#Voteforsomebody

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, I want to start what I hope will be a happy and exciting post on a more somber note. The devastation wrought on the northeast, New York and New Jersey in particular, is horrific, and my thoughts are with all of those who have been affected. As the president and other state and local officials have said repeatedly the last few days, we stand by you and we will rebuild, repair, and recover.

On a lighter, but also important note, I came across a video recently that I wanted to share. While my political affiliations are no secret, our society will only prosper and succeed if we fulfill or duties as citizens. We must remain informed, and exercise our rights in order for the American democratic experiment to work. Though I hope most people will vote for the President on November 6th, it is important that they vote period. Know the issues and vote for the candidate you think will do the best job addressing them.

This is an important message, especially in light of the fact that fewer and fewer people vote and America faces a myriad of problems that we must address to ensure our country's future remains bright. So with that in mind I give you the Harlem Prep Hawks, imploring you - in the cutest possible manner - to get out there and vote on November 6th!

These scholars have an important and powerful yet simple message. Know the issues, and use your knowledge to make a difference. Vote for Obama, or vote for Romney. It's your civic duty. And it is a duty. We all have obligations: obligations to our jobs; our families; our friends and loved ones; but also to our country. It is your responsibility to vote. America will only work if we take advantage of the rights and freedoms we are lucky to have. I don't want to be the first nation that ends up on the ash-heap of history because people just didn't care. So go vote! Election day is less than a week away! Don't do it for me, do it for you, do it for America, and if you need one more reason, do it because the scholars of Harlem Prep need a bright future for America and we owe them that!

Third Time's a Charm

An easy cliche of a title, but certainly the truth. The final debate was far and away the most substantive of the three. Sure, the bar was low, and it was good only in a comparative sense, but there was significantly less posturing and a bit more substance.

And that is why I think this debate was a win for my guy. I have blogged before about Romney's foreign policy gaffes. Quite frankly, while I have avoided dissing Romney's career at Bain as that of a vulture capitalist, I do not buy into the argument that a successful career in business qualifies one to be a successful politicians. I'm much more receptive to Romney's arguments about his time as governor of Massachusetts as a case for why he would make a good president. Sure, running a successful business means he has managerial and leadership qualities, but a government and a for-profit corporation are very different entities.

But when it comes to foreign policy, experience does matter. It matters quite a bit. The closest thing Romney has to foreign policy experience is running the winter Olympics. He also managed to offend the British. This does not bode well.

I will admit that I was impressed, though not surprised by many of Romney's stances last night. Despite his attempts to hammer Obama on foreign policy, Romney's views aren't really that different, and that is a good thing since foreign policy is a major strength of the President. I will also admit that my biggest fear about candidate Obama in 2008 was his lack of foreign policy experience. I was worried that he wouldn't be able to make tough decisions. I was wrong.

But that gets me back to last night's debate, and why Obama is much better suited to the role of Commander-in-Chief. As I watched I noticed a look on Obama's face that struck me as "yeah right," in response to much of what Romney said. Tougher sanctions on Iran? Well yeah, of course, but anyone can say that. Obama made it happen. He has the experience of working with other nations to clamp down on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Disposing of Middle Eastern dictators? Obama's approach to the Libyan uprising was superb though in its aftermath we have some sorting out to do. The same thing is true for ordering the attack inside Pakistan that took down bin Laden. Not to politicize that and say Romney wouldn't have done the same - I'm sure he would have - but Obama has had to make that tough decision. He can weigh the information and has shown himself to be a shrewd decision-maker who can and will do what is necessary to keep America safe and promote our values.

The third debate was certainly the most substantive of the three, and in the third debate, though Romney did not look bad, only one candidate showed himself to be the one who really knows what it takes to make tough decisions. Obama's experience and wisdom showed, and while Romney was right to agree with the President on many points, he displayed his lack of experience glaringly on a few other occasions.

It has been no secret for quite some time that only one man is the right one to lead our country. And though Romney has etch-a-sketched pretty well, last night's debate cemented the fact that the President has what Romney lacks, fortitude and integrity. Flat in the first debate, aggressive in the second, last night Obama proved that the third time is a charm. He was composed and assertive and showed why he is the commander-in-chief that America needs for the next four years.

