Posted on 10/27/2010 9:35:00 AM PDT by jhpigott
10/26/10 By George Friedman We are a week away from the 2010 U.S. midterm elections. The outcome is already locked in. Whether the Republicans take the House or the Senate is close to immaterial. It is almost certain that the dynamics of American domestic politics will change. The large majority held by the Democrats will be gone, and party discipline will not be strong enough (it never is) to prevent some defections.
Obama now has two options in terms of domestic strategy. The first is to continue to press his agenda, knowing that it will be voted down. If the domestic situation improves, he takes credit for it. If it doesn't, he runs against Republican partisanship. The second option is to abandon his agenda, cooperate with the Republicans and re-establish his image as a centrist. Both have political advantages and disadvantages and present an important strategic decision for Obama to make.
The Foreign Policy Option
Obama also has a third option, which is to shift his focus from domestic policy to foreign policy. The founders created a system in which the president is inherently weak in domestic policy and able to take action only when his position in Congress is extremely strong. This was how the founders sought to avoid the tyranny of narrow majorities. At the same time, they made the president quite powerful in foreign policy regardless of Congress, and the evolution of the presidency over the centuries has further strengthened this power. Historically, when the president has been weak domestically, one option he has had is to appear powerful by focusing on foreign policy.
The Iranian Option
This leaves the obvious choice: Iran. Iran is the one issue on which the president could galvanize public opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearworld.com ...
This is exciting. Who’s going to beat him? Can we get on the list? (I’m sorry. I couldn’t help it.)
From the beginning it was quite obvious to me that W set up Obama with loads he could not carry. He was certainly doomed from the moment the first bailouts took place. There were two wars, one really, but to the left there were two.
My view stated here long ago, at the time of his election, was that Obama had only one shot at salvation...... a war.
With whom would the war be made? I did not know. I felt that he would allow events to take their course and allow the war with Iran to be between Israel and the Gulf States against Iran. I still believe that to be the case.
North Korea has cooled and the transition to who knows what is in progress. That seems not likely as a place for war either.
The recourse for no war is doom. There must be a Gulf of Tonkin provocation in mid ‘11 and the war over and won for it to effectively insure reelection. That event might occur in Lebanon or Afghanistan where Iranian involvement becomes overt and breaks the camel’s back.
With no war, Obama is de facto worst President in history
Atlanta
I somehow got an image of a million dollar missile attacking a 10 dollar tent and hitting a camel in the ass.
Wrong question. A better one is, what would a beaten Michelle insist on?
A friend of mine mentioned this to me last night...man great minds DO think alike. And the trouble is? He’d be dumb enough to do a scaled up version of what we did in Kosovo and send SpecOps to deal with the reactors? So, if it goes wrong...we’ll have downed aircraft, captured airmen, captured operators...yeah...I just smell his meddling in this...and I wonder if that’s why Jim Jones quit?
Not even if he was beaten with a baseball bat. He’d still want to set up a dialogue, like a little pansy @$$.
NO!
It’s an Islamic state.
“...decisive action...”
Key phrase here. I just don’t think Obama has the balls to do this.
I read it. Doesn’t change my mind on Owe-bama, and what he will DO, based on what he has already DONE.
We’ll know all too soon, I’m afraid...
It is always so sad to realize that so many of my fellow Americans are mentally deficient. Did people really believe- in spite of all the evidence- that this Obama was a centrist?
A beaten Obama will not go after Iran.
Just watch and remember this prediction.
This President- who until his last minute in office is supreme in foreign affair- will not go after Iran.
HE WILL GO AFTER ISRAEL.
Whether the Republicans take the House or the Senate is close to immaterial. It is almost certain that the dynamics of American domestic politics will change. The large majority held by the Democrats will be gone, and party discipline will not be strong enough (it never is) to prevent some defections. Obama now has two options in terms of domestic strategy. The first is to continue to press his agenda, knowing that it will be voted down. If the domestic situation improves, he takes credit for it. If it doesn't, he runs against Republican partisanship. The second option is to abandon his agenda, cooperate with the Republicans and re-establish his image as a centrist... Obama also has a third option, which is to shift his focus from domestic policy to foreign policy.Thanks jhpigott. Interesting op-ed the author has, since Obama has already done that. In fact, his radical anti-American foreign policy (abandoning our eastern European allies, abandoning our Central Asian allies, abandoning our Middle Eastern allies -- chiefly Israel -- siding with Islamofascism and Islamic terrorism in Africa and anywhere else it is found, pissing on our alliance with the UK, etc etc) has gone hand in hand with his radical anti-American domestic agenda. And he never had any problems from the drive-by media with his candidacies (Senate and POTUS) or his actions (or lack thereof) in office. Not a peep out of those partisan shills.
“Would a Beaten Obama Attack Iran?”
I’m willing to find out—who volunteers to beat him up? : )
Stratfor the US version of DEBKAFiles! I think that the chances of Obama attacking IRAN is closing in on 0%. Who writes this crap that Friedman gushes, or better who would pay for it?
I agree totally.
OMG, you remember the NOMAD episode! I think about that whenever I run across a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. There are managers like that too.
In my view (and I am most definitely not a “Trekkie”) the NOMAD episode was one of the best conceptual storylines ever developed along with the “Edith Keeler” episode by Roddenbury. Unfortunately, after that the stories dealt with saving the whales and eventually morphed into totally unimaginative aliens who all are 100% humanoid except they have leaopard spots and crinkled foreheads...where is the imagination? Where were the budgets?
They didn't have any, at least not for the first series. The second never got network backing.
Look, I won't defend Gene Roddenberry on his plotting. His vision quite frankly was one of the Marxist dialectic working to produce a socialist utopia, which will never happen and for good reasons should never happen. That said, I am such a science fiction and space geek I still watched them all and loved every minute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.