Romney campaign faces messaging dilemma…

How does a presidential campaign stay on message when its candidate is a moderate conservative and there is no longer a governing center in your party? The answer is it doesn’t. Thus far, the election campaign of presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney has morphed into whatever appears to be politically expedient at any given time and place. When Governor Romney campaigns in Florida he sounds like a Marco Rubio Republican, courting undecided Latino voters with inclusive rhetoric; but, when stumping in a state like Arizona, he speaks with in the same divisive language as Sheriff Joe Arpaio and anti-hispanic members of the Freedom Works Tea Party. Simply put, there is no consistency or uniform vision in the Romney campaign’s messaging from day to day, and the expanding list of chameleon-like changes by the campaign on many of the key policy positions of the 2012 election continues to the dismay of GOP loyalists. “Believe in America” simply doesn’t cut it as a slogan for Romney, it’s no different than “Country First”, and it can only be interpreted by those who are not die hard Republicans as a disingenuous and arrogant move to insinuate from your campaign slogan that over half of the American electorate does not believe in the present and future prosperity of their own country. But the question presented here is what exactly does Romney believe in?

The so-called “Etch A Sketch” candidate has thus far lived up to the nickname given to him by his Republican foes in reaction to statements by Romney aide Eric Fehrnstrom on CNN during the GOP primaries, where he eloquently stated while discussing the transition to the general election: “I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch,”… “You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.” With the latest addition of contradicting statements within the Romney campaign, pertaining to the individual mandate tax or penalty discussion, the flip flopping has now become so obvious and expected of the candidate and his staff that serious questions must be asked by conservative American voters regarding what version of Romney is the real thing and which version is simply pandering for votes at the expense of his personal beliefs and principals. This most recent intra-campaign confusion seems to justify concerns over Romney’s ability to effectively message on health care reform and validate former candidate Rick Santorum who famously predicted that Romney would be the “worst Republican to run on the issue of Obamacare.”

Now that it has become obvious that Governor Romney’s campaign staff is often not properly briefed or clear on his current position on numerous major issues, expect grave concern and calls for firings from Republican sympathizers and donors who have poured millions into Romney’s campaign war chest and outside groups. The delayed and inconsistent reactions by the campaign to the health care ruling and the recent immigration policy change declared by President Obama (Romney would not answer direct questions) are distinctive indicators of a campaign that lacks discipline and clarity at its roots. Simply put, no campaign can succeed without consistent messaging on the biggest issues that will swing voters and effect turnout, and the Romney campaign is obviously not on the same page given its recent blunders (which also include a slew of embarrassing typos and visible indecision from spokespersons when facing non-Fox News reporters).

The GOP and conservative independents must live with the fact that they have a nominee in Mitt Romney who vigorously defended the individual health care mandate as Governor of a blue state; indeed Romney has been captured on video stating his desire to test the Massachusetts plan at the national level and touting the mandate as a “personal responsibility” provision. This same man as a GOP candidate for President of the United States has now said that he would act to repeal what is essentially his own vision for healthcare reform in the name of winning over anti-Obama right-wingers. He wants greatly to appeal to independents while not alienating far right Fox News Republicans. But this has become nearly impossible because it is a fact that the moderates in his party are a dying breed. The result is that Romney has ultimately been forced to compromise his truly moderate conservative principles (based on his record as Governor of Massachusetts) in the name of winning an election. Unfortunately for Governor Romney, because of his own actions and the actions of his staff, he is now clearly vulnerable to the same kind of flip flopping claims that capsized John Kerry’s bid for the White House in 2004.

Thoughts on the appearance of Super PAC/Candidate collusion and the Supreme Court decision not to revisit Citizens United…

What do you get when you put Karl Rove and Mitt Romney in the same place at the same time at a mega-fundraising event in Park City, Utah? If you answered the appearance of coordination and collusion between the Romney campaign and American Crossroads, then you likely understand the skepticism of many towards the Supreme Court’s 5-4 per curiam decision not to re-visit its controversial Citizen’s United decision. The Court’s American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock decision on Monday virtually ensures that there will be no stopping corporate money from flooding into Super PAC’s at record rates during the November election. The decision to maintain the status quo also turns a blind eye to the fact that the American public is watching billionaires and corporations single handedly drive messages in support or against certain issues and candidates in advertisements that sound and appear remarkably similar to that of the political parties and their candidates. These increasingly obvious coordinative actions raise red flags signaling that perhaps the line drawn between Super PAC activity and Political Campaign activity has become blurry to non-existent.

The appearance of coordination and collusion post-Citizens United, a decision called “uninformed, arrogant, and naïve” by Senator John McCain in a recent interview with Meet the Press, has been severely exasperated at the Presidential level. With only two candidates in the race, divisive opposing views on almost every major issue, and because of the national media’s focus on the every move of the candidates and their associated/unassociated groups, hiding any type of coordination between PACs and Candidates is now virtually impossible. As hard and soft ads from the campaigns hit the airwaves, there have likewise been streams of Super PAC ads running that could easily be labeled candidate specific because the issues addressed have been framed in a manner where the lay person can easily tell what candidate backs or opposes the viewpoint or stance promoted. For example, with Karl Rove and the American Crossroads Super PAC, any concern over the appearance of collusion seems to run a distant second to attempting to humiliate the President with one-sided content and Republican talking points. It’s no secret that American Crossroads is a GOP operation run by former members of team Bush, and although they may technically be unassociated with the Romney campaign, there can be no doubt that Rove’s ads are purposefully directed at hurting Obama in an unabashed attempt to benefit the presumptive GOP candidate.

Still, what really takes the efforts of Rove and some other conservative Super PACs to the level of possibly violating campaign finance rules is the visibility of the biggest donors to outside groups at Romney campaign events disguised as fundraisers. It became obvious that the new rules would be tested at their limit during the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary, as Newt Gingrich and a Super PAC led by Sheldon Adelson campaign made no attempt to curb public perception that they were coordinating by appearing on stage together at multiple Gingrich fundraising events. The response from the guilty parties then was that it was not coordination simply to be seen together. But, at an event like the “fundraising retreat” for Romney in Park City, it is simply naïve to think that there is not backroom coordination occurring between big money donors and campaign staff. The question now becomes what can be done in the wake of the American Tradition decision to ensure that American voters are not having their voices diluted beyond what is acceptable under Citizens United and the US Constitution.

At this point, the implication from American Tradition is that nothing will be done at the Supreme Court level to change the rules despite growing evidence of their abuse. Any substantive changes will not occur until after the 2012 election cycle and will likely require a heightened level of proof of collusion and coordination to move the Court to seriously re-address the campaign finance issue. The conservative justices have taken a wait and see approach, while the liberal justices continue to point out many of the same concerns raised by this and many other articles on the post-Citizens United landscape. Therefore, it will be up to good reporting and increased accountability on the part of the American electorate and media to move the Court to act on the fact that coordination is in fact occurring. The Court has long considered the appearance of corruption as a compelling governmental interest, and evidence of such should be at the heart of any discussion on election rules in the United States. Unfortunately, because of American Tradition, Karl Rove and other GOP-tied Super PACs will be allowed to continue abusing campaign finance rules.

Thoughts on the Latino vote and President Obama’s speech to NALEO…

Lake Buena Vista, Florida - Following sharp criticism of his commitment to the Latino community suggested during speeches by presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney and Senator Marco Rubio, President Barack Obama responded in kind by offering a clear contrast to his Republican adversaries during a key election year address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (“NALEO”). Speaking only a few hours after Rubio, who had told the conference that the President “has not made Latino issues a priority” and offered as proof the fact that the President “hasn’t been to the NALEO conference in the three years since he took office”, Obama seemed unfazed by Rubio’s criticism and instead focused his energy on connecting with the audience and contrasting himself with Romney early and often.

The President began his speech by discussing the vital role of “Dreamers” in helping to fuel the economic engine of America and discussed how immigrants have always been “risk takers, not looking for handouts and some of the hardest working people around.” He then asked the crowd about the kind of vision the Latino community was looking for in their President, specifically asking “what vision do we stand for, who do we fight for?” in reference to Romney’s policies which the President claims would favor the rich and result in a return to “trickle down” economics. He further contrasted his vision from Romney’s by discussing his focus on expanding education opportunities through expanded Pell grants, encouraging community colleges as a bridge to a higher education, and not teaching to a test and instead focusing on expanding curriculums instead of slashing funding like the GOP in Congress and Romney have favored doing by gutting the Department of Education.

