If you haven't figured out by now, my political leanings are right of center, but not far right. I thought that President Obama deserved a chance to bring change about in our country after he was elected. I still respect the office of the President, but I am disappointed at his performance and accomplishments to date. The President is an exceptional campaigner but, in my opinion, not a leader. A leader would be working nonstop to figure out ways to work with a Republican House of Representatives to address the gridlock on key issues facing our country, but he hasn't. I am not letting Speaker Boehner off the hook either, but the President ran his campaign on his ability to reach consensus and to change the direction of the country. Again, in my opinion, that hasn't happened.
The subject of today's blog is actually the Washington Post. I read the Post daily for a perspective that for the most part is different from mine. I learn a lot though my daily read of the Post, but find the editorials the most difficult to find common ground with, at least until recently. There was a recent editorial that the Washington Post needed to begin to look at the President with a more critical eye. My reaction was, yeah right, when hell freezes over, which would have been the same if Fox News said that they were going to take a more critical look at President Bush when he was in office. To my amazement, there was an editorial in the Post the other day that was critical of the President. The editorial was about President Obama as Campaigner in Chief written by Dana Milbank. The editorial is linked for your review. So, I stand corrected and appreciate Mr. Milbank's perspective on the issue, especially since the issue is an important one for our country.