Petraeus right to resign?

And, what political issues are on your mind this week?

expand all
There are closed responses: restore

Erika Lovley Moderator :

CIA director David Petraeus stepped down from his post yesterday, citing an extramarital affair.

Was it the right move for Petraeus resign? Who should potentially replace him as CIA director?

Permalink
Aaron David Miller Former State Department official; Wilson Center vice president; author :

This isn't France.

For reasons of personal conscience, public image and even security, Petraeus had no choice other than to resign. I'd go with John Brennan to replace him. You need to move quickly; and that means someone who knows the brief and the agency, and is known and trusted by the president.

Permalink
James Carafano Heritage Foundation, Defense and Homeland Security :

What we all should focus on is what is needed from the next director.

Iran and Afghanistan are going to continue to be the hottest of the hot topics. We need director who delivers intelligence with absolute candor and professionalism. The war on al Qaeda is entering a new era. Are we doing it right? We need a fresh candid assessment. Is the CIA adjusting to the big missions there are here now-the Arab Spring, cyber, the Asian pivot? What are we doing to meet these challenges?

We need a director who is up to meeting these challenges.

Permalink
Jeffrey Taylor Managing partner, U.S. Government Relations Intl., LLC :

It is difficult to say goodbye to a genuine American hero, but CIA Director David Petraeus did exactly the right thing in submitting his resignation - for two important reasons.

First, operationally, the Director of Central Intelligence can never be in a compromising position and open to the possibility of being blackmailed by enemies of the United States.

Secondly, it is a morally and ethically correct thing to do. I applaud General Petraeus for recognizing that infidelity in one’s marriage is a shameful act; an act worthy of resignation. It is sad that other public servants don’t think it is such a dishonor and hang on to their jobs for dear life in such situations.

The General’s life has been an exemplary model, so I take the General’s word immediately on this subject, but some loose ends still exist and the news media must ask difficult questions; when did the FBI begin and end the investigation, who in The White House was informed, was this known in The White House prior to the elections, and, if so, were political considerations made to delay the resignation, or keep this information from the American people so as not to hurt the president’s election prospects.

On another subject, this is a very sad time for General Petraeus, but larger issues are at play here.

The president and his staff - including his supporters in main stream media - did their level best to give America the impression that the Benghazi cover-up was little more than a Republican political conspiracy.

It’s not; and it never was. With or without General Petraeus’ resignation, the Benghazi tragedy was never going to go away; and the departure of General Petraeus only serves to shine a brighter spotlight on this burgeoning White House scandal.

From all public reports so far, the Obama administration, including The White House, performed poorly in the months leading up to the Libya attack, during the attack, and in the months after the attack. The country needs to know for certain if the president’s inaction in the months prior to and the hours during the attack led in any way to the disaster in Libya.

In the coming weeks, General Petraeus will testify before Congress on the Benghazi disaster. His resignation will have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he testifies before the bipartisan Senate and House investigation hearings on the Benghazi raid. Congress will receive his testimony.

The elections are over, Mr. President. The American people will eventually know the entire sequence of events that led to the attack in Benghazi and what persuaded The White House to report for a month a far-fetched and fully debunked story that the disaster was the result of a spontaneous attacked ignited by a YouTube video trailer.

Permalink
Christine Pelosi Attorney, author and Democratic activist :

Once again old fashioned mistake meets new media sensationalism. David Petraeus is merely the latest to learn the hard way what we tell novice recruits in campaign boot camp: the e in email stands for evidence. Everyone makes mistakes and anyone with the internet access to read POLITICO is an embarrassing email away from falling from grace.

This is a sad story for all involved, particularly Holly Petraeus, whose amazing work for military families is so vital to emulate this Veterans Day.

Going forward, President Obama might consider a candidate from outside the executive branch with knowledge of the agency and credibility in the intelligence community such as former Congresswoman Jane Harman or Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed.

Permalink
Erika Lovley Moderator :

What political issues are on your mind this week?

Permalink
Luis Alvarado Strategic advisor, Revolvis; Former Los Angeles Regional Chairman for the McCain/Palin Campaign :

What Does A Republican Civil War Look Like?

