Obama - Politics or Ideology?

Following expected elections defeat, Obama will find himself at political crossroads.

by Yitzhak Benhorin

Part 2 of analysis

If all the other troubles are not enough for President Obama, he and the Democrats also lost the support of the business sector. The legislation he initiated in a bid to reinforce the monitoring of Wall Street, and his efforts to impose taxes on the rich and protect the middle class exacted a heavy price on his plan to rehabilitate America’s economy.

Despite the economic crisis, those who think there is no money available in America are gravely mistaken. Immense sums of money are currently frozen in the large banks and major corporations, which are hesitant to invest it and stimulate the economy as long as Obama threatens to impose legislation and taxes that may harm them. The bitter result is that the economy is on hold, while Obama and the Democrats pay the price in the November elections.

The money that is changing hands within the economic elite is meant to deliver a grave blow to the ruling party. The Supreme Court contributed to this situation when it permitted companies and individuals to donate money to campaigns without revealing their identities. The ability to act discreetly and without financial limits enabled America’s wealthy, ranging from the air-conditioned office dwellers in Wall Street to the oil drillers in Texas to dramatically affect the current elections campaign; the same will apparently happen in the next presidential elections.

An astronomical sum of $3 billion had been poured into election ads in recent weeks. A quick glimpse at the TV set shows that the Republicans hold a major advantage over the Democrats. Just to illustrate, a group led by Karl Rove, former President George W. Bush’s senior advisor, easily poured $250 million into the campaign.

Jimmy or Bill?
In the first half of his term in office, Obama did things that many presidents before him did not: He successfully advanced revolutionary laws to stimulate the economy, approved a historical healthcare reform, and reinforced the monitoring of Wall Street’s dark corners.

The voters want to see immediate results, yet the fruits of Obama’s labor will only be evident years from now. Similarly, the healthcare reform is a complex process, whose achievements will only become apparent in the future.

On November 3rd, when America wakes up to a new Congress and new governors, the presidential election campaign shall in fact get underway. The great political question (with the answer to be provided only two years from now) is what kind of Obama will be sitting in the White House 11 days from now. Will he follow in the footsteps of Bill Clinton, who lost the Democratic majority in Congress and realized he has no choice but to shift to the Center? Or will he follow the example of Jimmy Carter, who insisted on promoting a liberal agenda?

Obama has already attempted to provide excuses for the expected November defeat, arguing that he was too busy with policy and abandoned politics. Indeed, this is the dilemma between the Clinton way and the Carter way: The former internalized the lessons of the Congress defeat in 1994, chose politics, and was elected for a second term in office. The latter stuck to his truth, chose to go ahead with his policy, and was kicked out of the White House after four years.


You Might Also Like to Read:
Obama in Trouble



Ynet News

Obama's Great Betrayal

US president's policy focuses on boosting Israel's international isolation.

by Shoula Romano Horing

It seems that President Obama's confrontational and accusatory attitude toward Israel during the last two years has encouraged the anti-Semites in the international community, who did not dare to reveal themselves during the Bush Administration. Now, they have resurfaced and are making Israel the new scapegoat for all the evils in the world.

Furthermore, the Obama Administration has been an active participant in international bodies with bias against Israel which the Bush Administration refused to join or concur with. In some instances, the current Administration even consented to these bodies' investigations of so-called Israeli "crimes." But more cynically and morally repugnant, Obama has been using the threat of international isolation to pressure Israel into more concessions.

Otherwise, why would one of the assurances reportedly given by the US to Israel, in an effort to get the West Bank settlement freeze extended for 60 days, be an American commitment to use its veto to prevent UN recognition of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state?

Under Presidents Bush and Clinton it was taken for granted that the veto would be used, as it was understood that any peace deal premised on the "two-state solution" would only be decided through negotiations.

Reportedly, Prime Minster Netanyahu also fears that as soon as any new 60-day freeze ends, and with the November US midterm elections over, the Obama Administration - with the help of the international community - will aim to force a permanent agreement on Israel by presenting a "take it or leave it peace plan."

Such initiative would publicly support the Palestinian position that the 1967 borders should be the basis for a future Palestinian state, including a divided Jerusalem.

Breaking 40-year precedent
In the last two years, Israel has been under a new kind of attack on her legitimacy and on her right to exist. A campaign has been conducted where many of Israel's enemies are employing legal tricks, through multinational and international bodies, to present Israel as an illegitimate pariah state that should be isolated like Apartheid South Africa.

Sadly, the Obama Administration was an active participant in these efforts until it recently felt the backlash from Jewish voters and has eased off before the midterm elections.

In May, the Obama Administration broke 40 years of US precedent and shamefully signed a unanimous resolution adopted at a meeting of the 189 signatories of The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, singling out Israel's atomic program without even mentioning Iran's. The draft urged Israel to sign the NPT and put its nuclear facilities under UN International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

During the previous NPT conference in 2005, the Bush Administration refused to accept parts of the draft document that called on Israel to join the NPT and turned down the idea of holding talks in order to create a region free of nuclear weapons.

While President Bush refused to join the UN Human Rights Council and lend it legitimacy, President Obama’s first foreign policy decision was to join the Council, knowing that it has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning the state of Israel than all others 191 UN members combined.

In August, under heavy Obama Administration pressure, Israel agreed for the first time ever to participate in a UN review panel investigating IDF actions in the Gaza-bound flotilla incident.

It appears that letting Israel feel isolated and alone while relying on the US as her only friend is the Obama Administration's strategy to "deliver" Israel to the Arabs. However, recent polls reveal great support for Israel by the American people.

The American people who care about Israel's survival must stand by Israel in the upcoming November elections and only vote for the Republican Party, to deflect future US pressure by Obama. In the meantime, the Israeli government must wait for the American voter's verdict against Obama and the Democratic Party.

Ynet News