID, vote-day registration, and sloven mail ballot databases. Republicans need to generate a turnout that can win beyond the margin of fraud in close states.

The uninformed unaffiliated voters are sadly characterized by having little understanding on which to base their vote. The country is better off when this group gets caught up in SimCity and forgets to cast a ballot altogether. But messaging usually has its way with them, either through inspiration or, more often, fear.

The most influential variable in who takes the presidential race is the constitutional conservative voter turnout. These are the folks who take this stuff most seriously. To them, the rallies, bumper stickers, and inspirational ads are inconsequential. They listen to the speeches, study the wording of impromptu responses and, above all, make note of the candidates’ history while in their previous roles as governor or legislator.

Mitt Romney was preferable to constitutional conservative voters over Barack Obama, only not enough to motivate them to give him their vote. And it is for this reason – please take note, Republican leadership – that nearly four million constitutional conservative voters stayed home in 2012; That while Mitt Romney compared favorably to Barack Obama, his history as an elected official did not compare favorably to the United States Constitution.

Common Core runs in stark conflict with the Constitution and the sensibilities of constitutional conservatism. Red states are shooting down this most recent statist fad with a renewed love for liberty. The takeaway here: If Jeb Bush becomes the Republican nominee for president in 2016, four million constitutional conservative voters will focus instead on other aspects of their lives that they feel deserve their attentions. And Democrats will begin the celebration early for President Hillary.