For well over a year now, conservatives have warned voters that Barack Obama is more about style than substance at a time when global challenges require hard core leadership and experience in the Oval Office.
In other words, although being "clean and articulate" is cool, our next president and commander-in-chief must bring substantive credentials to the job.
Nonetheless, aided and abetted by a fawning media behaving more like teenage girls chasing a rock star than an objectively critical Fourth Estate, Obama has triangulated a wink and a nod into national prominence and the apparent nomination of the Democrat Party.
Hiding behind a charismatic smile and the nebulous promise of CHANGE, Obama has taken America by storm by simply campaigning against George W. Bush and the status quo (including Hillary Clinton).
A typical Obama speech sounds and looks great on the evening news, but is memorable only by being amazingly unmemorable. "What exactly did he just say?" is a common question posed by those who actually bother listening to and pondering the senator's words.
However, Obama's skating act may soon be running out of luck: Until recently, the Iraq war has been the dominant issue confronting voters in 2008. Obama has done well by simply opposing the unpopular war without detailing what an Obama presidency would do differently.
Nevertheless, voter priorities are quickly changing as the price of gasoline approaches $5.00 a gallon. Energy is becoming the issue causing the greatest angst among the American electorate.
When it comes to energy and the cost of gasoline, Barack Obama and liberals are clearly on the wrong side of the issue.
For instance, bring up drilling offshore and ANWR and Obama's answer is NO! because it will take too long, perhaps as many as five years to make more domestic oil available.
Of course, what Obama and liberals consistently refuse to admit is that we have to start somewhere, sometime!
After all, oil is not going to decline in value and, in fact, may cause gasoline prices to soar another 2-3 dollars, or more, in the next five years
Ask Obama about nuclear power and he says NO! because it is too dangerous and expensive.
Better to invest billions for the government to come up with a scheme to convert butterfly dung into battery power, right senator?
Ask Obama about adding refining capacity and he says NO! because of concerns about the environment and the long lead-time.
And on and on!
The bottom line: Barack Obama and liberals have no answers to America's energy problems, except to reduce demand through higher taxes and by eliminating reliance on the automobile.
Neither of these "solutions" is acceptable, especially since America can achieve energy independence by developing our own God-given domestic resources.
Perhaps wrongheaded obstruction by liberals and "style over substance" may eventually end up costing the Democrat Party?
If so, that would be a good thing!
John W. Lillpop is a recovering liberal. “Clean and sober” since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. For years, John lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, the very liberal sanctuary city which protects, rather than prosecutes, certain favored criminals. John escaped the Bay Area in May and now lives in Pine Grove California where conservative values are still in vogue.
