If You Want a Freind in D.C. - Buy a Dog!

Wall Street has welcomed Obama's victory but not cheerfully - it is raining on his parade.

Ed Wright, not the Reverend, writes the GOP's problems have been in the making for more than eight years. Wright is correct about the fact Bush could never make friends with current partisan enemies in D.C. The Tip Oneil's and Moynihan's are a far cry from the Pelosi's and Reids's.

Partisanship is a natural D.C. condition. It can be overcome with clear thinking, policies that work and come to be embraced by the great unwashed. Bush got hammered for his attempts at being bi-partisan and was seldom credited by detractors when he was right. Even Sen. Kennedy bit GW's hand, no stabbed him in the back publicly is more like it, on their joint efforts regarding education legislation.

Partisanship is one thing, mean spiritedness and contemptible and snide commentary ( AKA Murtha, Reid etc.) is another matter. Liberals have every right to fight hard for what they believe in and I would expect no less. How they go about it leaves room for acts of decency and comity. So it is with conservatives. They should stand up for their principles but they too can do so in a fair way and in the spirit of even handedness.

If Bush wanted to govern by being nice he should have stayed in Crawford and not come to D.C. offering 'Conservatism Lite' according to Wright. I totally agree. If you believe in conservatism then do it and be it, ie walk the walk and talk the talk. GW mostly failed at both.

Truman was right when he said: "if you want a friend in D.C. buy a dog." (See 1 below.)

Troy suggests we have come a long way but being repulsed over a murderer turned loose is one thing. Electing Obama is another and the two are very far apart. A catchy headline maybe. (See 2 below.)

Some Arab reactions to Obama's election. (See 3 below.)

Victor David Hanson offers some cogent advice. (See 4 below.)

This is the week of Kristallnacht when Germans decided they would systematically purge their nation of Jewish citizens and destroyed homes, commercial enterprises and synagogues. (For some cold statistics see 5 below.)

There are some reporters who believe the appointment of Rahm Emanuel, who is Jewish, as Obama's "Chief of Staff," is sending a signal to Arabs. I doubt they remember GW's current Chief of Staff, Bolton, is also Jewish.

Today Emanuel sent verbal roses to Republicans telling them it was time to kiss and make up. When GW won he was hammered for four years, deemed the illegal president and had to suffer untold indignities and by whom? Now the same two faced politicians are extending an olive branch. Republicans would be wise to be wary of enemies bearing gifts because, in the day to day operation of Congress, the minority will continue to be frozen out and stiffed at committee hearings and run rough shod by various majority chairs. That is the way of DC and honey like overtures from Emanuel are more a siren song trap than a sincere desire to be evenhanded.

Burton and West write about presidential security. (See 6 below.)


Have a nice weekend.

Dick



1) GOP Defeat and the 'New Tone'
By C. Edmund Wright

Tuesday's debacle was some 8 years in the making. Or more.

Consider: Eight years ago, George Bush rode into town from Texas with one thing on his mind: bringing a "new tone to Washington." He was going to use his Texas charm and drawl to end all of the partisan bickering. This was a tad dispiriting to some of us who had supported him frankly. We were thinking more along the lines of some partisan victories in congress to roll back some liberalism. Actually, only Bush wanted a new tone. Neither his supporters nor his opponents had even the vaguest interest in it, dooming it from the start.

(What does this have to do with McCain v. Obama? Everything. Stick with me.)

Nontheless, with the new tone, its architect Karl Rove was going to fashion a "permanent Republican majority" governing coalition. We're not sure what this new permanent coalition was going to accomplish exactly, since the operational foundation of the new tone turned out to be giving in on your principles so as to be universally loved. Nonetheless, Bush and Rove were confident it would work. To ensure it, they were quick to "reach across the aisle" to let ultra-liberals like Ted Kennedy and John Edwards form policy time to time.

Well damned if Bush didn't pull it off after all, in a Bizzaro-world fashion. There is indeed a new governing coalition in Washington as of Wednesday, and they are determined to make it permanent. They have the numbers to give it a good shot, too. And that new tone? That is the clanking of widespread hatred of a President who was, above all else, determined to be loved. There is little partisan bickering on this issue, since his approval ratings prove most are in agreement on his performance. This is sad and unjust, since his tax cuts, the Surge and the war on terror are all vitally important successes.

Even last night, this new tone President who was almost nowhere to be found during the entire campaign, could peer out his window at the White House and see how well his eight year capitulation had worked. He had not thrown a single elbow in this entire election cycle, yet the hatred was running thick. This was a classic “in your face” demonstration against Bush. Forget the vapor in Chicago, there was red meat in D.C. These folks have no idea that his terror policies perhaps saved some of their lives.

The man from Texas is profoundly hated by the left. But that is not the point. The man from Texas is not hated alone. The left has projected their hatred of him onto us. His refusal to fight back for his principles was not the personal individual "falling on the sword" that he has convinced himself it was. When he refused to fight, he let us all down.

The result has been a directionless party with no effective titular head. Too much liberalism crept into policy and caused problems. Those problems, with a new tone leader not willing to point fingers, got laid right at the undeserving doorstep of the Bush Administration. That is our doorstep too, however, and Bush never seemed to understand this.

(We are getting to McCain v Obama, I promise)

Remember that the attacks of 9-11 were dreamed up, planned, staffed, financed, practiced and set into motion during the Clinton Administration, but it was deemed to have "happened on Bush's watch." Hurricane Katrina exposed decades of corrupt and inefficient Democrat control of New Orleans, but Bush (and by extension, all Republicans) took the blame. Thirty years of liberal energy policy came crashing down on us this year with four dollar gas, yet Bush, Big Oil and free enterprise took the hit. Two decades of liberal political correctness, fraud and crony capitalism in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed and took an over-leveraged economy with it. Again, Bush and free enterprise took the fall even though Bush actively fought the bad energy and lending policies. Interestingly McCain was at times quick to help this negative inertia with his public "straight talk."

Conversely, the Bush tax cuts have done a great job of under-girding the economy for nearly eight years and bringing us out of the tech bubble and 9-11. Bush and conservatism, however, received no credit for this. There had not been another terror attack on this nation since 9-11 -- an amazing feat no one thought possible -- yet Bush and his hawkish efforts were not recognized as the reasons for this success.

You see, all the new tone did was ensure that Bush received no credit when he deserved it, and he deserved it often. Yet, he often took all the blame when he did not deserve it. This led to a candidate like John McCain for the 2008 race.

Bush lavished his "a new tone" on the Republican left, supporting moderates in their primaries against upstart conservatives. But they would never return the favor when they got to Washington. Led by maverick John McCain, this wing of the party worked against Bush on almost every major legislative initiative. Some even say McCain took great satisfaction bashing Bush in the press, in retaliation for the 2000 primary season.

The result has been almost a total lack of conservative leadership anywhere. On the few occasions when Bush actually tried to practice conservatism, McCain and various permutations of the "gang of 14" were always there to torpedo the efforts. Meanwhile, the inarticulate Bush would often trot out some lightweight like Scott McClellan to occupy the bully pulpit, at least until the too-brief tenure of Tony Snow. There was no message, no leadership, no cohesion. There was, however, a 25% approval rating. Thus, when McCain emerged from the primary pack as the pundits' candidate of choice for the GOP, a run against Bush himself was the natural inclination.

This amounts to one of the great political ironies of all time, since in practice there is not that much difference between Bush's "new tone" and McCain's incessant need to "reach across the aisle." You can make the case that Bush's low approval numbers were to a degree the natural result of McCain's Bush-bashing plus Bush's new tone refusal to state his own case.

As we know, McCain made his willingness to work with Democrats a centerpiece of his campaign. He made a big issue of numerous pieces of legislation where he did so, and some of them are unmitigated disasters, chief among them is Campaign Finance Reform, which was going to take the money out of politics. Perhaps that did not go exactly as planned.

And neither did the flawed notion that McCain would swoop into the White House on this great wave of bi-partisan fever on the part of "independents." This is one of the great tea leaf misreads of all time. In my view, there is no great clamor for bi-partisanship, there is only the conceit that there is such a clamour. Surely, if such a public hunger existed, McCain would have won by double digits. He did not. He did not even win the moderates themselves. He lost them by 21 points. He also lost notable moderates like Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel and Lincoln Chaffee.

