If I were President

There has been much controversy surrounding President Obama's courageous speech, and cowardly retraction on the NYC mosque issue.  As an independent who cast my vote for him, this moment in history will weigh heavily in his disfavor come the 2012 election cycle.

Here is why.  If I were president, I would have taken this opportunity to define a new course for religion's role in our nation's future.  This new vision would incorporate tolerance for those of all faiths, while adamantly stressing that violent extremism of any kind, be it from fundamentalist Christian militia's, or Muslims on Jihad, will not be tolerated. 

I would have shown compassion for the Muslim people's current situation.  I would pull examples from our nation's own Christian history to demonstrate how the absurdly cruel acts of a few extremists, in the name of Christ, does not define the mainstream principles of the religion as a whole.

Above all, I would have reaffirmed the right of the group in NYC to build their mosque/culture center where ever they see fit, be it 2 blocks from ground zero, or right next door.  I would have shown that I understand the importance of reaffirming the strength of the constitution, and the rights it confers.

By retracting on his original support for this project,  President Obama not only botched a perfect opportunity for starting a real dialogue to begin to finally heal the wounds from 9/11.  He also showed that he is too afraid to stand with the minority, even when he knows that we are right.
___
9/10
In a news conference referenced in this article by Ed Henry, Obama finally stepped up to the plate.  His most forceful statement condoning the construction of the mosque near Ground Zero, as well as his support of Islam in general are notable.

"'If you could build a church on a site, you could build a synagogue on a site. If you could build a Hindu temple on a site, then you should be able to build a mosque on the site.'" President Obama

"'I will do everything that I can as long as I am president of the United States to remind the American people that we are one nation under God, and we may call the God different names, but we remain one nation.'" President Obama

Three weeks have gone by since I first wrote this post.  The news conference where these statements were made was taped yesterday.  In the nearly three weeks that have elapsed since the media latched onto the mosque story, it has been in the headlines, if not the main headline, nearly everyday.  Though I don't think the President should always play into the media's endless circus, in this case I do believe he waited far too long to speak firmly, and passionately on the topic.

Given that this controversy coincided with Ramadan, and further given the upcoming anniversary of 9/11, radicals on both sides are emotional.  People that are uneducated to begin with tend to act even less intelligently when under emotional duress.

I hope that time proves me wrong, but I believe that Obama let this mosque controversy get so off course that, at this point, there is no easy, and fair, solution for resolving it.  People needed to be hearing the two messages above loud and clear, everyday, from the moment the story emerged.  Now, it will continue to fuel the anti-Islam sentiment that pervades this mostly Christian nation.

Which leads me to wonder...why is it mostly atheist like me that are leading the charge to protect Muslims right to practice their religion?  I know how Thomas Jefferson felt now when he was battling for the separation of church and sate.
___
9/11
While babysitting this morning, I came across an article in Newsweek by Jacob Weisberg.  It was titled "Obama's Moral Cowardice."  Mr. Weisberg did an excellent job of listing the morally significant opportunities Obama missed.

One quote that struck me as important to save for posterity was in regards to Obama's negative reaction when Judge Walker ruled in favor of marriage rigths for gays.  Mr. Weisberg wrote:

"How dismal that America's first black president will be remembered as shirking the last civil-rights struggle."
(Source:  Newsweek, September 13, 2010, page19)
___
11/5
Henry in the House:  Does Obama get it?  (CNN, by Ed Henry, 11/4/2010)

As I read Ed Henry's criticism of Obama's press conference following the mid-term elections on Tuesday, I was surprised by how much I agreed with the White House correspondent from CNN.  It's not that I don't like Ed Henry, I do.  But, as an early Obama supporter from his home state of Illinois, I have, until now, been defensive when people critique the first two years of his Presidency.  But, the further I got into Mr. Henry's piece, the clearer my mind became.  This line in particular sealed the deal for me:

"Obama basically spoke like someone who makes a mistake but doesn't directly apologize, instead saying something to the effect of 'I'm sorry if you were offended.'"

