Political Fastbreak

America is becoming well-adjusted to horror

2013-04-24T09:43:00.003-04:00

WASHINGTON, D.C. April 22, 2013 — Acts of terror are now a frequent occurrence in America, and the response has become routine.

The country goes into shock. We grieve. We mourn. We cry. Then we move on, like we have already become accustomed to it.

The routine is the same, whether it is after the massacre in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, at an elementary school in Newtown, in a movie theater in Colorado or after the bombing at a marathon in Boston.

We hold night vigils to pray for the victims and their families. We applaud the victimized city for their strength and perseverance. We honor the selfless first responders and law enforcement officials for their bravery.

Then we wait for the President of the United States to give a heart-warming speech that comforts the nation and reassures the public that justice will be done.

When that is over, we begin searching for answers. Who did this and why? What kind of person massacres fellow citizens? What kind of person drops a bomb at a marathon and calmly walks off the scene in indifference.

The media speculates about the motives. In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, it must be a right-wing anti-government extremist. Patriot Day and Tax Day probably had something to do with it. They go on and on.

Analysts and experts continue to talk even when they have no new information. The tragedy remains a breaking news story on every cable TV network for a day or two. #PrayForNewtown, #PrayForBoston, and #BostonStrong hashtags trend on twitter for a few days.

Then what happens? Everyone gets back to their busy lives. The media moves on to other stories. Life goes on. We adjust. The next tragedy happens and the routine begins over again.

If we continue to adjust to the status quo, we run the risk of becoming numb to the suffering of other people. We become immune to the horror.

Life, indeed, must go on. But it should be with a sense of purpose, a plan of action and a determination to prevent such acts of terror in the future.

READ MORE FROM AYOBAMI

Profiles in cowardice: Rob Portman, Harry Reid and U.S Senate

2013-04-24T09:40:00.003-04:00

“Moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk. The right way is not always the popular and easy way. Standing for right when it is unpopular is a true test of moral character.”- Margaret Chase Smith.

WASHINGTON, D.C. March 25, 2013 — With all due respect to Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), he did not deserve the high praise he received for coming out in favor of gay marriage.

It is great that he showed love and compassion towards his son. It is nice to know that he wants his gay son to have the same rights as someone else’s straight son.

But there is nothing heroic about changing your mind on an issue only when it becomes personal. There is nothing courageous about supporting gay marriage only when you find out that your son is gay.

In Portman’s Op-Ed to the Columbian Dispatch, he writes, “knowing that my son is gay prompted me to consider the issue from another perspective…”

So the stories of gays and lesbians that have been fighting tirelessly for marriage equality never prompted the senator to consider it from their perspective?

True empathy is the ability to perceive, feel, and understand another person’s feelings even when they are not related to you by blood. It requires looking beyond your own personal circumstances, imagining what life is like in someone else’s shoes, and wanting for them the same opportunities you enjoy.

But if personal proximity to another human being’s struggle is the only way to get elected officials to show more courage and empathy, then let us arrange a meet and greet with Gov. Romney and a couple of working-class Americans so that he can understand how insulting his 47 percent comment was.

Let us put the kids of Democratic politicians into low-performing public school districts, and see if they still oppose school choice. Let us make politicians from both parties spend more time with the poor, and maybe that will help them become better advocates for poor and working-class issues.

Portman’s change of heart was not bold, it exemplifies the moral cowardice that is all too often seen in politicians from both parties.

***

We see it from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid when he dropped an assault weapons ban from the gun-control legislation.

“I’m not going to try to put something on the floor that won’t succeed. I want something that will succeed. I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring something to the floor and it dies there.” Reid said.

No senator, the worst of all worlds is your failure to give the families of Newtown victims a vote on the assault weapons ban.

The truth is that Reid killed the proposal to protect his fellow Democrats. There are 20 Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2014. Making it public that some Senate Democrats are against an assault weapons ban will invite outrage from the left.

By the same token, putting them on record in favor of a plan that the NRA opposes could cost those vulnerable Democratic incumbents their seats. So Reid dropped the proposal to give his colleagues some cover.

Background checks, mental health issues, and violence in video games and Hollywood movies are all important. But so is an assault weapons ban.

The Second Amendment is not absolute. Semi-automatic weapons and bushmasters in the hands of gangbangers and mentally unstable men is probably not what the framers envisioned.

57 percent of Americans favor a ban on assault weapons according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll. Those Americans deserve a vote. The parents of the 20 slain children in Newtown, and the families of the 12 Americans who were massacred at the midnight showing of a Batman movie in Colorado also deserve a vote.

They deserve to know which of their elected officials cares more about political survival than showing the courage to do what is right.

Unfortunately, Harry Reid will not give those victims’ families the opportunity to find out.

Shame on him.

READ MORE FROM AYOBAMI

The biggest crisis in America is still jobs, stupid!

2013-03-10T16:54:00.002-04:00

WASHINGTON, D.C. March 9, 2013 — The most important, yet seemingly forgotten crisis that faces America today is a four letter word: J-O-B-S. Jobs. Jobs. Jobs.

The bloated tax code, the skyrocketing national debt, the burdensome federal regulations, and the lack of an immigration or energy policy are all part of the problem. They all deserve attention.

But it’s the jobs, stupid!

There are too few of them. Those that have them are not seeing raises, bonuses or promotions. No upward mobility.

On the surface, the February job numbers look good. The economy added 236, 000 jobs, and the unemployment rate fell to 7.7 percent, the lowest in four years. Average hourly earnings for workers rose by 4 cents to $23.82. More jobs were added in food services, and wholesale trade. Retail trade added 252, 000 jobs over the past 12 months.

But that is only part of the story. The rest is less rosy.

In February alone, approximately 885, 000 Americans stopped looking for work. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) stayed the same at 4.8 million. There are still 8 million Americans that are stuck with part-time jobs. 13.8 percent of African-Americans still cannot find work. 9.6 percent of Hispanics and a staggering 25.1 percent of teenagers remain unemployed.

