The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Obama

  • Obama, Romney: bickering for America’s sake

    Obama, Romney: bickering for America’s sake

    President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney are not enemies, but for the sake of America, they are doing battles, writes OLUKOREDE YISHAU

     

    They have agreed on a few things: no military action in Syria, continuing support for sanctions against Iran and withdrawal of America’s military from Afghanistan. But their areas of disagreements are more. This is the tale of two presidential candidates: President Barack Obama and his challenger, former Governor Mitt Romney.

    Obama is today expected in the vital swing state of Ohio, where, according to the latest polls, the president has a slight lead. Romney is ahead in Florida, and Virginia is a dead heat.

    Like Obama, Romney is also stepping up his last-minute campaigns. Like they have done since their campaigns kicked off, they are going to use the next one week to paint each other in bad light.

    Romney will continue to drum it into Americans’ ears that the president has not provided a clear example of American leadership for the world, whether in Syria or Iran or Russia. He is unlikely to also change his position that the president has failed to improve the economy.

    Obama, too, will not abandon his song, which he has been playing to Americans: Romney would be unsteady on the world stage. The president’s employ of sharp and sarcastic language to cast Romney as out of depth is not likely to abate. Not with polls showing that they run neck-to-neck.

    During the last debate, Obama lampooned Romney’s promise to increase defence spending by two trillion dollars and build up the US Navy – a move which Obama claimed failed to take into account the needs of modern warfare.

    Obama said: “You mention that we have fewer ships than we had in 1916. Well, governor we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because that nature of our military has changed.

    “We also have these things called ‘aircraft carriers’ that planes land on, and ships that go under water – nuclear submarines. So the question is not a game of battleships, but what are our capabilities…and how we are going to meet the best of our defence needs.”

    On the issue of Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, Obama and Romney clashed repeatedly, with the president claiming Romney’s strategy was in a constant change of flux and in no way clear.

    The president said: “And you know, Governor Romney, I’m glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after al-Qaida, but I have to tell you that, you know, your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map and is not designed to keep Americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the Middle East.”

    On Iraq, Obama painted Romney as inexperienced, saying: “I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy — but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong. You said we should have gone into Iraq, despite that fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction.”

    The president also took Romney on about al-Qaida. Obama said: “Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognise that al-Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not al-Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

    “Both at home and abroad, he (Mr Romney) has proposed…reckless policies. He’s praised George Bush as a good economic steward and Dick Cheney as somebody who’s – who shows great wisdom and judgment. And taking us back to those kinds of strategies that got us into this mess are not the way that we are going to maintain leadership in the 21st century.”

    Romney, too, has delivered some upper-cuts on the president. Romney accuses president of ‘weakness’ abroad.

    On his methods for dealing with Russia, he said: “I’m not going to wear rose-coloured glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he’ll get more backbone.”

    He has also accused Obama of not providing the leadership at the world stage. Romney said: “I absolutely believe that America has a – a responsibility, and the privilege of helping defend freedom and promote the principles that — that make the world more peaceful. And those principles include human rights, human dignity, free enterprise, freedom of expression, elections.”

    He also believes the president has not done much to stop Iran‘s nuclear project.

    He argued that the country was “four years closer to a nuclear weapon” and that Obama has “wasted” the last four years because “they continue to be able to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer.”

    Certainly, the next one week is a crucial one in deciding who carries the day. The candidates realize this and have planned to make the best use of it.

  • Obama wins debate but does not recover lost ground

    Obama wins debate but does not recover lost ground

    •The first battle you must win is the one with your toughest adversary: yourself

    AFTER a flaccid first debate performance, President Obama redeemed himself in the second event. His performance was nearly masterful. Unlike the first debate where his responses bored the listener by being too wordy and enmeshed in the arcane, his second debate answers were pithy. He not only evinced command of facts and figures that seemed elusive in the first encounter, he spoke of large themes such as economic fairness, gender discrimination, peace and security, and the role of government. Some of what he espoused was too much a rehash of moderate-conservative orthodoxy to do him or the nation much good. Yet, at least, he talked as if he possessed a vision for the country and that the burden of the last four years had not reduced him to a transactional president satisfied with minor policy initiatives at a time when only major steps will suffice.

    Taking small steps when the moment begged for a series of huge leaps was the trademark of President Hoover. In the American political context, Hoover’s name is synonymous with failure. As the surge waters of the Great Depression descended on his countrymen, all Hoover could advise was for them to hold their breath and pray they did not drown before the tide subsided. After the first debate, Obama was in danger of being perceived as the spiritual heir of Hoover’s palsied incrementalism.

