Obama: No Longer The Media's President Cool?

I am devoting this memo mainly to my own thoughts.

The mostly liberal media and news folk: As a fiscal conservative I have a natural distrust of most media - domestic and foreign.

Domestically speaking, I believe they will make every effort to attack and weaken all Republican candidates and will eventually throw their, 'damn with faint praise,' support to the weakest Republican candidate in the frantic hope Obama will have a better chance of re-election.

Granted, as I have noted before, they are increasingly unhappy with Obama and are having mea culpas over their previous dissing of Hillary. Though they are having second thoughts about their messiah they have no where else to go. Obama will remain their boy though with less enthusiasm. He also presents them with a more difficult sell. But have no fear they will rise to the occasion. Consequently, they will continue down the socialist experiment road expressing their distrust of American ideals and our Constitutional form of government all the while drawing comfort from the tingling up their legs.

Now that their beloved policies have bankrupted our nation, wrecked our morals, destroyed the family structure and dumbed down our youth they find themselves increasingly out in the cold and, I suspect, will become even testier.

For example, if one watches various interviews of Democrat and Republican candidates on NBC, CBS and ABC TV stations the interviewers bend over backwards trying to elicit from Republicans admissions that align with their own thinking whereas when it comes to interviewing Democrat candidates they become highly supportive and fawning. The most recent example was Knight's interview of Cheney. And so it goes.

The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Time and Newsweek Magazine et al threw their lot in with Democrats eons ago because they were the Party deemed most caring and sympathetic to the needs of workers. Move the clock forward and the results: the nation is busted and the media are losing reader and viewership. I see nothing to indicate they are going to become more balanced though CBS seems to be trying, having lost their shirt being beyond biased.

The consequence of their own failings has caused them to attack FOX which is eating their lunch. The true news on FOX is, as they indicate, fair and balanced. The Riley, Hannity etc. programs are openly opinionated and one can argue serve as a balance. In the final analysis, it is up to the people to determine what they want to think and believe. Frankly, I am concerned about voter discernment and their independent powers of reasoning because of our nation's poor educational standards and practices.

Every Republic and Democracy rests on the fragile foundation of an informed and participating electorate. Scary thought!

Obama: Now that the time for serious campaigning is upon him (as if he ever could stop)domestic matters become dominant. Therefore, our president is finding himself trapped by the consequences of his policies both domestic and foreign. Depending upon the issue, Obama is either changing his tune and backing away or doubling down. Since polls reveal he is in deep doo doo and even support within his own party is eroding. He is very conflicted first dude. No longer the media's president cool!

In terms of The Middle East and the recent New York election, Obama is reversing course in the hope that his previous positions have not not turned Jewish voters off and the Jewish money spigot remains on and still gushing.

Obama has himself to blame for distancing America from one of our most dependable allies and his own boorish treatment of Netanyahu. Now the Israeli pigeon is coming home to roost. Most Americans still align themselves with Israel's plight and the Israeli desire to live in peace, raise families safe from rocket attacks and enjoy the benefits of their productive society.

Israel remains a thorn in the side of debauched Arab/Muslim leadership and though they are embarrassed by Israel's enlightened society and accomplishments hatred is a difficult condition to overcome. Since Israel's achievements threaten Arab/Muslim dictators control over their 'street slaves' destroying Israel is the most logical and pathologically sick choice.

Obama is thus conflicted by the fact that his sympathies lie with Palestinians because of his own Muslim background, his obvious empathy with the perceived underdog and his openly spoken discontent with America's past history. Ah, but it is campaign time and Obama is faced with Abbas' intransigence which he helped create by giving Abbas the settlement issue ruse which never existed as an issue until Obama made it one.

Thus, the White House has begun a concerted heavy handed effort to get American Rabbis to express support for Obama in their New Year Sermons and this, I am sure, will backfire. Second, Obama has a history of throwing people under the bus when they no longer serve his purpose, so it only natural that any thinking Jew should be having second thoughts of Obama's sincerity. DUH!

On domestic issues, Obama is hung with 'Obamascare,' the backroom way it was passed and the inconsistencies between its reality and the snake oil way in which it was sold.

Then we have a litany of Obama efforts to blame others, play the race card when it suited his momentary purpose and his divide and conquer strategy in order to raise taxes to fund his insatiable appetite to spend on social programs that may endear select voter groups and thus, build Democrat dependency but, in the end, prove counterproductive for our nation. All of this, of course, is done under the banner of having a social conscience in order to help the 'little guy.'

