Salim Mansur

Israel: Decades-old conflict not about to cease

Since 9/11, western powers have behaved more or less like Prince Hamlet, conflicted by doubts and stalemated by niceties that barely register with those who have mounted their version of “slings and arrows” against the West and its allies.

A dozen years following 9/11 should have erased any remaining doubt that Osama bin Laden spoke for many in the Arab-Muslim world who believe Islam is locked in a millennial conflict with the West, and victory will belong to the party that has the faith to take defeats and yet remain on the field of battle as the last man standing.

Bin Laden and his associates might well be described as the crudest expression of this deep-seated conviction of Islamist thinking and practice — that Islam is politics in action, not merely a religion, with the mission to establish its system of government based on the Shariah.

Waging war, engaging in diplomacy, signing treaties, and maintaining or breaking truce are merely means in the pursuit of the end that Islamist doctrine prescribes.

Hamlet’s dilemma was how to act commensurate with the knowledge of the crime given him by the ghost of the murdered king, his father.

The tragedy that unfolds in Shakespeare’s drama is a result of action delayed and ineptly executed by the Prince of Denmark.

The West cannot play Hamlet, while Islamists have mastered the art of exploiting the West’s niceties to their advantage.

It is instructive to note Islamists are most cautious in dealing with Russians and Chinese — that neither Moscow nor Beijing will hesitate in using disproportionate force when needed and will not be troubled by any doubt over actions taken against Islamist terrorism.

But what is worse than playing Hamlet is playing the role at the expense of another.

The West does this with Israel.

Sitting in the shadow of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem one evening when visiting Israel, it became strikingly clear to me, as it is to most Israelis, that the ground zero of the millennial conflict between Islam and the West is right where I sat.

Islamists have made it amply clear, and the vast majority of Muslims support them, that this millennial conflict will not cease until Israel is annihilated.

Those Muslims small in numbers who repudiate such obscenity are in turn repudiated, ostracized, or killed as apostates from Islam.

Israelis are left with no choice but to act with wisdom and courage in doing whatever is necessary for survival. Yet instead of resolutely supporting Israel, many in the West have parked their discredited anti-Semitism inside mosques to appease Islamists.

In an ancient temple located outside of India’s capital are found words inscribed on the wall, “Coincidences, if traced far back enough, become inevitable.”

The recurrent conflict between Hamas and Israel in Gaza, as was 9/11 and many similar, can be traced back sufficiently to see a pattern whose message brooks no doubting.

Benghazi cover-up Obama’s Watergate?

Forty years ago U.S. President Richard Nixon was re-elected with a lopsided 520 electoral college votes over his Democratic opponent, Sen. George McGovern. It was a huge mandate for the president in a country divided over the war in Vietnam.

But there was a cloud over Nixon’s win. A petty burglary at the Democratic National Committee offices located in the Watergate complex in June 1972 ahead of the November election was traced to the campaign committee for the re-election of the president. This turned into the Watergate scandal, and it eventually raised questions regarding what and when Nixon knew about the burglary and about the White House effort to cover up the scandal.

The liberal elite disliked Nixon for his role in accusing Alger Hiss — a senior official in the Democratic administrations of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman — as a Soviet spy during the 1948 Congressional hearings into un-American activities by individuals and organizations. The Watergate story was pursued with vengeance by the liberal media, and the role of the fourth estate for speaking truth to power was enshrined in the popular myth when Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974, ahead of the House voting to impeach him with likely conviction to follow in the Senate.

More than eight weeks since four Americans, including Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador, died in Benghazi, Libya, the same liberal media that brought Nixon down remains protective of President Obama instead of pursuing leads to uncover facts surrounding what might well be “Benghazi-gate.”

As many Americans grope to understand the grisly details of events in Benghazi, they have been given the salacious spectacle of their most decorated general in recent years and director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David Petraeus, resign three days after the election.

The four-star general, once mocked by Democratic activists as “Petraeus, Betray-us,” fell on the proverbial sword to save what was left of his honour following revelations of an affair he had with a married woman, or was simply dismissed by President Obama.

The “Petraeus affair” in Obama’s Washington is a distraction, while the administration has engaged in a cover-up of the Benghazi story with an adroitness that makes the Watergate cover-up look to be in comparison an amateur performance.