One prevalent message I continue to hear is that the Republican Party must do better with Latino/Hispanic voters.

That we, as Republicans, have to improve our outreach to them, stop insulting them, muzzle the extreme wing of the party, and propel the Republican Latino leaders within our party to head the Republican Revolution. The other talk is that there should be some “Soul Searching” and that a Republican Civil War is needed to right the Ship and turn the party back to victory lane.

As a Republican consultant and Latino leader, I have been inundated with calls, emails, text and Facebook messages asking me were do they sign up for this war? Who is leading it? How will we win it?

My response is the same, I don’t know, let me check and I will get back to you.

The reality is that although the media would like to televise the confrontation, it is not going to be a revolution fought in public. It will most likely be an evolution sputtered by mathematical presentation done by of the party donors and community leaders.

In this new era of super PACs, we saw that hundreds of millions were spent in media to attract voters in races across the country. Yet only a very, very small percent of those funds were directed to Spanish language media or Latino grassroots programs. There was virtually no investment of resources towards the Latino electorate in this last cycle.

The results are evident; we can no longer win elections unless we have a full component of competent campaigning to the Latino electorate. Only then will the Republican infrastructures begin to build bridges that will bring Latinos and other minority communities closer to Republican causes. In the end one thing stands certain, we can no longer keep on the same path we have been on for the last few election cycles.

Permalink
Michael Yaki Member, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights :

A Call To Federalize Presidential Elections

It's time to federalize presidential elections. Let me repeat that: the election of the U.S. president should be legislated and overseen by a single, universal, federal standard.

It is perhaps passing strange that the election for leader of the free world is entrusted to state and local officials who may or may not have any requisite qualifications for overseeing an election and who are often elected by partisan ballot or appointed by partisan officials. Did anyone know, or care, about the qualifications and fitness of one Kathleen Harris before the events of November and December 2000 in Florida? And, by the same token, until a few short weeks ago, the words "Jon Husted" did not make anyone automatically think of Ohio.

The right to vote, and especially a citizen's right to vote for President, should not depend on geography. It shouldn't vary according to the whims or directives or agenda of the jurisdiction in which an American resides. We are Americans. We deserve to be able to vote for President without encumbrances or obstacles placed in our paths simply because of where we live.

The Voting Rights Act was meant to curb excesses of states and local jurisdictions in thwarting the ability of minorities to vote. But state and local governments have found new and creative ways to hinder the franchise, through voter identification laws and, more insidious, by administrative rulings and directives that effectively work to suppress and dilute the vote of individuals that are nakedly aimed at a partisan result. We saw this in 2012 in attempts to engage in wholesale voter roll purges, decrees aimed at curtailing or limiting early voting, instructions on the acceptance (or non-acceptance) of provisional ballots, and much, much more.

This hopscotch approach to the vote has to stop. Congress should and must enact a single universal standard for the presidential vote, one which allows every citizen an unfettered right to vote and is based on what we know to be the truth: that every American may vote, and that is is incumbent upon a state to prove otherwise. Will it happen? Given a still bitterly divided and partisan Congress, unlikely. Which leaves our nation's fate in the hands of persons whose names and intentions never become known until it is possibly too late.

Permalink
Brad Bannon President, Bannon Communications Research :

The GOP: What Not To Do

Barack Obama deserves hearty congratulations for a job well done and a campaign well run. He managed to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat and rose above a weak economy for a big reelection win. As a campaign consultant, I learned a lot about what to do from Democrats and what not to do from Republicans.

One of questions that pundits had about the Obama campaign was whether it could turn out the new voters that came into the electorate for the first time in 2008. The answer was yes! Young people, Latinos and African Americans were hurting economically and it seemed that they weren’t very enthusiastic about voting in 2012. But Democrats, labor union members and progressives proved that GOTV stands for more than Get on Tele Vision. The voters who sent Barack Obama to the White House in 2008 returned to the polls this year despite their misgivings because of the tremendous grassroots organizing job that activists did in battleground states.

The flip side of the Democratic grassroots effort was the flop of the big money Republican and conservative super PACs. In 2004, George Bush was reelected because of a strong grassroots campaign in Ohio. This year Romney and other Republican candidates relied too much on big money super PACs. A Sunlight Foundation study shows that Karl Rove’s two super PACs spent $103 million and the GOP mastermind directed 98 percent of that money to Republican candidates who lost. The super PACs often distracted voters with off message ads that drowned out the message of the same candidates that the groups were trying to help. The super PACs also had the misfortune to come into an arena at the time when voters are paying less attention to TV ads and more to earned media.

Team Romney failed Campaign 101. One of the principle rules of campaign communication is to define yourself before the other campaign defines you. The president’s best defense in the fall was to go on offense in June with aggressive attack on Romney’s record at Bain Capital as a cold blooded corporate CEO. He who hesitates loses. The attacks came before Romney made the effort to define himself or defend himself from the Obama onslaught. In August, the Romney campaign also failed to polish the candidate’s credentials as the CEO of the Salt Lake Olympics at a time when millions of voters were glued to their televisions watching the 2012 games.

I never thought that I would write this but the GOP lacks message discipline. For the first 10 years of this century, Republicans did a great job focusing on an anti federal government message. But this year shiny objects constantly distracted the GOP. During the last few weeks of the campaign, Indiana U.S. Senate candidate, Richard Murdock focused the national discussion on rape of all things. In a year when voters only cared about the economy, Romney often went rogue and talked about international affairs. After he clinched the GOP nomination he went on a disastrous international tour while the Obama campaign stayed home and beat him like a rented mule on his tenure as CEO of Bain Capital.

Fortunately for the GOP, the party will have plenty of time during the next couple of years to figure out what it did wrong. Only time will tell whether Republicans learned anything from the mistakes they made in 2012. I hope they don’t.

Permalink
Michael Shank Senior Policy Advisor and Communications Director for Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) :

The District’s Divide: Classism, Racism and the Re-Election of Marion Barry

Of the two rivers that cup our nation’s capital - the Potomac and the Anacostia - the latter of the two is, perhaps, the most apt reflection of where America is at socio-economically. The Anacostia River - the Anglicized namesake of which was first officially recorded by Thomas Jefferson and referred to the Nacochtank Native American tribe dwelling east of the river - is just down the hill from my Anacostia house and reflects well what divides our nation’s capital, and, ultimately, America.

A quick dig into the District’s demographics and it is painfully apparent: a growing white majority living west of the river, encroaching east, and a predominantly African American majority living east of the river. There is no question that we are a deeply and demographically divided city. As I take Metro’s green line home to Anacostia after work, I am frequently the only white person on the train. Any remaining white folks on the green line generally disembark at Navy Yard, the last stop before crossing east of the Anacostia River.

As it happens in D.C., so too does it happen in America: This year, researchers at Dartmouth, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington looked at Census neighborhood data to compare trends in racial diversity and found that highly diverse neighborhoods are actually rare, African-Americans remain concentrated in segregated neighborhoods, and newly arrived immigrants continue to settle in concentrated racial residential patterns.

Yet, this trend is not the only divider in the District. Anacostia River is a divider of class as well, with a majority of the town’s wealth living to the west of the river and a much poorer population living to the east. Hovering much lower than the national average of $50,000, the average median household income in Anacostia struggles at $30,000 for a family of four, compared with Washington DC’s $60,000, and the broader D.C. metro area at well over $80,000. In fact, US Census data cites the income gap in the District as one the highest in the nation. Furthermore, the unemployment rate west of the river is roughly 8.9 percent, while east of the river it’s 35 percent.

The Anacostia River is also a racial disparity dividing line with regard to educational achievement and opportunity. More money, better access, more opportunity and higher standards characterize learning the west of the river. Less money, fewer supplies, fewer opportunities and access, and lower standards is what is available for the students east of the river.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the District has the biggest black-white and Hispanic-white gaps in the country by every measure the study made. There is a 73-point gulf between the District’s white and black eighth-graders on mathematics exams. This is more than double the national average gap of 31 points. Despite this, the DC government is lowering standards for black and Hispanic students, hardly a winning solution that closes the achievement gap or helps end racial disparities in academic performance.

These disparities make for difficult social mobility. In my Anacostia neighborhood, for example, where families have lived for generations and great-grandparents live on the same block as their kids, grandkids and great-grandkids, it is quite clear that social mobility - being able to do better than our parents did - is difficult to impossible.

And yet, despite the deep disparities in economic and educational opportunity and achievement, there is something very different about Anacostia that sets it distinctly apart from the rest of Washington. It is the people who live here. Unlike anything I’ve experienced in my past residences west of the river, my Anacostia neighbors are like no other.

Frankly speaking, it is one of the only places in the District where you can find a real community. My neighbors, many of whom have lived on my block for more than 30 years, and some longer than 50 years, look out for me, ask about me, take care of me and call me when I’ve been out of town simply to check up on me. My neighbors are one of the best parts of my day. Every morning is word of wisdom from a neighbor or an offered ride to the metro. Every night is a friendly recap of the day’s goings-on, and every month is a block or dinner party. After several years in Anacostia, I am now a brother to my neighbors. That is what they call me and that is what I feel.

In D.C., this amiable neighborly behavior is now remarkably rare, which is why I moved to Anacostia in southeast - where it is not. Unfortunately, too few people on the west side of the Anacostia ever cross the river to realize this. I’m amazed at the psychological barrier, despite how close Anacostia is to downtown Washington.

Until this barrier is bridged, the aforementioned wealth, race and education achievement gaps will remain persistent and pervasive. I’m not suggesting gentrification, far from it; though it’s worth noting that my neighbors’ biggest beef with the newly built condos nearby is that the middle-upper class owners never come chat or chill with us, not even at the big annual end-of-summer block party. Their aloofness and disregard for pre-existing dwellers is the biggest offense.

What I am suggesting is a courageous countenancing of the classism, racism and inequality of opportunity that exists in our nation’s capital and in our country. In Anacostia's case, that means crossing the river, being present with people, listening to their needs, and asking how to be of service, whether it is small business grants, local hiring quotas for east-of-the-river projects, job skills training, housing and mortgage assistance, tutoring and GED test prep, nutritional options to offset Anacostia’s food deserts, free legal advice and representation, career mentoring, summer jobs for Anacostia’s youth, in-town environmental cleanups, or as simple as childcare for a single working mother.

There is a reason why Anacostia’s older generation still votes for Marion Barry as their Ward 8 City Council member. When serving as mayor of Washington DC, Barry got them jobs. We must now do the same for Anacostia’s next generation, empowering all youth east of the river with the access, opportunity, skill and confidence to rise and lead - before the boot of a gentrifying city kicks this can further down the road.

The District’s disparities are not so different from the country’s disparities. America now is witnessing some of its highest income inequality rates and lowest social mobility rates ever and the rise in violence and prejudice based on race, creed, color and orientation is increasingly disconcerting. If we are to fix any of this, it is best that we start at home, in our back yard, and in our nation’s capital.

And that begins with the Anacostia.

Permalink
James Carafano Heritage Foundation, Defense and Homeland Security :

Don’t Leave War Without It

Washington’s war on terror may be over, but the terrorists aren’t done yet.

The U.S. has foiled at least 53 Islamist-inspired terrorist plots since 9/11.

We are about to lose an important tool in keeping this winning streak going. The 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Act made some important modifications to the law that allows law enforcement to track terrorists while protecting the rights of U.S. citizens.

The 2008 amendments allowed the FISA Court, which was set up under the statute, to “streamline approval for surveillance of suspected foreign state and terrorist agents without requiring an individualized application for each target as long as the government reasonably believes the targets are located outside the U.S.”

If the target is a U.S. citizen, regardless of where he is located and even if the government believes he is acting as a foreign agent the government still needs a warrant. This reasonable fix expires at the end of the year. The House of Representatives reauthorized the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. The Senate hasn’t.

As this Congress comes to close and as a new when takes over, the 2008 act needs to be reauthorized or we're going to create a gap that the terrorists just might find a way to fill.

Permalink
Jeanne Allen President, Center for Education Reform :

Education Reform Could Have Been A Winning Issue

The question of the week seems to be, how can the GOP appeal to a wider variety of Americans? Here’s an idea: They can boast more about their leadership on education reform.

