M/cloudy
33°
M/cloudy
Hi 34° | Lo 24°

Letter: Hard to be proud of Obama

In a recent letter, a Bernard Ash suggested we should all be proud of Obama (Monitor, June 5).

While some readers may be convinced by Ash’s urging, many others of us are not. While the office of the president may be entitled to respect, the holder of that office must earn respect.

Ash seems to have missed some of the books on American history if he actually believes that Obama “took office with the worst mess in this country’s history.” I’m nearly 75 years ancient, and easily remember far more difficult challenges to be met by many earlier holders of that office.

One that comes to mind is the challenges faced by President Harry S. Truman in the final stage of a war with Japan he inherited when Franklin D. Roosevelt passed. Further, we seem to all be still waiting for the mess “correction” he suggests that Obama has “resolved.”

I’d further suggest that the only part racism played in the elections that resulted in the Chicago community organizer making it to the White House was that of the African-American community and their anxiety to have a black person elected to the presidency, qualified or not!

My own suggestion is that Ash reconsider holding his breath if he plans to wait for any history books to credit Obama with anything even remotely distant to “a truly great” presidency!

GEORGE KEIPER

Amherst

Legacy Comments9

I beg your pardon but "I’d further suggest..........making it to the White House was that of the African-American community and their anxiety to have a black person elected to the presidency, qualified or not!" You sir are either a racist or just not being very clear. What exactly makes one qualified? Do you think that Bush perhaps was even remotely qualified, never had a real job until he was elected Gov. and that was only due to daddy and political connections. So, I am sorry to say that you are wrong. If nothing else he has shown that he has successfully been elected to 2 terms, got where he is with no family money to back him and did it while being something that has never happened in the history of our country before he was elected. So I respect your opinion but I would wait before issuing such judgments, history has a way of changing things.

The poster is correct. We had one of the biggest turnouts of the black vote to get Obama elected. Race in my opinion was a very small part in why Obama got elected. The hatred for Bush got him elected and change was needed. Happens all the time in elections. The only folks who in fact focus on the color of our President are Dems. It is useful for them to inject race in every conversation. Bush was a governor, President Obama was a community organizer. In my opinion governors gain a lot of experience in that role that can in fact benefit them as President. As far as President Obama's money, we do not know who funded his college, never saw his college transcripts, and a heck of a lot of things about him are in fact hidden.. History will judge how every President handles their tenure. The idea that President Obama is unique in what he inherited is historically wrong. The only thing that is unique is that he pretty much gets a pass on his screw-ups. That is why we hear excuses, and the race card needs to be brought out again. An honest evaluation of President Obama will never be forthcoming from a Dem.

GCarson, it is not "racist" to tell it like it is. There were too many pundits to count who kept talking about how "historic" it would be to elect the first "African American" president and so many progressives on this site and others who talking about how it would be so "socially just" and "correct" to support him because he would be the first "African American" president. I did not like Bush and honestly Obama is much, much less qualified. He was elected to his first term because of all of the positive press and people were weary after Bush. His second term was not a landslide and he was supported by young people who I believe after Obamacare is now frustrated with him, Hispanics who are now negative on the president and through 10 positive stories about Obama to every 2 stories positive of Romney in the press. Obama was fed with the silver spoon of affirmative action and had lots of breaks. Honesty about Obama is not anything we will hear from Democrats. He could rob a bank in broad daylight and somehow, progressives would find a way to defend it.

Telling it like it is - Only Obamanistas think he is NOT the worst president.

From the bottomless wellspring of historical ignorance comes the ability to forget the incompetence of Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Calvin Coolidge (Reagan's favorite) and the corrupt administrations of Ulysses S. Grant, Warren G. Harding, Richard Nixon. "Telling it like it is" now seems to mean one's own eccentric notions. Obama will never be listed among the greatest (although history handed him a few opportunities), but worst? Give us all a break.

Hey there Gracchus . . . this native Vermonter takes offense to your classification of "Silent Cal" as incompetent. My state produced TWO Presidents - yours only one.

Sorry, Dan, as I'm sure the regular wingnuts who post here have already deduced (no, that gives their mental process too much credit - they guessed), I'm from Massachusetts; and we produced three. And, for better or worse, Coolidge ran for pres on his reputation as governor of Mass not as a bumpkin country lawyer from VT.

Oh, ok . . .Massachusetts . . . that explains it.

Cant control the debt - cant control the deficit, cant control the borders, gets his news from the media, ignores the constitution.....yea that ranks him last among the worst

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.