Recognition of Cuba!

The big news this week is President Obama's announcement that diplomatic relations will be restored with Cuba.  See his full speech here.  This move was long overdue, and it's a measure of Obama's pragmatism that he was the president to finally end an outmoded strategy that had stopped serving  the interests of both the United States and the Cuban people decades ago.  Further, it's another example of the president making good on his stated resolve to take all the steps he unilaterally can under his constitutional executive powers to make progress on solving any number of festering national problems.

After four years of futilely seeking common ground with the congressional Republican majority, it's ironic that GOP victory in the 2014 midterms has released Obama from political concerns and freed him to do what is right in the humanitarian and national interest.  First came his groundbreaking agreement with China on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, next was his  Executive Order on immigration enforcement, and now comes recognition of Cuba.  That is something congress can do nothing about, though they alone can remove the economic sanctions still in place against the island nation. 

The diplomatic recognition follows the formula laid out over 190 years ago in the Monroe Doctrine, that in dealing with foreign powers the United States will "consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us..."  Thus diplomatic recognition is not a "reward" bestowed on governments we approve of, it is a recognition of the facts of political life.  It is also a bow to the reality that we can have no influence over a nation with which we have no relations.  It is a childish notion indeed that we can hold our breath and stop speaking to a government and that they then will capitulate to all our wishes.  It hasn't worked for 53 years, and dead-enders who want to continue the policy do so reflexively, with no serious way forward in prospect.  Indeed, the history of our relations with the Soviet Union, Vietnam, China and others, give every indication that establishing relations with former adversaries and increasing their contacts with American people and commerce accelerate changes for the good in such closed societies. 

The ability to keep nine exploratory sessions so secret with Cuba is a marvel in today's media climate, involving as they did not only the U.S. and Cuba but also the good offices of Canada and the Vatican.  One wonders what other remarkable and long-needed initiatives the Obama Administration may have in store.  I'm betting there are more, and that most of them will inspire apoplexy among congressional Republicans.  That will make them all the more delightful.   
         

Man Wants to Keep his Sons Alive

Lawrence Otis Graham is an attorney with an investment banker wife and two sons.  They both went to Harvard.  After the Trayvon Martin shooting and the other recent killings of young unarmed black men, Lawrence decided he had better have "the talk" with his two sons to make sure they know the unwritten rules of American society, the rules that young black men need to follow if they want to reduce their chances of getting killed by jittery policemen, security guards or just plain average white citizens.

Graham was interviewed on Nightline recently to share about the precautions an aware black male feels obligated to take to avoid profiling.  He's not over the top; it's just matter of fact advice.  Click on this link to hear his explanation of what he felt he needed to tell his boys about dress and behavior.  It only take two minutes and sixteen seconds.  His goal is simple.  He says, "I just want to keep them alive."     

                                 The Graham Family

Senate Report: Torture was Brutal and Ineffective

 Today the Senate Intelligence Committee chaired by Senator Dianne Feinstein released the unclassified version of its report on "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" used during the Bush Administration.  A detailed synopsis of the more brutal methods can be found here.  Suffice it to say some of the techniques employed killed detainees and many would constitute torture by the definitions of the Geneva Convention, of which the United States is a signatory.  The report also finds that CIA lied to Congress about the methods employed and the effectiveness of the intelligence obtained.  The report's investigation determined that no important actionable intelligence was garnered by the use of these barbaric practices, and that indeed much misinformation was "fabricated" by detainees in their efforts to make the agony stop.  One of President Obama's first acts after his inauguration in 2009 was to ban this barbarism. 

 Senate majority leader Harry Reid weighed in to back the report. “Today, for the first time, the American people are going to learn the full truth about torture that took place under the CIA during the Bush administration,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “The only way our country can put this episode in the past is to confront what happened.”  "Not only is torture wrong but it doesn’t work,” said Reid. He said torture “got us nothing except a bad name.”

