Barack Obama is reported to be angry that he is accused of giving good speeches that say nothing. Yet, that is why I consider Obama as especially DANGEROUS. People already seemingly want to hear symbolism/platitudes over substance. Politicians already go too far in pandering to this desire of people to "feel good", rather than to confront real issues in a substantive, reasoned way.
Obama was a finalist for this week's "Flying, Fickle Finger of Fate" award because of an egregious example of this very thing: Obama's statement that we "MUST eliminate gun violence" in this country. Obama, of course, had no apparent idea how to actually DO this. It just sounded good. That it is impossible, and that Obama has NO idea as to even how to start making it possible, does not matter--to Obama himself, or seemingly to others who like the way he says things.
I have commented today, and yesterday, on the eight people killed in a vehicle accident ("drag race" related) over the weekend. Plus, more than 42,000 people are killed EACH YEAR in this country in traffic accidents. Say Obama had said that we "MUST elimnate traffic deaths in this country." That is no more ridiculous than what he actually said about "gun violence", but he would probably be laughed at for that one--at least unless he proposed a way to REDUCE (not the impossible "eliminate") traffic accident deaths that made sense. Yet, traffic accidents kill MANY more people in this country than guns.
That is why Obama is so DANGEROUS. Even more than most recent politiicans, he is will to tell you that the Federal Government is the SOLUTION to ALL of your problems (without even arguing the point of whether it is truly able to solve them, or is the best place to even look for a solution). Is the PRESIDENT really responsible for "ending gun violence" in this country? I think not, just as the PRESIDENTT (and Federal Government in general) is not really responsible for traffic deaths in this country.
States, localities, and OURSELVES are the the best places to look for more accounable "solutions" to our problems that the bloated, inefficient Federal Government. "Central Planning" (i.e. communism and socialism) has been DISCREIDTED as the way to solve all problems. Yet, it is the directon we appear to be going, as people like Obama encourage us to believe that the PRESIDENT can solve all of our problems--as I said, a DANGEROUS man.
Is Obama REALLY saying that "gun violence" is more important than other violence? Of course he is not. He merely said that about gun violence PANDERING to the "gun control" fanatics in a way that "sounded good", while trying to avoid saying anything that would give gun owners the idea that Obama would take away their guns.
Is "knife violence" okay in this country? I hope not. Why not promise to end ALL viiolence in the country (as we all come together in the shining light from Obama). Well, again, if you say you are going to do that, people LAUGH at you. While if you say we must eradicate "gun violence", that "sounds good" to people (even though it is just as ridiculous).
Are not abused children (and MURDERED children, such as the children of Susan Smith and Andrea Yates) the vicitims of VIOLENCE? Of course they are. But it is no USUALLY "gun viiolence". Neither is "domestic violence" USUALLY "gun violence". So WHY is "gun violence" in this separate category? It is because leftist LIKE "central planning" govvernment solutions, and it is easy to propose a "feel good" "solution" to "gun violence": Have the government CONTROL ALL guns, so that people have to put their reliance in the government to protect them.
Oh, leftists have tried to make domestic violence and child abuse "national issues", and there are even Federal laws on the subjects (directing states what to do, and sayng, for example, that people are not allowed access to guns if conficted of domestic violence--eliminating them from law enforcement careers). Have you noticed that domestic violence and child abuse have been REDUCED? Neither have I. Federal laws are a "feel good" "solution", which rarely advance real progress. Again, the "central planning" approach has NEVER worked. Why do people keep assuming that it will, when there is no reason to believe each new addition to the bloated Federal Government's power will accomplish any more than the last one?
But Barack Obama is DANGEROUS for the very reason that he encourages this FANTASY that people have that substance does not matter; all you have to do is SAY that we MUST solve a problem, and that is just as good as actually doing something about the problem.
Yes, I think that this Barack Obama statement about how we "MUST eradicate gun violence" is a microcosm of his whole campaign. Is it really a qualification to be President to spout meaningless platitudes WELL? If you are Obama, and have no other qualification to be President,. it seems so. His accomplishments (or lack of same) certainly don't qualify him to be President. His limited voting record in the U.S. Senate is merely the most leftist around, while he has accomplished little (other than duck "embarrassing" votes, as he did in Illinois). Obama has not distinguished himself with and great POLICY ideas. His advocated policy ideas, when he bothers to get into policy, are standard leftist stuff. So his "qualifications" to be President boil down to that he looks and sounds good.
Is that where we have come to: we want a President who baslically promises us everything (without being specific), but has no substance to him? It may be so.
Again, that is why I find Obama so DANGEROUS (more dangerous than Hillary Clinton, who is probably no different on policy than Obama but is surely LESS able to CHARM voters into reading qualities into her that she does not have).