Where are the jobs?

While it is true that some companies are not hiring because of uncertainty about taxes and regulatory policy, it is also the case that other companies have been unable to find workers with the advanced technical skills that are needed for certain job vacancies.

So, embedded in the jobs crisis is a structural problem of a relatively unskilled labor force in the fields of manufacturing, and science and technology.

Meanwhile, schools like Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-TECH) in New York continue to show the importance of education-to-employment initiatives. P-TECH is a partnership between New York public schools, City University of New York, and IBM. After the six-year program (grades 9-14), students earn a high school diploma, an associate’s degree in computer science, and they become first in line for a job with IBM.

This should be a model for private sector companies and educators in all 50 states. Partnerships between the private sector and higher education schools will help prepare young students with the skills and job training they need for high-tech jobs of the future.

America needs to refocus on jobs.

Is Washington even aware that there is a jobs crisis? Republicans and Democrats are obsessed with taxing and spending. No one is talking jobs and economic growth. Getting Americans back to work should be the top priority.

When there is growth, fewer Americans will need government assistance so deficits will go down. More Americans will be working and paying taxes, so government revenues will go up.

Everyone will be more optimistic about the future of the country. There will be a new energy, a new confidence, more vigor.

Solving the long-term fiscal crisis is important. Reforming entitlements is essential. Simplifying the tax code is necessary. But getting Americans back to work now is crucial.

Can’t Congress and the president walk and chew gum at the same time?

Not inviting Chris Christie to CPAC was a stupid mistake

2013-03-04T09:40:00.003-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 3, 2013 — Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana urged Republicans to stop being the “stupid party.” Unfortunately, the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) did not get the memo.

The most popular Republican Governor in the country, Gov. Chris Christie, was not invited to CPAC because of his public criticism of Congressional Republicans and high praise for President Obama after Hurricane Sandy.

“He made it very hard for Republicans in the Congress at a time when we were trying to deal with fiscal restraint,” said Al Cardenas, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, which organizes the annual conference.

So a Republican governor with a 74 percent approval rating in the deep blue state of New Jersey was snubbed because he criticized fellow Republicans? He praised President Obama a little too much and hugged him a little too tight? How narrow-minded. Aren’t these the same conservatives who were begging Christie to run for president as an alternative to Mitt Romney?

The theme of this year’s CPAC conference is the “future of conservatism,” and a CPAC source told the National Review Online that Christie has a “limited future” in the Republican Party. In reality, Christie’s future will be determined by the voters, not CPAC organizers.

According to Al Cardenas, “CPAC is like the all-star game for professional athletes; you get invited when you have had an outstanding year. Hopefully he [Christie] will have another all-star year in the future, at which time we will be happy to extend an invitation.”

So here are some of the speakers that made the CPAC “All Star” team: former Gov. Mitt Romney, former Gov. Sarah Palin, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S Senator Rick Santorum, and former Rep. Allen West.

What binds them together? They are all losers. One of them even lost her Fox News contract.

Meanwhile, Chris Christie continues to win. He came down hard on public employees in New Jersey, and won. He took on the union bosses and won. He takes on the Democratic legislature in New Jersey and wins, and when he runs for re-election in 2014, he will win.

He cut spending in New Jersey. His Fiscal year 2013 budget spends less than former N.J Gov. Jon Corzine spent in FY08 in actual dollars. Christie cut business taxes by $2.6 billion. He is the first pro-life New Jersey governor since Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, and he is also against gay marriage.

This same conservative Republican governor has a 74 percent approval rating in the latest Quinnipiac poll with a 71 percent reelect rating. Christie has a 56-38 percent approval among Democrats.

He leads his likely Democratic challenger, State Sen. Barbara Buono, 62–25 percent, including 68–18 percent among independents. He is also ahead 54–31 percent among women. Yes, a pro-life Republican governor is plus twenty with women in New Jersey.

Numbers do not lie, the man is a winner. And this is the guy that CPAC thinks has a “limited future” in the Republican Party?

Losing is a habit, and some conservatives are stuck on losing.

Ayobami is a graduate student in George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

Mr. President, your silence on immigration reform will be golden

2013-02-22T15:03:00.004-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 19, 2013 — Sometimes the political environment requires a president to act and act quickly, perhaps even unilaterally. There are other times when the moment calls for the president to use his bully pulpit to lead and call on Congress to act.

However, in some unique circumstances when Congress is already trying to act, a president should practice silence.

With that in mind, President Obama should take a backseat to the “Gang of 8” on immigration reform.

The Gang of 8 is a group of eight senators who came together to provide a bipartisan solution for immigration reform.

The four Democrats are: Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL), Robert Menendez (R-NJ), Chuck Schumer (R-NY), and Michael Bennet (R-CO).

The four Republicans are: Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

In a rare moment of bipartisanship in Congress, these eight senators unveiled their framework for immigration reform at a press conference in January. Their plan calls for expanding visas for high-tech workers, creating an employment verification system that will prevent the hiring of undocumented workers, tightening security along the Mexican border, and providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Their press conference on Capitol Hill came a day before President Obama’s immigration speech. Their strategy to deliberately preempt the president is noteworthy because the indirect message was: Get out of the way Mr. President, we will lead on this issue.

Senators are men and women of pride like everyone else. They want to prove to the American public that they are competent. They do not like that their institution has only a 14 percent approval rating. Many of them are tired of watching President Obama scold them. “You know, Malia and Sasha generally finish their homework a day ahead of time. They don’t wait until the night before. They’re not pulling all-nighters. They’re 13 and 10. You know, Congress can do the same thing…” President Obama said at a press conference on the debt ceiling in 2011.

Members of Congress generally do not like to see their president condescendingly suggest that his 10 and 13 year old daughters have more discipline than they do. So whenever they can, they will try to advance an agenda before he does, which is what the Gang of 8 is doing on immigration reform.