At It Again

After watching El Presidente and Mittens go at it again in round two, I walked away thoroughly unimpressed by either. I'm glad Obama hit Mitt back this time, calling him out on some of his egregious lies, but Obama told some fibs of his own, and didn't do any better providing policy details. If you were just tuning in for the first time you would think neither Obama nor Romney had a real plan, and perhaps that is the case.

More than anything, last night's debate made me sad. After the first debate I was concerned about Romney's momentum, but now I'm concerned about the state of American politics. Last night both Romney and Obama took the opportunity to rehash talking points and bash each other without talking about facts or details. Both men pettily stooped to pointing out that the other isn't perfect. Neither was very specific about details, and rather than provide them, both took time pointing out that the other didn't really have any.

It would have been refreshing if either of them had actually answered the questions they were asked. Obama completely sidestepped a question about security in Libya. To his credit, he took responsibility for what happened, but in a roundabout manner that did not address the question at all. Romney, when asked about assault weapons, somehow found himself talking about single parent households and strengthening marriage. If only we had a lower divorce rate, we would have fewer guns. It all makes perfect sense.

Worst of all is the way they talk to the audience. They are patronizing. Listening made me feel like I was a third grader who had just stolen a pack of gum. Part of this has to do with the fact that they both apparently think we are in third grade. Does no one notice that neither of them really says much of substance? If I designed a drinking game around taking a shot every time either candidate gave a real vision for America's future I would have been one sober guy. Both, of them excel at being belittling each in his own way. Obama gets off topic and rambles about his achievements. Romney is worse, he seems to think talking last makes him right, and when he finds himself in a sticky spot he just talks about how is a job creator and reflects on that time he was governor without really saying what he did as governor.

This is what we're left we're left with. This is what has become of politics. I imagine if I had listened to that debate and missed the facial expressions, hand gestures, and posture that I probably would have thought I was listening to a bunch of middle school kids arguing about which one is cooler. Is this our fault? Does the American electorate demand such insipidness from our politicians? I know both Obama and Romney have some ideas, I assume they even have many in common. Why won't they talk about them?


Put simply, our political system is near defunct. Our politicians care more about poll data than policy, prefer talking points to ideas, would rather blast each other for real and perceived failures than take an intellectual and moral risk by proposing something substantive for the future. To his credit, Paul Ryan actually does have a detailed policy when it comes to the budget, problematically, those details are scary and the plan is bad.

As American citizens we need to demand more. We need to demand facts, not lies. We need to demand ideas, not condemnations. If we are going to fix our nation's problems, we need to start by fixing our nation's politics. 

Memory Spans

The election is nearing. We are in the home stretch. In less than a month we will choose, for better or for worse, the next president of the United States. We will decide which path we want for our country's future.

I remain optimistic that President Obama will carry the day. Though his first debate performance was lackluster, there is still time for him to bounce back from that. If Americans tune in for debate two, I'm certain they will see the president expose Mitt Romney for the fraud that he is.

But what is really important is that we don't need the president to do that for us, we should already know better. It is true that most politicians play to their base during the primaries and swing towards the center for general elections. Mitt Romney's etch-a-sketch strategy - while another example of his numerous gaffes - isn't unique to this election, to his candidacy, or to politics. It's a tried and true tactic that has worked before, and may work again come November.

But that's not really the point. While we expect certain measures of of malleability from our politicians, what we have gotten from Mitt Romney is different. We haven't gotten changing attitudes on certain positions; we have gotten a complete 180 on most things. We haven't gotten vague statements that can be interpreted in numerous ways depending on the audience; we have gotten vague details on policy proposals that Mitt is now totally eschewing. Perhaps the reason President Obama seemed to be caught off guard during the debate was because a brand new Mitt Romney showed up, one we have never seen before.

What America needs is a longer memory span. It's bad enough that we let ourselves be seduced by the gospel of trickle down. Do we not remember the Bush years? Do we not remember that Reagan and Clinton raised taxes? Do we not remember that the prescriptions offered by Mitt Romney are the same toxins that created our economic problem?

If we cannot remember the W. Presidency, perhaps at least we can remember this summer's Mitt Romney, but alas, those memories seem to have long since faded as well. As Obama pointed out in the first debate, Mitt Romney had a totally new tax plan than he has had for the last eighteen months. To anyone who was paying attention, this was obvious. But how many of us were paying attention?

