Once again, with the Left in control, we are wide open to be attacked by ISIS and other radical groups. Obama has gutted our military, defanged our security forces, kept our southern borders wide open and is importing Middle Eastern refugees as fast as he can.
This all correlates with the Leftist view of the world. The United States is the problem. Military force is never to be used. Inaction is the course picked by Obama.
This makes for a weakness whereby our enemies can smell blood.
Sometimes a candidate must fit his talents and image to suit the meet of the day. At other times, the dominant issue rises to demand just the skill set he already has.
Who knows what the future holds, but America, the West, and the GOP need Donald Trump’s leadership right now.
The Paris bombings beg for just his brand of strong leadership and take-no-prisoners scorn for the weakness of Obama’s diplomacy.
If Trump steps out and leads the charge for a robust American response to ISIS terrorism, he will reach far beyond his current voter base and make the case for his candidacy apparent.
Other stalwart opponents of Obama’s appeasement like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will likely take up the cause.
Americans, already alienated by Obama’s giveaways to Iran, are going to be increasingly shocked and angered by the president’s failure to stand up to ISIS despite the Paris outrage. Things are never good when a president’s actions are seen, at best. as delusional.
But the left wing of the Democratic Party — that has controlled the party since the Iraq War — will force it to fall in line behind Obama’s inaction toward ISIS and appeasement of Iran. Even as the country seethes, the Democrats will hue to their opposition to another war in Iraq and Syria.
Even if Hillary’s instincts are to move toward a more hawkish position in anticipation of the general election, Bernie Sanders’ candidacy will assure her forced fidelity to the leftist position.
Impelled and controlled by the left, the Democratic Party is about to drive off a cliff. Never since the days of McGovern in 1972 have its foreign policy views been more at variance with those of the American people.
As the danger of ISIS rises and continued attacks in the European and American homelands emphasize the danger, voters of all stripes will defect from the Democratic banner.
The “soccer moms” of the 1990s who voted for Bill Clinton’s pro-family policies morphed into “security moms” after 9/11, voting for Bush in 2004.
Obama won them back in 2008 and 2012. But they are about to become security moms again.
All Trump’s problems with women voters will vanish if he steps out and leads the battle against ISIS, calling boldly for major ground troop commitment in coalition with Europe and the Gulf States.
Foreign policy has always been Obama’s weakness, with the single exception of his killing of bin Laden. Voters have always been skeptical of his policy of accommodation with radical Islam and his insistent refusal to call Islamic terrorism by its proper name.
But it has never mattered as much as it does now. For all his radical changes in domestic policy, it is this record of waffling and weakness in foreign affairs that may dominate perceptions of Obama and his party as we enter 2016.
Whether it is the Democratic Party’s demand that we accept Syrian refugees despite evidence that their ranks are salted with potential terrorists or their blinking at Iran’s inexorable move toward the bomb and its sponsorship of terrorism or the president’s refusal to attack ISIS with ground troops, it has left the American people behind.
Democrats lost the election of 2004 over terrorism and are about to repeat the pattern in 2016.
Let the Donald heed the words of the Bard’s Hamlet:
“Conscience doth make cowards of us all,
And the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied over with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
Lose the name of action.”