Meanwhile, instead of focusing on constructive ways to help them reach a solution, the Obama administration was busy preparing an alternative immigration reform proposal, as if the White House proposal will magically become law if the Gang of 8 fails.

The backup proposal was leaked and obtained by USA Today.

President Obama’s Chief of staff Denis McDonough defended the plan: “We’ll be prepared in the event that the bipartisan talks going on the Hill – which by the way we’re aggressively supporting – if those do not work out, then we’ll have an option we’re ready to put out there,” McDonough said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press.”

Having a backup plan is always wise, but President Obama’s attempt to re-insert himself into the immigration reform debate seems self-serving. He wants sole ownership of the immigration issue. He needs it for his legacy. He would like to dominate the conversation with his big speeches and TV appearances so he can take full credit when the job is done, and remind the public that he is still in charge – the big boss calling the shots and running the show. It is a positioning strategy, and presidents often need to position themselves as leaders.

But at this critical juncture, the best form of leadership Obama can offer the Gang of 8 is silence. He can work the phones and offer to help but he should not be patronizing or overbearing. Doing so will intensify partisanship and make deal-making more difficult.

If members of Congress had not taken the initiative to reform the immigration system, then it would have been incumbent on the president to lead. But the Senate is already moving on the issue. The Gang of 8 is already making progress. Their blueprint is not much different from what President Obama is talking about. They are slowly building trust, and the prospect of a bipartisan package looks promising.

If President Obama wants to take full credit for immigration reform, he can do so after the signing ceremony. But what the Gang of 8 need from him right now is his silent encouragement.

So, please, Mr. President, get out of the way and let the “Gang of 8” finish the job.

Advice for Senator Ted Cruz: Speak softly but carry a big stick

2013-02-17T18:01:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 16, 2013 — There is something admirable and refreshing about U.S. Senators who keep a low profile and fly under the radar. They are the serious legislators who get things done. They usually do not have the time or inclination to engage in partisan rancor or self-aggrandizing showiness. They know they are big, so they act modest.

Senators Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Carl Levin (D-MI) come to mind. They try to uphold the tradition of statesmanship in the U.S Senate. They have been around the block long enough to understand the importance of focusing on the serious, and ignoring the frivolous. They go about their business quietly and discreetly. When they speak, it becomes important, so people listen.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) could learn something from their approach.

Cruz has been in the United States Senate for less than two months and is making his voice heard, but he is doing it in the wrong ways.

He voted against the Violence Against Women Act. He was one of three senators who voted against confirming Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) as secretary of state. Most notably, in the final meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense, Cruz suggested that Hagel had accepted money from countries that oppose American interests. “It is at a minimum relevant to know if that $200,000 that he deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly from North Korea,” Cruz said.

It is one thing to question Hagel’s past policy positions and how they may adversely affect his ability to meet the challenges America will face from Iran, North Korea, and Islamic terrorism. It is another to impugn his character and patriotism.

Chuck Hagel loved his country enough to volunteer to serve in the Vietnam War, and has two Purple Hearts to show for it. So a little more respect for a decorated war hero would not be out of line.

For someone who has been in the Senate for less than two months, Cruz is already over-exposed. Meanwhile, one of his fellow newly elected senators has been strategically more circumspect.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has been keeping her head down, deliberately avoiding the spotlight, and even hiding from the Beltway media. But the minute she asks a panel of top regulators at a Senate Banking Committee hearing to cite the last time they took a Wall Street Bank to trial, it becomes a big story. Wall Street bankers may be upset, but Main Street is not. They see someone who is protecting consumers against the “too big to fail,” “too powerful to sue” banks. Ted Cruz can learn something from her approach also.

We live in a world of oversized egos.

Everyone wants to talk every time. People are constantly looking for the next spotlight to stand under because they think that they are larger than life. Former Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-IL) illegally spends $750,000 in campaign funds on a $43,000 Rolex watch and fur coats, among other things. President Barack Obama wins an election so he thinks he can steamroll Republicans. Senate Republicans are filibustering Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense because of personal beefs because Hagel was critical of his own party during the Bush administration.

There is too much “me” and not enough “us” in American politics today, too much selfishness and too little magnanimity.

So here is a piece of advice for Ted Cruz: disappear for a while.

Stay off the cable talk shows for a couple of weeks. No appearances on “Fox News Sunday,” “Face the Nation,” or “Meet the Press.” Go back and begin to repair your relationship with some of your colleagues. Start introducing legislation that will make a difference in the lives of all Americans, or at least attach your name to the ones that might.

You have a chance to be a major player in shaping the future of your party. So start by becoming a serious legislator. When you come out for a major speech or interview, make it count. But for now, get behind the scenes, and stay there for a while.

Speak softly but carry a big stick.

Ayobami is a graduate student in George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

Pelosi denies spending problem: Why young Americans should care

2013-02-14T09:19:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb.12, 2013 — In just one television appearance, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) managed to remind the nation that ideological intransigence is not unique to the Republican Party. There are Democratic ideologues as well.

In an interview on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace, Pelosi said “it is almost a false argument to suggest that we have a spending problem. We have a budget deficit problem that we have to address.” Well, yes, America does have a deficit problem. But isn’t that because the government continues to spend more money than it receives in revenue?

It is unclear if this fiscal denialism is a case of delusion or dishonesty. Either way, Pelosi is wrong. America has a serious spending problem, and young people should pay attention to it.

Pelosi also went on to say: “The challenge in Medicare is not Medicare. The challenge is rising medical health care costs in general. …I think that there is money to be saved there and I don’t think it has to come out of benefits for beneficiaries and I don’t think you have to raise the [retirement] age.”

During the fiscal cliff negotiations, Democrats successfully portrayed Republicans as ideologues. The party that was willing to go off the fiscal cliff just to protect tax rates for the one percent. If Democrats continue to take a hardline approach to Medicare, and refuse to acknowledge that federal spending needs to be curtailed, they run the risk of being the party that is out of touch, and willing to jeopardize the future retirement benefits of the young in order to secure benefits for the elderly.

