Sarah Lenti

Well, to begin — was President Obama’s State of the Union address the longest on record in recent decades? Well, no. No, in fact, it wasn’t. The longest — in presidential history — was that given by President Clinton in 1995.

But this is not a blog on the length of President Obama’s speech. Instead, and in juxtaposition to Heath’s latest blog (which canvassed NM elected officials on the SOTU), this blog serves as a report on what the 20-30 something demographic thought about the substance of the president’s 2012 SOTU. More specifically, it’s a report on what colleagues and friends  – of all professions, parties and persuasions – thought about the policy that was presented, rather than the presenter himself.

Here is what resonated:

Comment:

The need for immigration reform is critical and the issue got huge applause this evening when the President raised it. Has he really put more boots on the ground — on the border — then any other administration to date? If so, I applaud him.

He noted that “women should earn equal pay for equal work” – I am all about that. And, yes, I am a conservative, single Republican woman.

Innovation and research are also important to me. I don’t like cancer — and I don’t like seeing other countries “win the race to the future.” I agree — let’s get on it, America. This is a non-partisan theme.

Comment:

I was rather struck by the President’s statement that the “renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe.” And that “our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever…” He then goes on to praise the new defense strategy that he recently released and says that  “anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” Well, there’s a big problem with the picture that emerges from this section of the speech.

First, the new defense “strategy” was clearly a budget driven exercise that simply rubber stamped the latest round of defense cuts that have taken place under Obama. Contrary to popular belief, defense spending has already undergone major cuts. Since President Obama has been in office, the Administration has cut defense spending by some $850 billion over a 10-year period. The latest cuts, mandated by the Budget Control Act of 2011, will likely turn the U.S. into a regional power and are a recipe for decline. There is simply no way the U.S. can maintain its leadership role on the world stage and, therefore, its security commitments abroad with the defense cuts.

This is why the strategy makes it clear that the U.S. will shift its security focus away from Europe and the Middle East towards Asia. How cutting defense and receding on the world stage is intended to strengthen our leadership role on the world stage and reassure our allies is anyone’s guess. There is no question, however, how it will be received by America’s adversaries and enemies will certainly be celebrating.

Comment:

The Iraq policy could backfire, what happens if it descends into civil war or chaos? Loss of prestige, respect, blood, and treasure. Do we go back? It’s a policy with implications unknown to this country and our interests…

Comment:

Dodd-Frank was alluded to but not specifically named, it’s killing small banks and hurting smaller businesses…

Comment:

The President’s focus and concern regarding education are commendable. I appreciate that he wants Americans to be educated and prepared for the jobs of the future. I also appreciated his recognition of community colleges and technical schools and the huge role they play in preparing our workforce.

However, I was saddened by the apparent disconnect between growing our economy, job creation and energy independence. When an administration refuses the country the benefit of a project like the Keystone pipeline, levels attacks at American coal producers and decreases drilling capabilities – how can one still say they are for job creation and energy independence?

Comment:

Biggest issue re: last night on energy. “All of the above” should mean research money. That’s it? No subsidies for deployment of current technology? Goverment research did accelerate fracking technology but it wasn’t very much money and lots of the technology came from research whose purpose wasn’t to unlock shale gas/oil.

The administration’s research program itself should be reformed. Private people spent tens of millions developing engine efficiency improvements. Then DOE steps in and gives GM several million in research grants to do the same thing. This is wrong.

Comment:

America is back doesn’t equal America is your steadfast ally… Actions speak louder than words. And the defense conversation, praise the men and women in uniform all you want, but you have to equip them in the future…

So there you have it. Some thoughts from the young-voter peanut gallery. Again, I asked the contributors to focus on ideas, rather than promoting or panning the President. As a closing note, I asked about 50 people to comment, and I posted every word I received back. The responses I received were thoughtful indeed, and I am grateful to those who wrote. That said, I hope the lack of response from the larger group is not an omen of young-voter apathy to come at the polls in November.

Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net.

Ron Paul

Update, Dec. 31, 8:45 p.m.: Since this blog was published on Wednesday, Mitt Romney has officially surged ahead of Ron Paul with respect to SocNets. Specifically, in this past week, Romney added 23,103 new FB Likes/Twitter Followers, while Paul fell behind with the addition of only 18,040 new FB Likes/Twitter Followers. And so the Paul “surge” was but a blip.

For the sake of perspective, President Obama added 73,647 new FB Likes/Twitter Followers this week. While it seems like the president has a huge SocNets advantage, I would bet this is only temporary given that the GOP is currently split between seven candidates to Like/Follow.

