It's a bit of conspicuous statement.  Follow the leader.  It implies that anyone with a following is a leader, or that anyone you're following is a leader.  Lemmings prove this to be a falsehood, as do party-loyalists who refuse to think on their own even in the face of the most damning evidence that one's philosophy is flawed.  This is not a phenomenon unique to democrats, both sides of the aisle have their sycophants.  Blind allegiance is certainly more pronounced now than it has been in a long time, though.

President Obama is tireless in the pursuit of his pet legislative projects.  The campaign to pass government-run health care has been stunning in its breadth and magnitude.  Indecisive on matters military, seemingly oblivious to our worsening economy, completely silent on cultural issues such as the demise of the traditional family structure, rampant violence, and a child pornography business that yields tens of billions of dollars a year in business, Obama is myopic, focused on the passage of a massive health care reform bill that half of the country does not want.

Indeed, the Queen of Vapidity herself, the reptilian Nancy Pelosi, scheduled a Congressional vote for, of all days, Saturday.  I imagine the shades will be drawn and all of the lights will be out, too.  In a perfect world, they could vote it in without informing the public at all.  Yes, that would be the same public that will be paying for this 1.2 trillion dollar, 2,000 page, disaster.

I wish I had a buck for every time I have heard the President and his Jonestown-like followers lament the awful stain on America, that not every single person, citizen or not, has health insurance.  I think our wanton disregard for the treatment of children in this country is a much bigger black-eye, as well as our increasingly violent youth.  Even Europe...yes, Europe, agrees with that.  Somehow, though, those issues get left on the bench, game after game after game.

Then again, to pause and reconsider, or to decide that the country can't afford this right now, or to insist that our elected leaders who will vote on this historically expensive legislation actually...gulp...read the bill, well...that kind  of bold decision would require leadership.  Anyone paying attention would have noticed long ago, and many of us did, Obama's inordinate number of "present" votes during his brief tenure in the Senate.  This, more than anything else, made me question his leadership abilities early on.  Frankly, I can't imagine why there is even a "present" button to be pressed.  I would think two buttons, a "yes" and a "no", would suffice.

Leadership is like parenting, in many ways, and imagine parenting your kids this way.  "Dad, someone offered me a cigarette at school today."  "Well, son, let's just say I'm 'present' "  Our President has issues, and one of them is an almost paralyzing fear of making any decision that would offend his "base", or a past donor, or an old friend from Chicago.  Could there be any other reason for his waffling on the Afghanistan decision?   Haven't we learned to let the Generals dictate strategy?  Can he not imagine the agony of our military, waiting for support, or absent support, to come home and end that war?  It is insulting that a Saturday vote is scheduled, not for an important military decision, but for a health care bill that practically nobody wants, absolutely nobody can explain or understand, and I haven't met anyone yet who wants to pay for it, or their kids and grandkids to pay for it.

And you know, it's no wonder we don't recognize leadership anymore, there is so little of it.  We barely seem to miss it, in fact, or perhaps have given up on the notion of great leaders inhabiting the Oval Office.  Just a few years ago we saw true leadership in action, when Senator McCain, to the horror of most of his republican counterparts, demanded that the troop surge be implemented in Iraq.  Republicans ran in the other direction, mortified, that while the entire country had simply had it with the Iraq war,  McCain would call for increasing troops.  He called Rumsfeld the worst Secretary of Defense in the history of the country.  And yet, that is leadership.  He put his political career on the train tracks, because it was more important to do what was best for the country, in his opinion, at that time.  I always smirk at political hacks who only go after corruption on the other side of the aisle.  McCain, like Palin, is an equal-opportunity reformer.  This is as it should be, and it lends credibility to their resume.

I believe fully, as well, had the country not made the inexplicable choice, in the 2000 election, of George Bush over John McCain, that we would not have gone to war in Iraq.  McCain has seen the spoils of war, up close and personal.  I don't believe he would have engaged Iraq with an under-equipped military and a half-hearted effort with no exit-strategy.  He may have engaged, but I believe it would have been a much different action, much more swift and effective, and most importantly, shorter.  We spent four years there treading water, at an incalculable cost in blood and treasure.  Now, we are repeating that history, as we pontificate over the suggestions of the Generals charged with winning the battle.  Either give it everything we've got, give these brave young men and women everything they need, and more, or get out.

Again, leadership is required here.  I am astonished at the tunnel-vision that this administration incorporates.  Much more interested in social engineering and income re-distribution than in making any difficult decisions, especially those that rock the base boat, this President seems increasingly in over his head.  Change?  I never thought I would say it, but that actually seems like a good idea...now.