Education reform is and has always been a bipartisan issue. But while the movement numbers a handful of Democrats among its truly committed, it was built on the intellectual energy of conservatives, and has been propelled by the energy, for the most part, of Republican elected officials. Success in making fundamental changes to educate poor and minority children and strengthening the quality of education for all kids has been, and continues to be, primarily a Republican achievement.

It is positive that many people in the myriad and growing number of education reform groups and foundations have differing political views. But it was, and continues to be, Republicans who shattered the common myths that have stymied reform. For decades, these myths – about class sizes mattering, about teacher tenure being critical for success, about money being the answer, to name a few - had been propped up by traditional civil rights and child-centered organizations.

Republicans challenged the education establishment to account for decades of failure and started talking about providing alternatives, and about closing failing public schools. The initial impetus - the first ideas and first law for charter schools - were from liberal academics and a liberal Minnesota. But it was conservatives who took up the banner and provided the leadership that led to the best charter school laws in the most populous states. It was Republican governors who found common ground with African-American democrats to bring about publicly funded scholarships for kids – vouchers – in Milwaukee and Cleveland, a trend followed in fourteen states.

Some Democratic state legislators bolstered the work of their Republican Governors. But one wouldn’t have happened without the other.

So where was this issue during the presidential campaign? Republicans didn’t even visit the cities that owe their education salvation to this leadership. While strong reformers who are Republicans continue to run and win elections in states, Republicans at the national level seem not to understand that in supporting educational choice they are supporting a civil right, and that they are the leaders in this support. Republican embrace of individual freedom and liberties over government at the local, state and federal level is an anchor for education reform. And it is repulsive to those who manage and protect the status quo.

Tuesday’s results are not the only wake-up call. Here’s another one: Democrats are working hard to own this issue. Do they deserve the credit? Will they advance the movement? No, but President Obama and his party have vowed to make their party the party of education reform. A recent missive from the Democrats for Education Reform declared Obama “EdReformer in Chief.” He has done little to merit such a title.

We’ve praised Obama’s candor and vocalization of the problems facing American education. We’ve commended the power his Education secretary has wielded to talk about issues that most reformers embrace. But his Administration is conspicuously quiet on the issue of real school choice. And while they talk about ensuring real performance pay for teachers, underneath the talk, the teachers unions are still in charge.

Think about the Democratic Party and this bedrock constituency. Unions once helped those most in need, but today they are keeping those poorest children, those who cannot afford to change zip codes or pay tuition to escape, in failing schools.

President Obama and his majority at the national level continue to oppose attempts to give those students choices. Absent leadership, the nation sits quietly as we shutter hundreds of exceptional Catholic schools that have educated Black and Latino communities, and that educated the Greatest Generation prior to them.

And what were we treated to this election cycle? While Romney’s platform supported parents and students over union prerogatives, neither candidate ran on the issue of ensuring children are educated by whatever means necessary. It almost seems it’s not politically correct to acknowledge that Republicans do something about education reform, while Democrats are forced to negotiate with their supporters, always to reduced effect.

So now what? Republicans should be loudly boasting of their continuing leadership. They can rip a page from the playbook of Jeb Bush. He challenged the education establishment, pushed and later enacted school choice programs and tough evaluations for schools and teachers in Florida, and won handily - twice! In the last election cycle, solid, reform-minded Governors were elected in 18 of 37 states. This election brought another two. These Governors appealed to minority voters who, exit polls tell us, helped President Obama. They could help future Republican candidates.

And think of the women voters who helped sweep President Obama back into the White House. Rather than hearing about vital education issues, women were told someone was tampering with their rights.

This was a colossal missed opportunity: Our polls show it is women between the ages of 25 and 45, not yet moms but intending to be, who consider educational choice almost as critical as any other issue. The Romney education agenda was more in line with the views of women, Hispanics and even African-Americans. But we only began to hear about in the final days of the campaign. By then it was too late to go to Cleveland to discuss the importance Republicans place on empowering parents to make better education choices. Too late to articulate that Republican leadership yielded, and continues to yield, the strongest charter laws. Too late to make the point that performance pay and accountability are issues Republicans took up, in the face of strenuous objection from the unions (who campaign for their opponents).

This is what they should have done. This is what they still could do. Next time.

