The First Presidential Debate- It matters!

Tonight brings the first Presidential debate. From 2100-22.30 EST the President and Mitt Romney will meet at the University of Denver, Colorado, to debate domestic policy. This will be a closely watched match up. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the debate will offer Mitt Romney the opportunity to close his polling gap on the President. 

There are two main reasons why Romney has everything to gain from tonight's meeting.

1) The debate will be the first time that voters are able to see Obama and Romney in side by side contrast. This is important. The polls show that while some Americans regard Romney as aloof and emotionally detached, they largely feel comfortable with the President's personality. I believe that this is largely the result of a very successful (if not honest) effort by the Obama Campaign to paint Romney into a negative caricature. While Romney has made some recent mistakes, I believe that tonight will positively challenge voters to look more carefully at the former Governor and what he would offer if elected. I am confident that Romney will impress.

2) I strongly believe that while Romney's current polled supporters are consolidated behind him, I also believe that a considerable number of those who currently say that they will vote for the President are far less confirmed to pursuing that course of action - this is reflected in Obama's fluctuating poll figures. These swing voters have yet to be convinced that Romney can offer real, positive change. For them, Obama is the safe but unsatisfying bet. Tonight offers Romney a clear opportunity to re-calculate this enthusiasm equation. He needs to show his quiet warmth and resolve. He needs to show that he has the leadership potential and the ideas to bring get America back on track.

Now the major question. How does Romney win the debate and effectively begin to persuade voters to move out of the President's camp? The answer is simple. Romney must clarify the choice for voters. For me it's clear. A clear choice of more government interference, more taxes, more spending and more debt under Obama II. Or, an alternative choice of less government, a simplified pro-growth tax code with lower rates, alongside a government that seeks to empower rather than control the private sector. 

The facts are on Romney's side. This economic recovery has been the slowest in American history. The President's stimulus has spent hundreds of billions of dollars for very little return. In addition, while the President is great at bailing out the Unions, but he isn't so great at supporting American business. The unemployment rate remains seemingly immovable above 8.4%, each month thousands of workers are giving up looking for work and many thousands more are having their hours cut. Further, over the last four years, the public held national debt has grown by around $5.3 trillion (more than under Bush's two terms in office). And yet, the President's only solution to the debt crisis is to unleash demagogues and unveil budgets that get an 'F' for their math. This is a President without a record to run on. Romney needs to counter the false narrative of 'hope and change' with facts and alternatives.

Tonight's debate offers Romney a major opportunity that he needs to grasp. It's game time.

CNN - Presidential Debates - Important?

PS- My personal favorite Presidential Debate moment

The weakness of European Counter-Terrorist efforts

The UK's Counter-Terrorism effort is facing an increasingly precarious future. Today, Abu Hamza and co. are holding their final appeal (supposedly final) at the High Court. As of 18.52 GMT, there is no news on the outcome. Regardless, this case should have been resolved years ago. In April it was. But of course, the European system is heavily weighted in favor of terrorist defendants. Appeal follows appeal. It is seemingly irrelevant that these appeals are consistently based on frivolous creations by defendants (Abu Hamza sleep deprived etc). The rule in EU law appears to be this- 'The only limit on appeals is the limitation of your imagination'. While I personally believe that Al Qa'ida linked suspects should face military commissions,  I accept that most Europeans may prefer a different approach. 

However, I believe their current approach is fundamentally flawed.

It's not simply the incapacity of EU Courts to resolve cases. Another problem is found in the form of the weak sentences that EU courts often hand down to those convicted of the most serious terrorist offenses. In Scotland, mass murderers are released. In England, attempted mass murderers are given the opportunity to one day be released. This is absurdity incarnate.

At the final level - the operational side of UK counter-terrorism, other problems exist. Instead of welcoming the skill and professionalism of their Intelligence services, in recent months these services have become political whipping boys- a casual target for false moral prophets and politically motivated investigations. Investigations that will chill effective intelligence collection, degrade morale and endanger lives. 

The stakes in counter-terrorism are high. Groups like Al Qa'ida are motivated by a total war doctrine that seeks to destroy democracy. Making counter-terrorism operations more difficult and judicial processes more complex is in no one's interest. Except the terrorists. 