Most Republicans, including former President George W. Bush, criticized the report, but Senator John McCain, a victim of torture himself as a prisoner in Vietnam, had this to say: "What might cause a surprise not just to our enemies, but to many Americans is how little these practices did to aid our efforts to bring 9/11 culprits to justice and to find and prevent terrorist attacks today and tomorrow. That could be a real surprise since it contradicts the many assurances provided by intelligence officials on the record and in private that enhanced interrogation techniques were indispensable in the war against terrorism." (Source)

I don't always agree with Sen. McCain on many things, but on this issue he has always had it right.  He well encapsulated the importance of a moral stance with this statement: "But in the end, torture's failure to serve its intended purpose isn't the main reason to oppose its use. I have often said and will always maintain that this question isn't about our enemies, it's about us. It's about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be." (Source)

Voice of Sanity on Ferguson

Benjamin Watson is a tight end for the New Orleans Saints of the National Football League.  He attended high school  in South Carolina and graduated from the University of Georgia with a degree in finance. Benjamin and his wife Kirsten co-founded the Christian charity, One More.  A Facebook  piece he wrote dealing with the killing of the young black man Michael Brown by the white police officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri has gone viral, and deservedly so.  Wilson thoughtfully looks at several aspects of the issue, a refreshing change from the heated opinions of people on both "sides" whose preconceptions dictate their verbiage irrespective of actual facts.  In case you hadn't seen it yet, I include Watson's entire message as presented in Reader Supported News.      

Benjamin Watson, photo courtesy of New Orleans Saints

I'm Angry

By Benjamin Watson, Facebook

30 November 14

 
t some point while I was playing or preparing to play Monday Night Football, the news broke about the Ferguson Decision. After trying to figure out how I felt, I decided to write it down. Here are my thoughts:

I'M ANGRY because the stories of injustice that have been passed down for generations seem to be continuing before our very eyes.

I'M FRUSTRATED, because pop culture, music and movies glorify these types of police citizen altercations and promote an invincible attitude that continues to get young men killed in real life, away from safety movie sets and music studios.

I'M FEARFUL because in the back of my mind I know that although I'm a law abiding citizen I could still be looked upon as a "threat" to those who don't know me. So I will continue to have to go the extra mile to earn the benefit of the doubt.

I'M EMBARRASSED because the looting, violent protests, and law breaking only confirm, and in the minds of many, validate, the stereotypes and thus the inferior treatment.

I'M SAD, because another young life was lost from his family, the racial divide has widened, a community is in shambles, accusations, insensitivity hurt and hatred are boiling over, and we may never know the truth about what happened that day.

I'M SYMPATHETIC, because I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what happened. Maybe Darren Wilson acted within his rights and duty as an officer of the law and killed Michael Brown in self defense like any of us would in the circumstance. Now he has to fear the backlash against himself and his loved ones when he was only doing his job. What a horrible thing to endure. OR maybe he provoked Michael and ignited the series of events that led to him eventually murdering the young man to prove a point.

I'M OFFENDED, because of the insulting comments I've seen that are not only insensitive but dismissive to the painful experiences of others.

I'M CONFUSED, because I don't know why it's so hard to obey a policeman. You will not win!!! And I don't know why some policeman abuse their power. Power is a responsibility, not a weapon to brandish and lord over the populace.

I'M INTROSPECTIVE, because sometimes I want to take "our" side without looking at the facts in situations like these. Sometimes I feel like it's us against them. Sometimes I'm just as prejudiced as people I point fingers at. And that's not right. How can I look at white skin and make assumptions but not want assumptions made about me? That's not right.

I'M HOPELESS, because I've lived long enough to expect things like this to continue to happen. I'm not surprised and at some point my little children are going to inherit the weight of being a minority and all that it entails.

I'M HOPEFUL, because I know that while we still have race issues in America, we enjoy a much different normal than those of our parents and grandparents. I see it in my personal relationships with teammates, friends and mentors. And it's a beautiful thing.

I'M ENCOURAGED, because ultimately the problem is not a SKIN problem, it is a SIN problem. SIN is the reason we rebel against authority. SIN is the reason we abuse our authority. SIN is the reason we are racist, prejudiced and lie to cover for our own. SIN is the reason we riot, loot and burn. BUT I'M ENCOURAGED because God has provided a solution for sin through the his son Jesus and with it, a transformed heart and mind. One that's capable of looking past the outward and seeing what's truly important in every human being. The cure for the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Tamir Rice and Eric Garner tragedies is not education or exposure. It's the Gospel. So, finally, I'M ENCOURAGED because the Gospel gives mankind hope.

Obama's Order on Immigration Coming Soon

I hope President Obama goes ahead and makes his executive order on immigration, and does it soon.  The best indications are that it will be based on setting priorities for federal enforcement.  Since there are not nearly enough Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to round up all 11-12 million undocumented residents, there is considerable discretion in how to go about enforcing the rules on the books.