Empirically speaking, Obama's policies have increased the numbers in the 'little guy' category because they have hurt the middle class whose numbers are shrinking as unemployment remains high. His own race is also left holding on to an unreachable wall papered with food stamps and government hand-outs. Even the Black Caucus can no longer ignore but Obama's blackness creates a dilemma.

Since Obama cannot run on his record the news and media folk will remind us how popular he remains and that any opposition to his policies is an attack on his ethnicity.

Republicans: Republicans are in the cat bird seat but the question remains will they play the strong hand Obama has dealt them?

By nature, Republicans have an aversion to gutter Chicago type politics. Being laissez faire types they do not enjoy immersing themselves in the muck and mire of kitchen legislation so to speak. They prefer the luxury of remaining aloof and thus become vulnerable pin cushions to attacks by Democrats for being heartless. Since government has become an intruding monster in all our lives and we have become a society increasingly dependent upon government largess any concerted Republican effort to curtail the spiral of Obama's pathological spending plays against them.

How can you cut government without being branded mean spirited? It is as if you took a crutch from an invalid and asked him to walk on his own. We may have become an increasingly 'Godless nation' but politicians from both aisles are next to God when it comes to doling out sustenance and manna from D.C heaven.

The elder Bush learned the hard way. When he moved his lips and raised taxes the quid pro quo deal he thought he had extracted from Democrats turned into a mirage.
Democrats (Tip O'Neil) did not live up to the bargain. Democrats never cut appropriating and, in fact, actually increased spending. Bush was sucker punched!

Consequently, Republicans would be wise to distrust the promise of trading current commitments for future promises. This has always proven a bad trade off in the game of politics. That said, it also places Republicans at a disadvantage because Democrats will conveniently trot out the mantra of stonewalling etc. and many voters will gullible it up because they too are prone to being sucker punched!

The Campaign: Perry's attack on Romney will not play well and he would be wise to turn his guns on Obama and not fellow competitors.

Romney would be wise to quit trying to come across as if his thinking is aligned with the latest polled subject.

What most Americans crave are candidates who will tell them they will be frank. Oh for a candidate who run campaign designed to hit them between the eyes with reality. A candidate willing to tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may because they will not be the losers if they lose. Americans and America will be. (Is that why there are reports Christie is thinking of running because the pressure on him is mounting?)

Obama campaigned promising dreams of hope and change which came to mean nothing but it served to take voters eye off the fact that he was an empty suit with no record of significant accomplishment except having been elected at a young age to the Senate. Obama's resume, as I have written, was so thin anyone who took the time should have seen though it. He had no business experience, he had no military service, the beliefs of his associations were anathema to what our nation is about. The only thing truly going for Obama was his slick ability to play on white guilt and the media's love of bait and switch because supporting Obama and dissing Hillary created drama and made more sales and increased audiences.

If Christie runs and Cain or Gingrich are his vice president it could be one hell of a ticket and I would not want to be Obama. If Romney or Perry run it still could be a challenge but a lesser one. Time will tell and let the fun begin!

I wrote the above before I learned of Cain's straw vote Florida victory which, to my mind, justifies what I wrote above about Americans hungering for a straight shooter.

Presidential aspirants need less handlers and poll takers and be themselves. Though I am not in agreement with Paul on most issues he is refreshing and at least the real article.

Once again, I feel better for having gotten the above off my chest!

Halevy warns about being careful what you wish for. You may get it and be crippled in the process. Very interesting article.

What Halevy does not discuss is the pressure brought to bear on Netanyahu to remain silent, It is coming out Netanyahu was warned by Obama that if he did not agree to more imposed concessions the U.S. would withdraw their threatened veto of the Palestinians request for statehood should it reach the Security Council.

Meanwhile, media gurus are praising Obama for his 'tough' U.N. speech and suckered Liberal Jews may be swallowing. (See 1 below.)
---
More evidence why we should get out of the U.N. or, at the very least, Obama should do what Bolton suggests in this video: "Durban Watch: John Bolton -- Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton speaks at "Perils of Global Intolerance at the U.N."

Will Obama? If youbelieve he will I have a shovel ready bridge for sae!
---
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1)Please watch this latest YouTube video by Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAuBc_cbXo0&feature=channel_video_title
The video explains the history of the peace process in a clear and concise manner, providing important messages for those interested in Israel, especially ahead of the expected vote on Palestinian statehood in the United Nations.

