Like-ability Doesn't Mean Getting The Job Done
The word - like-ability - in the headline isn't meant to say that a person being likable equates to them having the "ability" to get the job done. Such is the case with Barack Hussein Obama. I keep seeing polls about how likable Obama is. However "like" doesn't mean he has the qualifications, or experience, to be able to manage this nation effectively. In fact, what we can clearly see is that he cannot cut the mustard when it comes to being a chief executive officer.
It has been pointed out, and many times proven, that if people choose their leaders the best qualified aren't necessarily chosen to get the job. Then the likable person is faced with trying to do a job they are unqualified for. That is what our nation has put up with for close to four years now in the form of Barack H. Obama. Choosing a leader based upon the cult of personality, or charisma for that matter, more often than not results in less than stellar results.
The first instance I will use has to do with make believe. Everyone remembers Erkel and most people couldn't help but like the little fella even though he was a complete idiot and proved it over and over many times. His like-ability was harmless but we weren't going to be stupid enough to let him be in charge of so much as a lemonade stand much less the most powerful nation on earth.
Yes, You Did! You Tried Your Plan And It Worked? When?
The next comparison is a bit more ominous and is being made strictly from a historical perspective concerning how a likable person, having the oratorical ability of persuasion, can become very popular with the people. The possibility exists for that person to become a Pied Piper for disaster. That person was Adolph Hitler. He rose to power based upon his ability, as a powerful orator, to use nothing more than rhethoric to persuade the German people that if they followed him he would lead them out of harms way. You can either see the parallel between what Obama promised four years ago and the skilled oratory of Hitler or deny it and call people a racist or whatever. Hitler was a racist. I am not.
The parallel deserves examination. One was a house painter and the other's claim to fame was as a community organizer. That equates to being a rabble rouser in my minds's eye. Though both could "tell a good story" neither of them had the business experience, knowledge of economics nor foreign policy experience to lead a nation effectively. Both convinced the masses to let them have a period of "on-the-job" training in order to get up to speed in leading a powerful nation. In either case, the people's ear's got bent by empty promises, sometimes just out right lies, knowing exactly what the people needed, and wanted, to hear at the time. Both men over promised but by doing so they both became very likable.
Here's A Starry Eyed 2008 Obama Supporter Who Got To Interview Herself Today
Seems odd doesn't it that after watching this administration flounder around like a fish out of water for over three years that people need to be reminded that we shouldn't elect anyone to run a nation based upon a popularity contest? Being popular doesn't equate to being competent. Being likable doesn't have much to do with competence either. But polls are showing that, as a question, is being asked. Who is more likable Romney or Obama? Who cares? McCain was leaping tall buildings at a single bound experience wise compared to Obama who has none. But Obama convinced too many people that he had all the answers when he had nothing but a hot teleprompter telling him what needed to be said.
The head scratcher is that people polled believe 2 to 1 that Mitt Romney, based upon his executive and business experience alone, is far better qualified to deal with the nation's economic problems than the current inhabitant of the White House. Obama has spent $100 million attempting to discredit Romney's business experience and his time with Bain Capital. But 63% of respondents feel Romney has better qualifications than Obama. A mere 29% put that label on Obama.
There was a roll reversal when the like-ability question was asked. That does indeed say something about how Americans would rather be entertained than pay close attention. There has to be a difference between entertainment and the ability and qualifications to get the job done as President of the United States. It would be nice to have both but which one is more important to the overall health, wealth and welfare of the American tax payer? It is sad when the last Presidential debates took a back seat to American Idol and Dancing With The Stars.
Two Likable Buffoons But...
I liken it to going to the doctor. If I go to the doctor, even though I happen to like the guy but he can't fix what the ailment is I will go find another doctor who can. The same would apply to just about all everyday tasks we do. We generally seek competence even though we might find someone very likable, we still seek out the person who can deal with the issues we face.
I'm not sure why that doesn't apply to politicians but looking around at the incompetence of our public servants, maybe we need to find better servants or at least those who can do what they are told to do when we send them there. Just because you like Obama is one thing. Go have a beer with him and yuck it up. When it comes to running this nation you have now seen how his like-ability doesn't equate to the sheer ability to run this nation's economy.
Just because you like someone doesn't mean they are qualified to be the POTUS. Just because they like you doesn't mean you are either. Afterall, it is the economy stupid.
The Frog Prince