    The difference between the two debates was the president came into this one with starch in his collar. It was a contentious sparring session. This time, the president did not hire himself out as his opponent’s trampoline. This time following the biblical guidance on giving and receiving, the president delivered more blows than he took in. The long-term importance of his combativeness should not be missed. Throughout his political career, President Obama painstakingly positioned himself as a “non-offensive” black man so as not to perturb too much of a largely white electorate. In 2008, this strategy helped him win the election against an irascible, mercurial John McCain. In 2012, it might help him to lose it.

    In surrendering the first debate, Obama gave away more than he realised. He allowed the fallacious Romney to appear presidential, thus pilfering in one easy night a chunk of the goodwill Obama had studiously cultivated over the years. The results of the first debate were extraordinary in that the considerable electoral movement toward Romney was disproportionate to the performance levels of the two candidates. Romney won that first debate but Obama’s performance was not so meritless as to justify the erosion of support he has suffered. Startled by the loss of fortune occasioned by that debate, Obama was forced to reassess his passive black man strategy. His performance at the second debate shows that he decided to shelve the passive approach. As such, the second debate may be more important for what it taught Obama than for anything it revealed to the voting public.

    President Obama learned he could publicly confront, fight and even ridicule a leading white conservative and still garner enough support to have won the debate. In a politically divided nation, a leader will lose his way if his guiding principle becomes “thou shall not offend.” He has to realise everyone will not like him and that many will bitterly oppose him, politically and personally. Thus, the most prudent thing is to battle your opponents by fashioning policies that attract and galvanise a winning electoral and governing coalition. Obama may now understand that he can forge such a coalition by asserting himself more than he can by acting demure. He may now understand a black man can actively battle against a conservative white opponent without being completely written off by the white electorate as a Mau Mau run amok. As long as he fights wisely and well, he will maintain enough support. If the president holds on to win the election, he will be able to view his first debate performance as a blessing in disguise. Without having that setback, he might not have abandoned the passive approach and only by abandoning this stance can he move from being a middling chief executive to becoming the excellent one we expected.

    Mitt Romney lost the debate but did not suffer in the opinion polls. Romney did not do poorly, he just did not equal Obama. One of his problems, Romney appeared confident, perhaps too confident. Some of his answers were tinged with the plutocratic arrogance he successfully hid during the first outing. One could sense his natural disposition was to be dismissive of minorities and women whom he did not consider among the masters of the economy. The concern he expressed for their welfare was as meretricious as a streetwalker’s affections. All in all, the debate showed Obama at his best was better than Romney at his. Strangely, this might do Obama no good. Although he scored less than Obama, Romney did not implode during the debate. Undecided voters, who are mainly white conservative moderates, can still conceive of Romney as being president. While there is no greatness evident in the man, they believe he can do a yeoman’s job in office. This will be sufficient for them to base their vote on tribal (racial) affiliation. Since they do not feel Obama has proven to be an exceptional president, they feel no hesitation dumping him.

    The working thesis in this election is that if these white conservative moderates sense that Obama is only slightly better than his opponent, that slight advantage will be a disadvantage. It will not deter them from flocking to Romney. In American politics, the admonition against changing horses in mid-stream does not apply when the incumbent steed is black and the challenger is a white thoroughbred.

    During the debate, the two men battled over many issues. Governor Romney tried to berate “Obamacare” but his attack seemed unduly rehearsed and wooden. Health care reform has been President Obama’s signal piece of legislation. This column has repeatedly assessed this attempt as a flawed compromise where an impuissant Obama yielded too much to the insurance companies and did not sufficiently protect low-income consumers. Obamacare is the equivalent of giving the poor a raincoat. That would be fine in a storm except that the insurance companies are pelting them with rocks and bullets not water. The poor need a Kevlar shield. Obamacare provides only the image of one. In reality, the measure was not truly health care reform but insurance reform. More people will be entitled to insurance but they will pay a higher price. Those who have little money will end up purchasing insurance policies with coverage that will prove elusive when most needed. As badly as it sounds, this improves the current system. This is where Romney told on himself. He presented no alternative save the current way. He would rather continue feeding a vulnerable public to ravager insurance companies. In effect, he would toss everyone into the water. The fit and lucky would make it to shore. If the alligators don’t get the rest, the piranha will. Such is the way of life and death in the Romney-world of health coverage flimsily regulated.

