by David Smith
With all due respect to my friend Moleman, I say: Forget the 12th Imam. Consider the Second Obama.
In one of those “I didn’t know the mic was hot” moments, President Obama was overheard reassuring the Russians that “After the election I will have more flexibility.” He was asking them to be patient in their demands that we back off from building our long-promised missile defens shield.
You should read the ABC News story here. You really should.
Obama has often been accused of “kicking the can down the road” by putting off controversial decisions until after he is re-elected.
The Keystone pipeline? Sorry, I need more time to think about it. Check with me in late November.
Action against Iran’s nuclear weapons program? Sorry, I’m still not sure they really want to make warheads. I’ll keep my eye on it. Maybe by December the picture will be clearer.
Building a missile defense shield so no other country (or insane militant America-hating theocracy) can attack us? Let’s talk about that next year.
This pattern raises a question. How does this flexibility work? What would he like to do but feels it unwise to do prior to the election?
The answer: Anything to lose votes.
Yes, but whose votes?
Hard-core Democrats will vote for him even if he allows oil drilling in the NPR building.
Hard-shell Republicans will vote against him even if he pilots the first bomber over the Iranian warhead factories.
So who decides elections? Moderates and Independents, that’s who.
So here is the electoral calculus: Do Moderates and Independents want us to promise not to defend ourselves against a missile attack? Are they worried that Czar Vladimir might be angry with us? Or do they want the president to defend the nation?
Do Moderates and Independents really want to protect us from Canadian oil? Do they really want to pay European prices for gas? Or do they want Obama to do everything possible to reduce gas prices?
Do Moderates and Independents want us to abandon our most loyal ally, and to tell Israel to learn to live with a nuclear-armed nutcase neighbor whose official slogan is “Death to Israel, Death to the USA.”
You know the answers. So does Obama.
So what would a re-elected Obama do with his new flexibility, when freed of the constraints imposed by his backwards-thinking fellow Americans?
1) Decide that Canadian oil is too dirty for our green future? Tell them to sell it to the Chinese? Let oil prices rise to Euro levels while we have GM produce algae-powered cars?
2) Decide to cancel that crazy Reaganesque missile-defense program?
3) Tell Israel it is now too late, it looks like Iran already has nuclear warheads, so we will all have to learn to get along?
Put it another way. If Obama, in the next few months, were to:
- Approve the Keystone pipeline, announcing “When I say all of the above, I mean ALL”;
- Tell Putin that we are going to install our missile shield for the US and Europe, saying “I cannot leave us needlessly open to nuclear attack from ANY quarter”;
- And cooperate with Israel in an attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons program, telling the world “We gave Iran every possible benefit of the doubt and opportunity to pull back from this madness. When I said every option was on the table, I meant it.”
…Would he be re-elected? Of course he would. Even I’d vote for him.
He won’t because he wants to enact points 1-3 above instead. And those will have to wait until November.