What Politics Can’t Do

I love the Olympic Games because they bring the entire world together the way that no politician no matter how skilled or powerful can.

There has been great fanfare over political figures like Barack Obama and Boris Yeltsin in early 1990’s post-Soviet Russia. Often times, the political reality on the ground overwhelms this fanfare leaving these great figures fighting against a divided society.

With the Olympic Games though, it feels like the world is united in this common spirit and we can seek solace in our favorite sports.

I’ve often wondered just what we could accomplish as a civilization if we channeled the Olympic spirit 24-7-365 instead of once every four years. Maybe we could accomplish a big goal like a cure for cancer or malaria.

Politics will never accomplish what the Olympics do because there’s so many emotionally charged issues in politics like immigration and abortion. I mean last time I checked Missy Franklin and Michael Phelps were not swimming across the border.

Even non-sports fans are drawn to the Olympics because of the pomp and artistry of the event.

We need more Olympics not less.

When Politics Forgets About People

It is not an uncommon view to say that politicians have forgotten about the people in the pursuit of high office and money from special interest groups.

 When politicians discuss issues like jobs, education, and immigration, they seem to know the line of electability “we need more ______________, but they fail to understand that there are people behind these statements who need something beyond electoral buzzwords.

Even worse, a candidate for president went throughout the Southern United States blithering about cheesy grits as though the great people of Alabama and Mississippi were ignorant children needing to be talked down to.

Those people are people whose votes you need, you might want to act like you give a damn.

No party is above contempt in this regard, a great number of Democrats also treat their perspective voters as misbehaving children too.

How would the Romneys and Obamas of the world like it, if we just walked up to them, patted them on the head and cooed “That’s a good little presidential candidate”?

The Notion of Playing Politics

When President Obama announced the change to his immigration policy on Friday, Mitt Romney was quick to call it “playing politics.”

 There’s an election in four months, just in case you missed the memo.

 Of course, this is a political move. Mitt Romney, we didn’t need you to tell us this.

 By the way, Mitt Romney having been the Governor of Massachusetts are you trying to imply that you never did anything to give yourself a political advantage?

 If your implying that, I’m prepared to call you a liar.

My larger point is not engage immigration itself, but rather the concept of “playing politics.” It’s always baffling when one party does something, then the other party calls it playing politics.

Apparently, they forgot their own record during previous administrations. What makes one party superior than the other?

 Republicans play politics every bit as much as Democrats.

This whole notion of “playing politics” during a presidential election just smacks of trying to pander for votes, among people who don’t give much thought to politics.

Playing politics is what politicians do, so both parties need to stop playing the victim.

Media vs. National Security: A Dangerous Cocktail

A story has broken over the last few days concerning alleged leaks of sensitive national security information from the White House to various newspapers, apparently make President Obama look strong on national security issues ahead of the November election.

I was tempted to brush this story off as mere Republican posturing until I heard yesterday that several Democrats have voiced concerns and that the FBI is launching an investigation into the matter.

Firstly, this election will most likely be fought on the grounds of the economy, not national security.

But I have often felt that in the interest of knowing, the media goes entirely too far, and its’ been that way for a while now.By leaking information, such as the help we received in tracking down Bin Laden and other clandestine operations within the last few months, we are putting the lives of innocent people at risk.

Who in the hell is going to want to help us, if we’re splashing covert operations details across the front page of The Washington Post ? These leaks damage our intelligence gathering capability and threaten our national security because we couldn’t get the information we needed.

If your trying to help President Obama get him an economic genie in a bottle, don’t put our national security at risk.

Herman Cain, Republican Nominee?

That’s the question Christian Science Monitor had earlier this week: Can Herman Cain win the Republican Presidential Nomination?

 Well technically, one could create a scenario where Rick Santorum wins the nomination, but assuming one is moving beyond the notion of “can” and into a probabilistic formulation, as much as I disagree with Herman Cain’s positions, I think he has a chance to win the nomination.

To win the nomination, he has to make it through the Republican primary process. Primary voters are typically more politically aware and ideologically driven than the electorate at large. At the moment, the Republican electorate appears to be quite fired up at the prospect of Herman Cain and the simplicity of his 9-9-9 tax plan.

 There is definitely something to be said for simplifying things in a contest where there are a bunch of men who seem to enjoy tossing around fifty dollar words and accusations about people’s gardeners.

My challenge for Herman Cain is that sound bites on the campaign trail like 9-9-9 are great for getting votes to win the election, but what happens when the reality of Congress smacks him in the face?

Tax reform is required campaign speak, but has often fallen flat in Congress, what makes Cain so different? Barack Obama spoke of hope and change four years ago and we’ve seen what happens when the electoral message meets political reality.

Should the United States move against The LRA?

100 US Special Operations Forces began deploying to Africa in order to assist local military leaders in their quest to capture the brutal Joseph Kony head of the Lords Resistance Army who has killed thousands of civilians, raped women, and abducted children for use as child soldiers.

The soldiers will fan out throughout Uganda, Central African Republic, Congo, and the newly minted South Sudan. Their role is to act in an advisory and intelligence capacity unless forced to defend themselves. This is another example of Barack Obama’s military strategy: smaller numbers of more specialized forces and greater use of targeted drone strikes. The question: Is it the right strategy?

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/1015/What-US-manhunt-for-LRA-leaders-reveals-about-Obama-s-war-strategy

President Obama has defined this mission in terms of America’s national security interest. While that claim is disputed by some, the Pentagon has added “preventing of human suffering due to mass atrocities” to its’ list of priorities outlined in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. The L.R.A. most certainly fits that definition, meaning that such action is indeed warranted. Furthermore, the President was given a 2010 Congressional mandate to deal with the L.R.A.

Obviously, a big military buildup is out of the question given other commitments, but something small and directional is warranted given our human rights stances and the fact that Africa is considered by many experts to be the next terrorist hotspot.

I’m further struck by a lack of alternatives: we shouldn’t sanction an already economically fragile region for 300-400 L.R.A operatives. Doesn’t it make us appear heartless and cruel to let more people die?