As I read that seemingly simple line, I had to take a deep breath, and a long sip of my coffee to let it's truth completely resonate through my brain.  "I'm sorry if you were offended."  These words accurately describe how I interpret the President's stance on the promises he made during the campaign, but has blatantly failed to fulfill.

Take health care.  He promised to battle big insurance companies, and negotiate with drug manufacturers.  Instead, he did neither, giving in to the same old hidden agendas and back door meetings of past administrations.  But this time, a new law did emerge, and it covers everyone, without tackling the real issue of cost controls.  In fact, I would go so far as to say Big Pharma and insurance conglomerates look to profit from "Obama Care."  Mr Obama does seem sorry if his ex-supporters are offended, but he is not apologizing, or attempting to correct his mistakes.

Then there is Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  I have never seen a politician go back and forth on an issue so many times.  And let's not forget the bailout, and TARP fund distribution, and the oil spill.  He seems sorry for the problems associated with each of these issues, but again, there is no corrective action being taken.  And definitely no apology.

I know that I am being harsh, but I feel that the President's nonchalant "I'm sorry if you're offended" attitude deserves such a defiant response.  How are his ex-supporters suppose to answer the same questions asked of the President at press conferences, when he needs to use his "leader of the free world" status to get away with cheap responses?

If I were President, I would have taken the press conference on Wednesday as a way to address the American people with a list of apologies, or at least acknowledgments that things may not have turned out exactly as planned.   Instead, he is making Americans feel like we are the ones who should be apologizing for not understanding his Presidential logic.

As an amateur author, I am learning that 50% of the writing process (and, arguably the most important part), is editing.  Though I may think the words my hands are feverishly typing the first time I attempt to get my point across clearly and concisely are perfect, my thorough revising always proves otherwise.  By the time I go to publish a post this size, it has undergone dozens of tweaks.   When I first started writing, I limited my editing, thinking too many changes meant that I was stupid the first time around.  Now, I realize that editing is part of the process.  But in order to edit, one first needs to admit mistakes were made.

Mr. Obama needs to realize that there are no negative repercussions from editing.  Being President is the hardest job in the world, and he is attempting to do it during one of the hardest times.  There is no shame in admitting mistakes were made during the first go-around.  He is only demonstrating his arrogance by standing behind decisions we all know could have used a little tweaking.
___
3/13

If I were President, I would not have let the people of Libya down.  I would have recognized their fight for democracy and freedom by offering any and all support possible.  What kind of message does it send that the biggest, best democracy in the world stood by and watched an obvious tyrant stamp the revolutionary spirit out of the people?  What other country will ever stand up to a dictator if it knows no help will be forthcoming from the rest of the world?  I am ashamed of my countries stance in this instance, and if I were President, would have authorized assistance to the Libyan people.
___
3/18

With the UN in agreement, the US has decided it is finally time to step-up and help the Libyan people.  What irks me is that we went to war in Iraq without UN help, and the people there were not asking for help.  On the other hand, we have waited for UN support to stand up to Gadhafi in Libya, despite the people's desperate cries for assistance.  Hopefully it isn't too late to make a difference.
___
6/12
NYT: US funds Internet detour around censors  (by James Glanz and John Markoff, 6/12/2011)

As I read the above linked article, I was for once proud to be an American.  "The Obama administration is leading a global effort to deploy 'shadow' Internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring or shutting down telecommunications networks," it began.  It goes on to describe a program straight out of spy movies, right down to the mysterious, technologically equipped suitcase. 

But then I read this line:  "Mrs. Clinton has made Internet freedom into a signature cause. But the State Department has carefully framed its support as promoting free speech and human rights for their own sake, not as a policy aimed at destabilizing autocratic governments."  LAME!

If I were President, I would end the game of charades.  This new technology represents the exact anti-thesis of what the "autocratic regimes" of the world strive to maintain: uneducated minds.  The attempt by the state department to separate the action from the actor undermines everything this program should stand for. 

But, then again, perhaps the Obama administration is afraid of seeming too hypocritical.  After all, hardly a day goes by where I don't see the words "According to Wikileaks..." somewhere in an article.  And Mr. Manning is sitting in jail, awaiting a trial as a traitor for decimating information to an uninformed populace.