I think the thing that has frustrated me the most during the two terms of Barack Obama has been the efforts of Sen. Harry Reid to prevent Obama from acting as president. Other than the Affordable Care Act, Reid has not allowed any of the legislation passed in the House of Representatives to even come up for vote, let alone go to the president for action.
Reid has stymied the legislative system and derailed our constitutional government. I don’t believe he was acting alone. I believe his attitude is representative of the Democratic Party.
The first question to ask is: Why? Why would the party responsible for electing the first black president in our history than neuter him? Why prevent him from filling the position of the executive office? Why shield him from affirming or vetoing legislation which had been sent to his desk?
Is it possible that the most malicious form of racism motivated the leadership of the Democratic party? Did they select him for the candidacy simply because he could carry the minority vote? Was Obama merely the poster child for a new generation? Did they rely on our sense of past injustice to motivate us to elect him in the hope it would demonstrate the progress in race relations in the United States?
Did the Democratic Party use Obama to achieve political ends? Did they intentionally offer up a black candidate they thought electable but considered incompetent to be president? Is that why the media and the Democrats have protected him from the duties and responsibilities of president and relegated him to the position of the “King of the Campaign?”
It is OK to draft the first openly gay college football player, but then he must prove himself, not just sit on the bench. By the same measure, Obama should have had the opportunity to act as president and not be forced to sit on the bench because his own party doesn’t trust him. He should have been allowed to make the team or be cut. No entitlements, just the chance to prove himself.