Permalink
Christine Pelosi Attorney, author and Democratic activist :

Veterans Day 2012: Don't Send Troops, Veteran Or Military Families Over the Fiscal Cliff

On Veterans Day 2012 Americans pause to remember those who served our country and honor those who still wear the uniform. As a proud family member of three generations who wore the uniform, I'm convinced that we can do more to help.

As Barack Obama and Mitt Romney supporters go about healing our post-election partisan divide, let's start by addressing America's ongoing civilian-military divide. Voters see a 52/48 nation; Blue Star Families see a 90/10 nation - a reported 90 percent of military families believe that the civilian communities do not understand their needs nor support the values and dignity that come with a military career.

Aggravating the divide is a real concern that service members needs, veterans benefits, and military support systems will be cut in the upcoming budget talks. Let's be clear: don't send troops, veterans or military families over the fiscal cliff.

Instead, honor their service with five steps.

First, build on the historic support for military families that both parties touted in the campaign. Among the President Obama and the Democratic Congress' sterling achievements are bipartisan successes at delivering unprecedented resources to support America's spouses, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, friends and neighbors who have answered the call to service. Highlights of the massive increase in veterans and military families support for which all Americans should be proud include the Post-9/11 GI Bill as well as legislation addressing caregivers, women veterans, rural veterans, homeless veterans, and their families. In addition, the Obama-Biden Veterans Administration launched an historic effort to combat post traumatic stress syndrome and invest in suicide prevention to help veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) get easier access to the treatment and benefits they need - a critical step forward for the health and well-being of those who have served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all of our nation's wars.

Second, improve access to work and college for returning veterans. Fully funding the HIRE Act credits and Post-9/11 GI Bill of Rights plus passing the filibustered Veterans Jobs Corps will bring more veterans into workplaces and classroom across America where peer-to-peer interaction will broaden the horizons of civilians who don't know what it's like to engage in modern warfare.

Third, lift up more veterans voices in public policy debates. No war debate should be complete without its veterans weighing in on strategy and policy. This includes Americas' newest Congresswomen-elect, combat veterans Tammy Duckworth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Fourth, destigmatize the mental costs of war. At the 2010 Memorial Day Concert, I sat on the Capitol Mall and experienced the crowd's positive reaction to Joint Chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen discussing PTSD to the national audience -- a historic cultural and military breakthrough.This year, a cultural breakthrough at the movies shatters the silence of military sexual trauma. if you see one military movie, see The Invisible War - it has exposed the epidemic of military rape - an estimated 19,000 service members - and spurred calls to change the antiquated Pentagon rules that barred prosecution of offenders. More of this open discussion will reduce stigma and heal mental wounds of war. We must continue to eliminate combat stress stigma, and support better health care for female veterans including resources to those coping with PTSD and MST.

Fifth, pass a veterans budget worthy of their sacrifice. A veterans budget must include proper training and equipment for our troops as they head to battle, health care options to military families, and assistance for veterans and their families when they return home, with a renewed effort to modernize the VA claims processing system.

Backing up our Veterans Day rhetoric with everyday resources will not only keep our promises but go a long way toward healing our divisions and working together for a safe and free America where we leave no veteran behind.

Permalink
Ken Feltman Past president; International Association of Political Consultants :

What Are The Words For Republicans?

A post-election analysis of transcripts and videos of 2012 election focus groups composed of young women, married and single, may be in order for Republicans. Why? A quick review reveals that when men were not present, young women were more apt to make derogatory comments about men. That is not surprising. But this was not equal-opportunity ridicule: Most was directed at Republican men.

This initial review, conducted in the two days following the November 6 election, is anything but scientific at this point. A couple of words kept coming up as the young women discussed the candidates and leadership of the GOP: Ignorant and old.

The use of those two words jumped when GOP candidates Todd Akin of Missouri or Richard Mourdock of Indiana were mentioned. Interestingly, the word ignorant often was replaced with the word clueless when applied to Republican women such as Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Before we conclude that this is a tea-party problem, however, we need to remember that the words were more often applied to Republican leaders and candidates in general than to specific candidates.

