Posted on 09/16/2014 7:01:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
Iraq, immigration, inversion. On all three of the issues referred to, President Obama finds himself forced by events to do something he dislikes -- and he's in trouble with much of his Democratic Party base for doing so.
Obama seemed ill at ease before the camera and teleprompter on the evening of Sept. 10. Sending troops into Iraq and Syria is probably the last thing he expected to do when he set out running for president in 2007.
He still insists that he will send in "no ground troops," though it appears that hundreds of U.S. military personnel are literally on the ground in Iraq. He seems still not to understand that publicly ruling out an alternative means that your enemies know your plans -- and can take advantage of them.
But that's not enough to propitiate at least some Democrats who supported Obama fervently because they believed he would remove U.S. troops from the Middle East and never send them back there.
One of his chief advantages over Hillary Clinton in 2008 was her vote for the Iraq war resolution in 2002 and Obama's opposition to it, albeit as a state senator from an overwhelmingly Democratic district.
In the late 1960s, Democrats switched from being the more hawkish of our two parties, more likely to support military interventions and commitments, to being the more dovish. Visceral opposition to military action, and suspicion that even the most limited such action will lead to massive war, is deeply implanted in many Democratic voters.
You can expect, therefore, a skittish reaction to Obama's announcement of a military escalation from senatorial and congressional candidates in states with dovish Democratic electorates such as Colorado and Iowa. We may also see depressed turnout of Democratic doves all over the country in November. It is apparent that Obama's decision to take military action against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, however limited, came despite his deep-seated feelings and was forced on him by events. American voters do not take kindly to videotaped beheadings of Americans. It unleashes a Jacksonian impulse to wipe the people who do these things off the face of the earth.
Obama, like his predecessor, likes to depict Islam as a religion of peace. An unhappily large number of Muslims, however, have other ideas. Their aggression and immunity to appeasement have forced the president to take actions that he, like many of his fellow Democrats, abhors.
On immigration, Obama has found himself again forced to disappoint a core constituency. On June 30, he met with immigration advocates -- that is to say, heads of groups that favor legalization of large numbers of illegal immigrants. He let them know, and authorized his aides to let the world know, that he intended to issue by summer's end an executive order legalizing perhaps as many as 10 million. He did so even though there's videotape of him telling Univision in March 2011 that such an order would "ignore" laws passed by Congress and to "ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president."
Obama's breathtaking willingness to signal an intention to violate his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the law drew some unfavorable but muted attention. But it gained more attention as tens of thousands of underage (and adult) illegal migrants from Central America started streaming across the Rio Grande.
That vast movement undercut the argument that legalizing one group of illegals would not create incentives for more to cross the border. Now Obama says he won't act till after November's election, if then, leaving legalization advocates "bitterly disappointed in the president and Democrats."
Iraq and immigration are familiar issues. Inversions -- merging companies seeking foreign domiciles to partially avoid the U.S. 35 percent corporate tax -- are not. Inversions happen because the U.S. has the world's highest corporate tax rate, a problem even Obama has said should be fixed.
But he has made no serious attempt at negotiating reform with the willing chairmen of the tax-writing committees. So instead, Democrats are demagoguing "unpatriotic" corporations and threatening to re-tax transactions going back to 1994.
Unfortunately for them, as three Politico reporters conclude, "the issue has turned out to be pretty much a massive dud." The fact that Obama supporter Warren Buffett financed the Burger King-Tim Hortons inversion didn't help.
On Iraq, immigration and inversion, events have forced Obama into embarrassing reversals that disillusion his base and leave others unconvinced. Hope and change?
“President Obama finds himself forced by events to do something he dislikes...”
Which is to say, forced to do ANYTHING except play golf.
reality bites, eh? only shows another failure of the liberal mindset
The “base” in the title, I assume, is his “anti-war” (in reality, simply anti-Bush) base?
I wonder if, as well, his entitlement base isn’t mad that they haven’t gotten their “promised” BIG CHECK.
The DemocRATS are going to regret killing all those Navy SEALS as they were winding down Iraq and Afghanistan. We sure do need them now.
It would have never come to ISIL if that arrogant pos had not pulled the troops out prematurely in 2009. President Bush warned in his speech on July 12, 2007 what would happen if the troops are pulled out to soon
All that was on his teleprompter when that photo was snapped was... ‘Reggie Love’ ‘Reggie Love’ ‘Reggie Love’.
His base generally doesn’t care about ISIS, the Middle East or anything else that doesn’t affect their EBT card.
