Who's REALLY between a rock and a hard place?

Submitted by john w. mcginley (United States), Nov 27, 2011 at 21:37

Your brief analysis seems to me to be accurate. But I sense a bit of smugness in your remarks. Obama, it now appears, will end up facing a Republican in the election who -- whoever it may be -- will have been diminished radically in the eyes of the American electorate by virtue of the process of getting the nomination. From a merely pragmatic motive Obama has been doing enough right things -- even when they go against his grain -- to be appealing to Independents. Both Obama and the Republican nominee will have been diminished in the eyes of the electorate. But moreso for the Republican nominee.

Further, a third party candidate (did someone say "Bloomberg"?) will siphon off more votes from the Republican nominee than from Obama. Obama will squeak by. THEN America will see a disaster of gigantesque proportions and Israel will become existentially more vulnerable than ever. Obama freed from the compromises he has to make to be re-elected will be the most dangerous President ever. I hope I am wrong in my prognostications. I'd rather be wrong than have to live under an Obama second term. God help us all!

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".