Is this the image of the Republican Party that comes to mind when young women gather? Well, guys, what do we do about this? Maybe ask some young women. Is anyone listening, for example, to your daughters?

Permalink
Inimai Chettiar Director, New York University Law School's Brennan Center Justice Program :

A Vote For American Ideals

When the American people reelected President Barack Obama, they signaled that their vision of the United States is one of inclusion, optimism, and an understanding of the legitimate role of government in helping the country achieve prosperity. Americans do not dream small or think narrowly. This vision of our country manifests itself economically - through an understanding that government investment leads to long term benefits for the whole nation - and socially - as we understand that our differences make us stronger as we all strive together toward the same American Dream.

Throughout their campaign, President Obama and Vice President Biden repeatedly asserted the need for “investments in America” and described how “investing in the middle class will grow the economy.” They offered an investment theory of policymaking - spending some money now in order to reap greater economic rewards later – in sharp contrast to Romney’s theory of cutting spending at all costs.

The majority of voters cast their ballots for wise government investment. They rejected Romney’s theory of bone-deep cuts because they understand that zero investment means zero reward. Our entire economy - from Wall Street to the grocery store down the block - is built on investments. A store owner needs to first invest in his business – renting retail space, buying inventory, and hiring employees - before he can make a profit. Government has a similar role to play when it comes to our nation’s prosperity; the way to save the economy - and the country - is not to blindly cut government costs, but to implement policies that wisely invest government dollars to produce long-term benefits for the entire nation.

Believing the fairytale that that economic solutions only involve cutting costs - instead of analyzing costs and benefits together - leaves us with policies that stunt the country’s growth and compromise our democratic ideals. It leads to underfunded public education, crumbling infrastructure, mass incarceration of large segments of our labor force, and unnecessary foreclosures that destroy whole neighborhoods. The reelection of Obama signals a shift in voter consciousness away from this destructive theory of government policymaking and toward a productive and rational position.

The results of the election are also an affirmation of a vibrant and inclusive definition of what it means to be “American.” As the president recognized in his victory speech, this country was built by immigrants – by a minority seeking to escape oppression and find prosperity in a new land. This nation has grown into a superpower precisely because it is built on diversity, and the innovation and progress it creates.

The demographic coalition that voted for Obama is a complex mix. Obama won the votes of youth, women, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, gay and lesbian Americans, Jews, Christians, the wealthy, the unemployed, and union workers. They voted for a leader whose policies will help all of us achieve the American Dream.

They also voted for a black man with an ethnic name, an immigrant Muslim father, a white Christian mother, and an Asian sister. For many of us who look like the President or have names like his, our “Americanness” is continually questioned despite our rightful birth in this country. The continuing Presidency of Barack Obama serves to reinforce the legitimacy of all of us as Americans - regardless of our class, gender, ethnic origin, skin tone, sexual orientation, or religion.

This year’s election was not just about policies and politics. It was about a recommitment to our founding American ideals – inclusion, equality, and the drive that ensures we never stop working toward them.

Permalink
Eileen Shields-West Author, 'The World Almanac of Political Campaigns' :

Lincoln

Dear Mr. President,

I know how captivated you are with Abraham Lincoln, our sixteenth president, and you will be reminded this weekend with the national release of Stephen Spielberg’s new film “Lincoln,” starring master actor Daniel Day-Lewis. Spielberg has said that he based “Lincoln” on Doris Kearns Goodwin’s award-winning book, “Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.”

You, yourself, made the first comparison to Lincoln when you stood on a cold and windy day in February 2007 in his hometown, Springfield, Illinois, also the state capitol, of course, to say that your dreams were much like Lincoln’s: “The life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer tells us that a different future is possible.” And once you gained the presidency for yourself, you went on to fill your cabinet with a team of rivals, of sorts. Most notably you kept on Robert Gates as Defense Secretary from George W. Bush’s cabinet and you welcomed your fiercest primary foe Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

There is real reason to reach beyond one’s comfort zone, once again, for your choice cabinet team. Word is that maybe six cabinet members will be leaving their posts. We know that Hillary wants to step down and, yes, you have several logical replacements at your doorstep, such as, Senator John Kerry and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice. But what about reaching across the aisle to former Republican Senator Richard Lugar, a foreign policy wonk, who was defeated in Indiana’s Republican primary this year?