Sadly, the dangers posed by this evolving dynamic will become even more pronounced as global WMD proliferation accelerates.

Cofer Black - 'After 9/11, the gloves come off'

Mona Eltahawy successful attack on free speech in NYC

Yesterday, the NYC MTA voted to restrict the application of the First Amendment on their network. This comes in response to a current advertisement campaign which calls on subway users to 'defeat Jihad'. In a stunningly stupid 8-0 vote, the MTA has decided to prohibit future adverts that it 'reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace'. The MTA seemingly believe that in passing this restriction, they remain in compliance with First Amendment case law. They are wrong. 

If (and I assume they did) the MTA consulted an lawyer in coming to the conclusion that their new approach was legally compliant, then they urgently need to put out a job ad for a new attorney. Brandenburg V Ohio, the operating US Supreme Court case that defines free speech vs incitement boundaries, is clear in its prescription. Under Brandenburg, only speech which intends to create a condition of 'imminent lawless action' can be restricted by public authority. The 'defeat Jihad' advert does not meet this burden. The advert does not pursue imminent lawless action, it simply advocates a political position (albeit from my view a stupid one). Indeed, the Roberts Court has upheld this type of speech as owed the highest protection under law. As Roberts put it, the Government must protect 'even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate'. Cognizant of the law, it should have been manifestly obvious to the MTA that in attempting to restrict speech which lacks an intention to cause imminent lawless action, they have exceeded their authority under the Constitution. That this advert pursues a sensitive topic is irrelevant. Justice Scalia recently noted the obvious (apparently complex for some) fact that where we restrict speech in fear of angering those in opposition to that speech, the First Amendment suffers serious injury. Undue restrictions on speech restrict individual opinion. Undue restrictions of individual opinion chill societal debate. Chilled societal debate inhibits effective discussion and policy formulation on issues of public concern. An example of the detrimental impact of the 'chilling effect' was seen on last night's episode of the BBC's flagship domestic political debate program, 'Question Time'. Here, the normally articulate Steve Coogan hesitatingly rambled out an opinion on an obvious issue of UK public concern. Why? Because of his concern that he would be labeled a racist. Coogan's irrationally rational fear of being labeled, weakened an important debate.

The pursuit of sensitivity might be the finest (short term) ally of civility, but in the long term, the objectified pursuit of sensitive speech is a terrible enemy of freedom.

For New Yorkers, this is a terrible decision. The MTA are trying to claim that their 'disclaimers' will protect future 'viewpoint' based adverts. However, the new rules seem deliberately designed to restrict adverts like the recent 'Defeat Jihad' ad. It appears that free speech opponents like Mona Eltahawy,  who think that they have the right to destroy speech, have won out. Eltahawy is unashamedly claiming as much on twitter.

While I am confident that the courts will ultimately overturn the MTA ruling, until then, In New York, intimidation has won out.

Thoughts on Netanyahu speech at UN

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has just delivered his speech at the UN General Assembly.

Specifically noting the theological foundation of the 12th Imam (the Mahdi), Netanyahu explained why he believes that there's a fundamental difference between the former Soviet Union and the Iranian theocracy. One believes in life as a construct that defines its own existential purpose. The other believes in life as inherently subject to the larger service of God's existence. For Netanyahu, this means that Iran's leadership cannot be codified as rational by traditional notions of analysis. To some degree at least, he has a point here. The centrality of 'the sacrifice of the self for the service of the faith' is crucial to Shia Islamists like the Lebanese Hizballah and the Iranian regime. This is an ideology which finds physical representation each year at the day of 'Ashura'. Netanyahu's great fear? In pursuit of eliminating Israel and 'liberating' Jerusalem, Iran's leaders would embrace death as the successful culmination of their human existence.

Having articulated the ideological underpinnings of the Iranian regime, Netanyahu passionately argued why he believed a 'red line' would be necessary to prevent Iran's continued nuclear pursuit. Using a deliberately simple diagram, Netanyahu affirmed that he would take action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This was a message designed for an unmistakable translation- Israel will use military force if diplomacy fails.

Whatever one thinks of Netanyahu's policy or his understanding of the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, in political terms, this was foreign policy messaging at its best - Compelling and determined.