It appears the president's EO will set certain conditions as a very low priority for enforcement.  These would include people who have U.S. citizen children or are living with other U.S. citizen family members, people who were brought here as very young children, those who have other close citizen relatives, and people who are working in occupations in which there is a shortage of U.S. citizen labor.  There may be additional categories as well.  Estimates are that these new directives will apply to about half the current 11-12 million people in the U.S. without papers.  President Obama has previously singled out lawbreakers as the first priority for strict enforcement and deportation.

It is inhumane to tear parents away from children or send children who have known no other home to foreign countries.  It is not helpful to our prosperity to dislocate workers who are employed and contributing to the national economy.  It is destructive to businesses to deprive them of workers they are depending on.

Obama should not worry that conservative Nativists will scream.  They always scream no matter what he does.  The Gallup Poll says that Americans favor a path to citizenship for law-abiding undocumented immigrants by a margin of 88 to 12.  The Senate already passed a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration plan back in June, 2013 by a 68-32 margin with 14 Republican votes.  The Republican-controlled House has had a year and a half  to do something.  They ought to vote right away on the Senate proposal.  Many Democrats are urging them to do that right now.  Here is a letter from Sen. Barbara Boxer about it.  But they are stuck between their business backers, who want the immigrant labor, and their prejudiced base, who hates immigrants.  Consequently they fulminate and criticize, but do nothing. 

The president should therefore act.  He is right on humanitarian grounds.  He is right on economic grounds.  And he is definitely right on political grounds.  If the Republicans do nothing he will have helped the country make its immigration policies more rational and humane.  If the Republicans instead vote against him or find a way to block him, they will devastate their chances among Latino voters and drive them to the polls en masse for the 2016 elections and beyond.  All they need do is ask California Republicans what happened here after Pete Wilson passed the anti-immigrant Proposition 187 in 1994.  They haven't been competitive in the state since. 

               

Why Democrats Lost, and How They Could Have Won

As promised last time, here is my post-election wrap-up.  Republicans won a solid victory in Tuesday's midterm election, adding 9 senators, 12 representatives and 3 governorships to their roster.  But in my view, the bigger story was not that Republicans won, but that Democrats lost, and why they lost.  Democrats lost because they never gave the American public a coherent reason to vote for them.  Consequently, they failed to arouse their own base and to persuade moderates and independents to support them.   

Everyone who follows the political scene knows Democrats have a hard time winning the "midterm" elections, the ones that come two years after the last presidential election and two years before the next one.  The 2014 cycle was particularly difficult because of the 6-year cycle of Senate races.  This year's crop included a lot of Democrats elected in normally Republican states in the 2008 Obama wave election, states that were going to be difficult to defend.  In addition, there is historical precedent: the president's party almost always loses seats in an administration's 6th year in office.  It even happened to liberal icon Franklin Roosevelt and conservative maven Ronald Reagan.

But that is no excuse.  The nation knew exactly where the Republicans stood, and their message was universally communicated by all their candidates across the nation: The nation is in sorry shape,  Democrats, especially President Obama, are to blame, and Republicans have a plan to make things better.  The plan is tax cuts, spending cuts, deregulation, and repeal Obamacare.  No matter who the  "out" party is, the first part of their campaign message practically writes itself.  The "ins" have messed things up and the "outs" have a plan to fix them.

What was the Democrats' message?  Does anybody know?  That's why they lost.  The "in" party's strategy has to be to defend their record.  Otherwise their base doesn't turn out to preserve what they see as the party's accomplishments, and the undecideds see no reason to vote for them.  The opposition defines your record if you don't do it yourself.  The Democrats didn't use President Obama much because his poll numbers have been down of late.  They didn't talk about health care because its numbers are upside down as well, though people like its component parts.  They didn't talk about much that might offend people.  People read that as a party that doesn't have confidence in its own president and its own principles.  If the Kentucky candidate for U.S. Senator herself won't enthusiastically say, "Yes, I voted for the leader of my party and I was proud to do so!" then why should anyone else want to vote for that party?  The figures tell the story: In 2012 20 percent of the electorate was 18 to 29 years old and 25 percent was over 65.  The result was a resounding Democratic win.  In 2014 only 12 percent of the electorate was under 30, and 40 percent was 65 or older.  Wow.  No wonder the Republicans did so well.