Different “base”, but yeah, you’re right.
And that EBT allowance will continue to increase as food prices go up for the rest of us, so they’ll not feel any inflationary pain at all.
All this talk....He finally found out that they won’t be able to vote under his “Plan”.
They should
Well, I don’t believe that second part about their base.
Even if their base pay attention at all.....
How about "forced by the consequences of his own past misguided decisions?"
-PJ
STROLL DOWN MEMORY LANEAs 2009 unfolded, Obama encouraged latino activists to believe he was committed to introducing a comprehensive reform bill. After a WH meeting, Rep. Luis Gutierrez, (Dem-Ill) told reporters Obama had promised a bill “in the very near future.”
And who could forget the imbecilic Gutierrez strutting around, crowing about "having the votes" to pass the Senate bill in the House? When that failed, latino pressure groups then segued to getting Obama to E/O amnesty.
REALITY CHECK.......a tsunami of 2014 voter polls indicate massive voter revulsion for Democrats---a decisive vote of "no confidence." So much so that Democrats forced Obama to delay his plan to grant amnesty to millions of illegals---hoping to stave off disaster to protect uneasy Democrats from voter wrath in November.....
But slimeball Democrat Rep. Luis Gutierrez (Dem-Ill), the leading mouthpiece for amnesty giveaways, isn't taking Obama's dismissal lying down. Gutierrez said the Congressional Hispanic Caucus will meet to determine a formal response.
“No more excuses, I don’t care what senator is dangling in the wind, I don’t care what Republican proposal is being made,” he said. “I don’t care what happens. We are moving forward.”
===========================================
IS GUTIERREZ PLOTTING A COUP AGAINST DEMOCRATS?---his mouthings sound dangerously like a latino threat to Democrats.
Question is: are Democrats who have been so loyal going to allow Gutierrez to threaten their re/elections?
Democrats need to get cracking and demand to know the details
about an individual threatening their candidacies. For instance:
<><><> the number of identities Gutierrez is using now, or has ever used (driving a cab in Illinois);
<><><> the number of US govt check Gutierrez, his family, and his staff are cashing;
<><><> whether Gutierrez has ever been labled a ntl security threat; <><><> whether Gutierrez used infamous crooked Chicago tactics to get elected;
<><><> the list of his memberships in violent latino groups advocating the overthrow of the US govt;
<><> How many stolen Social Security numbers are his family, staff and political entourage using?
<><><> how many identities are the Guiterrez family and campaign entourage using?
<><><> are his family, supporters, and political entourage paid agents of foreign governments?
WHO IS GIVING GUTIERREZ HIS MARCHING ORDERS? Democrats need to get the FBI to subpoena Gutierrez's phone records, emails and snail mail, wire transfers, etc .....
<><> Examine his campaign contributors, foreign travel;
<><> did Gutierrez employ foreign agents as staff w/ US tax dollars?
<><> did Gutierrez ever file falsified documents w/ the federal government?
<><> did he ever make false statements on tax returns?
<><> did he ever apply for EITC refunds listing children "back Home" that are not related to him?
<><> does he earn outside income as a paid political consultant to foreign governments?
<><> did Gutierrez fail to register as an agent of a foreign government;
<><> Is Gutierrez and The Congressional Hispanic Caucus using tax dollars to conduct a coup against Democrats.
=================================================
FBI TIPS PAGE---https://tips.fbi.gov
<><> DEMOCRATS should demand Gutierrez, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, La Raza, and other tax-funded latino groups, be investigated.
L/E should supboena Gutierrez' official filings, phone records, emails, snail mail copies, hard drives, bank accounts, checking accounts, credit cards, debit cards, wire transfers, social media contacts, and the like.
==================================================
Democrats should demand to know who these people are communicating with, and who is directing their activities.
Democrats should demand to know if Gutierrez, his family, his staff, The Congressional Hispanic caucus, are colluding to dump Democrats, and whether they are consorting with violent organizations advocating the overthrow of the Democrat Party.
The author seems to misunderstand what is really going on here as in, “He seems still not to understand that publicly ruling out an alternative means that your enemies know your plans — and can take advantage of them.”
I would submit that anyone who REALLY believes there is a failure to understand that idea is suffering from a failure to comprehend what is really going on or, on the other hand, is simply being coy and refusing to state what the reality is in a straightforward fashion.
Though he was already in dutch with them for failing to provide those Skittles-pooping unicorns.
Bingo. Just enough words and effort to get ISIL off the front page.
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.