Last week President Obama said in an interview that Egypt isn't necessarily an ally, but not an enemy either--a new government, democratically elected, finding its way. Gaffe! Right? And the stories circulated that President Obama had refused to meet with Israeli PM Netanyahu. Big mistake! Right? So naive...
Well, the media may not have gotten the message in both instances, but the intended receiver did. Egypt's new president learned that in order to keep American foreign aid coming he was going to have to do it the old fashioned way--earn it. The very least an "ally" or even a neutral nation must do for another is protect their Embassy from violence. Egypt got the messsage.
As for Netanyahu, he was all but campaigning for Romney. He welcomes him to Israel. Suddenly there's no time in the President's schedule for a meeting in New York. And suddenly, Netanyahu is in danger of alienating the guy who is President now and is ahead in the polls to stay President. He's going to have to do some earning as well. So N went on two Sunday blatherfests to declare that he wants to get out of this interfering in American elections but people keep trying to pull him back in, and he's confident that President Obama supports Israel's security interests just as much as Mitt. Message received.
The projection of power requiring no bluster, posturing or starting a war.
On Saturday, there were fewer and less violent demonstrations in the Middle East. But Libyan officials also consider an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group as responsible for the Benghazi murders. Whether the video protest was a pretext or a coincidence--with the 9-11 anniversary more of a factor--remains to be determined.
Another attack that was initially reported as related to the protests also probably was not--the terrorist attack by the Taliban in Afghanistan that killed two U.S. Marines, and seemed intended to target England's Prince Harry, beginning his rotation at that base.
Also, the man who probably made that video was questioned by police, because he's on parole.
In political news, a Philadelphia Inquirer poll showed President Obama has an 11 point lead in Pennsylvania, at 50-39. This was the second straight month that he was at 50% or over. His favorability went up slightly while Romney's tumbled. Obama wins all demographic groups, including whites and men.
But there is a catch--the President's big lead comes "overwhelmingly" from the Philadelphia area, which is precisely where the voter suppression ID law is likely to have the most effect. The poll found a lot of awareness of the law (80%) and some 5% who thought it might make voting more difficult for them. But observers say that people aren't aware of how stringent the ID requirement is, and so may not know they are ineligible until they are denied the right to vote on election day.
Several articles noted that in most polls President Obama has at least pulled even with Romney in best able to handle the economy. The New York Times noted that after GOPer misinformation seemed to muddy the waters after their convention, Obama and the Dems are back winning on Medicare.
The San Francisco Chronicle is among the consensus that President Obama has a substantial electoral college lead, and that Romney needs a clear win (and a clear debacle for President Obama) in the first debate to have any chance. After that (others say) even his flow of money might stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment