By now, you are aware that the Brits have voted to leave the European Union, but unless you are a political wonk like me, you probably won’t see the irony in how President Obama inserted himself in the issue.
Earlier this year, appearing with Prime Minister David Cameron, Obama said, “The United Kingdom is at its best when it’s helping to lead a strong Europe. It leverages UK power to be part of the European Union. I don’t believe the EU moderates British influence in the world. It magnifies it.”
He went on to threaten that the UK would go to the end of the queue when the U.S. was doing trade deals because we prefer to deal with a bloc of countries represented by the EU.
Flashback now to 2012, when second-term candidate presidential candidate Obama criticized Republican candidate Mitt Romney for inserting himself in the UK’s handling of security in the upcoming Olympics, and questioned his foreign policy “preparedness.”
“It’s hard to know just how well it will turn out,” Romney had commented, “there are a few things that were disconcerting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging.”
“One of the challenges of being an actor on the international stage, particularly when you’re traveling to such a sensitive part of the world,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest, “is that your comments are very closely scrutinized for meaning, for nuance, for motivation.”
Even that State Department “brain trust,” Jen Psaki, questioned his qualifications for the presidency. Yes, this is the woman who couldn’t name a single accomplishment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state.
Oddly enough, CNN’s Piers Morgan sided with Romney saying, “It’s no secret over here that for the last three weeks, the security around the Olympics has been a shambles. The outside firm they got to run it has been all over the place … they didn’t have enough people and the army had to be drafted in. So, Mitt Romney was only saying exactly what has been happening.”
As we all know, however, the Obama administration wasn’t interested in the truth then and still isn’t. If Romney’s comments were an indication that he wasn’t prepared to be president, what does Obama’s interference say about his presidency?
Back to today. Obama’s interference in the UK vote was not smart. It’s still another hiccup for his legacy as a world leader. Then there’s Hillary Clinton, who frequently touts her qualifications to run a “smart, steady government,” a supporter of the Brits staying in the EU. Listen to the sound of crickets coming from the Clinton campaign now.
There are those who compare the British rebellion over its EU membership with Donald Trump supporters, who are thoroughly disgusted with Washington DC. As it turns out, immigration, a major issue here, was a consideration for the Brits, who want their country back.
Maybe. I look at Washington DC much like the Brits looked at Brussels, where a cadre of elites in a massive bureaucracy tells its 28 member countries (and in our case 52 states) what’s good for them.
We need to drastically shrink the size of our government and return to the states decisions that belong there.
(If you would like a free subscription to kramerontheright, simply scroll to the bottom of the column at right.)
