Democrats soft on crime and midterms give Americans a chance to choose safety over a world of uncertainty
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — For a brief but moment, it looked as if Barack Obama might be in the position of being able to change that long list of public problems with one well-placed, well-orchestrated vote. But we’re still about two weeks away from the Nov. 2 election, and the country is still deeply engaged in a presidential election with an electoral map that looks very different from the one Obama ran in 2012.
The president has taken care of many aspects of America’s political problems — health care, the deficit and the economy — but he could not have addressed a single aspect of the “threat” that he is being accused of failing to understand: The threat of terrorism.
Even so, with just a few days to go before Election Day and with the possibility that the United States will not change the fact that it has a large and growing number of anti-American jihadists and terrorists, Obama needs to continue to do more than just “be quiet” on national security.
He needs to do something that is, to his mind, absolutely necessary and which, perhaps, would cause his opponents to reconsider their positions.
“I think it’s incredibly important that the president addresses the issue of national security,” Obama told POLITICO on Oct. 27. “And it’s only part of it. Other security issues, like how do keep our borders secure? It’s not just about terrorism. It’s about how do we make sure that these weapons don’t get into the wrong hands and then potentially attack us?”
The president must address the threats now being faced by ordinary Americans, because it is in the long term interest of the human race itself that he does. “The threat from terrorism is real,” Obama told POLITICO in an Oct. 26 interview. “I understand why there’s a sense of urgency about it — it has implications for our economy, and for our people in terms of their jobs. And