If I'd been running the Democratic campaign it would have focused like a laser on the economy.  Every ad, every speech, every surrogate would have delivered a litany like this: The screen begins with the word THE ECONOMY in bold letters.  We see shots of people in unemployment lines, houses with "Foreclosed" signs in the front yard, and scenes of panic on Wall Street.  The spokesperson begins, "When Democrats took office from the last Republican administration America was losing 800,000 jobs a month.  The unemployment rate was 10%.  The Dow Jones Stock Average had fallen to 6,500 and the American auto industry was on the verge of bankruptcy.  In 2012, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney promised that if elected he would get the unemployment rate under 6% by 2016.  Well, under Democratic leadership, the economy has created 10 million jobs, including 52 consecutive months of job growth--that's a record in the entire history of the United States--the Dow Jones Stock Average is at 17,500, the American auto industry is making record profits, and it's only 2014 but the unemployment rate is already under 6%.  We're Democrats, and we're not running from our record, we're running ON it!"  A representative group of about 30 happy Americans of a wide variety of ages and ethnicities comes on and says in unison, "We're proud to be Democrats!  The Democratic National Committee approved this message!"  In this second segment we have been watching scenes of people moving into new homes, workers busy, dynamic bustle on Wall Street, and children playing happily.  The spot ends with bold letters announcing: DEMOCRATS: JOBS, PROSPERITY, FREEDOM (fade to black.)

I would have prepared a similar spot defending the Democratic record on health care, another on women's, gay and minority rights, and a third on defense and security.  I would have used the economic message the most, but they would all have played nationally, and often.       

You can't beat something with nothing.  If you want to win elections as the "in" party you have to control the message and make it about defending your record, a record of accomplishment.  You have to be proud of that record and hammer it home.  If you won't do that, not only will you fail to win, you won't even deserve to.      

Senate Scenarios, 2014

Tomorrow is election day and control of the U.S. Senate is at stake.  I'll explain the lay of the land in this post.  The basic facts are that the Democrats have 53 Senators plus two independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine who caucus with them.  So the effective makeup of the Senate is a 55-45 Democratic majority.  That means Republicans need a net gain of 6 seats to become the Senate majority party.  A net gain of 5 isn't enough, since in the event of an  even 50-50 split the Constitution gives the Vice President (Democrat Joe Biden, in this case) the right to cast the tie-breaking vote.  The Democrats have 21 seats to defend compared to 15 for the Republicans, and a lot of the seats up are in red (read Republican) states.


Democrats seem pretty certain to lose three seats they currently hold in strongly Republican states.  Those include West Virginia, where Jay Rockefeller is retiring, Montana, where Max Baucus is retiring, and Arkansas, where Mark Pryor appears to be running too far behind in the polls to catch up to challenger Tom Cotton.  Another seat Democrats had high hopes for was Kentucky, where Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was looking vulnerable.  The momentum has now shifted back in his direction and it looks like he's going to win after all.  If Republicans get the gains they need he will become the Majority Leader in January. 

There are three other states in which Democrats hold narrow leads, and to have any chance of holding the senate they have to win all three.  These include North Carolina, New Hampshire and Kansas.  In North Carolina incumbent Kay Hagan is running barely ahead and in New Hampshire Jean Shaheen is in the same situation.  Kansas is a rather unusual case in which Republican incumbent Pat Roberts has inspired resentment by ignoring his constituents for a long time.  In that race Independent Greg Orman is running slightly ahead.  So if you're tuning in to watch the returns, pay early attention to New Hampshire and North Carolina.  If Republicans win in either or both it's going to be a bad night for Democrats.

So, assuming the Dems win in the three must-have states,  to defend their Senate majority they must also win two of another five races where polling shows  the Republican candidate has a narrow lead.  These five races are in Colorado, Alaska, Iowa, Georgia and Louisiana.  Incumbent Democrats are trying to hang on in Colorado (Mark Udall), Alaska (Mark Begich), and Louisiana (Mary Landrieu).  The other two races are for open seats.  Bruce Braley is trying to win Iowa and Michelle Nunn is the candidate in Georgia.  Again, polling seems to show the Republicans leading in all these races, though the Alaska surveys have been kind of all over the lot.  Colorado and Alaska appear to be the best chances for the Dems to pull the mild upsets given the current numbers.  Keep in mind that in Louisiana and Georgia it looks like the Republicans have the lead but not a majority, once you include the candidates of minor parties, and if these elections turn out that way both of these states would have run-offs between the top two finishers.  It's assumed the Republicans would likely win any such runoffs in these states.

Democratic turnout will be the deciding factor.  Right now a bettor would put the odds of the Republicans taking control of the Senate at about 3-1 in their favor.  I'll do a post mortem after the voting.