Petraeus is the one man who knows what happened and what Benghazi means, and how Americans killed there by Islamist terrorists explodes the administration’s narrative that a third-rate video insulting Mohammed practically nobody had seen ignited the mayhem culminating in loss of life.

What occurred in Benghazi blows apart President Obama’s preferred view of his administration’s success in the Middle East. His claim is al-Qaida has been eliminated, while the facts leading up to Benghazi are al-Qaida has reorganized and has exploited the so-called “Arab Spring” to advance Islamism across the region.

Americans eventually will learn the truth about Benghazi, and its cover-up by the Obama administration to get past the election. For this to occur, however, Petraeus will require speaking truthfully to the Congress as he struggles to salvage whatever remains of his broken reputation.

In the meantime, Americans and outsiders might gain insight into the inner workings of the Obama White House in reading again Mario Puzo’s The Godfather.

 

The better man lost the election

There will be scores of books written and words piled up alongside the mounting American debt to fathom the results and consequences of the 2012 U.S. election.

In columns of such limited space as these, one can only suggestively wink at, as I once wrote, the complexity of subjects such as this requiring treatment at much greater length to do them justice.

On Tuesday evening, American voters balked on seeing their republic at a fork in the road — one path sloping towards greater dependency of individuals on the big government welfare state, and the other towards keeping secure the American ideals of individual freedom and responsibility — and voted to maintain the status quo of the past two years.

Republicans remain in control of the House, Democrats in control of the Senate, and the incumbent returns to the White House after an estimated cost of nearly $6 billion spent on the election.

This status quo reflects a bitterly divided America.

The 2012 election turnout was lower than that of 2008. According to the U.S. Federal Election Commission, 131 million Americans voted in 2008; the 2012 election turnout is estimated to be around 119 million.

In 2008, Obama’s share of the popular vote was shy of 69.5 million, or 52.9% of the total vote cast. Though his share of the 2012 popular vote was significantly less at 60.7 million or 50.4% of the total, it allowed him to squeeze a win.

In 2008, John McCain, the Republican nominee, received 59.9 million votes or 45.7% of the total.

Mitt Romney received 48% of the total vote in 2012, and though his share of 57.8 million votes fell below McCain’s, he received more electoral college votes.

The difference in numbers between an Obama win and a Romney loss was approximately the difference in numbers between those who voted for McCain in 2008 but did not vote for Romney. These nominally Republican voters staying home in the 2012 election, whether they were discouraged conservatives or unenthused independents, left the better man as a loser.

The fundamentals of the American economy — the figures for unemployment, people on food stamps, debt burden, depressed income, gas prices, the cost of Obamacare — were indicative of a failed Obama presidency.

But most of us anticipating a Romney presidency misread how greatly the American electorate has changed over the past three decades.

Open immigration since the mid-’60s has altered America’s demographic profile, as it has Europe’s and ours in Canada. During these decades, multiculturalism, with its attendant political correctness, have also greatly affected, in my view for the worse, the values of work, thrift, freedom and responsibility at the heart of America’s great republican adventure.

I have received my share of vitriolic mail — the occupational hazard of standing in the public square — and likely more will come.

It is a bracing experience to take such mail as bird droppings, to wash them away without any disquiet, and move on with the task at hand.

I also know keeping faith in democracy is not forgetting, as Churchill with irony and given his bittersweet experience in politics observed, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

The puzzle in U.S. presidential elections

The role of the electoral college in American politics is unique, indirectly electing the U.S. president every four years. The American constitution provides for each state of the union to have a list of electors chosen by the state legislators equal to the number of elected representatives sent from the states to the U.S. Congress.

The electoral college consists of 535 electors, in number equal to the Congressional representation of 435 House members and 100 Senators, plus three electors from the District of Columbia.

The uniqueness of the American republican form of government is the constitutional checks and balances among the three equal branches of government.

Only the executive as the president represents indirectly the entire nation on the basis of popular vote nationally conducted, but the election of the president rests with the electors representing the states.

The candidates for the American presidency engage in a contest that comprises of 50 individual elections, plus one in the District of Columbia, held on the same day. In other words, as James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, “The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters.”

The reasoning behind such an arrangement was simple, to balance or safeguard the interests of minority (small states in terms of population) against majority (large populous states).

It was understood by the framers of the constitution that a majority vote in the electoral college meant the president-elect would be fairly representative of the union both in terms of total population and of states in the federation.

It has been rare — only on four occasions, the most recent in 2000 — when the majority vote in the electoral college went to a candidate losing the popular vote.

The reason for such a discrepancy to occur comes about when a candidate piles up the popular vote count by winning a few of the large and more populous states without winning enough of the smaller states to receive a majority of the electoral college vote.

The pattern of elections in recent years has shown that apart from a handful of so-called “battleground” states, most are locked in support of one of the two parties, Democrats or Republicans.

The coastal states — such as California (55 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (20), New York (29), New Jersey (14), — are locked in support of Democrats, while some of the southern states — such as Texas (38), Georgia (16), Arizona (11), Louisiana (8), Alabama (9) — support Republicans.

Hence, the battleground states — such as Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, where neither party has a lock on support of voters — become important in deciding the president-elect.

In the 2012 election cycle, since most observers view the race as tight, the decision will come down to a few key states putting either Obama or Romney over the top.

The 2012 election appears close based on assumptions drawn from the previous narrowly contested elections in 2000 and 2004

It is quite possible, however, this election might surprise most people, as the 1980 election did when Ronald Reagan won a landslide over the incumbent Jimmy Carter.

I will not be surprised with a similar result on election night.

Bad egg about to roll out of White House

In less than two weeks, Americans will either elect a new president, or give the incumbent a second term.

In following the latest polls, one can observe that since the first debate on Oct. 3, support among likely voters across the country has shifted in favour of Mitt Romney.

The Gallup and Rasmussen polls have indicated Romney presently leads President Barack Obama nationally, and in the battleground states where the election will be decided, either Romney has pulled even with Obama or tending to take the lead. More importantly, Romney is ahead by double-digits over Obama among independent voters, and the gender gap in support of the incumbent has vanished.

Democrats are pretty much in a state of panic. The Obama administration and the campaign team for the president’s re-election appear to be a in a firefight of their own making and, likely for the first time, they are awakening to the realization that this election is theirs to lose.

What happened? The tide that brought the Republicans roaring back in the 2010 mid-term election to take control of the House in the U.S. Congress has not ebbed in American politics. This tide will likely take Romney into the White House.

In the lead-up to the 2010 election, an increasing number of Americans began to slowly recognize that Obama was not the same individual they voted for in 2008. He appeared to be ideologically rigid, fiscally imprudent, bent upon spending as he recklessly added to the national debt already perilously high, and as a man of the left disdainful of his opponents.

The 2010 election was a referendum on the Obama administration’s inept handling of the economy. Yet Obama remained heedless of the Republican majority in the House, failed repeatedly to submit the annual budget or negotiate any compromise on spending. The economy continued to suffer, jobs vanished, unemployment figures remained unacceptably high, and the recovery has been anemic.

During the 2008 primary season, I wrote about candidate Obama as the Harold Hill of American politics. Harold Hill in the well-loved musical play The Music Man is a likeable flim-flam artist out to hustle the good simple folks of River City, Iowa, and they fall for him.

A significant number of Americans fell for candidate Obama in 2008, seduced by his charm and his slogans of hope and change.

But by 2010, as the mid-term election results showed, enough Americans realized their own responsibility in being misled. Then came the October surprise in September as Americans watched the Obama administration engage in lies and deceptions in informing them about the deaths of four Americans, including the ambassador, in Benghazi, Libya, at the hands of al-Qaida-affiliated terrorists.

Thomas Sowell, the highly respected conservative economist and American of colour at the Hoover Institute, Stanford University, wrote recently, “The full story of what happened in Libya, down to the last detail, may never be known. But, as someone once said, you don’t need to eat a whole egg to know that it is rotten.”

This sense of wrong surrounding the administration, and its failed attempt to depict Romney as a heartless plutocrat, not surprisingly might make Barack Hussein Obama a one-term president.

The irony of being Obama

Every four years in the U.S., it comes down to the question that the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan asked the American voters in October 1980: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

During the second debate of the 2012 election cycle, Republican candidate Mitt Romney responded to a question by stating, “I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you’re going to get. You’re going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can’t afford four more years like the last four years.” And just as Reagan did in turning the 1980 campaign into a referendum on the Carter presidency, similarly Romney appears to have turned the 2012 campaign on its head and in his favour.

President Obama is not merely the first black, or coloured, president of the United States. He is also the first affirmative action president and the poster-face — along with Bill Clinton — of children born to and reared by that segment of the boomer generation described scathingly as the most self-indulgent, or hedonistic, and amoral in the bestselling book, The Culture of Narcissism, by the late Christopher Lasch.

The question that hangs over American politics, and will be discussed in the years to come, is how could candidate Obama and the gang from Chicago who brought him to the White House in 2008 get enough Americans to vote for him? This is a story that eventually will be told, and it will be an ugly story more revealing of the decay of American culture and society than, for instance, was the Watergate episode in American politics.

It is also the story in the larger sense that Lasch wrote about, as did Allan Bloom in his bestselling book, The Closing of the American Mind.

Enough damaging material about Obama’s past corrupt associations and left-wing Saul Alinsky politics got to be known in 2008. Yet the mainstream media refused to investigate and properly vet Obama.

And Obama, on his part, threw every associate of his — his fiery pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his terrorist mentor Bill Ayers, his real-estate friend Tony Rezko (serving time in prison for embezzlement), and finally his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton — under the bus instead of taking responsibility for his part in relationships and situations that became matter of public concern.

The mainstream media circled Obama’s wagon, and carried him forward. The New York Times, for instance, also known as the Pravda-on-the-Hudson, has been Obama’s ideological soulmate and cheerleader alongside NBC, CNN, ABC, MSNBC and similar media organizations. This media bubble and the company of fawning Hollywood celebrities give Obama the sense he is above criticism and superior in intelligence to those around him, including opponents.

In being shielded by the liberal-left media, Obama has appeared glamorous. But when tested, as in the debates, he has come out looking glib and shallow. The result might well be for Obama, as Clint Eastwood reminded his audience at the Republican convention a few weeks ago in Tampa, Fla., “and when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go.”

This, then, is the irony of being Obama.

 

An empty shell for Barack Obama’s foreign policy

Following the murder of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, in Benghazi by Islamist terrorists connected to al-Qaida on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, the European press pronounced upon President Obama’s foreign policy in the Arab-Muslim world.

From Berlin, the German magazine Der Spiegel in its online English version ran the headline “Obama’s Middle East Policy Is In Ruins.” There is irony here since candidate Obama travelled to Berlin in July 2008 to present himself abroad declaring, “People of Berlin, people of the world, this is our moment. This is our time.”

In June 2009, President Obama went to Egypt and delivered his peace overture to the Arab-Muslim world. He came to Cairo, he said, to seek a new beginning between the U.S. and the Muslim world and to turn the page on what had gone before.

For Obama it was enough he spoke soothing words lauding Arab-Muslim history, praised Islam, and announced his own intimacy with Islam and Muslims, to bridge the differences and open a new era of peace in the Middle East. It was consistent with this view that President Obama embraced the Arab Spring as if it was a response to his overture. There was no need to be cautious since with the killing of Osama bin Laden the war on terrorism, he contended, had ended.

But the hard reality of the Arab-Muslim world cannot be wished away by soothing words of an American president even with an appealing biography. The Arab Spring turned out to be, as anyone familiar with the politics of the region well understood, a big hoax. It has been springtime for Islamists, and the Obama administration’s policy of embracing the Muslim Brotherhood has been as delusionary as Neville Chamberlain’s return with promises made by Hitler.

Four Americans killed in Benghazi by terrorists exposed the fecklessness of a policy built on the premise of appeasing Islamists in the region. The subsequent efforts to cover up the administration’s ineptness in providing security for the dead envoy in Libya, in blaming a third-rate video on prophet Mohammed for igniting mob violence across the Arab-Muslim world, and in being dismissive about perils resulting from the Arab Spring as “bumps on the road,” have only underlined the abysmal collapse of the public face of a policy sold as new beginning of American relationship with Muslim countries.

There is an argument to be made that President Obama’s foreign policy to shrink America’s footprint in world affairs has been deliberate. But the Obama administration cannot make this argument up front with the American people.

Consequently, a full-fledged effort by the Obama administration was mounted by senior officials to lie and obfuscate about a policy adopted in the bright flush of hope and change rhetoric that now lies shredded across the Arab-Muslim world.

Iran is closer to acquiring nuclear weapons presently than it was in January 2009, while America’s closest ally in the region, Israel, is downgraded and its leader insulted.

And Obama, preparing to debate Mitt Romney on foreign policy, remains an empty suit despite his demagogic skills. Romney likely will hand Obama his head again, watched by Americans in an encore performance of the first debate.

 

Free speech distinguishes the West from the rest

In Crowds and Power, the late Elias Canetti, a wonderfully gifted writer and Nobel laureate, brought a unique perspective in examining the human condition and history under the stress of mobs in politics.

When individuals gathered together turn into a crowd and then erupt into a mob, the transition from one into another is the obliteration, even momentarily, of the individual as a thinking being reduced physically into a mindless atom constituent of a mass set in motion by the wish to demonstrate power.

The crowd as mob, wrote Canetti, “wants to experience for itself the strongest possible feeling of its own animal force and passion and, as means to this end, it will use whatever social pretexts and demands offer themselves.”

The politics of the Arab-Muslim world of late — or at least since the 1979 revolution in Iran that brought clerics with a medieval mind-set to power — has been reduced to the pathology of the mob in politics.

This is not unique in history and, for instance, as it was with the pathology of mob politics during the “reign of terror” in France or the Maoist “cultural revolution” in China, the situation in the Arab-Muslim world may likely pass at some point in the future.

In the meantime, however, it should be clearly understood that there is no reasoning with mobs, and any sign of weakness in terms of appeasing mobs by acknowledging or giving in to their demands amounts to stoking their wild frenzy.

Those religious and political leaders at the head of Muslim mobs, or riding them for their own demagogic ends, sense that they are pretty close to intimidating the West into surrendering on the subject of free speech, and accepting that mocking what is sacred to Muslims — their religion, their prophet and their sacred book — must be deemed offensive and banned.

Free speech is the pulse of a free society, the antidote to the pathology of politics driven by mobs. And, moreover, free speech as the hallmark of individual freedom distinguishes the West from the Rest and, in particular, the Arab-Muslim world.

Yet once again free speech is threatened not as much by the pathology of mob politics, but by the weakness of those in the West who mistakenly believe Muslims might have a point and their demand should be met in some fashion.

This is what President Obama said at the UN this week in responding to the mob frenzy in the Arab-Muslim world: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

When one finishes parsing the sentence, one is left thinking the president of the United States agrees with Muslim mobs, and denouncing those who cause offence by ridiculing what others hold sacred can only mean admitting free speech should be abridged.

On the contrary, what needs to be said to the Arab-Muslim world, irrespective of how mobs there engage in rampaging their own societies, is that the West as a civilization is also defined by something sacred.

This something sacred and universal in appeal is individual freedom, manifest in the principle of free speech in whose defence people have made the ultimate sacrifice and, hence, this principle is non-negotiable.

 

Islamist jihad against West rages

As Americans stopped to mark the 11th anniversary of 9/11, and ponder how much the world has changed during these years, an ocean away more terrorist attacks were mounted on American interests in the Middle East.

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya resulting in the murder of Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, with three members of his staff and several Libyans, was an act of war by men indoctrinated with the same ideology of those who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Osama bin Laden is dead and so is Ayatollah Khomeini, but the war they declared against the “satanic” West continues. The West, on the other hand, has opted to be an ostrich.

The result is more than a decade after hijacked jetliners plowed into tall buildings in New York, Islamists are ascendant across the Middle East and hoisting their Shariah-based totalitarian ideology. The U.S. under the Obama administration stands instead as having reverted back to the pre-9/11 mentality.

The American election is barely seven weeks away and the Islamist jihad against the “Crusaders,” in the language of al-Qaida’s founder, will very likely get obscured in the fog of political debates and recriminations in the U.S.

But there is no mistaking that an apologetic West, as represented by President Obama, emboldened the Islamists, resulting in the manner in which the so-called Arab Spring unfolded.

The abandonment of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt accompanied by the embrace of Muslim Brotherhood is turning out to be a repeat of Iran in 1979 when Khomeini swept into power.

It is extraordinary that an apologetic America, as President Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo symbolized, and Europe with its appeasement mind-set cannot get their act together in compelling a third world rogue state, Iran, to abandon its quest for nuclear weapons capability or face dire military consequences. This failure to disarm Iran while embracing Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt — the political grandfather of all the various Islamist offsprings in the greater Middle East and beyond — makes the present situation eerily similar to the 1930s.

What needs to be done, and should have been done by the previous Bush administration, is to take a page from George Kennan — the architect of President Truman’s policy against the Soviet Union — and update his strategy of containment for the Arab-Muslim world. The Arab-Muslim world deserves to be isolated and contained, as was the former Soviet Union. An Iron Curtain, in Winston Churchill’s memorable words, should descend separating the West and its allies from the Arab-Muslim world until the latter has exhausted itself of its own demons.

The situation America, and by its default the West, finds itself in relation to the Arab-Muslim world is to a large extent, ironically, the result of its own guilt-ridden attitude and political correctness. This state of mind, or multiculturalism, gravely inhibits a realistic assessment of 9/11 and what has followed.

The explanation on offer that this new wave of Muslim rage was ignited by a crudely amateurish docu-drama about Islam’s prophet, and the individual responsible must be severely punished, is pathetic in describing a guilt-ridden West seeking to placate the Arab-Muslim world.

Islamists are at war, and the West needs to respond accordingly.

 

Amateur hour is over for Barack Obama

Politics makes strange bedfellows. And the strangest bedfellows people saw this week in Charlotte, N.C., were former U.S. President William Jefferson Clinton and the current White House occupant, Barack Hussein Obama.

The worst kept secret in American politics is the bad blood between the 42nd and the 44th president.

In his recent bestseller The Amateur, Edward Klein opens the book on Obama with a private meeting Clinton called at his home in Chappaqua, N.Y., in August 2011. It was to persuade Hillary, his wife, to challenge the sitting president for the party’s nomination, as did Ted Kennedy in challenging Jimmy Carter in 1980. Clinton recited the reasons why Hillary could win. And then, as Klein tells the story, he paused for effect, bit his lips, and pronounced: “Barack Obama is an amateur.”

Clinton has said worse, as has Obama in his run against Hillary in 2008. Clinton accused Obama of using the race card against him, and Ryan Lizza, in the latest New Yorker, reports Clinton told Ted Kennedy during 2008 primary, “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.”

And yet there was Clinton in Charlotte on prime time Wednesday, hugging the man he loathes after he nominated him, even as Hillary, Obama’s secretary of state, bailed out of the Democratic Party convention by going as far as she could go, to the Cook Islands in the South Pacific.

Set aside policies, statistics and whose facts add up, party conventions ahead of general elections are about spinning narratives and telling stories about one’s team while painting opponents negatively.

But unlike Harry Truman, the straight-talking president and great Democrat whose motto was “the buck stops here,” both Clinton and Obama were and are “pass the buck” presidents. Clinton’s mendacity in public life was nailed by the late Christopher Hitchens in No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulation of William Jefferson Clinton.

He is only the second president in the republic’s history to be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, and disbarred.

The adulation of Clinton by the current crop of Democrats reflects poorly on a party that claims to fight for women. And Obama’s choice to have Clinton make the case for his re-election underscored the shrunken, if not failed, state of his presidency.

The voting public is possibly weary of a president passing the buck on the economy.

The 43rd president, George W. Bush, was not heard in public blaming the Clinton years for 9/11 and the massive economic downturn that followed.

But then Obama’s presidency is, as Clint Eastwood portrayed it at the Republican convention in Tampa, an empty chair. In the battle of competing narratives, will it be Eastwood’s devastatingly short empty chair routine, or the 48 minutes of rhetorical overdrive delivered by an ex-president with the reputation of a snake oil salesman?

Sometimes it simply comes down to this.

“We own this country,” Eastwood said.

“And when somebody does not do the job, we got to let them go.”