Reagan, on the other hand, carried the independents by convincing them he was right, not that he was one of them. Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America Congress won them by exposing the liberal Democrats as the corrupt political animals they were. There was no reaching across any aisle or any new tone with those successes. There was simply unabashed constitutional conservatism, proclaimed boldly and repeatedly (and at times with humor), and it resonated. You might even call it partisan.

Conversely, McCain would rarely mention conservatism or Reagan without quickly reminding us of times when he fought against them. Well no wonder it didn't sell. The salesman doesn't even like it!

Conservatism did not lose last night, as it was not on the ballot. The big winner was ignorance and the biggest loser was the Bush-Rove-McCain brand of watered down Republicanism. Yes, the Bush-Rove-McCain brand. They gave us each other. Much as the two men cannot stand each other, they are ironically much the same. And the result is indeed a new tone in Washington, and it is a scary dreary leftist tone.

We will never beat it back until the watered down bi-partisans are flushed from the system. Thomas Jefferson loved partisanship. Hugo Chavez does not. That should tell us all we need to know about this flawed path our party has been on for many years. Tuesday, our aisle-crossing chickens came home to roost.
49 Comments on "GOP Defeat and the 'New Tone'"

2) From OJ to Barack
By GIL TROY


The outpouring of emotion when Barack Obama clinched his presidential victory Tuesday night was thrilling. Little more than a decade ago, when O.J. Simpson was found innocent of two murders, cameras recorded cheering blacks and morose whites, illustrating a split-screen America.

On this extraordinary night of national reconciliation, the cameras showed blacks and whites crying together, laughing together, celebrating together, and hoping together in a tableau of healing. You would need a heart of stone not to be moved by watching the joy that swept America - but you need a head of straw not to worry about just how Obama will succeed. His calls for unity will only last if he understands that he must govern using the same expansive and moderate tone his speech set. Barack Obama's stance on Israel will be one of many test cases to see just what kind of president this eloquent, talented, but still untested and inexperienced young man will be.

While exit polls confirmed that Obama's victory was driven by what Bill Clinton's people in 1992 called "the economy, stupid," a range of foreign policy challenges will haunt the administration. The top priorities, of course, are the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan along with the possible nuclear threat from Iran.

In addition to having to walk gently but firmly in these hornets' nests, Obama is going to have to walk gingerly around his various campaign statements - and the intense desires of many of his supporters.

In Iraq his promises may prove to be a particular albatross. Calls for pullouts and exit timetables are effective counter punches in a campaign, especially when the situation looks disastrous. But such specific vows become straitjackets when governing, especially when the situation has improved so dramatically - thanks to that surge that someone named John McCain pushed so effectively.

Obama's Israel policy will also present interesting dilemmas for the rookie president between politics and governance. Fears that Barack Obama will sell Israel down the river in an expression of fealty to Rashid Khalidi or other Palestinians he befriended over the years are exaggerated.

Obama has made too many strong, sincere, pro-Israel statements, and has too many pro-Israel supporters, donors, and aides for this to be a serious issue. Among many others, the man who helped Bill Clinton coin the phrase "Shalom Chaver," Rahm Emanuel, will be Obama's Chief of Staff. Moreover, it would take more than a first-term president with his eye on re-election to shatter the rock-solid relationship between Israel and the United States.

A more valid concern, especially for those from the center and right, is that Obama, like Bill Clinton, may risk killing Israel - or too many Israelis - with kindness. Obama may have a bit too much of a naïve, "We are the world" view of foreign policy for the brutal, dishonest, realpolitik of the Middle East. His closest foreign policy advisers seem to be a mix of "even-handed" Zbigniew Brzezinski types and Oslo-architect Dennis Ross types.

Moreover, one of the demands Iran has made as a precondition for negotiations will be an abandonment of America's support for Israel. Whether this stiffens Obama's spine, as it should, or leads to a cooling toward the Jewish state, may be a first, relatively early test, of Obama's direction.

Still, for now, all this is in the realm of speculation. As the records of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and all of their predecessors show, the presidency one imagines or promises is rarely the presidency one experiences or provides. Remember how George W. Bush was going to focus mostly on domestic policy, governing as a compassionate conservative? Remember how Bill Clinton was going to be a Mr. Clean restoring faith in government and avoiding the insider politics of the Beltway?