The crowd of officials seemed receptive to the President’s message on education, and that didn’t change when the President shifted to discussing his record in what appeared to be a direct response to Romney’s claim the day before that “President Obama doesn’t respect the Latino vote.” He began by mentioning that his administration has already cut taxes 18 times for Latino small business owners and for Latino middle class taxpayers, he discussed the impact of health care reform on the Latino community, the fact that under the Affordable Care , Act Americans will no longer go broke because they are sick. He highlighted the fact that Latino’s have the highest uninsured rate and that it was the “right thing to do passing health care reform.” Finally, he qualified the progress made thus far with the fact that there is more to do, that we need to put more good teachers in our class rooms, need to put people back to work restoring our infrastructure.

Next, the President addressed the need for Congress to take on comprehensive Immigration “in order to continue attracting talented hard working people who believe in this country.” He mentioned that the delay in action on immigration has not been a lack of technical knowhow on how to fix the system, and he used the work put in to the issue by McCain, Bush, and Ted Kennedy, showing there was bi-partisan support at a point in time not long ago. He then blamed the stale mate on obstruction caused by Tea Party faction of the Republican Party in Congress. In stark contrast to Romney who said he would veto the DREAM Act, The President also argued that Congress should have passed the Dream ACT because it was a bill written by both parties. He drove home the point by pointing out that the Republicans who helped write the bill blocked it in the end, and that “the need didn’t change, the bill didn’t change, the only thing that had changed was politics.” He then went on to justify his administrations action stating that “lifting the shadow of deportation and giving these children an opportunity” was the right thing to do. He called it a temporary measure, and reiterated that Congress needs to act and send a bill to his desk ASAP.

Finally, the President closed his speech to NALEO by discussing larger election year themes with a 2008 feel, discussing with passion the need for unity as a country to fully recover from the financial collapse, and mentioning that “an enduring promise of America” is what drives immigrants to America. He mentioned how his story would not have been possible in any other country, and he drew an us versus them type distinction between his vision and the Romney vision when he wrapped up stating that the march toward freedom and equality has always been tough, and that people have tried to stop the progress of minorities over time, but that in the end persevered with the familiar theme from Obama’s historic run to the White House, ending with a resounding “yes we can, si se puede” and a huge applause from the conference crowd that was nearly twice as loud as that of Mitt Romney the day before.

Thoughts on changes to U.S. immigration policy and whether Romney would repeal President Obama’s Executive Order…

Five days removed from President Obama’s announcement of an Executive Order changing the immigration policy of the United States, GOP Nominee Mitt Romney has yet to directly answer yes or no to media questions pertaining to whether he would repeal the Order if he is elected. As things stand, if Congress doesn’t act in the next month to block the Order, then the children of illegal immigrants under the age of 30 and brought to the country before they were 16 will become eligible to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and will be allowed to apply for a two year work permit. To be eligible for relief, the individual must have lived in the U.S. for five continuous years, have no criminal record and have earned a high school diploma, a GED or have served in the military. Thus, because of the wide effect and the urgency to act created by this policy change, it’s of vital importance to millions of young immigrants living in the shadows to know whether a President Romney would be in favor of allowing those qualified under Obama’s order to remain in the U.S.

The biggest political problem created for Romney by Obama’s move is that answering either way will cost him critical votes with Latinos, independents, or with anti-immigrant Tea Party Republicans. Thus, the politics behind his current silence are clear; he is doing whatever he can to avoid taking a position in order to avoid alienating key constituencies. In fact, a recent poll on Obama’s move conducted by Bloomberg this week showed 86% support from Democrats, 66% from Independents, and only 44% support among Republicans. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Romney Campaign is aware of the political consequences associated with advising their candidate on whether to speak or not speak on this Order. What is not clear is why Romney and his surrogates are accusing Obama of playing politics with immigration policy when Romney’s own refusal to answer direct questions is obviously a politically motivated campaign tactic.

To further complicate matters for undecided voters, it also appears from the text on Romney’s campaign website that he has already taken a position in favor of retaining immigrant talent. For example, under the heading of “Attract the Best and Brightest”, the Romney campaign’s website states that the “the U.S. needs to attract and retain job creators from wherever they come. Foreign-born residents with advanced degrees start companies, create jobs, and drive innovation at an especially high rate.” But this position, without the qualification that it only applies to legal immigrants, is much too liberal a stance for a majority of the Republican base including Tea Partiers. Thus, Romney’s own inconsistency on immigration issues are why he finds himself stuck between supporting the Order and risking losing his already shaky conservative base, or rejecting the Order, threatening to repeal, and risking losing vital support from undecided independent voters and Rubio Republicans.

Considering the above issues and the fact that Marco Rubio recently withdrew his Dream Act legislation from the Senate, an honest analysis of the cost/benefit to the GOP of Romney’s responding directly to Obama’s Order leads to the reasonable conclusion that Mitt Romney will continue to deflect direct questions pertaining to the Executive Order or the Dream Act. Romney, as most are aware by now, is a master political chameleon who typically plays it safe on controversial issues while taking whatever position is popular at the place, time and with the audience he is speaking to. Because Romney is scared to offend fair weather conservative voters by back treading on the rhetoric he spouted during the primary season, we should expect him and his campaign to continue to talk tough about deportations and the problems with illegal immigrants when in front of Tea Party crowds, and similarly, because he is scared to offend undecided conservative Latino voters, we can also expect Romney the chameleon to sound a lot like his possible running mate Marco Rubio when he visits Florida. Just don’t expect Mitt Romney to give the American people a direct yes or no answer any time soon.

Thoughts on Adverse Credit Delaying the Disbursement of Direct Plus Student Loans and a Possible Fix to an Ambiguous Appeals Process…

Let me preface this article by acknowledging that the student loan debt bubble looms large if tuition costs for American higher education continue to inflate, interest rates continue to rise, and nationwide unemployment remains high. However, in the here and now, there are many unacceptable cases where professional and graduate students are being stifled financially by a lack of necessary exemptions and a time consuming credit verification and appeals process. Specifically, due to limits on the maximum amount that can be borrowed per student per semester, and because of the required credit check approval process, many students now find themselves flipping over their couch cushions looking for spare change and begging their parents, friends, and relatives for money in order to survive during the gap periods and keep their credit scores from flat lining between the Spring & Summer and Fall & Spring semesters.

To illustrate, picture yourself in the following scenario faced by thousands of students for the past month and a half: You’re entering the summer before your third year of law school; you’re already $100,000 in debt (yes, that is around the typical cost of law school tuition and fees in 2012!) and you just accepted an unpaid internship with a government agency in order to gain practical experience and make connections. You’re taking classes at night to try and graduate on or ahead of time, and you depend on student loans to survive the day to day grind associated with gaining access to the legal profession. In early May you double checked your personal financial information and turned in your FAFSA application for your Direct Plus loan before the deadline (and had no issues arise during the previous aid periods).

As the end of May approaches, things have become increasingly tight financially. You receive word from school that your disbursement for the summer semester will not arrive until after the first of June, meaning that your rent and bills are going to be due despite not having enough money available from your previous loan to pay them (last year summer loans were disbursed just before the end of May). As the month draws to a close, you’re notified by e-mail that your application for a summer loan has been denied to due to a newly detected adverse credit issue. You immediately contact Equifax and discover that a billing company reported you to a collection agency because they failed to record a final payment for a phone bill you paid in 2010 (for which you have electronic record of), and in addition, Equifax discovers a bill for $65 that was never forwarded to your new address when you moved apartments last year (and that bill is now more than 90 days overdue and reported to a collection agency!).

You have Equifax run your credit again to verify the total amount you owe and are notified, after that you can cure the adverse credit issue through an appeals process if you can provide your school and Federal Student Aid (“FSA”) with written proof of your satisfaction of the debt owed. Unfortunately, not only are you already broke and not able to afford to cure your debt without your disbursement, but the credit appeals process takes another ten days due to unexplained delays on the part of the collection agency (a whole other important issue), meaning bigger late fees for rent and bills long with exponentially more borrowing needed for basic survival. There is just bad news all around (on top of interest rates rising to 7.9%), and it seems absurd that all this trouble is over a $65 dollar overdue bill that amounts to only 0.6% of the $10,000 that you’re scheduled to receive for the summer!

Under the current rules, an adverse credit report, no matter how insignificant the adverse debt when compared to the amount being borrowed, can prove disastrous to the life of an already broke and overworked graduate or professional student. This rough financial patch experienced by those without wealthy parents or relatives to bail them out as an endorser or “bank” is caused primarily by what I’m calling the “Limbo Period” for financial aid dependent students.

The Limbo Period begins just before final exams, in mid/late April to early May, and runs until loans for summer semester and/or loan qualified externships are disbursed. Because Spring loans are disbursed in mid to late January, and because the max amount has a limit that is designed to last into mid-May at the latest, it’s becoming extremely difficult to live a healthy life and have any money left over by the time final exams come around under the current system. There is no margin for error or accident, if you get sick or injured, then you are going into big time debt, and there is no chance of having money for rent if summer disbursements arrive after the first of June as they did this year.

What can be done to fix the current system? Consider the current language found on the FSA website, and then take a look at my proposed 10% exemption for students with adverse credit…

Current Language from the FSA website: “Credit check & endorser alternative… In some cases, you may also be able to obtain a Direct PLUS Loan if you document to our satisfaction that there are extenuating circumstances related to your adverse credit history.” (This is ambiguous language… what are extenuating circumstances and what does it mean to document something to the satisfaction of FSA?).

See full text: http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OSFAP/DirectLoan/applying.html

My Proposed Additions to the Current Language: For students who are notified by FSA that they have adverse credit but cannot attain an endorser, and do not have a written or electronically documented extenuating circumstance, funds shall still be disbursed as scheduled to each otherwise qualified student by their current institution subject to the “10% Rule Exemption for Students with Adverse Credit” as long as:

1) The total owed to the creditor or other agency by the student required to remedy the adverse credit is less than 10% of the amount sought from FSA for that student’s loan for the upcoming aid period;

Example: If a student is seeking to borrow $10,000 for the summer semester, then they will receive their disbursement on schedule if they owe less than $1,000 to the creditors whose reports triggered the adverse credit report.

2) The student provides evidence, in the form of a written or electronic document, of the amount owed to a creditor, and the evidence provided must demonstrate satisfaction of the 10% Rule; and

Example: Written or electronic proof of the amount owed being less than 10% of the amount to be borrowed by the student through FSA.

3) The student cures their adverse credit by the application deadline set by their institution for the subsequent financial aid period. Example: If the student in the earlier example is receiving summer Direct Loan money, and needs to pay off $850 in debt to a creditor in order to have their adverse credit status removed, then they have until the FAFSA deadline for the upcoming Fall Semester to cure their debt.

The purpose of this proposed change is to spark change so we can keep hard working graduate and professional students, who are most likely in unpaid intern or externships, from being evicted from their homes, swamped with giant late fees, and unable to afford groceries. These students should be focused on learning from their professors and serving their communities. The current adverse credit appeals process lacks any express language that addresses the month long Limbo Period. Therefore, it’s now up to FSA, with the assistance and persistence of the President and members of Congress, to act to implement a fix to this issue before it becomes a catalyst for a larger student loan crisis.

Thoughts On the National Security and Foreign Policy Visions of Mitt Romney and President Obama…

Less than five months from the 2012 Presidential Election it’s of significant value to begin paying closer attention to the actual details behind both candidates’ respective approaches to the biggest issues facing our nation. Despite not being the most talked about issue of this election cycle, the positions taken by both on foreign policy, national security and defense spending should be highly scrutinized given the vast amounts of life and treasure spent defending and securing the nation since the 2001 launch of the War on Terror.

Eleven years after 9/11, the choice made by Americans at the polls this year will dictate whether there is a neo-conservative revival cloaked in a call for an “American Century”, or whether a complete winding down of the ground wars and a heightened focus on coordinated special intelligence and targeted attacks on terrorist organizations around the world continues to take shape. This critical choice will determine whether our country pursues policies that appear to be adversarial, with a Cold War-era tone, or whether there is a continuing focus on strengthening alliances (such as the NATO effort that saw helped facilitate the overthrow of Gadhafi) through reasoned diplomacy and a common purpose of de-escalating tensions worldwide.

A dissection of the rhetoric and records of both Romney and Obama tells the story of two candidates, one who currently sits in the hot seat, has made the tough calls when the stakes were at their highest (Bin Laden raid), and seen the intelligence reports, while the other has surrounded himself with many of the same actors who drove the policies known as the “Bush Doctrine.” For example, Romney’s website lists as his special advisors the likes of Michael Chertoff, the former United States Secretary of Homeland Security under W. Bush, former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden, and Walid Phares, former Director of the Task Force for Future Terrorism at the Department of Homeland Security again under W. Bush. Bottom line, a vote for Romney appears to be a vote to double down on the neo-conservative policies advocated from 2000-2008.

President Obama’s team offers a stark contrast to Romney’s, as well as a vastly different vision for the role of the United States security apparatus overseas and at home. Led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Obama’s national security team has taken targeted anti-terrorism to a whole new level. At the time of this article, only one senior Al Qaeda official remains breathing, and his days look numbered. The Iraq War is over, and troops have begun coming home from Afghanistan. The President’s narrative offers goals such as “common security", "common humanity", and remaining "a beacon of freedom and justice for the world.” There is a focus on promoting peace and security in the Middle East and preserving America’s commitment to the security of Israel.

Romney’s campaign paints a dark portrayal of a world that harps on Cold War fears and a view that Obama seeks to “Hollow” out the United States Military. In reality, no matter what Romney says on his website, it’s simply misleading and disingenuous to say that re-electing the President means “a weak America, an America in decline, an America that retreats from its responsibilities, would usher in an era of uncertainty and danger.” To the contrary, it is likely that terrorist around the world have received the message that Obama will not hesitate to send a drone their way to eradicate the world from threats to our nation and our allies. An honest analysis of Romney’s national defense strategy reveals that he would really do nothing different than W. Bush, and that fear of a straw man version of Obama drives much of the rhetoric spouted by him and his campaign.

Lines such as “President Obama has repeatedly sought to slash funds for our fighting men and women” are simply misrepresentations that make our country less safe and do not reflect the reality of how powerful the United States Military truly is. Frankly, given the bloated defense budget (seven times that of China, and more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined), the argument that our military has weakened over the past three years is simply ludacris. (Defense budget was $530.1 billion in 2010, $549.1 billion in 2011, and estimated to be $553.0 billion for 2012). We should all agree that there are intelligent ways to maintain the greatest fighting force on earth while getting rid of excess spending that further exasperates concerns over the federal debt and balancing our budgets.

In addition, there is simply no need to expand the size of the military unless we plan on engaging in yet another ground war like we saw in Iraq. Any new war mongering at this point should be received with great skepticism and a dose of real concern for the sustainability of our troops both mentally and physically. Does anyone truly have the appetite for war with multiple nations in the name of ending an Iranian nuclear program that has no chance of succeeding to build bombs while under the intense scrutiny and surveillance of the United States and its allies? The GOP seems to have that very vision in mind, in fact Romney’s national security platform reads like a Tom Clancy novel that should concern even the biggest supporters of our military and intelligence endeavors. Do we really want to return to pre-emptive war and isolationism? Do we want to continue building alliances or return to bullying our way through disputes while giving our enemies more mental ammunition to build anti-American terror networks?

Thus, much is at stake this November in addition to jobs and recovering from the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The foreign policy visions of the candidates tell the story of two different futures for America’s military, and before voting, it is advisable that each one of us educate ourselves and those around us so that we as a nation can understand the ramifications of our collective choice for President. We should each take a hard look at the promises made by the President in 2008, and take a look at the Romney’s plans to revert back to pre-Obama policies. We should look at the tone of the rhetoric from both sides, and compare that rhetoric to the actual facts, look at the defense budget, and also look at how large and capable our military already is. The time has come for us all to look deeper than the pundits on FOX News, CNN, or MSNBC and to begin vetting the candidates without the media filter and based on the real effects of the candidates’ respective positions. National security is a good place as any to begin this important process.

Thoughts on the ongoing dispute over the true impact of photo ID voting laws...

America still has a problem. Despite our country’s oft-touted reputation as a shining beacon of democracy and freedom, severe voter apathy and low turnout, not voter fraud (only 9 possible instances of voter impersonation were reported from 2002-2007 according to protectingthevote.com), are once again looking like huge issues for the candidates for the Presidency and others running for office in November’s contests. For a moderate GOP candidate like Mitt Romney, lower than average anticipated voter turnout could mean that white Evangelicals, as well as Ron Paul libertarians have chosen to sit this election out. And for President Obama and other Democrats, a lower than expected turnout might provide evidence that, in addition to the historic narrative of 2008 being a thing of the past, red state efforts to make voting more difficult for the working poor, the young, the disabled, and minorities are working to theirs and our democracy’s detriment.

In states such as Georgia, which along with seven other US states (Texas and South Carolina have not yet precleared their laws with the Department of Justice) has a strict voter photo ID requirement for in-person voting, the elderly poor and other underrepresented groups will no doubt become further dissuaded from making the effort to vote if it means they need to make and additional trip (which requires transportation costs) to purchase a photo ID. The fact that the already dismal voter turnout figures in Georgia (49% average over the past three Presidential elections according to Census.gov) and across the country (54%) are being held down not only by the apathy that already plagues the voting-age populace, but also by the additional ID requirements, means that there is a self-inflicted negative impact on a fundamental tenant of our democracy, the right of the people to vote and to have a voice in the democratic process.

States with strict photo ID laws in place have consistently argued that no one is actually turned away at the polls for not having an ID, and that those without ID can by law cast provisional ballots which shall be counted if the individual produces proof of ID within a specified time period. However, despite wide public support for the ID concept, it is naïve to believe that the chance to cast a provisional ballot, that may not be counted, is going to persuade an individual without a photo ID to make the journey to the polling place to vote knowing their vote will not be counted unless they eventually take the extra step of obtaining an ID and proving they are who they say they are.

It’s also difficult to articulate how requiring additional steps beyond detailed voter registration, where proof of citizenship by social security number or driver’s license number is already a requirement in many states, amounts to anything less than a poll tax if it requires a particular type of photo ID that cannot be obtained without traveling to an office, getting the ID made, and paying whatever fee is required to do so. Taking it a step further, the law in states like Georgia permits only particular photo IDs listed on the Secretary of State’s website, which do not include student IDs from private colleges and universities, but do allow hunting permits to be presented without issue. Still, because it is impossible to measure with accuracy why an individual decides not to vote, the issue of measurability of any disparate impact as a result of this type of de facto tax remains at the heart and soul of the debate over the constitutionality of these laws.

As mentioned above, the argument is that there is no hard data to support the argument that the vote is being suppressed due to photo ID requirements. However, when we consider that most objective people would agree that adding an additional step that costs money to any process, no matter how nominal, at some point becomes a dissuasive factor in choosing to take part in the activity affected, here voting, then as a result it is fairly obvious that there is some sort of impact on voter turnout even if no hard data is obtainable. For example, a Brief Amicus Curiae of Rock the Vote noted that 1/5 of 18-29 year olds don’t have a driver’s license, and according to protectingthevote.com 19% of Latinos, 25% of African Americans, and 20% Asian Americans lack a government-issued photo ID compared to 8% of Whites. Bottom line, our lawmakers should know that one of the underlying purposes of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 was to protect the right to vote as fundamental to all Americans, regardless of income level, race, color, or any other stereotypical classification. Photo ID requirements are simply a proxy for a broader effort to discourage the above classifications of groups from casting a legal ballot.

It is already a crime to impersonate another American using false identification; such deterrence takes care of any concern of fraud for 99.99% of the voting age populace. Sure, there may be a handful of cases every decade, but there is no justification for additional legal hurdles if there is no large scale problem to be solved. To the contrary, we should be doing everything we can as a society to make it easier to vote. We should be looking at ways to administer secure online elections, improve online registration services, consider moving the Election Day to the weekend to raise turnout, and begin modernizing our electoral process to make it more convenient for our social media driven society. We should not use the simple fear of losing an election veiled in non-factual voter fraud concerns as a reason to create proxies for voter suppression.

Unfortunately, many courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have largely bought into the myth that there is widespread voter fraud which justifies stricter voting laws, but the numbers volunteered by advocates of photo ID laws just do not add up to widespread fraud, and what is truly left is a disparate impact on the most vulnerable and least well off in our society. If we are to use grandiose rhetoric in describing our democracy, we should begin to set an example by doing whatever possible to lift our country from the basement of voter turnout amongst free nations. Despite the majority opinion, these new laws are simply a step back in the wrong direction, and the resulting apathy and low turnout is a black eye on our democracy.

Thoughts on why Tony Perkins and other anti-gay rights advocates are on the wrong side of history…

Tony Perkins, the acting President of the Family Research Council and a staunch anti-gay marriage advocate, recently spoke with CNN Anchor Brooke Baldwin prior to lobbying members of Congress on Capitol Hill. He, along with other conservative anti-gay rights groups are pushing for a Federal Constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. When asked what motivates him to seek Congressional action, he stated that he and others believe that “allowing same sex couples to marry devalues marriage” as an institution. While being pressed by Baldwin on his personal beliefs, Perkins was asked whether he has ever stepped foot into a married gay couples home, or even sat down to discuss the issue with a same sex couple; his answer, “No, I haven’t.” He then deflected the conversation away from his personal experience with the LGBT community, which is apparently non-existent, to an argument of the issue being one simply of policy that does not consider personal feelings or civil rights. Baldwin responded by asking him if he was simply uncomfortable with gay Americans in general to which Perkins emphatically responded “no”. However, the discomfort in his voice and demeanor was obvious on the surface.

The Family Research Council and groups like it are not in favor of allowing civil unions for gay couples, a hard right position that diminishes their argument that the gay marriage debate is not about civil rights. Perkins knows that civil unions are simply contracts that have no bearing on traditional marriage and are not mentioned in any of the religious documents used to isolate the gay community from traditional marriage. Civil unions allow for basic hospital visitation rights for same sex couples and are largely symbolic in nature. However, when pressed to explain what exactly makes same sex relationships less valuable to them than opposite sex relationships, the fallback position for Perkins is that it’s about the kids and his religious freedom. To quote Perkins again: “Allowing same sex marriage takes away my religious freedom and I don’t want my kids being taught that same sex relationships have the same value as that of opposite sex couples.”

If ever there was an argument that screams of a violation of equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment, it is the argument that gay American relationships are of lesser value than those of straight Americans. After all, what should really matter is the word “American” when describing a citizen of the United States and the fundamental rights that go along with being designated as such. This country has already struggled through many of these same type of battles over equal treatment under the laws. Take rights for African Americans, women, and especially on point, allowing people of opposite races to marry each other. There will always be a segment of society who feels that minorities or those who are not like them are out to take something away from them. This time, the class of Americans being isolated is the gay community.

Ironically, allowing the gay community full marriage rights appears to have had a positive effect upon the divorce rate in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, and Perkins and other groups have attempted to counter the numbers by saying that the decrease in divorce is due to the fact that marriage rates in that State are down because of the change in the law. But this argument makes no sense because the reduction in marriages is a nationwide phenomenon that is unrelated to divorce and much more likely the product of the economic times than a trend due to same sex couples tying the knot.

When all of the cards are on the table, there appears to be nothing more than fear of co-existing equally with homosexuals driving Perkins and other social conservatives to lobby for a Constitutional amendment. These groups have clearly not spent any time with the individuals whose fundamental rights they want to suppress. There is no compelling interest unrelated to religious interpretation that drives their efforts. If marriage is indeed a recognized fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, then the Family Research Council and other groups around the country have simply not met their burden of showing how any interest, other than disapproval of gay Americans, drives the movement to define marriage and to exclude a class of citizens from existing on an equal playing field.

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, regardless of how it is framed by opposition groups, and as with the right to vote, desegregation, and interracial marriage, eventually allowing gay couples to marry, who are no different than any other citizen, will be considered a no-brainer. The modern GOP, Tony Perkins, and those who continue to want to segment society into classes of differing value, are simply on the wrong side of history.

If ever there was an argument that screams of a violation of equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment, it is the argument that gay American relationships are of lesser value than those of straight Americans. After all, what should really matter is the word “American” when describing a citizen of the United States and the fundamental rights that go along with being designated as such. This country has already struggled through many of these same type of battles over equal treatment under the laws. Take rights for African Americans, women, and especially on point, allowing people of opposite races to marry each other. There will always be a segment of society who feels that minorities or those who are not like them are out to take something away from them. This time, the class of Americans being isolated is the gay community.

Ironically, allowing the gay community full marriage rights appears to have had a positive effect upon the divorce rate in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, and Perkins and other groups have attempted to counter the numbers by saying that the decrease in divorce is due to the fact that marriage rates in that State are down because of the change in the law. But this argument makes no sense because the reduction in marriages is a nationwide phenomenon that is unrelated to divorce and much more likely the product of the economic times than a trend due to same sex couples tying the knot.

When all of the cards are on the table, there appears to be nothing more than fear of co-existing equally with homosexuals driving Perkins and other social conservatives to lobby for a Constitutional amendment. These groups have clearly not spent any time with the individuals whose fundamental rights they want to suppress. There is no compelling interest unrelated to religious interpretation that drives their efforts. If marriage is indeed a recognized fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny by the courts, then the Family Research Council and other groups around the country have simply not met their burden of showing how any interest, other than disapproval of gay Americans, drives the movement to define marriage and to exclude a class of citizens from existing on an equal playing field.

Gay marriage is a civil rights issue, regardless of how it is framed by opposition groups, and as with the right to vote, desegregation, and interracial marriage, eventually allowing gay couples to marry, who are no different than any other citizen, will be considered a no-brainer. The modern GOP, Tony Perkins, and those who continue to want to segment society into classes of differing value, are simply on the wrong side of history.

Thoughts on whether Karl Rove will be Romney’s Sarah Palin…

He will not appear on the Republican ticket or speak at the GOP Convention, yet his impact on the 2012 race for President of the United States has already been felt. He has skillfully navigated the post Citizens United landscape, helping to push the Tea Party into Congress. He is currently helping to pour millions of dollars into negative ads attacking President Barack Obama in swing states. He has attempted to depict Obama as an outsider, a celebrity, and distorted and twisted the President’s record/persona in order to get his messages across to key voting blocks. His and all other Super PACs are legally bound not to have any coordination with a candidate’s campaign, but it would be naïve not to see the many ways in which the new rules can be skirted (See Newt Gingrich on stage at campaign event with his sugar daddy). He is Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s former Deputy Chief of Staff, and his American Crossroads Super PAC cohorts are in the business of throwing political hand grenades.

Although Mitt Romney has not yet selected a running mate, he can rest assured that regardless of his pick the same kinds of inciting statements made to Republican crowds by the likes of Sarah Palin during the 2008 election (at the dismay of the McCain campaign) will be made by groups such as American Crossroads via the air and radio waves and the Crossroads GPS field campaign. Unfortunately for Romney, no matter how much he spends on ads, he will have never truly have control over the conservative message during this election season.

Much like Senator John McCain never had control over Palin’s crowds during the heavy campaign season,, Romney will also have little to no control over Super PACs like American Crossroads. No matter how hard Romney tries to keep things positive or on an economic message, he will constantly be walking back ads that Rove’s group has put out. There is no way he can stop it, so he will either have to embrace it or suffer the same fate as McCain.

It's also notable that McCain was never truly in with the starkest conservatives, and neither is Mitt Romney. Romney, like McCain, is not a big draw, he is not exciting, and he doesn’t give a great speech. Like McCain, Romney was the settled-upon candidate. He is not Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or even Marco Rubio. Yet, because of the ill-fated Palin experience, and because FOX News is a defacto GOP network with Karl Rove as an active talking head, Romney will have to walk a fine line by either picking a name that draws ratings or by trying to play it safe with a lesser-known that he can consistently overshadow and keep on message.

He can go with a big name and risk being Palin’d, or he can go with a low profile pick and risk being overshadowed by Super PAC messaging because the ticket is just too boring. Either way, Romney will eventually run into messaging issues. His VP choice will no doubt be difficult, but the end result may be the same regardless of whether the pick is Marco Rubio or Rob Portman. The more outrageous Super PAC messages will always draw bigger ratings on FOX and Rush Limbaugh than will play-it-safe Romney campaign ads, and the Super PAC nonsense makes for bigger headlines with opposition groups. There is simply nothing Romney can do to stop this phenomenon under the current rules.

The conservatives running American Crossroads are not, and never have been or will be true Romney Republicans. Sure, they want to beat Obama, but this group is for the most part composed of ex-Bush aides and veterans of the neo conservative movement who are trying to stay relevant by pursuing the same divisive political messaging that drove the Bush/Cheney to two terms in the White House. They play on religion, they entice the birthers, they are the brains behind the new Tea Party movement, but they are certainly not Massachusetts moderates. They are the same people who trashed McCain in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and both Obama and Romney in 2008.

Karl Rove and company have Romney cornered, because unlike the Democratic Party, the Republican establishment does not have a recognizable uniting voice or platform (not liking the President is not a platform!). There is no Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, and Bush is currently a bad word on the Romney campaign. There simply exists a fractured GOP composed of factions representing different eras of conservatism leaning on an aging Reagan-era base in danger of disappearing if it does not begin to appeal to the changing face of modern America.

This lack of unification, coupled with the Citizens United decision, has opened the door for candidates to be at the mercy of the Super PAC if they are not themselves an intriguing presence. As far as Karl Rove and American Crossroads go, they have harnessed the potential of having the same negative impact or greater on the Romney campaign as did the unchecked rhetoric of Sarah Palin that haunted the McCain camp with independent voters in 2008.

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney cannot control Karl Rove even if Rove is trying to help him win. Because Romney will be outspent by Super PACs in an inter-party battle to define the key issues of this election, the Rove message will inevitably become part of the Romney message. Sure it’s still early, but it’s definitely not a stretch to say that Rove will end up having a Palin-like effect on Romney’s bid this November. Maybe Rove can help Romney fire up a segment of the conservative base that Romney cannot reach, but in the end, Rove’s push to fire up the Republican on dated social issues, along with his desperate attempts to create a straw man version of Barack Obama, could seriously backfire for Romney with undecided voters seeking to further distance this country from Bush-era practices and policies. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, the money is in the bank and continues to flow to Karl Rove’s and other similar groups, their ads are already hitting the tubes, and the end results will be telling of the true effect of Citizens United on those who fiercely advocated for the Super PAC system.

Thoughts on RNC Chairman Michael Steele and the damaged Republican brand…

Since his 2009 election to the position of RNC Chairman, there has been no lack of drama or satire provided from the curious persona that is Maryland’s own Michael Steele. Though he still maintains loyal supporters within the RNC and the GOP leadership, many Republican insiders would no doubt put Chairman Steele on their main list of potential and present political liabilities to the conservative movement in America. His controversial takes on issues such as race, global warming, and especially the policy decisions of the Obama Administration, have made him a polarizing figure within a majority of the prominent GOP circles of power, with harsh criticism of his actions coming from the likes of Senator John McCain, Karl Rove, and even notorious neocon William Kristol. His recently recorded comments on the Afghanistan War have helped to strengthen the worst fears of the most seasoned Republican politicos. His calling the nine year old war begun under the Bush Administration in retaliation to 9/11 “a war of Obama’s choosing” could go down as one of the most ignorant statements by any party leader in US history. Still, remarkably, and despite the Voyeur Club incident and his other missteps, he remains at the helm of the RNC for the foreseeable future, even as he has become a huge liability for the GOP.

Though the majority of non-cynical minded Americans will brush off Steele’s comments as playing to a crowd that is ignorant to common fact, the bigger problem for Republicans (benefit to Dems) is that this kind of rhetoric makes their brand look bad. Most people are asking themselves, “This is supposed to be the man who leads the Republican cause into the next decade?” When you layer his recent comments on Afghanistan with his “Greenland” remark on the science of global warming, and his constant fictional depiction of what he refers to as the “radical Obama agenda,” it makes sense that many within the GOP are continually calling for Steele’s resignation. Even those standing firm behind Steele, such as Ron Paul of Texas, come off as disingenuous when defending the factually deficient statements of their party chairman. His blog, strangely titled “What Up?” is both misguided in its title and feels out of place when coupled with the realistic look and texture of the current Republican Party. He has also alienated many potential Republican voters with his perceived arrogance and disregard for those who question his spoken words in the media and elsewhere.

Most Democrats are well aware of the Chairman’s negative effect on the larger conservative political movement, and because of this they would be smart to stay silent and let Steele self-implode until the election season heats up. Then, his ridiculous comments can be used to argue against the stability of the Republican Party and its leadership. Though Steele’s backers will always play off his comments as misconstrued satire, his outlandish commentaries, and the disbelief shared by the masses in response to his statements, are impossible to ignore. The Democratic Party basically has an unlikely ally in Mr. Steele, in that he exemplifies the exact persona that political liberals seek to portray when placing a status quo definition on what it means to be a real Republican in 2010. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how much tape of Michael Steele is used by Democratic campaigns to counter Republican claims during the upcoming midterm elections. Thus far, as the elected leader of the RNC, it’s been a tight rope act for the troubled Chairman. Though he has backtracked on his comments on the Afghanistan War, and apologized for his mistakes in the past, it seems that he greatly underestimates the intelligence of the greater American populace. Whether he realizes this or not, it will take a major power play on the part of reasonable Republicans to reverse the damage done over the last year and a half by their own party chairman. When this will happen is anyone’s guess.

Thoughts on the key highlights of President Obama’s first Oval Office Address on the BP Oil Disaster…

Going into his first Oval Office address to the American people and the concerned world, President Obama has received a big dose of warranted and unwarranted criticism from increasingly frustrated gulf coast residents who depend on the fishing and oil industries as their lifelines. Stack on the predicted refusal of Republican leaders to work with the President and the Democrats on an energy bill to begin the transition away from deep sea drilling to alternative energy, the complex politics and catastrophic nature of the BP oil disaster becomes apparent. With no guarantees on plugging the leak other than the drilling by BP of a relief well due best case in August, the President is in the precarious position of having to reassure the American people that things are under control while also being realistic in diverging the true scope of the disaster at hand. That being said, here are KTI’s key observations and highlights from the President’s 18 minute speech.

Appearance
Tired, but purposeful
Very clear and concise
Determined to clear the air of rumor
Hopeful, invoking faith at close

Federal Response
Assembled team led by Stephen Chu
Experts for Academia and other Oil Companies to brainstorm solutions
Appointed Thad Allen to head cleanup, largest effort of all time
17,000 National Guardsmen need to be activated by Governors
5 ½ million of boom, barrier islands are being deployed presently
Complex response can never be perfect, will do best to fix all operational problems
More oil is coming, must accept reality of spill and go to battle against oil
Independent 3rd party will distribute claims
National commission to determine cause of disaster
6 month moratorium on offshore drilling until cause of breach is found

BP
Caused and liable for the worst environmental disaster in US history
Spill is an epidemic, fighting and recovering will take months to years
BP will pay for all restoration and cleanup efforts
BP will finish relief well by end of summer, weather permitting

Promises
BP will pay
Feds will do whatever is necessary to help stop, cleanup, and recover
Recovery will be key role of government, troops
Long term gulf restoration plan will be paid for by BP
Taking steps to assure disaster does not occur again
American people deserve to know what happened
Cleaning house at MMS, changing corporate culture
Pace of reform will be heightened, new oil industry watchdog appointed
Drilling today entails greater risk, 2% reserves, 20% of consumption
Oils days are inevitably numbered, must accelerate our innovation in energy
We must seize control of our own destiny and transition from fossil fuels
Can’t afford not to change how we consume energy
R&D in alternative energy must be increased
Inaction on the ground and administratively will not be accepted

Overall Impression
Tonight’s speech, while necessary and purposeful, will be dismissed by opponents of the President as playing politics with energy by using the oil spill as an excuse to pass an energy bill this year. But, this is a shallow argument based on the same kind of “just say no” games we saw during the health care debates. Despite their own acknowledgement of the importance of curbing our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels, these same Republicans are opposing the very premise of putting our resources into the widespread implementation of a new energy policy that promotes common sense theories that they support in principal. They are so scared to give Obama a political victory that they are willing to appear cynical and hypocritical in the name of petty partisan politics. Therefore, despite the Presidents best efforts to clear up the air and push America forward with the disaster as a source of momentum in the imminent transition to alternative energy sources, many on the right will try to politicize and capitalize on the anti-establishment sentiment rather than to work with their peers to move America forward. Overall, the speech was well delivered, but in today’s hyper partisan environment it is likely that his words will fall short of the impact of any positively viewed step towards progress on the ground, the sea or in capping the leak.

Thoughts on whether star scholarship athletes should receive additional royalties while in school…

Following the NCAA’s revelations concerning the USC Trojans, sports society has found itself stuck at a crossroad between the old school and the new school with regards to the relationship between collegiate athletic department revenue and the financial incentives of the modern star scholarship athlete. Additionally, in many recent cases of NCAA violations by various programs, the star college athlete has become a cash cow for the numerous universities in question. Whether it’s in football or in softball, the scholarship athlete is often left in the precarious situation of being idolized by their peers while at the same time facing reality as financially stressed, persuadable college student. Without the benefit of proper family guidance, and the support of interested professors and coaches, it’s easy to see how a naïve star student athlete could seek outside help to uphold a certain image which they believe matches their popularity and stigma for an athlete of their stature. As has been the case in the recent past, should a star player desire to upgrade their property with the aid of “boosters” or non-existent jobs, some athletic directors have chosen to look the other way in the name of short term revenue, at the expense of their schools long term reputation and the NCAA rules governing agent and booster contact with athletes.

The argument against paying athletes centers on the powerful fact that those on scholarship are already getting their education plus room and board paid for, and that alone is payment enough. In theory, since the purpose of attending a university has traditionally been to learn first, play sports second, this argument has great weight on its own. But, when you consider that a star college football player in 2010 could net an athletic department hundreds of thousands to even millions of dollars in additional revenue, the argument begins to fall flat from a practical economic perspective. At what point does the athlete have the right to step in and say “wait a minute, don’t I deserve a piece of the pie I created for you?” In the case of USC, no doubt Reggie Bush felt this way, and his sense of entitlement, coupled with the ignorance of the athletic director and coach Pete Carroll, led to their current predicament. Think about the millions in revenue created by Reggie Bush for USC. Think about the millions generated by Vince Young for The University of Texas. Think about Tim Tebow at Florida. These guys are cash cows who literally skyrocketed their athletic programs to the stratosphere of college sports. Bottom line, without the star player, the university can’t fill the seats or entice deep pocketed sports boosters to write checks. Ultimately, the AD in 2010 must act as the CEO of a for profit sports organization where the athletes are merely actors in a greater game of who has the biggest revenue amongst elite schools.

Therefore, the time has now come to explore ideas that advocate for the rights of the student athlete. Ideas such as scholarship contracts for 5 star level, 4 star level, and 3 star level athletes. Similar to professional contracts but without signing bonuses, they could incentivize athletes to reach benchmarks or goals that would qualify them for additional scholarship money in the form of performance and revenue bonuses. If a player’s jersey or image is used for profit, and the revenue from sales reaches a certain breakpoint, there could be ways to provide royalties in the form of increased money for room and board, transportation, and additional expenses. This money could be issued in a controlled manner through the athletic departments of each school, under the oversight of the NCAA, and within the ethical guidelines determined in the implementation process. In addition, in order to become eligible for a scholarship contract, the student athlete would be required to enroll and participate in a money management class for potential pro athletes. This class would be administered by the NCAA through a participating universities business department, and would be aimed at easing the transition and fending off the temptations involved in the evolution from college star to pro athlete.

The reality is that today’s student athlete has grown up in a sports world where excellence on the field of play is expected to be repaid by both traditional praise and real or perceived material gain. The current scholarship system sets star athletes up to be pawns in a big money game run by powerful donors and financially driven AD’s. Despite the relative success of the traditional academic/sports scholarship, and the acceptability of the basic room and board set up provided to scholarship athletes, the time has come to explore a smarter system that retains the integrity of the scholar athlete while rewarding the exceptional money making star athlete with the kind of treatment worthy of their stature as a financial contributor to the university in question. Until then, we can expect more of the same kind of USC style violations and illegal, behind the scenes behavior that has become increasingly prevalent in the big money world of modern day college athletics.

Thoughts on the state of American soccer phobia…

The 2010 FIFA World Cup begins tomorrow in South Africa, and although there is some tangible excitement in the air for the USA vs. England game this Saturday, there is simply not a unified love for soccer that equates to that of football, basketball, and baseball in the mind of the average American sports fan. In fact, there is still a portion of the US population that simply dismisses soccer as irrelevant, even as the rest of the world relishes in the greatness of the biggest sporting event on the planet. Going even further, I would argue that as a society, we tend to tune in to World Cup soccer and the MLS out of courtesy, not out of a true love for the game.

The basic reasons for the general lack of respect for soccer in the USA greatly revolve around old school nationalistic ideals and a fear of embracing outside ideas that aren’t made specifically in America, a form of unintended sporting protectionism. As big as our NFL Super Bowl is in the minds of the American public, there is simply no sporting event that comes even close to matching the nearly billion viewers expected to witness this year’s World Cup via TV, smart phone, online, and on radio. Simply put, by ignoring the significance of soccer, those who chose to blindly dismiss the sport are choosing to miss out on an opportunity to create a deeper bond with the global community.

This assertion may appear exaggerated on the surface, but when you consider the positive globalization of sports like basketball and baseball, the integration of sports into our relationship with foreign countries can serve as a source of unification between cultures that may otherwise not share any true common interests. Of course, team sport can never replace political relationships, but the chance to engage those whom we seek to know, but have trouble approaching, exists with an event like the World Cup that can provide a unique avenue to introduction and cordiality on a global stage. In reality, the inherent sporting protectionism present in American culture will never allow soccer to trump American football, baseball, basketball, or even Canada’s hockey, in popularity. But, there is no reason for us as a society to act like soccer is off limits to our kids and culture. Sure, we have the MLS, but the majority of the fans of these teams are only in their seats to see the best foreign imports from the European leagues, and not the next LeBron James of soccer.

The ultimate irony of the soccer phobia is that the very same anti-soccer contingent that hates on soccer whenever it comes up in conversation then suddenly expects our team to reach the final 16 of every World Cup. Even as they give the sport of soccer the shaft for the other three years of the four year cycle, these people, in the name of popularity, act as if they have a right to comment on the state of American soccer. It’s time for America to finally embrace the world’s sport. Maybe then team USA will take it to the next level. Till then, they will be as good as our support for the sport nationally.

Thoughts on Israel’s predicament at sea…

Today, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at a press conference aimed at clearing the air following the globally viewed raid of an aid flotilla headed for the Gaza Strip. The controversial events that took place aboard the supposed Gaza bound aid ship two days ago have triggered an angry response from Muslims around the world. The Prime Minister’s primary claim centers on Israel’s right to self-defense from what it sees as a threat from Iran via Gaza bound vessels disguised as aid ships. This claim implies that Israel’s traditional, and only major Muslim ally, Turkey, allowed the flotillas in question to leave port with weaponry destined for transfer from Iran to Gaza’s Hamas leadership. The fact that many innocent Turkish citizens were onboard the vessel when the armed Israeli commandos fell on board from the night sky, has ultimately led to a condemnation of Israel by the entirety of a usually divided Turkish Parliament. It is considered an insult by the parliament and the citizens of Turkey that they are considered to be party to alleged weapons transfer to an internationally recognized terrorist organization. Therefore, despite its passionate claims that these raids are taking place in the name of national security, Israel now faces an increasingly serious predicament in dealing with Hamas, Iran, and now Turkey at sea.

Israel’s policy currently calls for the interception of every vessel headed to the Gaza strip, a tactic which basically amounts to a blockade and headache for those who seek to transfer aid to the innocent people of Gaza. The fact that Hamas uses the humanitarian efforts as cover to smuggle in weaponry is an unfortunate byproduct of the independence of Gaza and the international waters of the Mediterranean. Turkey has every right under international law to send aid to nations it deems in need of its assistance. Israel, by not adhering to these basic rights, has put itself in a position where it is further isolated and surrounded by nations who are weary of its intentions. Though Turkey acknowledges that Iran intends to arm Hamas at Israel’s expense, it will not tolerate the death of its citizens in the name of a perceived threat by Israel. Whether warranted or not, Israel ignored the sovereignty of Gaza at the expense of Turkish lives. By not trusting Turkey to secure its ports and inspect outgoing cargo, Israel is at risk of losing the support of its only true advocate in the Muslim world.

Israel’s predicament at sea further complicates an already tense situation facing the United States and its coalition partners in the region. President Obama, already knee deep in two wars, a recession, and the worst oil spill in the history of mankind, must now help ease tensions between Turkey and Israel. As a key ally in the Middle East, Israel must understand that these kind of events, whether warranted or not, only serve to inflame the radical citizenry and the terrorist groups they seek to control. Hamas is empowered by actions which are perceived as unjust by even Israel’s oldest allies. Going forward, with more aid ships on the way to Gaza, Israel must take a hard look at whether, given its superior military capabilities, attempting to board ships preemptively is a good move from a national security perspective. Hamas knows it will never have the weaponry to challenge the Israeli Military, so wouldn’t it make more sense for Israel to work closely with Turkey and other Mediterranean countries to secure the cargo of outgoing aid ships to assure no weapons are on board? Instead of heightening tensions by risking armed confrontation, why not trust your allies to act in the best interest of peace in the region?

Until Israel understands that the greater security of the region lies in demonstrating a commitment to peaceful resolution of the region’s biggest problems, there is no reason to believe that Hamas and the Palestinian Authority will back down from their efforts to arm themselves as Israel itself has with the aid of its allies around the world. The bottom line is that until territorial respect, at sea and on land, is restored in the name of long-term peace and aversion of war, Israel cannot expect to see a decline in challenges to its naval blockade by both aid and weapon loaded ships. Israel is now at risk of embarrassing itself by appearing to bully aid ship crews in attempt to find a needle in a haystack. In addition, given the awareness of smugglers of the intent to board ships by Israeli commandos, there is no reason to believe that these foreign weapon suppliers will continue to use the sea as their primary means of delivering weaponry to Hamas. Without the aforementioned effort to engage its allies in the name of port security, avoidable, deadly raids at sea are destined to continue in the name of Israeli national security. Should this be the case, there is a great risk of a larger Mediterranean Sea front opening in the war against global terrorism and WMD proliferation. Let’s hope brighter minds prevail, and through discussion, and not conflict, there can be a resolution to the elevated tension caused by this and other ocean theatre events.

Thoughts on disasters, the 24-hour news cycle, and unrealistic expectations…

In light of the tragic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, there is once again an expectation amongst many Americans that a disaster of this magnitude can be fixed on demand within the framework of media talking points. The media is increasingly guilty of dramatizing events which will garner ratings, many times at the expense of the true story on the ground. Some anchors continually look for out of context sound bites and headlines that invoke our worst fears and divisive partisan opinion. To feed a hungry 24 hour news cycle, the press today has no choice but to dig for every angle, whether factual or prophetic, in order to satisfy the needy “hear what we want to, not what we need to” segment of our population.

Take for example the reporting by the major news networks over the past weeks of the oil spill: despite the common knowledge that BP was not truthful as it relates to the nature of the leak, the media is acting as if they knew the extent of the disaster when it first occurred. Next, these news anchors, talk show hosts, and partisan politicians who are swayed heavily by media reports and not researched facts, begin to spread blame along various chains of command and agencies that, while they obviously care deeply about fixing the disaster at hand, were unable to properly respond because of BP’s initial, lobbyist and public relations ridden attempts to cover up the true enormity of the pipe breach.

Unlike Hurricane Katrina, where the scope of the disaster was evident upon the breach of the levees, this disaster occurred nearly a mile below the shore, with technology to monitor the leak provided by the very people responsible. Until the oil became clearly visible from Satellite imagery, and estimates as to the scope of the leak where attained, it was virtually impossible for the US Government to put a plan into action that was based on the tangible, truthful, calculation of the extent of the spill. In addition, President Obama has expressed a sense of urgency and engagement that was absent in President Bush’s response to the flooding as a result of the failure of the Army Corps of Engineers to properly construct the levee system above the city of New Orleans.

With light speed internet sites like Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, and major news sites facilitating rumors and opinion at the expense of realistic, fact based schools of thought; it has become increasingly difficult to translate the pace of responsible decision making to the 24 hour news cycle. A thought out decision must include good information that facilitates a proper response. Until BP accepted the ramifications of its transgressions, there was no good way to know what kind of disaster to expect. The fact that it was not until today that the estimate of the size of the spill was revealed, it should not surprise people that there were mistakes and oversights in the Federal Government’s handling of the situation. The prevalent media talking point, that this disaster could have been handled well with such a broken system at the MMS and lack of candor from BP, is clearly a product of the unrealistic expectations.

Thoughts on the state of air travel in 2010…

As I sit here in my seventh hour on standby at the world’s busiest airport, Atlanta-Hartsfield International, there could not be a better time to discuss the good, the bad, and the ugly aspects of modern air travel. Though many new amenities have been added to both the airplanes and airports, we have seen many of the older, comforting conveniences of the travel experience become compromised by our fight against terrorism and a struggling economy. That being said, the option to travel by air is also one that my generation, and especially the younger folks, take for granted for its overall expediency and savings on gas, room, and rest stop hotels. The travel experience that has arisen as a result of our modern day compromises can work well as long as there is no bad weather or lack of work ethic exhibited by airline and airport employees. Therein lies the problem.

In my experiences, I have encountered virtually every airport scenario; from trips that went off without a hitch, to instances of pure human error and complications with simple itineraries. But let’s take a look at today’s situation, one that is out of the control of the airline I am traveling, but still a scenario that occurs more and more due to a significant reduction in the number of flights airlines are taking in today’s economy. Due to bad weather in Atlanta, a ground stop was put on planes headed to AHI, therefore my flight sat idle for an hour on the tarmac in my departure city of San Antonio, Texas. With an hour between flights, my day was doomed even before takeoff, and when I arrived in Atlanta the plane to my destination, San Juan, Puerto Rico, was already pushing away from the gate. Upon seeking help from the airline, I was placed on standby for a flight eight hours later with no guarantee of reaching the destination I paid good money to reach.

This situation occurs every day across the world, as the reduction in flights has led to more and more standby instead of guaranteed seats. Despite having booked months in advance, a one hour ground stop was capable of ruining mine and the at least 60 or more other people who missed their connections and were not given a real ticket to continue their paired journey. In addition, should I not be given a ticket for the flight to the island, I will be forced to stay overnight and leave in the morning, costing not only a day of my trip, but also causing me to secure reservations on a weekend in Atlanta. I have nothing but love for the city, but for many travelers the lack of backup flights to ensure the arrival of paid customers is cause for much disdain for the airlines and for the respectability of air travel in general.

Add to this the fact that we have no choice but to go through the maze of security checks and long lines at customs because of the awful actions of others, and the traveler who goes through my experience has reason to complain about the nature of the current system. To their credit, the employees of the airline I am traveling on have done everything in their power to rectify the situation, but the bottom lines is that air travel is not the experience that it could and can be. In no other industry can you have a consumer not receive the service they paid a pretty penny for and get by with an “I’m sorry” and a rebooking to an inconvenient time or rerouted through an obscure destination as I was today. To be frank, there doesn’t seem to be a good solution to the problem at the present time. The fact that we depend so heavily on oil to power up our planes has put a stranglehold on tight budgets that could better go towards improving the experience, not cutting down on it at the expense of the consumer.

On the plane is no different. Airlines have moved towards an a la carte system for amenities, leaving much to be desired when compared to the steep cost of flying today. Instead of compensating for a lack of ready planes and pilots to ensure the soundness of itineraries, the airlines, for the most part, have decided that they can easily nickel and dime passengers at 35,000 feet. These growing practices, and the vastly unpopular checked baggage fees, have left the air travel consumer in the precarious position of having no choice but to deal with a shareholder first system of travel.

Though there is no doubt in my mind that the airlines will recover under a greener fueling system and an improving economic outlook, in the meantime the airline consumer is getting an increasingly raw deal. Sure, there have been times where my trips have been run to perfection, but the trend has been towards frustration and delay. More than half the time I have flown in the past two years, I have either faced a long weather related delay, or some other form of inconvenience for which the airlines have no good solution. It’s always something different, and it usually stems from human error in scheduling and delivering upon that itinerary. In our capitalist society, we expect those at the top to represent the best and brightest of their industry. In this department, airline travel has suffered greatly in a post 9/11 world. It should be interesting to see where the quality of air travel goes from here, but there is no doubt that it must improve to an acceptable level of dependability and bang for buck..

Thoughts on the plausibility of a Rand Paul/Sarah Palin Tea Party Presidential Ticket in 2012…

Though we are nearly two and a half years from the 2012 Presidential Election, it’s never too early to speculate upon which prospective candidates will represent the respective political parties on the national stage in two years. Despite their best efforts to reign in and unite with the Tea Party, the establishment of the Republican Party may have to deal with a difficult scenario in 2012. One that is eerily similar to 1992, where Ross Perot ate up the moderate conservative vote which helped the election to swing Bill Clinton’s way. The rightward shift of the conservative political spectrum has helped to legitimize the Tea Party, and with the primary victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky this past Tuesday, the Republican Party now has in its midst the first true Tea Party backed Senatorial candidate for office.

Now, the Republican Party leadership must choose either to embrace Paul and his followers, who beat their establishment candidate handedly, or they must stay Luke warm towards the more controversial elements of the Tea Party, and the radical rhetoric that could drive away moderate voters this fall and going forward. The quagmire for Republicans is that over the next two years there are likely to be more and more social conservative candidates emerging under the Tea Party label. The Tea Party will likely continue to eat away at the Republican Party’s socially conservative base. Therefore, as national trends continue to show increased interest in alternatives to the status quo, the Tea Party could be set to run third party candidates at the national level.

Should this game changing, third party presidential run occur, the two politicians who have been the most vocal advocates of the Tea Party message, and by far the most popular figures associated with the larger anti-big government movement, are the before mentioned Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, and the keynote speaker of the first national Tea Party Convention, former Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. This potential star pairing would most likely garner the support of a significant portion of the socially conservative electorate, dealing a critical blow to the chances of the Republican Party ticket.

The electoral impact on the other side of the aisle would be negligible, as few moderate to die hard liberals would be inclined to support the social policies of a Tea Party ticket that is to the right of the Republicans in almost every way. Therefore, if a scenario such as Obama/Biden v Paul/Palin v Romney/Brown were to arise, it’s conceivable that the Republican ticket could lose as much as 20% of its voting base in the process. Much like in 1992, this division amongst conservatives would deliver an easy general election victory to Barack Obama and the Democrats, and thus leave the Republican Party no choice but to crawl home and start over again. Only this time, the challenge for Republicans is coming from the right, and not the center of the political spectrum.

Thoughts on the updated status of KTI’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents of 2010…

Recent primary results have stamped home the message that KTI’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents are in imminent trouble politically. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, our #1 Senator to watch, lost badly to Representative Joe Sestak by a margin of 8 percentage points. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas barely held a plurality in her 2 point victory and now faces a hotly contested runoff with Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. And finally, just over a week ago, now former Senator Bob Bennett of Utah failed to make the top two at the Utah GOP Nomination Convention, falling to Tim Bridgewater Mike Lee, and stamping a fail sign on 3 out of the top 5 most vulnerable incumbents in 2010. Nonetheless, May has been a challenge for all politicians facing challenges from their left and right respectively.

The other two incumbents on our list, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Michael Bennet of Colorado, must focus intently on the looming November election. Despite Burr’s big primary win, and Bennet’s likely nomination in August, as freshman Senator’s they will face the growing challenge of a strong anti-incumbent sentiment amongst the American electorate. The bottom line is that change message of 2008 lives on in varying forms, and those who have positioned themselves to deliver that message in the face of establishment candidates are primed to win big come November. Both the Tea Party on the right, and MoveOn.org on the left, have already impacted the primary season, and the pressure has quickly shifted towards the few remaining moderates in Congress, a disappearing breed, to remain attractive to voters in an election season clearly defined by historic pressure from the fringes of both ends of the left-right political spectrum.

America’s social political dynamic has skewed so far to the right over the past thirty years that the liberal left is now positioned in the old center, and the socially conservative right is nearly radical in nature when compared to the conservatives of the 1980’s and prior. Therefore, this election cycle, where many moderate incumbents are vulnerable to defeat by their more liberal or conservative counterparts, should prove to be one that sees all five of KTI’s listed incumbents lose their respective seats in the Senate. These formerly popular individuals have seen the political tide shift to the fringes at their expense. Though the trends always seem to be corrected over time, the fact is that 2010 will go down as yet another change election. Americans are clearly done with the stalemate that has come to define the US Senate, and as victims of poor timing and a hostile political climate, those who are considered insiders, such as Specter and Bennet, are likely to find themselves sitting on the sidelines come 2011.

Sources:
http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/