The first step to solving a problem is to recognize that the problem exists. The spending problem in America is real. The Republican talking point that “Washington does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem” is true.

The national debt is over $16 trillion. From 2008-2013, discretionary spending went from $933 to $1.062 trillion--an increase of 14 percent. Domestic programs grew by 16.6 percent. This year, federal spending will reach $3.6 trillion and rise to nearly $6 trillion by 2023. At that pace, government spending will reach 23 percent of GDP by 2023, far higher than the 20 percent historical level according to the Congressional Budget Office.

This should be of great concern to young Americans.

College-age Americans and young twenty-something-year-olds care about many things. They want jobs; they want more access to student loans and grants. They are passionate about gay marriage, many of them believe in a woman’s right to choose, they want to see young undocumented immigrants (DREAMers) become U.S citizens. They would like to see something done on climate change.

When it comes to the issue of debt and deficits however, young people seem disinterested. A $16 trillion national debt seems too abstract to conceptualize. Its consequences are unclear to them or too far into the future to warrant any sense of urgency.

But they should understand that politicians in Washington are stealing their futures.

Medicare and Social Security may not be there for the younger generation if politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to demagogue entitlements out of fear of the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons). Young voters should understand that their parents' generation is leaving a mountain of debt behind.

They should be concerned that an escalating national debt means high interest rates in the future. When interest rates go up, everything from mortgage payments to car loans, to credit card payments and student loan rates will rise. Cost of living will increase. Taxes will go up. The economy will be slower, and the job market will be weaker.

Young people are already getting hit by high unemployment, if they are lucky enough to find good jobs in the future, they will have to work longer to pay off their student loans, and wait longer to buy their first house or open their first retirement account.

The young twenty-something-year-olds should be concerned about all of this. They should be worried that some politicians deny America’s spending problem. They should be weary of economists like Paul Krugman who argue that it is “irresponsible and destructive” not to kick-the-can-down-the-road on the national debt. Finally, they should organize and mobilize themselves to put pressure on their elected officials to solve the long-term debt.

Their future is at stake.

Ayobami Olugbemiga is a graduate student in George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management.

The Justice Department makes case for drone strikes on Americans

2013-02-06T12:22:00.000-05:00

It’s official: An intelligence officer in the U.S government can now order the remote control killing of an American citizen without judicial review, due process, or actionable intelligence indicating a specific terror threat.

In a 16 page memo obtained by NBC News, the Justice Department outlined the legal reasoning behind the use of drone strikes on Al-Qaeda targets abroad, including those aimed at U.S citizens.

One of the conditions that must be met before the use of a drone strike on an American citizen is that the targeted individual must pose “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”

At the same time, the memo also states that “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

In other words, a drone strike can still be used in cases where there is no “clear evidence” of an imminent threat.

The idea that an American citizen can be killed by a drone missile based on uncorroborated intelligence or mere suspicion of loose association with Al-Qaeda members should raise concerns in the minds of all Americans.

In 2011 for example, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16 year old American citizen and the son of Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike two weeks after the death of his father. Former Obama campaign senior adviser Robert Gibbs justified the drone strike by saying, “he should have had a far more responsible father…”

So the only reason an underage American boy deserved the verdict of death by drone is because he happened to be the son of a terrorist? Somehow the Bush administration’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” sounds a little more merciful compared to this.

If there are progressives within the Democratic Party who have serious questions and concerns about this drone policy, preferably the same voices that were outraged by the waterboarding of three terrorists under the Bush administration, they should come forward now ‒ with the same righteous indignation.

If there are human rights activists, preferably the same voices that vociferously criticized the Bush administration for the lack of due process for Guantanamo Bay prisoners, they should also speak out now.

The failure to do so will be a sign of selective morality and self-serving hypocrisy. The Obama administration’s drone program deserves serious scrutiny.

Also read: The mass torture of drone strikes

Pentagon lifts ban on women in combat; aren’t they already there?

2013-01-28T09:04:00.001-05:00

Let’s face it, the thought of women in combat makes some people skittish. It just does not feel right. Gender socialization tells us that women are too delicate and too fragile to be put in harm’s way at the frontlines.

But the reality is that women are already at the frontlines. We just don’t hear enough about it because the military is so thoroughly masculinized. The contributions of female soldiers are quickly forgotten or largely ignored. More than 150 women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 800 have been wounded.

There are no traditional “frontlines” anymore. There are no big armies fighting other big armies. The nature of terror threats are different from what they were in the 19th century. Wars are now unconventional. We live in a world of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and suicide bombers.

Everywhere in a war zone is a frontline.

Driving a Humvee down the street in Fallujah is just as dangerous as flying an AH-64 Apache helicopter in the Helmand province while taking fire, and women already do this.

A major concern that looms large in the minds of opponents of this new policy is the issue of rape and sexual abuse. Women in combat face the risk of rape and sexual abuse, a risk their male counterparts do not. So the argument goes. But the truth is that men face that risk as well, and not from the enemy, but from their military male counterparts.

For example, in 2010, nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up from 30,000 in 2003, according to a report by Jesse Ellison of Newsweek Magazine. If a woman is aware of that risk, and is still willing and physically able to perform in combat, why should she be denied the opportunity?

Others are concerned that combat strength and endurance requirements will be reduced to accommodate more women. That concern is legitimate and should be taken seriously. In the army currently, women are allowed to pass physical fitness tests with fewer push-ups and slower two-mile runs than men.

So it is incumbent on the new Defense Secretary to ensure that gender-neutral standards are developed and upheld.

The knowledge that men and women are built differently is not novel. There is a reason why women do not play in the NFL. There is a reason why men record faster times, higher jumps, and longer throws in Olympic competition. It has nothing to do with training, it is genetics. Men genetically have greater upper-body strength, size, muscle mass and aerobic capacity on average than women.

The low testosterone levels in women does not allow them to gain the same level of muscular size and strength that a man with the same training can. But if a woman can meet or outperform her male counterpart in fitness tests, should she not be given a chance to fight in combat?

Not every woman will qualify to be a combat soldier, but every woman deserves a chance.

Manti Te’o's hoax reveals a larger societal problem

2013-01-18T17:43:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 17, 2013 — One of the biggest and perhaps strangest stories capturing attention right now has nothing to do with guns, the debt ceiling, or whether President Obama needs some binders full of women.

It is about Manti Te’o.

Early last year, Manti Te'o, a linebacker and Heisman Trophy candidate from Notre Dame began dating a woman named Lennay Kekua. In September 2012, both his mother, Annette Santiago, and his purported girlfriend, Lennay Kekua, died. Upon hearing the news of the two deaths, Te'o went on to lead his Notre Dame Fighting Irish to a 20-3 win over Michigan State.

It turns out that not only had Lennay never died, but she never existed in the first place. An embarrassed Manti Te'o released a statement saying:

“We maintained what I thought to be an authentic relationship by communicating frequently online and on the phone, and I grew to care deeply about her. To realize that I was the victim of what was apparently someone's sick joke and constant lies was, and is, painful and humiliating. It further pains me that the grief I felt and the sympathies expressed to me at the time of my grandmother's death in September were in any way deepened by what I believed to be another significant loss in my life …”

This story is indicative of a larger societal problem—the degeneration of interpersonal relationships and the rise of insular communities.

Online social networking has become a substitute for face-to-face interactions. Why bother picking up the phone to call a friend or loved one when you can simply write on their Facebook wall or mention them in a tweet?

Everyone is addicted to their little gadgets – the iPads, laptops, and smartphones that are used for Instant Messenger, Facebook, and Twitter.

The benefits of online social networking are undeniable. It helps connect people with similar interests. Anyone with an internet access can get plugged in to the rest of the world. It makes information sharing easier. But, spreading misinformation is just as easy as spreading information. The next hoax is just another tweet, another Facebook comment away.

Beyond that, online social networking breeds insular communities that become polarized against each other. Liberals and conservatives restrict themselves to news outlets that reinforce their respective ideologies.

No one wants to get out of their comfort zone. Very few are willing to expose themselves to new ideas and new ways of thinking. Just as society has become more insular, so has the government.
Take a look at Washington. Ideological purity is now seen as a sign of loyalty.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are reluctant to stray from their sacred talking points. Members of Congress do not spend time with one another. Instead, they isolate themselves and retreat to their respective ideological corners.

Maybe Manti Te’o was a victim of a hoax, maybe he was not. One thing is clear, America is divided.

And a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Republicans have leverage on the debt ceiling? What leverage?

2013-01-05T12:41:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 4, 2013 — Will Republicans really threaten to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States in order to get significant cuts in Medicare and Social Security?

Sure they will. But in the end, they will cave.

Smashing into the debt-ceiling is worse than falling off the fiscal cliff. Defaulting on the national debt means the United States will fail to meet its obligations on wages, Social Security payments, and interest on the national debt. Beyond that, stock markets would plunge, interest rates would soar, and the dollar would lose its value. Republicans are aware of that reality, and will not want to be blamed for causing a global recession.

The best leverage the GOP had to restore fiscal discipline to the country was when we were on the edge of the “fiscal cliff.” But they overestimated the leverage President Obama supposedly had. They forgot that President Obama was not the only person who won reelection. Republicans won as well.

Instead, a Republican Party that had not voted for a tax increase in two decades ended up doing so, with only $12 billion in spending cuts to show for it.

During the fiscal cliff negotiations, The White House leaked that President Obama was willing to go over the fiscal cliff if Republicans refused to give in on tax increases.

It was a bluff, a brinkmanship exercise, and Republicans fell for it.

Would a newly reelected, second-term president really risk a nine percent unemployment rate, and another recession just to score a political victory on higher taxes? Doubtful.

If Republicans get spending cuts and entitlement reform during the debt-ceiling negotiations, it will not be because they have “leverage.” It will be because President Obama, after all this time, finally decided to get serious about solving the fiscal crisis.

Obama pays lip service to debt reduction but has done very little to tackle it. In Feb. 2009, “I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office,” Obama said, in a serious tone. He put together a bipartisan Fiscal Commission (Simpson-Bowles) but ignored their recommendations.

For a president who many thought would usher in a new kind of leadership and a refreshing boldness, President Obama has been missing in action when it comes to dealing with one of the most important issues the country faces: the national debt.

Why is there always short-term fiscal deal under this president? The country goes from one fiscal cliff to another, year after year, on his watch. Why is that?

Blaming it all on Republican intransigence is intellectual laziness.

The reality is that President Obama is not an effective negotiator. He does not put in the time and effort to cultivate relationships with Congress. He believes so much in his rhetorical prowess that he consistently goes over the heads of members of Congress to appeal directly to the American people.

Democrats worry that he is not a tough negotiator. Republicans do not trust him, which is why Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell chose Vice President Joe Biden as his negotiating partner in the final hours of the “fiscal cliff” talks.

If President Obama were really serious about reining in the national debt, he would have put forth a plan by now. Whispering to John Boehner behind closed doors about what you might be willing to cut is not leadership. Put it out in the open. Have an honest conversation with the American people and explain that the current spending levels are unsustainable. Tell them that we are leaving a mountain of debt for our children and grandchildren. Mean it. Then get behind closed doors, and find a way to get it done.

When historians write about the failure of America to reach a grand bargain on fiscal issues, they will not remember the names of the House Republicans that did not want to deal. No one will remember “Plan B.” They will say Barack Obama was a two-term president who failed to put America on a sound fiscal footing for future generations.

That will be his legacy.

Ayobami is a graduate student in George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.