For now, then, let us all join the great Barack Obama love-in. Let us celebrate the kind of country America is - a country that can correct its mistakes, heal its wounds, and elect a black man president. Let us honor the impressive talents that brought this self-described skinny guy with a funny name to the heights of American politics, defeating first the formidable Clinton machine then the Republican juggernaut. And let the people inspired by HaTikvah not be cynical about this new harbinger of hope. Let us hope that the hope unleashed last night can be converted into a powerful governing force that revitalizes the United States of America - for America's sake, for Israel's sake, and for the world's sake.

3) Initial Arab Media Reactions to Obama's Election

Initial reactions in the Arab world to the outcome of the U.S. presidential election focused on several aspects. While some writers discussed which candidate would be better for the Arabs, others compared the democratic process in the U.S. with the situation in the Arab world, where such turnover in government is impossible.

Following are excerpts from some of the reactions:

Al-Qaradhawi: The Democrats Are Like a Snake That "Kill[s] You Slowly Without You Noticing"

In a fatwa published on the eve of the U.S. elections, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi expressed his preference for Sen. John McCain as president: "Personally, I would prefer for the Republican candidate, [John] McCain, to be elected. This is because I prefer the obvious enemy who does not hypocritically [conceal] his hostility toward you… to the enemy who wears a mask [of friendliness]."

Al-Qaradhawi added: "Whoever thinks that the Democrats are less hostile to [the Arabs] than the Republicans should know that the number of Iraqis killed during the siege [of Iraq] by the Democrat Bill Clinton is twice as high as the number of [Iraqis] killed by the Republican [George] Bush.

"The Democrats kill you slowly without you noticing it - and therein lies the danger. They are like a snake whose touch is not felt until its poison enters your body.

"Therefore, I hope that McCain comes to power, so that the motivation for jihad remains in our hearts, and so that we do not [begin to] rely on the infidels - [which will cause us] to be struck by the fire [of Hell]." [1]

Iranian Daily: "That Black Man" Will Never Change U.S. Policy

In an editorial, the Iranian daily Jomhouri-ye Eslami stated: "The most that that black man can do in the White House is to replace some of the staff and change some ceremonial procedures. He will never manage to change the structure of the American regime, which was established by capitalists, Zionists, and racists."

The paper added that President Obama would not bring change to the world, because both the Democrats and Republicans were party to the U.S.'s oppressive and interest-driven foreign policy. Therefore, it said, any changes that do occur would be tactical rather than strategic. [2]

Syrian Daily: "We Hereby Declare Obama the 44th President [Before It's Official]... Even If It Might Be Considered Irresponsible Journalism"

In its headline, the Syrian daily Al-Watan named Obama president even before the official results were announced. The editorial that accompanied the headline explained: "We wanted to declare Obama president... as a show of solidarity with millions of Americans, Arabs, and colleagues in the world media who [all] yearn for 'change' in U.S. foreign policy. They are all betting on Obama - who has been waving the slogan [of change]… in hope that he will be different not only in the color of his skin, but also in his view regarding Washington's policy towards the world…

"Some claim that if Obama wins he will be no better than Bush, if not worse... They may be right, since it is well known that no American president has ever stood on the side of the Arabs - rather, they have all stood on the side of Israel…

"Yesterday was undoubtedly a long, exhausting, and historic day by any standard. The American people [voted] with a vigor not seen in any [previous] U.S. presidential election, in a bid to make history and change the ugly face of the U.S.

"Out of respect for them and for everyone who voted for change, and out for respect for the souls of the Syrian, Iraqi, and Arab martyrs, we hereby declare Obama the 44th president of the U.S., even if it might be considered irresponsible journalism. We are sure that our readers will forgive us if we turn out to be wrong - [a possibility] for which we do not hope."

Saudi Daily: No Difference Between Obama and McCain

The Saudi daily Al-Watan stated in an editorial: "There is no significant difference between Obama and McCain. They disagree only on the means to achieve America's chief goal, which is to rule for another hundred years." [3]

Al-Hayat Columnist/Al-Arabiya Deputy Director: "The Faces [in the White House] Change in a Way That We Find Impressive"

Daoud Al-Shiryan, columnist for the Saudi daily Al-Hayat and deputy director of Al-Arabiya TV, praised American democracy, comparing it to the nondemocratic processes in the Arab world: "The U.S. elections afford a kind of change that does not occur in the Arab 'democracies'... The faces [in the White House] change in a way that we find impressive.

"Over the next few days, the world will see a new staff [there], while the current names will forever disappear from the [stage of] American politics. The [current] stars of American politics will go home, and the day after they leave the White House, the American public will see them standing in line at the airport, at the supermarket, or at the dentist's office...

"While America watches this turnover of personnel [in the White House]... the Arabs are following [attempts in] Algeria to amend the constitution and remove the restriction on the number of consecutive terms allowed the president - so that 'Abd Al-'Aziz Bouteflika can continue with a third term in office, and perhaps [remain in office] until the end of his life.

"In the past few days in Egypt, the [ruling] NDP party showed its impressive ability to retain the same people over three decades. [Egypt] uses ballots just like the U.S. - but does so the Arab way.

" The situation is similar in the other Arab democratic republics as well..." [4]

[1] Al-Yawm Al-Sabi' (Egypt), November 4, 2008.

[2] Jomhouri-ye Eslami (Iran), November 4, 2008.

[3] Al-Madina (Saudi Arabia), November 5, 2008.

[4] Al-Hayat (London), November 5, 2008.


4)In one night 92 Jews were murdered
In one night over 25,000 Jews were arrested and deported to Concentration camps
In one night more than 200 synagogues were destroyed
In one night thousands of Jewish businesses and homes were ransacked

"Kristallnacht came...and everything was changed." (Historian, Max Rein)

One night began the systematic eradication of the Jewish people and was the prelude to the Holocaust which followed. Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) or the Night of Broken Glass was a pogrom which took place in Nazi Germany on November 9-10, 1938. Seventy years ago this week, Kristallnacht changed the nature of persecution from economic, political, and social to the physical with beatings, incarceration, and murder. Kristallnacht

The Nazis managed to achieve in Kristallnacht all the theoretical targets they set for themselves: confiscation of Jewish belongings to provide finances for the military buildup to war, separation and isolation of the Jews, and most importantly, the move from the anti-Semitic policy of discrimination to one of physical damage, which began that night and continued until the end of World War II.

5) Obama and the Presidential Security Challenge
By Fred Burton and Ben West

The U.S. presidential campaign trail presents a host of challenges for the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) protective detail assigned to cover the presidential candidates, something we’ve discussed previously. Major presidential candidates have been afforded USSS protection since the 1968 assassination of Robert Kennedy at a campaign event. Due to the nature of modern presidential campaigns, the candidates’ schedules are packed with events that often start at breakfast and continue long after dinner. Candidates also hopscotch across the country, often visiting several cities in a day and sometimes visiting multiple venues in the same city.
The Security Challenge of Campaign Season

In the last weeks before the Nov. 4 election, the campaign of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama hit several different cities in one day, meaning that several teams of advance agents were deployed around the country at any given time. For example, on Nov. 3, Obama visited Jacksonville, Fla.; Charlotte, N.C.; and Manassas Park, Va. Campaign managers often adjust itineraries on the fly to meet the needs of the campaign.

This tempo constantly forces protection agents into new environments with very little time to plan and implement security measures. Wherever Obama traveled during the campaign, USSS agents would send advance teams to scout airports and motorcade routes, plan security for campaign sites, conduct liaison with local police and keep tabs on any persons of interest during the visit. The advance agents are supplemented by teams of extra agents to help secure sites; dog handlers and explosive ordnance disposal technicians to check for explosive devices; and uniformed officers to help control access to sites, man metal detectors and provide counter sniper support.