With Leon Panetta reaching for the Defense door, what about considering Coin Powell, President George W. Bush’s first secretary of state, or former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a moderate Republican, for that post? Finally, with Treasury head Tim Geithner leaving, there are lots of ways to reach out. Some suggested names include even management guru Jack Welch who criticized some of the latest unemployment figures as being too upbeat. Or, you might consider Robert Zoellick, former president of the World Bank, who was also deputy secretary of state under your predecessor. Of course, you would have to look back fifty years to John F. Kennedy who was the last president to appoint a Republican in that role.

Your second term can be as big and bold as you want it to be. Let it start with a signal from you that you do want to unite and not divide our country after a tough, grueling election. Reaching across the aisle for a new team of rivals is a great place to start.

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen

Permalink
Elizabeth Blackney Media and communications strategist :

In The Sahara, That Liberty Bell Must Ring

As President Obama awaits his second inaugural, the matter of his legacy will begin to dominate. Across Africa and the Middle East, turmoil marks the landscape. There is promise in Morocco and the Western Sahara, if the president emboldens our allies in the region, and tempers the noise with reality.

The 21st century Sahara is home to peoples with histories thousands of years old. It is also home to a labyrinthine political ecosystem which requires study, debate, and a devotion to both of the above.

In Northern Africa, the United States has no greater friend than Morocco in the fight against terrorism. Conflicting views on what to do about the influx of Al Qaeda in the Maghreb's, AQIM, encroachment into the disputed territory of the Western Sahara looms just offstage for Obama's second term.

The U.S. openly supports the Moroccan government's Autonomy proposal. In one of the few foreign policy similarities between President Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush, Obama has incrementally strengthened ties between he two nations. The opposing view is held by Algeria and the Polisario Front, a separatist political and military group that administers the Tindouf refugee camps within Algeria's borders where thousands of Sahrawi are held hostage.

With the recent murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi, the threat of AQIM meddling is now an omnipresent feature of the political, diplomatic, military, and intelligence landscape. Transparency is critical to successful negotiations and resolution of the AQIM problems, particularly the threats to stability in the Sahel region.

Recently, a delegation of U.S. Observers went to Morocco and the Western Sahara. Led by Kathryn Porter of the Leadership Council on Human Rights, LCHR, and Nancy Huff of Teach the Children International, TCI, it is clear the complexities continue. There is a closeness between the US and Morocco that is undeniable but both LHCR and TCI observers found their access to people of both beliefs was unimpeded by the Moroccan government.

According to Porter and Huff's recent report, they met with "civil society activists, representatives of the UN, Chiefs of Tribes, government officials, recent returnees from the camps of Tindouf located in Algeria as well as individuals who travel back and forth in the region."

There were the customary meetings in Rabat with Moroccan officials, followed by time in Dakhla and Laayounne in the Western Sahara. Requests for a visa to enter the Tindouf camps were not granted by Algerian authorities. The delegation meetings with tribal leaders were in-depth discussions of the situation on the ground, the path to peace, and concerns that the high profile of the Kennedy-Haidar delegation - which reportedly rebuffed tribal leaders - will lead to an emboldened Polisario-AQIM relationship.

The troubling testimonies gathered by the Porter-Huff delegation shed light on the complex situation. The Kennedy-Haidar trip was greeted by the media with great fanfare and little scrutiny. The reporting of the RFK Center often goes unchallenged, and while the Obama administration policy is in direct opposition to the RFK Center, and Republican Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia, a long time anti-Morocco voice in Congress, final resolution is delayed.

Presidential engagement, via the Secretary of State, is urgently needed. Freedom in the Western Sahara and the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in the Western Sahara, MINURSO. It is time to build a foreign policy beyond claiming credit for killing Osama bin Laden. AQIM is alive and well and on the move.

Freedom is an absolute. Either we are free or we are not free. The United States position remains one in favor of freedom and self-determination for all peoples. It is a hallmark of our support for the Sahrawi. As it has been since our founding and the signing of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship. The values our nation held in 1786 are true today. In the Sahara, that Liberty Bell must ring again.

Permalink