America's era of strong leadership is over

2012-12-28T15:26:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 28, 2012 — Obviously the Mayas got it wrong. The world did not end on December 21. But one thing is for sure, the era of strong leadership in Washington is over.

Gone are the days when a president and a Speaker of the House can reach a bipartisan deal to reform Social Security and taxes, like President Ronald Reagan and Speaker Tip O’Neill did in the 1980s. Gone are the days when an American president can propose a grand idea like putting a man on the moon, and work with Congress to make it a reality.

America, your political system is broken. Your elected officials lack the political will to solve the country’s great challenges, and your Congress is dysfunctional. The 18 percent of Americans who still approve of the job Congress is doing must be lying to pollsters.

Responsible governance and visionary ideas have taken a backseat to finger-pointing, and partisan-bickering. Quick fixes and stop-gap measures have become the new normal. A short-term investment here, a temporary tax-cut extension there. Long-term solutions are no longer a national priority.

There are serious challenges facing the United States. Unemployment is high. The American Dream is slipping away from many Americans. Middle-class families continue to see their wages go down year after year. More than 46 million Americans are living in poverty. America’s infrastructure is crumbling. The tax-code is bloated and inefficient. There is no energy policy. No plan to reform education. No plan to make entitlement programs more solvent for future generations.

America is set to hit its $16.4 federal debt limit on December 31, according to the Treasury Department. $16 trillion is nothing to sneeze at. $16 trillion is over 400 million times the country’s median household income.

If you spend a dollar every second, you would not reach a trillion dollars for over 30, 000 years. If you spent a million dollars every day since the birth of Jesus Christ, you would not be at a trillion yet. And that is just a trillion. America has $16 trillion on the credit card, yet there is no serious plan to rein in the debt.

Medicare is the big elephant in the room, and no one is talking about it. Without Medicare reform, America’s long-term debt will continue to rise.

In the last 10 years, the amount the federal government spends on healthcare for the elderly has risen from two percent of the economy to four percent. By 2050, it will rise to eight percent according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are devouring 40 percent of federal spending. If nothing is done, in ten years, it will rise to 54 percent. The trajectory is clear. Entitlement spending will bankrupt America. Where is the sense of urgency to solve it?

Gradually raising the retirment age from 65 to 67 is not unreasonable. Delivering benefits to only those who fall below a certain income level (means-testing) is not unreasonable. Doing nothing at all is irresponsible.

There is a leadership vacuum in Washington, and no one is filling it. Not the president, not Congressional leaders. The American people are waiting, and the world is watching.

Can our national leaders still govern responsibly? That remains to be seen.

Follow @AyobamiAO

The mass torture of drone strikes

2012-12-21T20:40:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C. December 13, 2012 — Leon Trotsky once said: “you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

Unfortunately, that is true for the innocent men, women and children in the Middle East who have witnessed their loved ones blown into pieces by drone strikes.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be winding down but the drone war lives on, with no end in sight. Drone strikes are one of the Obama administration’s signature foreign policy arsenals for fighting the War on Terror.

Peter Bergen, CNN's national security analyst, writes that in Pakistan alone, President Obama has authorized over 283 drone strikes, six times more than President George W. Bush in his eight years in office.

Forget waterboarding, a drone strike is mass torture.

Sure, bad guys get killed in the process. But so do innocent women and children. In Pakistan for example, BBC’s Jane Corbin reports the story of a young girl named Nabeela Ur Rehman. She was tending to her cow in the family compound when she witnessed the slaughtering of her grandmother by a drone, right in front of her eyes. The trauma she must have experienced, and the fear that she continues to live with is unfathomable.

Investigators from Stanford and NYU Law Schools released a study (“Living under Drones”) about the effect of drones on the civilian population in Pakistan. Some of those effects include severe anxiety and psychological disorder.

Have drone strikes killed top Al-Qaeda targets? Are they more efficient than ground troops? Yes and yes.

The American approach to fighting the War on Terror has slowly shifted from a counter-insurgency strategy into a counter-terrorism approach. Counterinsurgency--like in Iraq and Afghanistan--requires protecting the population, winning them over, training the country’s army, and gathering human intelligence. The amount of money and military personnel it takes to successfully deploy such a strategy is unsustainable in the long run. Not to mention the inevitability of mass casualties.

As a result, we see more targeted counter-terrorism operations through drone strikes.

Read full article:
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/elections-fastbreak/2012/dec/12/mass-torture-drone-strikes/

President Obama may push America over the fiscal cliff

2012-12-01T15:53:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 30, 2012 — President Obama should take some time off to see the movie “Lincoln.”

Abraham Lincoln understood the art of legislating. He knew how to deal, how to cajole, how to play his hand and not overreach, and how to do it in a way that would enable some of his political opponents to save face. He understood that he sometimes needed to get the hard liners in his own party – like Thaddeus Stevens – to tone down their rhetoric so as not to offend the swing voters in the Democratic Party that were needed to pass the 13th amendment.

President Obama can learn from that approach.

The president’s plan to avert the “fiscal cliff” calls for $1.6 trillion in tax increases, $50 billion in stimulus spending, and $400 billion in Medicare savings. The New York Times deemed the plan “loaded with Democratic priorities and short on detailed spending cuts.”

It was immediately rejected by Republicans. “I’m disappointed in where we are, and disappointed in what’s happened over the last couple weeks. Going over the fiscal cliff is serious business. And I’m here seriously trying to resolve it. And I would hope the White House would get serious as well,” House Speaker John Boehner said.

The plan was a nonstarter for Republicans, and The White House probably knew it. So why do it? He did to prove a point. He did it to score points with Democrats, and show Republicans that he has the leverage to get whatever he wants. After all, he won re-election convincingly, and campaigned on raising taxes on high-income earners.

Read full article: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/elections-fastbreak/2012/nov/30/president-obama-may-push-america-over-fiscal-cliff/

Follow @AyobamiAO

Time to abolish the debt ceiling

2012-11-26T12:32:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON, November 25, 2012 — The “fiscal cliff” has become the most ubiquitous phrase in Washington. But it is not the only crisis facing the United States. In fact, the fiscal cliff is not a cliff. It is more like a steep slope. The real cliff is the debt ceiling, and the existence of a debt ceiling law in the United States is fundamentally useless.

The fiscal cliff refers to the expiration of temporary tax breaks - the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax-cuts, and the payroll tax cuts enacted in 2010 - and the across-the-board spending cuts in various social programs and defense. Falling off the fiscal cliff suggests that if members of Congress do not reach a deal by the end of the year, the American economy will somehow plummet into the abyss. That is unlikely.

Warren Buffet, billionaire investor, in an interview with CNN said, “The fact they can't get along for the month of January is not going to torpedo the economy.” Regardless of when Congress reaches a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff, the United States will reach its debt limit sometime in the first quarter of 2013.

The debt ceiling is the maximum legal limit the U.S government can borrow at any given time. That limit is currently $16.4 trillion. The debt ceiling was established by the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917, which helped finance the U.S entry into World War I. Since then, the debt ceiling has been raised almost 100 times.

So why have a “debt ceiling” at all if it has to be raised every year? Some argue that it forces lawmakers to focus on the national debt.

But Congress already has the power of the purse and can control how much the government can spend and receive in taxes. So having a statutory “debt ceiling” is pointless. It does nothing to control the national debt. If it did, it would not need to be raised every year.

Read full article: Time to abolish the debt-ceiling | Washington Times Communities

Follow @AyobamiAO

Romney says Obama won by giving voters “gifts” from the government

2012-11-18T12:30:00.000-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 16, 2012 — Governor Mitt Romney thinks President Obama won because he bribed voters with government gifts.

So much for the belief that the president won because of his get-out-the-vote (GOTV) operation and his overwhelming support from minority groups and women.

“What the president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote,” Romney said.

Less than two weeks following another failed presidential bid for Romney, this is his take away from the election.

In fairness, losing a presidential election hurts. For Romney, the wound of defeat runs deep, and it stings. This is his second presidential campaign. He thought he would win it this time. He believed he had the momentum going into Election Day.

But he did not, he and other Republicans were lied to by what David Frum (former speechwriter for President George W. Bush) called the “conservative entertainment complex.” The radio and Cable TV talk show hosts, conservative bloggers, political strategists, the Dick Morris’ of the world, and others.

Nevertheless, Gov. Romney’s comments were divisive, insensitive, and insulting. It lacked the kind of depth you would expect from the presidential nominee of a major party. It was void of any deep reflection or introspection.

But beyond that, Romney has a misguided view of conservatism.

Read full article: Romney says Obama won by giving voters “gifts” from the government | Washington Times Communities

Follow @AyobamiAO

GOP: The Grand old white party

2012-11-10T16:55:00.002-05:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 8, 2012 — So much for the expectations that the presidential election would be close. It was not. President Obama won handily. Not because he offered a broad vision for the country- he did not. In fact, the Obama campaign was divisive, manipulative, and at times directionless.

Early on, the campaign simply sliced and diced the electorate into sub-groups, with targeted messages for each group. None of which was connected to any broader message.

The campaign decided that it was important to re-energize young voters so they sent the president to college campuses to talk about student loans. They wanted to keep the gender gap in their favor so all of a sudden the conversation shifted to the Republican war on women.

They wanted to show that President Obama was on the side of the middle-class so they moved on to talking about the “Buffet rule” and then to attacking Gov. Romney as a vulture capitalist. They were not kidding when they said they would try to delegitimize Romney.

He was called a flip flopper without a core. He was blamed for a woman’s death of cancer, not paying taxes and suggesting he committed a felony, outsourcing jobs to China and India while hoarding millions of dollars in a Swiss bank account and keeping tax havens in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. They even said Romney suffers from a political disease: “Romnesia.”

Nevertheless, the smallness of the Obama campaign did not prevent him from winning. Obama won because Latinos all across the country came out to vote in record numbers.

Read full article: GOP: The grand old white party | Washington Times Communities

Follow @AyobamiAO

Hurricane Sandy: The October surprise that could re-elect President Obama

2012-11-03T13:47:00.001-04:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 1, 2012 — Stephen Colbert is right. Maybe hurricanes do have a liberal bias.

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was a low point for the Bush presidency. One of the most memorable images from the disaster is of President George W. Bush looking out of his window on Air Force One as he flew over New Orleans. An image that made him look detached and indifferent.

Hurricane Isaac delayed the 2012 Republican National Convention. And now, thanks to Hurricane Sandy, Gov. Mitt Romney’s momentum is slowly coming to a halt.

This disaster once again reveals the inherent advantages an incumbent president has over any challenger. In time of crisis, the American people look to the president for leadership, comfort and reassurance that better days are ahead.

States that were decimated by the disaster want the president to deploy all the federal government resources at his disposal.

So far this week, President Obama is doing all the right things. He is striking the right tone of unity and bipartisanship, and trying to coalesce the country around his leadership. “There are no Democrats or Republicans during a storm,” President Obama said at a rally in Green Bay, WI.

Read full article: Hurricane Sandy: The October surprise that could re-elect President Obama | Washington Times Communities

Follow @AyobamiAO

Barry the comeback kid

2012-10-20T15:01:00.001-04:00

WASHINGTON, October 17, 2012 - Democrats say President Barack Obama scored a knockout punch in the second presidential debate. Republicans call it a tie. But one thing is for sure, President Obama was clearly not “Uncle Fluffy” this time. He came to fight. The polls have been tightening so the stakes were high. The president took this debate more seriously and it showed.

Two weeks ago, the bipartisan consensus was that President Obama had a terrible performance in the first debate. The president was determined to change that narrative and he did. Unlike after the first presidential debate, the news headline today is not “What happened to the president?” It is more like “Obama fights back” “Obama wins.”

The president was less wonky and professorial and more direct and assertive. He was passionate and engaging-visibly angry at times but stern throughout the debate.

He finally brought up Mitt Romney’s 47% comment much to the delight of many Democrats.

“But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims, who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about.

Folks on Social Security who have worked all their lives. Veterans who have sacrificed for this country. Students who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams. Soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now. People who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas tax, but don’t make enough income,” President Obama said.

Read the full article here: Barry the comeback kid | Washington Times Communities

Follow @AyobamiAO

The Electoral College should not be eliminated

2012-10-09T18:08:00.002-04:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 7, 2012 — Every four years the Electoral College debate resurfaces. But contrary to what you may have heard, the Electoral College is a very stable and reliable way of electing a President of the United States.

Sure it has its intrinsic flaws, as evident in the dispute over Florida’s electoral votes during the 2000 presidential election. Nevertheless, it is a well-structured system that provides geographical balance and conclusive outcomes.

The Electoral College is a group of representatives chosen by each state to formally elect the president. The 538 electoral votes in the Electoral College correspond with the 435 members in the U.S House of Representatives, 100 members in the U.S Senate, and the District of Columbia’s three electoral votes.

Scholars like Mike Edwards and Danny Oppenheimer argue that the Electoral College should be abolished. In their most recent article in the Huffington Post, they argue that the Electoral College is a “cancerous tumor on American democracy” partly because it gives voters in some states greater influence over the presidential election than citizens of other states.

As a consequence, they advocate for a National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) which requires states to give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
But in this national popular vote scenario, wouldn’t candidates just ignore small states and concentrate on big states in order to reach a popular majority? So if the problem with the Electoral College is that votes from certain states are worth more than others, then a national popular vote is hardly the answer since it does not solve the problem of candidates’ dismissal of some states.

Read more: The Electoral College should not be eliminated | Washington Times Communities

Follow @AyobamiAO

Obama is no Jimmy Carter, Romney no Ronald Reagan

2012-09-16T15:05:00.002-04:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 16, 2012 — The 2012 presidential election may be like the 1980 election, but Gov. Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan. And perhaps President Obama is not Jimmy Carter either, which is not such a bad thing.

Carter lost, and Obama could win. Not because the American public approve of his leadership – they don’t. 60 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy, 58 percent disapprove of his ability to create jobs, and 64 percent disapprove of his handling of the budget deficit, according to the most recent Gallup poll. He can win because voters do not view Mitt Romney as a viable alternative, not yet at least.

There is a pervasive angst and fear about the future of the country. Parents are worried about the future of their children. The American promise that if you work hard, and play by the rules, you can live the American Dream does not hold true for many Americans.

Read more: Obama is no Jimmy Carter, Romney no Ronald Reagan | Washington Times Communities

Follow @AyobamiAO

Why Republicans should hope for a big NFL season opener

2012-09-05T19:42:00.001-04:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 5, 2012 — The best thing that can happen for the Republican Party tonight is a shootout between the Dallas Cowboys and New York Giants that will draw viewers away from the Democratic National Convention.

If the second night of the DNC Convention is anything like the first, the level of momentum and potential electoral bounce for President Obama going into the fall campaign could be huge.

The first night of the convention was a success for Democrats. With that said, there was a slight disconnect between the sheer exhilaration in the hall and the harsh realities many Americans face.

Nevertheless, from a stylistic standpoint, everything from the roll-out, choice of music, use of imagery, to the quality of speakers and speeches was impressive. Unlike the Republican Convention that looked like a cast of GOP all-stars auditioning for a future presidential run (think Chris Christie and Marco Rubio), the first night of the DNC Convention was all about President Barack Obama. About his accomplishments, leadership and why he deserves a second term.

Read more: Why Republicans should hope for a big NFL season opener | Washington Times Communities

Condoleezza Rice steals the show

2012-08-31T13:25:00.002-04:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 30, 2012 — Rep. Paul Ryan was effective, Gov. Susana Martinez was compelling, but on the second night at the Republican National Convention, Condoleezza Rice stole the show. Who knew that she could deliver a rousing political speech?

The former Secretary of State gave the best speech of the Republican National Convention so far. It was both substantive and inspiring. It wasn’t filled with just red meat for the Republican base. She spoke to the entire country, and she did it passionately and persuasively.

She spoke about foreign policy and domestic policy, and about opportunity, self-reliance, upward mobility, the American Dream, and America's role in the world. “America has a way of making the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect. But … It took leadership, and it took courage, and it took belief in our values,” she said.

Read more: Condoleezza Rice steals the show | Washington Times Communities

Is there still a strong Republican Party Establishment?

2012-08-23T11:08:00.001-04:00

WASHINGTON, DC., August 21, 2012 — Gone are the days when the Republican Establishment could effectively control its caucus and dictate the direction of the party. That Republican Establishment, to the extent that it still exists, lacks the clout, force, and political muscle needed to rein in some of its misguided members. Missouri Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin is yet another case study.

When asked in a local television interview if he opposes abortion even in cases of rape, Akin said, “from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare … If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
The level of ignorance and sheer stupidity of this statement is appalling.

The full article is located here: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/elections-fastbreak/2012/aug/21/there-still-strong-republican-party-establishment/

Mitt Romney is a lousy politician

2012-08-19T18:07:00.001-04:00

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 19, 2012 — The opportunity for a Republican to win the White House could not be bigger, and the path could not be easier. But the Republican nominee for president may blow it because he is really bad at politics.

He may be a skilled manager with a great understanding of how the economy works, but he’s a lousy politician. You’ll be hard pressed to find very many voters that can tell you Mitt Romney’s life story or background. They know he worked in a private equity firm, and was governor of Massachusetts.
They know he is really, really rich. But that’s all they know.

The full article is located here: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/elections-fastbreak/2012/aug/19/mitt-romney-lousy-politician/#.UDFWk6qZz38.twitter