Shortly after the Fort Hood shootings, Obama speaks live on television with all the humanity of a brick.

One could argue that former President George W. Bush’s use of the English language was at times cartoonish, even Geraldo-esque, with such comments as “evil-doers” and “the axis of evil.” He was roundly criticized on a daily basis for what many considered overly-simple thoughts. Simple, as it pertained to Bush, was a negative. Clear, definitive statements were frowned upon by the New York Times and repeated by much of the media.

President Obama on the other hand, has exactly the opposite approach; he is universally praised as being an exceptional orator, able to turn a phrase that melts audiences with emotion and intellect. But can you recall any famous Obama phrases? Do your prefer directness, such as Bush’s “root out terrorists,” or Obama’s decidedly vague, overly-vanilla “overseas contingency operations”?

Bold and unequivocal statements with simple, crisp messages are seldom uttered by Obama. Instead, heavily poll-tested phrases are strategically placed together much like a snappy jingle for a television commercial where you find yourself humming along but cannot recall the message. Was it Coke or Pepsi? Hope or change? Phrases like “economic equality” and “economic justice” contain familiar, even comforting words, but their meaning is loath to the audience even as they nod in lemming-like agreement to what “sounds” correct.

In the anomaly that was this past presidential election, word spread quickly of Obama’s speeches and rallies. People fainted as he spoke of hope and change. But what else did he really say? Was it what he said that moved crowds, or what people thought he said?

During the campaign Obama was able to get away with flowery rhetoric, hyperbole and cleverly-worded phrases. He was a fresh face, a blank canvas, and each listener was able to paint their hope for change upon the words of this new candidate.

Having won election, his words are more closely scrutinized. No longer able to use a lack of a resume, remarkably, as an asset, Obama can now be studied. When he says he does not want to own a car company even as his administration absorbs Chrysler, the words seem familiar, the cadence reminiscent of the campaign. But his actions belie his words.

When Obama says he has no interest in running a bank, even as his administration takes over financial institutions, we see words at odds with deeds. When Obama speaks of his health care reform bill and what it does and does not contain, one does not so easily get distracted, realizing instead that there is no Obama bill, only variations being written by others.

Promises, however colorful, speeches, however well-delivered, must ultimately be less effective when people can see, finally, actions that do not in any way subscribe to promises made.

Shortly before the election, Obama spoke yet again to a large, enthusiastic crowd thirsty for change. He made a remarkably clear, decisive statement that now, upon reflection, one wonders how it was so well received.

“We are just five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

As the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall approaches, President Obama has chosen not to attend. While I am amazed at this decision, I am angered by his empty reason, stating simply that he is “too busy.”

Too busy? This coming from a President who has time to fly to Copenhagen and personally pitch for the the Olympics? Too busy? This from a man who has endless time to wage war with factions of American media which he deems non-state-approved? This from a man who has played more golf in 10 months than President Bush played in two years?

The fall of the Berlin wall is unequivocally one of the most important events I’ve witnessed during my life, as it is many others. When President Reagan uttered those now famous words, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” words which almost didn’t make it into the final speech save for Mr. Reagan’s insistence, it marked not only a decisive moment for American liberationism, but an equal denial of Soviet Marxist encroachment that had darkened that corner of the world for so long. For a proud, assertive U.S. President to call out the Soviets in front of the eyes of the world, it was a moment forever embedded in the minds of many, a global scolding by Reagan to Gorbachev, not behind closed doors, but in the open air for the world to witness.

But President Obama is, unfortunately, too busy to attend the anniversary of this monumental day. I suspect that President Obama does have the time. I suspect he isn’t going because it would put him at an event in which the ghost of a bold, proud U.S. President would upstage him, where a famous speech and a historic day would necessarily reduce any Obama-speech to a shallow, pastel-patchwork of generic references that, again, would be upstaged by the memory of a strong leader and what that strong leader did on that day.

President Obama does not want to be upstaged. His speeches require stacked audiences, Styrofoam Greek pillars, ever more numerous teleprompters. A speech from the heart, written on paper, the way many great leaders have done, well, that is simply not the kind of over-produced, micro-managed style to which President Obama demands.

Another reason President Obama will not be attending comes from J.E. Dyer, in a wonderful post at Hot Air, in which he says, “Yet for Obama it seems not to matter much at all.  Oddly enough, he was born only a few days before East Germany began building the wall, on the night of 13 August 1961.  He did spend the 1980s in a different way, dabbling in the Nuclear Freeze movement while he was at Columbia, going to Harvard Law, and becoming a community activist in Chicago.  Perhaps the liberation of Eastern Europe from the Soviet yoke does mean less to him than it does to many of us.”

Dyer continues: “It’s entirely possible, in light of his many criticisms of the United States, that he believes we were at fault for whatever was going wrong in Europe between 1945 and 1989 anyway.  Perhaps his view is, as the more left-leaning of Western leftists argued in the 1970s and ‘80s, that the Berlin Wall was erected because we were too bellicose and threatening, and gave the Communists of East Germany no choice.”

Whatever the reason for President Obama’s decision not to go, he has once again done exactly the opposite of what my gut tells me a U.S. President should do, and in that manner at least, he has not disappointed.

After weeks of speculation by talking heads on cable networks, after multiple visits by President Obama to New Jersey and Virginia, the votes are in and Conservatives have spoken….loudly!

In Virginia, Republicans swept all key races, including Attorney General and of course Bob McDonnell’s enormous Governorship win over Democrat challenger Creigh Deeds. In New Jersey, a deep blue, pastel, Democratic state, Republican Challenger Chris Christie won despite his incumbent Corzine’s deep pockets and the full frontal assault from the White House on his behalf.

These wins represent not only voter’s disappointment over local leaders, it is a clear statement against the Liberal direction the Obama administration has taken since inauguration day. Voters have spoken in bold colors. No pastels here dear reader. In the first opportunity to vote since Obama’s immaculation, citizens have decisively voiced their disdain over big government and its unapologetic march toward a socialist state.

But this may be only a preview of what’s to come in the 2010 midterm elections. There are many reasons to believe that Conservatives will continue to attack the GOP and insist they support vibrant, articulate conservatives, rather than wishy-washy can’t-we-all-just-get-along moderates. GOP Chairman Michael Steele should get this message loud and clear: We want real choices, real alternatives.

As for the 23rd district of New York and Hoffman’s run to win, the final results are not in at this writing. However, when you consider the fact that this was a special election with no primary, and consider that the GOP backed a Liberal in Republican clothing (a Liberal who intimated that she might even switch parties after the election), and you can see that the GOP still has not learned its lesson. Now, with Virginia and New Jersey’s election results in, the GOP better acknowledge the results and forge ahead in a search for powerful, conservative candidates to back and assist in upcoming elections.

Virginia and New Jersey are big wins for Conservatives. These races make clear a deep need for the Republican party to return to the core values that won Ronald Reagan two landslide victories. It should be a deafening wake-up call for any candidate moving forward that people don’t want “R’s” in front of their names, they want passion and resolute loyalty to core conservative principles.

Tonight’s victories were due to the impressive turnout of working Americans who are disenchanted with the current course of this Administration and it’s plans to feed an ever-growing, inefficient, out-of-touch government apparatus run my Liberal elite, east coast extremists who believe government knows what’s best.

Tonight was an exciting victory, but only a small peek at what is to come in 2010. We at The Persistent Conservative salute all who turned out the vote and made their voices heard. You rock!