    Regarding the issue of fair pay for women, Obama reminded the audience that he championed legislation calling for equal pay and expanding women’s legal rights thereto. Romney tried to steer away from this big issue by trumpeting that his record of hiring women to important positions when he was Massachusetts governor demonstrated his commitment to equal distaff treatment. However, he never mentioned whether his female staffers received salaries equal to their male counterparts. He dared not enter that territory. He is on public record opposing equal pay for women. When Obama effectively assessed that Romney’s position was not only unjust but poor economics, Romney could not fashion a retort. There was none to fashion. If he told the truth lurking in his heart – that women are lesser beings and thus deserving of lesser pay – he would surely throw the election. Thus, he sat and silently smirked waiting for this awkward issue to pass.

    The most dramatic moment of the debate focused on Libya. Romney thought he had Obama cornered. Romney was right on one point. There was a corner. However, he was dead wrong as to who was in it. Romney strutted about like a bantam rooster when Obama stated he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror merely one day after the attack happened. Romney implied Obama was lying. When the moderator informed Romney the president had indeed used those words, Romney looked nonplussed as if someone just handed him a passage to read in Sanskrit. Attempting to regain composure and the offensive, Romney suggested the Administration had purposely misled the public about what occurred in Benghazi. Obama’s riposte was the highlight of the evening. Firmly and passionately, he defended his team and his own integrity. He said he took full responsibility for Benghazi but that Romney’s insinuation of a cover-up was offensive to decency. Obama declared that was not the way he conducted business as commander-in-chief of a great nation. He said it so deftly that one was left with the impression that Romney alleged a cover-up because that is exactly what he would have done had he occupied the Oval Office at the time. With the turn of a few choice sentences, the accuser, not the accused, was revealed to be morally shallow.

    The most important segment of the debate centered on economic policy and taxation. Sadly, Obama stuck to the old saw that deficit reduction was a top priority. He endorsed the recommendations of a commission he established to reduce deficit spending by 4 trillion dollars in ten years. Trying to be even-handed, he said this would be accomplished by budget cuts on one hand and tax increases on the rich on the other. This is unsound economics. In a period of weak economic growth and significant private-sector debt deleveraging, reducing government deficit spending is the road to economic deflation. In the end, such deflation hurts the poor and working classes while benefitting the financially endowed.

    Meanwhile, Romney crafted a tax proposal that seems to give a bit to everyone without taking anything from them. It is too easy to be true. It is also mathematically implausible that the proposal would reduce the deficit. This is where the fun starts with Romney. If implemented, his proposal will produce a higher deficit. Either he tackles this with higher taxes which could be economically poisonous if those taxes fall too heavily on the working and middle classes. However, he could well let the higher deficit stand. Spurring more economic activity by putting more money in private-sector hands, this policy would be condign. Ironically, this is what should be happening given the current economic circumstance. If this is Romney’s ultimate design, he must be given credit. The ersatz conservative may actually be attempting to accomplish through the sidedoor what an unabashed progressive Democrat would have tried through the front one. Sadly, on economic matters, President Obama has not been a progressive or even a liberal. Thus far, he has had the mind and heart of a 1970’s Republican wrapped in black skin and adroit in the symbolic rhetoric of the mild social liberalism of the first two decades of the 21st century. In other words, Obama is a liberal on social issues but a moderate-conservative on economic matters. The nation would be on more solid footing if the president were less amphibious.

    The silliest moment of the debate came when both candidates claimed government does not create jobs, only the private sector does. This nonsense is particularly ironic coming from two men willing to devote so much time, log so many travel miles and spend billions of dollars to win a government job. It is a fairy tale of free market orthodoxy that teachers, firemen and air traffic controllers do not perform real and valuable service to the public and the economy. It makes no sense to believe that when government spends money for the construction of a road, bridge or railway that the laborers on these projects are not performing “real jobs” because the money comes from government. The truth is that government is an important direct employer and indirect job creator in every nation, including America. Without government exercising this function, the economy would be reduced to perpetual depression. That is a fact that no amount of free-market cheerleading can mask. Not only is it wrong it is dangerous for it belittles the role of government at a time when government has a very important role to play.

    In the end, Obama acquitted himself at the second debate. He proved that he is better than Romney. This advantage may be insufficient to sway undecided white voters. The majority of this group may decide that tribal affiliation trumps Obama’s skill and temperamental advantages. While the debate may not stop the move of this segment toward Romney, it has helped to reactivate Obama’s own support base. This will be important to maintaining his leads in many of the key states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, etc.) that will ultimately decide the election. If he does survive this battle of attrition and hold to the presidency, perhaps the lessons learned in the second debate may lead to a different way of governance in his second term. Stylistically, the president has learned he can be more assertive without alienating the American heartland. Perhaps more importantly, he may summon the courage to break with mainstream orthodoxy and veer toward a more progressive economic path. This path would promote the retooling of the American industrial sector, bolster the middle class with more jobs and better wages, and assure the continued viability of the programs at the core of the American social compact: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Beyond the immediate fallout from the debate, the longer-term hope is that he breaks from the strictures of conservative thought. We do not require this new hope to be one of audacity. We just pray it will not be a forlorn one.

  • Umunna: U.K Labour’s ‘British Obama’

    Umunna: U.K Labour’s ‘British Obama’

    Chizom Ekeh, freelance journalist profiles Umunna, the British Member of Parliament of Anglo-Irish Nigerian descent who is regarded as one of Labour Party’s ‘rising stars’

     

    Despite his protestations, Chuka Umunna, Labour Member of Parliament can’t hold back speculation that he may become the’ British Obama’.

    The former lawyer, who was born and raised in Streatham, has climbed the ranks of the Labour party with record speed.

    In just 18 months, he became parliamentary private secretary to the Labour party leader, Ed Miliband, and then moved on to become shadow minister for small business and enterprise. Five months later in October 2011, when John Denham retired from politics, Umunna was promoted to shadow business secretary.

    At 33 years old he is one of the youngest MPs in parliament and the shadow cabinet. When he was elected as MP for Streatham at the election in 2010, he was named by commentators as one of Labour’s “rising stars.”

    But it is difficult to pinpoint the exact moment when Umunna’s political stardom began. Some highlight his performance on Question Time in October 2007, when he challenged the Sun’s editor, Kelvin McKenzie, over remarks he made about Gordon Brown.

    Others highlight his performance at the Treasury Select Committee meeting last year, when he quizzed Barclays boss, Bob Diamond, on the bank’s alleged tax avoidance schemes. It was revealed that Barclays used over 300 subsidiary companies in offshore jurisdictions and had paid just £113m in corporation tax in 2009, despite making £11.6bn in profit.

    On the other hand, Independent journalist, Steve Richards, attributes Umunna’s success to his political background and his decision to back Ed Miliband in Labour’s leadership contest. He highlights the politicians’ similar ideological outlooks and the connections made when both were involved with the centre-left think tank, Compass.

    It has been five years now since the Labour MP has been dogged with comparisons to Barack Obama. In 2007 Simon Woolley, director of Operation Black Vote, was first to make the link.

    Then in 2009, when Umunna was just 30 years old, the New Statesman published his profile as Labour’s parliamentary candidate for Streatham with the headline “ A Barack Obama for the UK”.

    Indeed there is broad consensus on the many characteristics that the two men share. Most obvious is that both are mixed race of half African descent, both are lawyers and both suffered the tragedy of losing their fathers due to car accidents at an early age. It is also vastly overstated that like Barack Obama, Mr Umunna is handsome too.

    And perhaps most perceptive of all, is the observation that the politicians’ names even share the same syllable count.

    However in a number of interviews, Umunna has expressed dismay with such comparisons, which he has described as “dangerous “. His stated wish is not to be “viewed through the prism of someone else’s personality.”

    The Streatham MP is marked for being an unusually popular politician. This is due in part to his polished public image. Umunna is noted for his custom tailored suits and has been variously described by commentators as ‘smooth’, ‘marketable’, ‘refreshing’ and a ‘cool cat’.

    As a result Umunna has wide telegenic appeal and has become a seasoned media performer. Cynics highlight however, that such attributes could mean that he has more chance of becoming prime minister than the current Labour party leader, Ed Miliband.

    Nelson Abbey, journalist at the Evening Standard wrote: “If I was Chuka, when Ed Miliband – who doesn’t seem to excite the Labour faithful, the media or the electorate – was elected to lead his party, I would have gone into a bathroom, looked in the mirror and passionately kissed myself. Ed’s election and the defeat of his brother, David Miliband, probably enhanced Chuka’s prospects more than it did his own.”

    Despite his confortable upbringing in the leafy suburbs of Streatham, Umunna can straddle the social divide and identify with urban culture. At one point in his life he wanted to be a DJ and ran a regular club night in Brixton.

    The MP is also chair of the London gangs’ forum and has supported a number of charities for youth.

    But while Umunna identifies himself as a ‘European Social Democrat’, question marks still hang over his politics. Is the Streatham politician, voted two years in succession as parliament’s most fanciable MP, more style than substance or the reverse?

    In an interview with the Guardian early last year, Umunna said that his drive to become involved in politics was rooted in his belief in social justice and a desire to change people’s lives. He emphasised that he did not want to be perceived as just another ‘career politician’.

    And to this end one could look back to his activities at Compass. At the beginning of his career, he gained a following on the Labour left. He was highly critical of the New Labour agenda and called for the party to stand up for its core beliefs of fairness and redistribution.

    Today however Umunna is rumoured to have admitted to friends that since his election in 2010, his politics have shifted to the right or become more “centrist”.

    Labour’s “glittering star”, as he was pronounced by the Economist, has been increasingly associated with the former business secretary, Peter Mandelson, who is otherwise known around Westminster as the “Dark Lord”.

    Umunna’s stated “totally relaxed” attitude towards the high earnings of entrepreneurs who set up business and create wealth and jobs for the country, is said to echo Mandelson’s statement that he was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” if they paid their taxes. Umunna has expressed deep respect and eagerness to learn from the former business secretary and the pair are said to be in regular contact.

    Furthermore and perhaps even more striking is the fact that the Labour MP has expressed new admiration for the former prime minister, Tony Blair, after having recently read his book.

    Blair is said to have had significant input into Umunna’s tutelage. In the May issue of Total Politics it was noted that the MP displayed “Tony-esque flourishes”. Meanwhile the Independent’s Tim Walker observed:

    “Umunna shares a number of Blair’s mannerisms: he’ll often preface his sentences with “look”, or “Y’know”or “What I would say is…”.

    Walker added that he “deploys his charming laugh at all the right moments.”

    Indeed in stark contrast to his disillusionment with New Labour in 2009, in 2011 in an interview with the Independent, Umunna said that he believed that 85 per cent of what Tony Blair did was right – although he did not support the invasion of Iraq and his neo-liberal agenda.

    He went as far to add that had it not been for Blair’s 1997 reforms, he would probably not have joined the party.

    Perhaps most unexpected of all was his recent announcement that he has turned to former Tory business secretary, Michael Heseltine, for inspiration. Umunna explained: “ I just like his approach and mind-set when it comes to looking at how government can work with business.”

    The MP has also found friends on the Conservative benches. Andrew Tyrie, chair of the Treasury Select Committee, described Umunna as “charming”, “effective” and “the genuine article” and has predicted that he has every chance of enjoying “a long spell at the top of British politics.” Some Tory bloggers have gone as far to suggest that Umunna should defect.

    The MP of Anglo-Irish Nigerian descent proudly describes himself as a Londoner. His professed love for UK garage music is due is to its fusion of English, Jamaican and Latin cultures which makes it “very essentially London”.

    But despite having established TMP – a political website targeted at multicultural progressives, he rarely speaks out publically on issues regarding race. His recent statement that the verdict of the John Terry racism trial had sent out the wrong message was unusual.

    And unlike activists on the ground who believed that the August 2011 riots were in part symptomatic of declining race in equality in the UK, Umunna refutes all suggestions that the riots had a racial dimension. Instead he says “the elephant in the room is social mobility.”

     

  • What Aung San Suu Kyi could teach President Obama and Mitt Romney

    What Aung San Suu Kyi could teach President Obama and Mitt Romney

    SOMETIMES IT IS more difficult to learn to work together than to suffer individually,” Aung San Suu Kyi observed to a Washington audience last week.

    Coming from a woman who has spent most of the past two decades in isolation, under house arrest, it was a striking statement. The Nobel Peace Prize winner from Burma was seeking support in Washington as her country, also known as Myanmar, emerges from a half-century of dictatorship. What seemed uppermost on her mind were the practical, human difficulties of making democracy work.

    She talked about how people in her country, a Southeast Asian nation of 50 million or so, don’t really know how to ask questions of their leaders, a practice that hasn’t been much encouraged in recent decades. Similarly, she said, politicians aren’t used to the notion that they have “a duty to explain their policies.” She fretted that the Burmese fear of losing face makes it difficult for politicians to compromise.

    All of which made us wonder whether Washington might not have more to learn from Aung San Suu Kyi than the other way around. No doubt Burma, like every nation, has challenges specific to its history and culture. But the allergy to compromise, the failure of leaders to explain their intentions — much of it sounded drearily familiar.

    Here we have a presidential campaign in which both candidates are more eager to tear the other down than explain what he would do if elected. Since Republican nominee Mitt Romney has been on both sides of so many issues, the problem is particularly acute in his case. He offers platitudes about lowering taxes but refuses to say how he could make the numbers add up. He faults President Obama for having failed to achieve compromise with Congress, yet his dismissal of the half of the country that does not support him hardly seems the basis for a unifying presidency.

    Having occupied the White House for nearly four years, Mr. Obama presents less of a mystery. But it is disappointing that he offers no second-term agenda beyond defending and completing the work of his first. He accepts no responsibility for the worsening gridlock that he had promised to alleviate; his only fault, he says, was to trust naively in the good faith of the other side. His takeaway is that “you can’t change Washington from the inside.”

    There’s nothing wrong with a president going outside Washington to mobilize support; that’s what the bully pulpit is for. But Mr. Obama’s version of the past four years is incomplete. Republicans were often more intent on thwarting him than helping the country, even reversing long-held positions to do so. But at key moments, when compromise might have been possible, Mr. Obama lost his nerve or failed to lead.

    More important than arguing over history is the oft-postponed challenge of repairing the nation’s finances. Even before Inauguration Day, the country, if its politicians cannot find a compromise, will slide over a fiscal cliff of tax hikes and spending cuts that will endanger national security and send the country reeling back into recession. What would President Obama do in a lame-duck session to head this off? What would a President-elect Romney counsel? We have no idea.

    Aung San Suu Kyi, who won election to parliament in April, said her party refused to make “easy promises” that it could not fulfill. “Some people tell me this means I’m not a real politician,” she joked.

    “Cut taxes.” “Preserve Medicare.” Those are easy promises. Righting this country will require more difficult measures — including Democrats and Republicans working together.

    –Washinton Post

  • COMMENTS

    ‘CBN is only doing what it is supposed to do financially and economically. If those in the agriculture sector, manufacturing, mining, power are lagging in growth to earn Nigeria the required FOREX, blame not Sanusi, he has done and is doing enough to sanitise the banking industry today, and if not for his stabilising the naira as he has done,the exchange rate today would not be less than N250 to one US dollar. He called the bluff of the IMF in January. Why is it only Nigerians that refuse coins? From Lanre Oseni’

    For Olatunji Dare

    If Obama is now finding it tough going for the second term, it is simply because the Grace of God that threw him up to the presidency must have been withdrawn from him. God typically stepped against racial prejudice to have him elected the first African-American president to prove that with Him there should be no segregation. But it does appear Obama seems not to reckon with such divine favour when he thoughtlessly approved gay marriage in America under his watch – a big slap on the face of God. He may not have performed excellently in office, but that is not the issue. With the grace withdrawn even those things he did that usually attracted loud ovation are bound to earn him scathing comments and snobbery from the people. Hence, his bid for a second tenure has become slippery. Of course, it is our prayer that the God of mercy shall see him through. From Emmanuel Egwu, Enugu.
    I read your article on the US presidential election. Please, give me the full meaning of the abbreviation GOP. I have encountered it several times, recently. If Obama fails to make it the second time, he is the architect of his misfortune. I always love reading your articles and views on contemporary issues. Anonymous
    Sir, If such thoroughly unbiased notes had been taken on Nigeria’s political system, an opportunist somewhere would have condemned the writer as being too venomous to be constructive. Mercifully, truth is sacrosanct. Citizens of any country can only live freely and happily when those trusted with political power use it for the common good. From Adegoke O. O. Ikhin, Edo State
    Please, what is the meaning of GOP convention? Anonymous
    Point of correction, it was Bill Clinton v George Bush ( senior) not Bob Dole in 1996. Anonymous
    Re: Notes on the US Presidential Race. Notwithstanding the ‘pellets and bombs’ being thown at each other’s camp, campaign for the presidential election in US could be interesting and is still interesting till date, with justification on points and issues raised regarding tax, healthcare, and others unlike in Nigeria. One hopes that, we will learn at a faster rate in Nigeria. From Lanre Oseni.
    Your piece on the US presidential race is apt and revealing. The salient point is that this year’s election is not being fought along party lines, it is the most racial and nepotic, an opinion poll had 45 percent of the people thinking Obama is a Muslim. What was the basis for conducting the poll? If all African-Americans, Hispanics, Asia-Americans and other minority races would rally round Obama, the GOP facists will be shamed. From Kayode Ojinnaka, Owerri
    It is only in Africa that incumbents see second term as a piece of cake. Obama has failed Americans who expected so much from him but got disappiontment; he even refused to visit Nigeria, the giant of Africa. From Eguono, Port Harcourt
    Bill Clinton v George Bush (senior) 1992, Bill Clinton v Bob Dole 1996, Americans elect the most powerful man in the world so, people like to know the next world leader. Anonymous
    I read your column article “Notes on the U.S. presdential race”. I am not only shocked but speechless. What has come over America? The giant of democracy. Finally, you have left us to assess, analyse and appraise what the outcome of the US election will be. Anonymous
    I really appreciate your indepth knowledge of the intrigues of American politics.You are, indeed, not only a well informed, knowledgeable and highly enlightened columnist, but a journalist of international repute. I am highly impressed, sir! Accept my best wishes and regards to the family, sir! From P. Akila Kasham, Plateau State.

    For Gbenga Omotoso

    How are we sure she did not go there after Stella Obasanjo? Let us pray she comes back. Anonymous
    Please, the First Lady is not missing. She is with me at Yenagoa resting. From Uncle Bruce Bino.
    Like the case of Prince Phillip, it is not a big deal if the Presidency clears the mystery on the whereabouts of our number one mother. From Ikedi, Umuahia
    What is so special about the First lady, or did you vote for the office of the First Lady? Anonymous
    Prince Phillip not his son, Andrew, was hospitalised. From Yusuf G. Mshelizza, Kaduna
    I do not know the First Lady. I am just concerned about the mockery you have subjected her to. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to disrespect and to put to public ridicule. To have a space to publish is not an opportunity to be reckless. From Clement
    Since I have been going through your columns, this is the one I enjoyed reading. Truly, the question on the lips of everyone is: where is our First Lady? From Alex Orbuter, Makurdi
    I read your piece and was left with the opinion that it was trite from the headline to the intro to the main body and to the conclusion! It was rather too cheap and full of sarcacism. Please, leave such non-serious issue to less- endowed journalists. Thank you! Anonymous
    Must we print our currencies in a foreign country? What is the reason behind setting up the Nigeria Security Printing and Minting Corporation in the 60s? Granted that the machines should have become obsolete by now, can the cost of procuring new ones be as high as N30 billion? If it is, once we buy it, will it not become our property for a long time? But then there will not be any avenue for the boys to maintain foreign accounts. Or will there be? From Adegoke Adeyemo, Lagos.
    Gbenga, you hit those deserving to be hit with stone covered with cotton wool. I always enjoy your column. Of recent, some of my friends who used to buy your newspaper have stopped because of the unnecessary Mimiko bashing. As the editor of the paper, do not allow it to be turned to the defunct “New Nigeria”. Try and moderate the political columnists. From Yinka Niyi, Epe Lagos
    Re: Where is the First Lady? You did not empathise or sympathise with the First Lady’s health challenge. On a very serious note, transparency is to declare the true position of those who govern us directly or remotedly. First Lady will sooner than later appear to us in a bigger way. One thing is clear, she is ok. There is no cause for any row over N5000 note and coins. If N5000 and coins are too much for me, I will go to my level -N200s and N100s. Our problem is not Sanusi and notes but low production. From Lanre Oseni.
    Re: Where is the First Lady. It is really a shame on our leaders that our health system is so dismal that the First Lady had to be flown abroad as alleged for treatment for food poisoning. This was possible because her husband is in power as Mr President. What of the masses who bear the brunt of the dearth of health infrastructure in this country? Where will they go to if they too come down with food poisoning? To hospitals starved of government funding and patronage? This country needs a rebirth. From Olumide Soyemi, Bariga.
    Thanks for the hilarious piece on your Thursday back page. Indeed, serious stories can be told with rib-cracking humour as you have always shown. Bravo! From Bassy esq.