For related thoughts.

AJE's Tony Harris response to my Obama UN post

In response to my piece on President Obama's UN speech, Al Jazeera-English Anchor, Tony Harris, kindly posted a reply with his thoughts. See below-

Hey Tom, I enjoy reading your blog. We see eye to eye on the positives of the speech, but I'll push back a bit on your speech negatives. It is, in my view, the right and smart thing to do for the president to weigh in on the video before the world body. Because he has been willing to be, rightfully, critical of the video, he has given space to leaders and opinion makers in the muslim world to capture an important moment for this region that I now call home and reframe the discussion of what is Islam? And more importantly, point out what isn't Islam. What's happening in Benghazi, with people standing up to militias and brigades would have taken much longer to happen without the horrible events at the consulate and Obama and Clinton's, especially Clinton's strong statements. Check out Tom Friedman's most recent piece in the NYT.

As for Afghanistan, there is no feel good exit strategy for coalition forces in Afghanistan. No way to claim a victory there. To see success there as leaving behind institutions of good governance and a national Afghan identity as coalition soldiers throw packs over their backs and stride off into the sunset with waving Afghans seeing them off is out of the hollywood dream factory. Afghanistan has always been too fractious for that. From the point of view of everyone our people (AJE) talk to on all sides of this, 2014 can't come soon enough. What happens after forces leave should give everyone the cold sweats, but that day has to come. It has to.

You can follow Tony on twitter - https://twitter.com/TweetTonyHarris

President Obama's Speech to UN

President Obama has just given his speech at the UN General Assembly.

I felt the President made a generally good speech. As an American, when any President speaks to the UN as our representative and leader, I always think it's important to listen with an open mind. That being said, I didn't think the speech was perfect.

First, the POSITIVES.

 I liked the tribute to Chris Stevens - though perhaps unsurprising, it was important to pay tribute to Chris's sacrifice and the tremendous work that the men and women of the Department of State/AID do for America.

With caveats (see negatives below) I liked the way the President articulated the case for free speech. This was an especially strong line-  'True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear; on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people.'   Words that bear interesting similarities with those of a former President...

I also like that the President specifically articulated the US legal foundation for free speech - 'I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense.' The President should have made this point a couple of weeks ago.

Again - Enjoyed this quote (a message that reflects my own point of view) - 'We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.'

I thought the President was correct to note the fact that most victims of violent Islamist extremism are in fact Muslims - 'Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than ten Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana'a; and several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.' This is the great hypocrisy of groups like Al Qa'ida and the Taliban, their only root to power is intimidation and murder. 

I liked the President's call for the international community 'to marginalize those who – even when not resorting to violence – use hatred of America, or the West, or Israel as a central principle of politics. For that only gives cover, and sometimes makes excuses, for those who resort to violence.' This use of hatred as a distraction from internal societal/governmental challenges, is a major obstacle to international peace, stability and individual empowerment. 

I thought the President's condemnation of Assad was powerful - 'In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people. If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings.' With this quote, as well as attacking Assad, Obama was clearly making an implied challenge to Islamic populations to consider the hypocrisy of their relative lack of concern for the moral crisis in Syria.

I liked the President's attack on the Iranian theocrats - 'In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government props up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad.' I haven't previously heard this President make such a strong rebuke of the repellent authoritarian ideology that guides Iran's rulers. Drawing international attention to the hypocrisy of Iran (and Hezbollah's) liberation narrative was also deeply important.

Finally, I liked the President's final line - '... so long as we work for it justice will be done; that history is on our side; and that a rising tide of liberty will never be reversed.' Again, note the unmistakable comparisons of this narrative to that of President George W Bush. It is my personal opinion that the Arab Spring has transformed Obama from a realist into a confused realist idealist at least in narrative, in the model of  Bush.

NEGATIVES

I did not like the President's reference to the 'Innocence of Muslims' as 'a crude and disgusting video' and his statement that 'its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.' I don't disagree that the video is crude and disgusting, but I do disagree with the President when he uses his office to condemn it and to demand its rejection. The US Government should not be making subject based prescriptions on the  lawful speech of US citizens. An affirmation that the US Government had no role in the video's production would have been sufficient. 

