Legal Commentary

Reading media reports, President Obama apparently justified the tax cut compromise by saying that "it is tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers."  This, to me, reflects a seriously warped understanding of the proper way to deal with hostage takers.  Temptation implies that there is a clearly right course of action, but our emotions tug us in the other direction.  In the case of hostage takers, the temptation is to pay the ransom, whereas the clearly right course of action is to not pay, since paying might save one hostage but provides an incentive for future hostage taking.  Obama's comment suggests that he doesn't share this view.

I wouldn't want to get too hung up on a stray comment that was probably written by s apeechwriter anyway.  Actions speak louder than words.  Except . . . Obama's actions in cravenly caving on just about every issue except healthcare (and even then caving on the public option) suggest that this is not a stray comment but really his guiding philosophy.

Even a Republican who opposes every single one of Obama's domestic priorities should be troubled by the fact that the President of the United States has a penchant for cravenly caving to people he regards as hostage takers, even going so far as to think it is his moral obligation to so cravenly cave.  In a large and dangerous world, there are many foreign enemies who often take hostages, either figuratively (e.g. North Korea) or literally (e.g. North Korea).  That the current U.S. President may be the most incompetent hostage negotiator ever to hold the job does not make me feel good as an American.  While you are more likely to be bailed out if taken as a hostage, you are also more likely to be taken as a hostage in the first place. . .