After the long-awaited death of Osama bin Laden, the media are finally jubilant – that Barack Obama may get a second term after all.
Reuters led the way within hours of the announcement of the terror mastermind’s death with a piece entitled, “Snap Analysis: Bin Laden Death a Political Victory for Obama.” (You must realize, to the mainstream media, everything is a political victory for Obama.) The piece hallucinated that this death would transform Candidate Obama 2.0 from a fumbling Carteresque failure into an invincible warrior-king:
Republicans have a long-held reputation in U.S. politics for being stronger than Democrats on national security issues. With this successful operation taking place under his watch, Obama can grab that mantel from his opponents and claim it for himself and his party – a potentially game-changing instrument in his political toolbox.
Of course, bin Laden’s death would have been impossible without intelligence gathered through policies Obama opposed, campaigned against, and still denounces and apparently threatens to permanently end. Although having been president when Osama bin Laden was killed, Americans cannot trust Obama to keep them safe from Islamic terrorism – especially when nearly a quarter of them believe he is a Muslim.
Not to be outdone, Steve Kornacki at Salon.com wrote, “This Makes Obama a Shoo-In for ’12, Right?” In it he pouts, “for all of the emotions bin Laden’s death will unleash in America, there might be less long-term political value for Obama than we think.” He worries the glory of Sunday’s death may fade sometime in the next 18 months, and Americans may realize that food and gas prices have skyrocketed (by design), the dollar’s value has cratered, the job market remains anemic, and the national deficit threatens to make China our future masters.
Kornacki presents this analysis of the politics of killing bin Laden:
In the Bush days, it was Republicans who hoped for – and Democrats who feared – the game-changing impact of the al-Qaeda leader’s killing…With Obama in charge, the roles were reversed.
No, they weren’t because, unlike Kornacki and his co-ideologists, conservatives do not put politics above national security.
No conservative has greeted Osama bin Laden’s death with anything less than unbridled glee. The Left regularly complains when defeating foreign foes helps their political enemies. After U.S. forces captured Saddam Hussein in December 2003, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-WA, told Dave Ross of KIRO-FM Bush officials could have caught Saddam “a long time ago if they wanted…It’s funny, when they’re having all this trouble, suddenly they have to roll out something.” The same month, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asked a group of Fox News guests, “Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?” Although she tried to play this off as a joke, several eyewitnesses – including the center-left editor of Roll Call Morton Kondracke – said it was no such thing. The former secretary of state complained that the 9/11 terrorist would be brought to justice on the Bush administration’s watch, because it would hurt her party.
Understanding this mindset is pivotal to understanding liberals. For conservatives, tyrannical regimes that murder religious minorities and employ slave labor deserve to be called “Nazis.” For liberals, that treatment is meted out to Americans who oppose ObamaCare.
To George W. Bush, al-Qaeda extremists were likely terrorists. To Barack Obama, you are.
Conservatives believe foreign enemies are the greatest threat to all Americans. Liberals believe conservatives are the greatest threat to their hegemony and the lone bulwark of the old order preventing the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the erection of Utopia on earth.
The American people will not re-elect someone with that mindset in 2012. They would not have elected him in 2008 if they were aware of it.