    For Tunji Adegboyega

    Re: “N5000 note? Perish the thought!’ The thought should not be perished because all opponents of N5000 note and coins have not been given econo-financial reasons for their rejection. Rather, it has been the usual radical and rejection based on sentiment. Tunji, inflation and value of money are determined by level of productivity of citizens, level of production in agriculture, industries, mining and quantity of exports as well as FOREX earned. Brother, N20,000 note has no negative impact on our economy. Compare the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s value and exports to post-’85s. From Lanre.
    Don’t you think this N5000 note is one of the preconditions set by the West for Mr President for 2015? Think of same sex marriage. From Mazijos.
    Tunji, your thoughts on N5000 note are nothing buthard facts. You should write another article on the planned coinage of 5, 10 and 20 naira denominations. Anonymous.
    What is all this weeping and gnashing of teeth over a high denomination of the naira. When Ghana released its currency on July 1, 2007, the 50 cedis note had a value of 53.76 USD. How much is N5,000?The UK has a 50 pound note (N12,000). The USD note is about N16,000. The 10,000 fcfa in poor Cotonou next door is N3,000. When shall we grow up? Anonymous.
    Tunji, your comments and analysis have spoken for the masses of this country. The CBN wants the poor people to be poorer and the rich, richer. If not so, let Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi tell the people the true picture of the N5000 in his mind. More of your incisive comments. From Akinleye, H.O.
    Tunji, your article on N5000 naira note was well researched and intellectually convincing. Honestly, Sanusi started well but is now derailing. I think Soludo was better. How would the President approve of it without wide consultation? Sanusi took advantage of Jonathan’s naivety or, else, how could Jonathan have approved it without consulting our economists and highly reputable bankers? A layman will know that it will not do us any good. Sanusi is only out to prove that it was his time as CBN governor that this higher denomination was introduced. This is a PDP agenda of bribing the electorate come 2015. Anonymous
    If today we mint N100 into coins, it would simply lose its value; that is the point. Let Sanusi and his CBN print even N10,000 note, it makes no difference to corruption, but the real problem is if N5, N10 and N20 notes are minted into coins. Welcome inflation! You and I know that within six months, they are no longer legal tender and that is the real devaluation. Our protest is currently misplaced. We should be against the coinage of those denominations. From Cliff.
    CBN is only doing what it is supposed to do financially and economically. If those in the agriculture sector, manufacturing, mining, power are lagging in growth to earn Nigeria the required FOREX, blame not Sanusi, he has done and is doing enough to sanitise the banking industry today, and if not for his stabilising the naira as he has done,the exchange rate today would not be less than N250 to one US dollar. He called the bluff of the IMF in January. Why is it only Nigerians that refuse coins? From Lanre Oseni.
    I completely agree with you that people seem unsatisfied at whatever moves by President Jonathan makes; nevertheless, going by his present works I believe he would emerge the best president of this soil ever in the end. I never cease praying for him to hit the expectation of the people. Anonymous
    Is it not strange that amongst the so-called NEMT members who supported the introduction of the N5000 naira note are those enmeshed in the oil subsidy scam? Make no mistake about this … From Akindele Kayode.
    It looks like the CBN is set to go ahead with it. Why do we not pressure Mr Sanusi and CBN to re-denominate the naira? Pray, what is this our hatred for coins, a media creation? Imagine if the present N100 were to be just N1.00 and you needed only N1.60 for one dollar. Imagine petrol going for just N0.97. Yes, we would gladly use coins. But we love illusion. Big figures excite us. Billionaires! Vanity. God bless. From Harry Dee.
    I am very surprised despite your being informed that you could not see that what the implementation of N5000 note is telling you is that the naira is over-valued and has to devalue. Like it or not, print N5000 or not, the currency will always find its true level. For as long as we have chosen the path of corruption in this country we shall continue to experience inflation manifesting in high denomination currency. That is the fact. Remember the cedi at the height of Ghanaians bad economy. Watch out, N10,000 note is coming and we shall see worthless minimum wage of N50,000 per month. Be prepared to buy bread for N1000 …. These are all rewards of corruption. Anonymous

  • Obama campaign gets a lift in Florida

    Is this the lift President Obama was looking for on his campaign bus tour through Florida?
    In this key swing state, Obama stopped at Big Apple Pizza & Pasta Italian Restaurant, where he was greeted by owner Scott Van Duzer, a muscular man dressed in a gray T-shirt and matching athletic shorts.
    Van Duzer was so smitten by the president that he embraced him in a bear hug, leaned backward and lifted the 6-foot-2 president a foot off the ground. Photos of the moment show Obama with his arms spread wide and palms turned upward, as if to say he’s at the mercy of the pizzaman.
    Van Duzer has a broad smile on his face, and a woman in the background has a look of sheer surprise. Reporters lined up on the other side also had a clear view of the lift.
    Afterward, a reporter at the scene reported that Van Duzer, 46, from Port St. Lucie, stands 6-foot-3 and weights 260 pounds, and he can bench-press 350.
    “Everybody look at these guns,” Obama said, pointing to Van Duzer’s chest. “If I eat your pizza, will I look like that?”
    “Look at that!” Obama exclaimed after Van Duzer put him down. “Man, are you a powerlifter or what?”
    Obama told reporters that he stopped at the restaurant because the owner has set state records for donating blood.
    “Here’s an example of somebody who is doing well, but he’s also giving back. So we just want to say how proud we are of him,” Obama said. “I still wonder how he got these biceps, but what we know is that the guy’s just got a big heart along with big pecs. So we’re very proud of him, and we just want to say thank you for all the great work.”

    Van Duzer is a registered Republican, but he voted for Obama in 2008 and said he will do so again in November.“I don’t vote party line, I vote who I feel comfortable with, and I do feel extremely comfortable with him,” he said. Apparently, the Secret Service gave him the go-ahead to lift Obama “as long as I didn’t take him away.”