Due to the nature of political campaigns, once a candidate like Obama lands and safely arrives at an event location, there is frequently tremendous exposure to the public. This is true not just on stage behind a podium but also as the candidate works the crowd, shaking hands, kissing babies and talking to voters. As seen during the May 1972 attempted assassination of George Wallace and the later attempts against presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, it is during these times of close interaction with the public that a VIP is at the highest risk. Would-be assassins can use the crowd for camouflage and quickly get a close shot at the VIP, leaving little time for agents to respond to the threat. Because of this, working the crowd is a difficult task and one protection agents hate. Fortunately for the Obama protective detail, with the election period over they will find themselves in these kinds of situations less frequently.

Finally, there is the issue of the USSS being stretched very thin due to the nature of an election season. The USSS is charged with protecting former presidents and first ladies as well as, of course, the first family and the vice president. But during an election season, the presidential and vice presidential candidates are also assigned a security detail. Due to the perceived threat against Obama, a detail equivalent to a full presidential protection team was assigned to him. Such a high level of protection is unprecedented for a presidential candidate, and it helped stretch the USSS very thin.

Now that the election is over, Obama’s schedule will be greatly simplified, and it will take far less manpower to cover him. Obama will certainly have some travel, but the majority of this time probably will be spent between Chicago and Washington. This will allow the USSS agents protecting him to catch a breather and to establish a more secure, stable perimeter around the president-elect. Sen. John McCain’s protective detail also will be eliminated, freeing up even more bodies. The relative calm of the transition period will end with the January 2009 inauguration ceremony and festivities, the next serious headache the USSS will face.
Past Threats to U.S. Presidents

U.S. presidents always face an array of threats. Four U.S. presidents have been assassinated: Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy. Assassination attempts have frequently occurred, with every president since Richard Nixon having been targeted for assassination, with some threats more credible than others.

The tremendous amount of power and symbolism of the office makes U.S. presidents prime targets for assassination. Obama will be no exception. But in addition to bearing the title of president, Obama also will be the first black president — something that introduces a whole new and more serious threat matrix. Obama uniquely faces a threat from white supremacist groups, some of which believe a black president should be killed.

Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. During his campaign, Obama was the target of a few threats that attracted considerable press coverage but in the end didn’t amount to much. Press portrayals aside, reviewing the facts establishes that these incidents were certainly not viable threats to Obama.

In one instance, authorities announced in late August that three Colorado men had been arrested after police found illegal weapons and methamphetamines on the men. During interrogation, federal agents learned that the group of methamphetamine users had discussed harming Obama. One of the men wore a swastika ring, indicating a possible link to the neo-Nazi movement. In the end, though, the three men were indicted on drugs and weapons charges alone, as the U.S. attorney overseeing the case said the evidence was insufficient to charge the men with conspiring to do bodily harm to a presidential candidate. While the group had discussed the topic, it apparently had made no overt acts in furtherance of an attempt, an element required to bring conspiracy charges.

In another instance, two young men from Tennessee and Arkansas who had conspired to go on a crime spree that would end with an attempt on Obama’s life were arrested Oct. 22. Their scheme was outlandish from the start, and included robbing a gun store, killing 88 blacks and beheading 14 (both significant numbers to the white supremacist movement) and then performing their coup de grace on the presidential candidate while dressed in white tuxedos and top hats. As it was, the two managed only to be scared off by dogs during an attempted home burglary, shoot out a window of a nearby African-American church and draw neo-Nazi symbols on their car in sidewalk chalk. The two had met to discuss their plans on a Web site associated with white supremacists and skinheads. While their plan hardly got off of the ground, the two did show a high level of enthusiasm for their mission that certainly could be replicated within the white supremacist movement.
White Supremacists and an African-American President

The Obama presidency occurs against the unfortunate backdrop of a history of assassinations of prominent African-American leaders in the United States. These have included Medgar Evers, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. (Evers’ assassin was a Ku Klux Klan member, while King’s assassin, James Earl Ray, at the very least harbored racist sentiments.)

Broadly, there are three schools of thought among white supremacist groups on how to view Obama’s election.

The first school of thought is that someone should (or will) threaten Obama because of his race since his election has outraged white supremacists. While publicly making such a call is grounds for arrest, plenty of white supremacist blogs and Web message boards talk of the inevitability of an attack on Obama in a very suggestive way. This school of thought believes that such an attack would inflame racial tensions, sparking riots along the lines of those that followed the 1968 King assassination. Such violence would be viewed as positive in this thinking, as open combat between whites and blacks would bring their ideology to the forefront.

The second school, reflecting perhaps the most widely echoed dogma within the white supremacist movement, believes that an Obama presidency benefits their movement since it will serve as a wake-up call to white America. Once Americans of European descent realize how far they have fallen now that a black man has been elected to the most powerful office in the country, goes the argument, they will flock to join white supremacist groups to reassert their power. An Obama presidency, this school argues, is thereby good for the white supremacists since it would swell their membership rolls and give them more influence and publicity. Former Louisiana state representative and Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke supports this line as does fellow white supremacist leader Tom Metzger.

This second school of thought is bolstered by the argument that the other candidates weren’t going to be any better, as they were all under the influence of the even more despised Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG). Adherents of this anti-Semitic conspiracy theory believe that Jews pull the strings behind a puppet U.S. government. Obama, in their opinion, is at least not under the heavy influence of Jewish interests. This line of reasoning is in no way an endorsement of Obama, but more of an instance of them making the best of a situation they see as terrible for whites in the United States.

The third and last school of thought holds that the U.S. government, which is secretly controlled by the ZOG, is plotting to attack Obama itself. This group believes ZOG will blame white supremacists for the killing, which they will use as an excuse to clamp down on white supremacist hate speech as well as gun ownership.
Conspiracies and Lone Wolves

The USSS is much more adept at countering group conspiracies than lone wolf actors. Lone wolves are very, very difficult to uncover, especially if they remain isolated and tell no one of their plans. Groups are much easier to track, as their movements are more noticeable and their operational security weaker, as all members must remain silent to keep the plot clandestine. The money trail is also a dead giveaway for groups, as outside organizations will often fund their operations, helping them buy equipment and supplies in preparation for an attack.

Considering this, white supremacist groups are under very tight surveillance by U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, and scrutiny of their activities will only increase as Obama takes office. As seen in the Tennessee case, online discussions and postings can come back to haunt Internet collaborators. It would be very difficult for even a small group to operate below the radar of not just the USSS but also the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI, the CIA and the National Security Agency, all of which will have their proverbial ear to the ground to protect the president — one of the most important national security missions these groups have.

The lone wolf, in the end, poses the most likely threat to Obama, and to any target for that matter. The lone wolf’s ability to act alone, keeping his intentions, activities and whereabouts to himself, makes it very difficult for law enforcement agencies to identify a threat before it is too late. But the lone wolf also must be very smart and have some access to resources such as weapons and vehicles — characteristics severely lacking in the two cases above that targeted Obama.

The real threat emerges when intent and capability are joined. White supremacists have the intent, but so far have not exhibited capability. We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues. So long as they remain amateurish like those in Denver and Tennessee, the president remains secure from the white supremacist threat. But if a combination of ideology and ability to act as a lone wolf comes along, the threat level rises.

Given the ties that figures within the white supremacist movement like Duke have with hostile foreign countries such as Russia and Iran, a scenario comes to mind in which a foreign country could secretly fund and train a low-level member or simply a sympathizer of the white supremacist movement to carry out an assassination. Duke has praised Russia’s nationalist movement and has traveled there several times. He also attended a 2006 Holocaust denial conference in Tehran, Iran, where he was in general agreement with the Iranian regime.

Indications of such foreign connections have come up during investigations of past assassinations. Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to obtain Cuban and Soviet visas in Mexico City before he assassinated JFK. Recently, declassifications have tied Oswald to known KGB assassin Valery Kostikov. While these circumstances alone are not enough to conclusively link outside meddling with the JFK assassination, they certainly do raise questions. Additionally, Ray fled to Europe on a fake Canadian passport after killing King. He was arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport two months after the King assassination with large amounts of cash, indicating Ray had outside help in the killing.

Presidential security is a serious national security matter. A successful (or even unsuccessful) attack on a president causes instability in the United States and in the wider world. And given the especially delicate balance that the United States, Russia and countries of the Middle East are striking right now, an attack on the president would destabilize U.S. foreign policy and have a heightened impact on national security. Domestically, the assassination of the country’s first black president would run the risk of devastating race relations — and white supremacist movements see themselves as substantially benefiting from racial strife.