If our memory spans were a bit longer we would realize that Mitt Romney isn't just playing the accepted game of political shape-shifter, he is a brand new person with brand new bad ideas. In fact, the old old Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney would be highly preferable to this new incarnation. It's okay when politicians do political jigs, and it is a good thing when politicians examine evidence and facts and come to new conclusions based on said facts.

It is disturbing and troublesome when a candidate who has reinvented himself entirely has a real shot at winning the presidency. Mitt Romney's (current) ideas are bad enough, but the various masks he wears to cover his naked ambition should scare all Americans. Mitt Romney does not believe in anything except his overwhelming desire to be president, and that is not the kind of person we want leading our country. 

Round One

Most people, myself included, think Mitt Romney won last night's debate. He took charge, was more assertive, and though he displayed his usual tendencies for lying and flip-flopping, dominated the narrative.

But as Mitt Romney himself has already pointed out, most people don't matter; 47% of us are voting for the President no matter what. A similar percentage of people will vote for Romney no matter what. Last night my Facebook wall was full of my Romney friends crowing about his success, and my Obama friends lamenting our guy's lackadaisical performance. I'll be the first to say I agree. I wish Obama had slam dunked some of the alley-oops Romney tried to throw him. I wish he had capitalized on Jim Lehrer's use of trickle down and made a case for how it is just that, trickling down. Put simply, I wish he'd worn his boxing gloves, not his mittens.

But who cares what I think? My vote is signed, sealed, and delivered. Much more important is what those undecided sliver of voters thought. And I see a lot of positive takeaways for the president there.

For starters, though he allowed Romney to dictate the pace and direction of the conversation, Obama exposed Romney for the flip-flopping fraud he is. It seemed at times that the President's approach was to bait Romney. Obama says X, Romney interrupts and interjects in an overly aggressive manner, refutes himself or gives few specifics, while Obama sits back and looks austere and presidential.

This happened on numerous occasions last night. It happened first early in the debate when Obama described Romney's tax plan, only to have Romney hijack the debate to characterize Obama's description as inaccurate. Obama ceded the ground, let Romney talk himself in circles and then simply said, "Well for 18 months he's been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he's saying that his big, bold idea is 'never mind.'"

Now personally, I would have liked the President to take Mitt apart right there. I would have liked to have seen Obama pound home the truth in stronger terms, and call Romney out for his hypocrisy. But instead he made his point more subtly and came off looking presidential. Meanwhile, while poor Jim Lehrer - who couldn't have imposed his will on a cow last night - argued with Romney who was over eager to rebut the president.

This happened time and time again, to the point where even Jim Lehrer - doing his best carpet impersonation - finally told Romney, "No, let's not" when Romney tried to interject. Would I have liked more talking points, more sound bites, more aggression from the President? Absolutely. I would have like him to destroy Romney last night, and it wouldn't have been all that difficult. Romney may have dominated the narrative, but his lies, his flip-flopping, and his gross lack of specifics (something of which the President is also guilty but to a lesser degree) were on full display. Obama could have had his way with Romney, but he didn't. But he made his points, he got his jabs in, and he did it in a way that I think was probably more thought-provoking to the undecided voter.

Of course that doesn't mean the strategy worked, if in fact, that was the strategy. Perhaps Obama was just tired, or bored, or wishing he were spending time with his wife on their anniversary. But Obama is smarter than to overlook this; he knows what is at stake - his job; and I believe he went into last night knowing it was the first debate of three and that he could collect his ammunition - and Romney gave him plenty - and sit back and play president to Romney's bull-in-a-china-shop.

Whether this was actually the plan, I can't say for sure. Whether it was effective if it was the plan, I also can't say for sure. And while I do think that Romney "won" last night's debate by dominating the narrative and dictating the pace, he also exposed himself as a hypocrite and failed to give many specifics. He gave Obama a lot of ammunition, and if the President brings the thunder next time, he will not only be able to reclaim the narrative, he will win the fact war too.

Peace is Possible

I’ve already chimed in on Mitt Romney’s callous remarks about half of our fellow countrymen, but today I’d like to address another distressing aspect of his secretly recorded comments, the idea that peace in the Middle East isn’t possible, and that the best thing America can do is kick the can down the road.