On Syria, the President did not (and does not) offer any substantive plans to speed up Assad's fall. His words on this issue were strong. But words will not liberate the Syrian people. Here's what I think we should do.

On Iran, the President's threat to '... do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon' was hesitant and at least to me, simply not convincing. This was a major failing on the part of the President. In order to bring Iran to a serious negotiating position, he must persuade Iran that America will ultimately be willing to use force. He hasn't.

Finally, on Afghanistan. The President's statement that 'America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014' was utterly absurd. For me, this was by far the worst moment of the speech. It perfectly illustrated the ad-hoc approach towards Afghanistan that has typified Obama's Presidency. Sadly, the President is ignoring the positive news and is giving up on our Afghanistan mission too early.

Conclusion - A generally good speech. But as I have pointed out above, I have major issues with the practical conception of this President's foreign policy.

My latest piece for The Daily Caller

Why Guantanamo Bay should remain open

Hook heads to the US

Abu Hamza is leaving on a jet plane, he won't be back to the UK again.
My thoughts when he had his April appeal rejected.

The Innocence of Muslims and Free Speech

The Pakistani Railways Minister has offered $100,000 USD to anyone who murders the man responsible for producing 'The Innocence of Muslims'. 

         As Mr. Bilour put it, "I will pay whoever kills the makers of this video $100,000. If someone else makes other similar blasphemous material in the future, I will also pay his killers $100,000." Mr. Bilour states that he supports free speech (with one minor caveat). "I call upon these countries and say: Yes, freedom of expression is there, but you should make laws regarding people insulting our Prophet. And if you don't, then the future will be extremely dangerous."

The Pakistani Government's current position is that Mr. Bilour will be able to "stay in his post for now".

Let's be clear, this is a solicitation to murder and a threat of terrorism. Bilour's actions are inexcusable, morally foul and representative of the utter dysfunction of the Pakistani Government. Sadly, as the recent protests have indicated, Bilour is far from alone in his opinion. In states where the predominant religion is Islam, a vocal minority of citizens subscribe to the notion that while their free speech is absolute, their right to not be insulted is also absolute. For example, these individuals feel that they have the right to burn American flags (and greatly insult the American people) but not to suffer similar challenge. They are wrong and we should be unafraid to tell them so.

The stakes in this protest crisis are considerable. Free speech relies upon a vigorous and open exchange of ideas. Where we restrict speech to words that do not offend, we chill all speech and drive discussion into the intellectual abyss of political correctness. America's success resides on our free speech. We must never apologize for our values. I know that President Obama has had the best intentions with his international outreach during this crisis. However, by appearing to apologize, Obama has made America appear weak. He has also  unjustly qualified the moral authority of the purest American value.

Romney Tax Returns

My computer destroyed itself a few days ago so I was unable to blog until now. 
Romney's release of his tax returns was long overdue - I never understood his hesitation, as it seemed obvious that at some point the information would be released. Anyway... The media are understandably focussing on the fact that Romney paid an effective rax rate of 14.1% in 2011. However, there are some other considerations that must be noted. First, the IRS has stated that there is no evidence of any 'aggressive tax planning' on the part of Romney. Second, over the years, the Romneys have made significant donations to charity - they haven't simply horded their wealth in an underground cellar. Third, President Obama paid an effective 20.5% rate in 2011 - the difference between the two candidates tax bills is not significant. In addition, where Romney's income largely came via Capital Gains, Obama's was the result of direct income from his book sales. Capital Gains are deliberately taxed at lower levels in order to induce investment in the economy. Though he probably thinks otherwise, Obama's books do not stimulate economic activity.

Fourth, the entire premise of Romney's tax plan (largely developed by Paul Ryan) is to reduce rates, while also simultaneously closing the loopholes which allow taxpayers to substantially reduce their tax payments to the Federal Government. In essence - reduce rates and reduce avoidance, in order to increase revenue but reduce tax distortions on the economy. In contrast, President Obama wants to reinforce the personal income tax code with more deductions and higher rates. This election should be about the bold discussion of compelling alternatives. Sadly, President Obama's economic policies are exceptionally weak. 

PS - Paul Ryan earns the least out of all 4 candidates.