1a)How Abbas’s U.N. Gambit Empowered Hamas
By Efraim Halevy

Only once before has a U.S. President applied overt diplomatic pressure on Palestinians the way President Obama did this week at the United Nations, as he pressured Palestine to rescind its request from the U.N. Security Council for immediate full membership status. Unfortunately, the precedent for this type of overt pressure is not particularly encouraging, neither for Israel, nor for the United States.

It was in 2006 that President George W. Bush demanded Hamas be allowed to participate in Palestinian general elections without it first having renounced the use of terrorism. It was an initiative that not only met resistance from Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, but also, in a rare meeting of minds, Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. All of them eventually surrendered to the diktat of the U.S. President. The immediate result was Hamas won the election; the long-term aftermath, of course, has yet to be resolved. There is currently no end in sight to the deadly confrontation between Hamas and Israel.

The short term benefactors of this most recent presidential intervention seems pretty clearly to be Israel. But the victory may soon prove pyrrhic. The sad truth is that the ultimate winner is likely to turn out again to be Hamas.

It’s worth remarking that Obama’s speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday was the most spirited pro Israeli speech he has ever made—indeed, one of the most pro-Israeli from a U.S. President in memory. Obama told Palestine in no uncertain terms that its diplomatic strategy will prove fruitless. Abbas still seems determined to try and muster the necessary votes in the Security Council, but he knows that an American veto awaits. Israel, which has rarely received such fulsome public support for its positions, was quick to celebrate it as a diplomatic coup.
But Israelis should not confuse a Palestinian defeat for an Israeli success. Yes, it is clear that Abbas’s leadership is now fatally weakened. Nothing will erase the effect of this public defeat: Abbas has staked his reputation on this diplomatic ploy, fashioned and promoted it around the world over the past year. The result is that he has ended up a disgraced loser, in the eyes of the world, and of his own people.

But this U.N. debacle is likely to lead to a precipitous decline in the prestige of the entire Fatah movement, a process that will only accelerate once a triumphant Netanyahu and despondent Abbas return home. We can expect widespread Palestinian demonstrations in Judea and Samaria in coming weeks, and they may be targeting both the Israeli and the Palestinian leadership.

In that way, Abbas’s diminishment will mean Hamas’s empowerment. The Hamas movement is the only player in the Middle East, aside from Israel, that has vocally opposed the current Palestinian statehood bid. (Needless to say, this is not the kind of ally that Israel should be wishing for.) The diplomatic games in New York, then, don't much reflect the reality on the ground in the Middle East. Far from being a moment of hubris for Israelis, this ought to be a moment of humility: Abbas's embarassment at the U.N. will likely serve as a marker of the relative decline of Israeli regional strength.

Recent events in Cairo offer another stark reminder of that decline. The peace struck between Israel and Egypt over thirty years ago was largely the product of top secret contacts between the parties conducted without any outside intervention—indeed, with the United States presented with the historic breakthrough largely after the fact (though it played a vital role in its diplomatic consummation). That could hardly contrast more with Jerusalem’s recent dependence on Washington to protect its interests in Egypt.

Two weeks ago, Israel just barely managed to save the lives of six security officers in its ransacked embassy in Cairo—and only with the help of personal diplomacy by President Obama. The happy outcome was not a foregone conclusion: It very well could have ended otherwise, with six body bags making their way back to Israel—a blow that would have been devastating for the country, and which would have triggered serious domestic consequences. Obama’s intervention in Egypt, which risked his own tenuous credibility in the region, was an act of historic dimensions, and he deserves Israel’s genuine gratitude. But it should also have spurred in Israel a moment of reflection about its newly imbalanced relationship with Washington.

That sort of dependency may only increase as Hamas and its Muslim Brotherhood partners becomes diplomatically ascendant in the region. Indeed, the most important political repercussions of this week’s U.N. diplomacy will not be felt in Jerusalem, but on places far outside of Israel’s control—namely, Cairo and Amman and elsewhere in the Arab world, as the masses there digest the scale of the Palestinian public humiliation and consider its consequences.

The United States and Israel may be tempted to cheer Abbas’s failure this week, but they will also have to reckon with the fact it may also spell the demise of the Palestinian Authority as an effective partner. And if that happens, their tactical victories will likely prove to be part of a greater strategic defeat.

Efraim Halevy is head of the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He served as chief of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002, and is the author of Man in the Shadows: Inside the Middle East Crisis with a Man who Led the Mossad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------