Let me start by referring you to a previous post about MittRomney’s laughable trip overseas meant to display his foreign policy prowess. Mitt began his trip in London where he managed to piss off the British! Piss of the British! Think about that. I’m actually pretty certain the last time that happened was 1812. It’s literally been 200 years. Seriously, Britain is our closest ally. You would have to try to offend the British. Unless you’re Mitt Romney and you are just so socially inept that you can’t help but say the wrong thing.

But that can be brushed aside. After all it’s nothing more than a laughable gaffe. Sure Romney demonstrated that he can’t get along with our best friend, but since Britain is our best friend it doesn’t really matter. Far more important, more disturbing, and more dangerous are Mitt’s comments both from his overseas foray and from the fundraiser about peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

While in Israel, Romney did the only thing he knows how to do when it comes to foreign policy and cozied up to Benjamin Netanyahu. Perhaps the only person who wants to bomb Iran more than Netanyahu is Mitt Romney. Romney spent time lecturing about the inferiority of Palestinian culture when compared to Israel, and stated that if it weren’t for the fact that they were just so darned lazy and inferior, the Palestinians would have built themselves a thriving economic state, this despite the fact that there is no Palestinian state, and that the Palestinian territory has no access to a port or even a working airport, not to mention that even overland access to the West Bank is controlled by Israel. Yet despite all of that, Palestinian leadership has done a remarkable job of building a 21^st century economy with the limited resources at their disposal. Perhaps Mitt Romney thinks that Palestinians are like 47% of Americans – dependent. Except that Palestinians are dependent. They depend on Israel for access to ways to receive imports and ship exports.

Romney’s comments were offensive and untrue, and implied that he didn’t think the Palestinians were capable of much. But we no longer have to rely on Romney’s implicit meaning because at the fundraiser we were treated to his explicitly asinine thinking on the Middle East peace process: that it isn’t possible.

The best we can do says the man who wants to lead: is to just hope for the best. There is no hope for peace. At best we punt, we kick the can, and we hope that those culturally inferior Palestinians don’t cause too much trouble for our war-mongering friend Bibi Netanyahu. This is leadership?

This is about the most dangerous attitude one can take towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is dangerous for Israelis, it is dangerous for Palestinians, and it is dangerous for Americans. Romney thinks a two-state solution is the dumbest idea in the world, so perhaps he prefers an apartheid state in which a minority Jewish Israeli population controls by force a majority Palestinian population who are denied the right to self government. Perhaps Mitt Romney thinks that if that happens those culturally inferior Palestinians will just fall into place and live happily as second-class citizens instead of fighting for the right to self-govern. Strange isn’t it, that Mitt Romney supports American values such as free speech when American embassies are attacked, but won’t support the right of people to govern themselves. I’m reminded of 1919 when Ho Chi Minh showed up at Versailles begging for self-governance for what was then French Indo-China. Rebuffed he went back to Vietnam and the rest, as they say, is history.

But Republicans have shown themselves to be poor students of history and Mitt Romney is no different. 1919 was almost a century ago, the Vietnam War is now almost half a century ago, but our conflicts with the Arab and Muslim world are ongoing. If Republicans can’t learn from the past, we can at least expect them to learn from the present, right? Wrong.

A two state solution for Israel and a future Palestine will not lead to the immediate cessation of all violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Neither will it lead to the end of the absurd Holocaust denial and anti-Israeli rhetoric from the Ayatollahs in Iran. Nor will it solve all of the problems spawned from the violent creation of Israel in 1948. But a Palestinian state would be a significant step in the right direction. It would allow Palestinians to channel their energy towards building their state. It would help undermine the myth that America is anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-Palestinian, thus depriving violent jihadist of some of their propaganda. If a stable and democratic Iraq is a linchpin of stability in the Middle East, is the same not true of a stable and democratic Palestine?

Peace is possible, and it is important. It is important for the stability of the Middle East and it is important for the security of America. We all know the process won’t be easy or short. It has already proven to be neither. But when Mitt Romney claims to stand up for American values but denies Palestinians the right to self-government he exposes himself as a hypocrite. When he claims to be a leader, but admits that there is no solution to a tough and important issue he exposes himself as spineless and fearful.

It is no secret that Mitt Romney is not what America needs. Now we know that Mitt Romney is not the leader the world needs. As the world’s premier power, America should be at the forefront of solving the world’s problems. Not hiding timidly and abdicating responsibility because there are no solutions and the best we can do is hope.