(Note: The source of my information comes from a new website at the nexus of politics and social media - whistlestop.com. Whistlestop is launching in January and will change the course of politics and “grassroots” campaigns. Watch for a blog from me on it.) Happy 2012!

Original post:

Ron Paul. Let’s chat about him.

A friend, actually Heath, suggested I write about Ron Paul’s “surge” and whether it matters in the Republican primary race.

My gut reaction to the suggestion of a Ron Paul surge is precisely this – “what surge?”

Let’s put this “surge” into perspective by looking at two things: SocNets and that decievingly unassuming state out there called Iowa. (Note that SocNets is a techie abbreviation for all things related to ”social networks.” Think Facebook (FB) and Twitter.)

SocNets

Ok, let’s be frank – we are all well aware of the fact that Ron Paul is rocking it out of the park amongst the Republican field of nominees in recent months in terms of FB likes and Twitter followers.

To be specific, we know that over the past few months Paul has been adding more FB likes and Twitter followers per week than his GOP-nominee competitors. Not quite sure we can call this a surge, however, seeing that Paul’s SocNets gap advantage (per week) is narrowing. As of Wednesday of this week, for example, Paul has added 7,740 likes/followers compared to Mitt Romney’s 7,693. Last week (Dec 18-24), the gap was wider. The surge seems to be more like a blip.

But does this matter?

Do SocNets matter in general, with respect to elections? Absolutely, but that’s another blog.

Sarah Lenti

Back to Paul. Does his upward-blip on the SocNets scene matter with respect to cinching the GOP nomination? I would say no. Bear in mind that Romney still has an all-time total of around 1.4 million combined FB likes and Twitter followers to Ron Paul’s 800,000. So, all-time combined and all-in-all, Romney is still ahead.

And, just to put it in perspective: Barack Obama has 35,983,315 all-time combined, and has added 42,530 so far this week.

Iowa

Point 2, Iowa. We are all also aware of the fact that Paul is slightly ahead in Iowa, according to the most recent polling. To be exact, the latest PPP poll (Dec. 26 and 27) has Paul up by 4 points in Iowa, while the latest Real Clear Politics average (Dec. 18-27) has Paul up by 0.5 points. Contrast these numbers to Newt Gingrich’s 10-15 point lead in Iowa a few weeks ago, and one could argue that Paul has certainly gained ground.

But does this matter?

Paul’s rise in Iowa matters exactly as much as Rick Perry’s rise, then Herman Cain’s rise, then Gingrich’s rise… In other words, it doesn’t matter. Paul’s gain could evaporate tomorrow. And even if it doesn’t, he can’t compete with Romney in New Hampshire, nor Gingrich in South Carolina. So there you go. This field does not depend on Iowa.

Further, I would point you to a recent Iowa State University poll, which furthery nullifies whatever it is that Paul is currently doing in Iowa. The poll says this:

“A recent Iowa State University/Gazette/KCRG poll of likely caucusgoers found the race “remarkably fluid” with 37.8 percent of respondents indicating they were still trying to decide and another 34.1 percent only leaning towards one candidate. Only 28.1 percent indicated that they had definitely decided who they would support.”

Slow and steady

A concluding thought: Slow and steady wins the Republican presidential primary race. That’s what I think. As such, you can probably read between the lines in terms of whom I am predicting will end up being the GOP nominee. And, no, it’s not Paul.  Blips, or even mini surges, don’t matter.

Slow and steady wins this race. And it’s going to be a long one.

(Disclosure: Lenti previously worked on Mitt Romney’s policy book, as a researcher, in 2008 and 2009. She is currently a political consultant and would urge you to check out a favorite site – sglf.org.)

Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net.

Sarah Lenti

Regardless of how you feel about the upcoming 2012 election cycle – which, like it or not,  is squarely upon us – there is a positive element to the U.S. presidential election process. For a solid 12 to 14 months, individual states are given the attention they deserve, some more than others.

While it’s unfortunate that not every state can be treated like a battleground – and it is unfortunate – at least there is a window every four years wherein states are taken more seriously. Suddenly, states’ leaders matter, for endorsements and policy promotion. Suddenly, state issues are again honed in on and amplified at a national level.

Fortunately, I would posit that this trend back to the states is being realized at a level that supersedes the U.S. presidential election process. Last month, I wrote about the dawn of the super PAC. Specifically, I said:

“…gone are the days of the RNC. Today is the dawn of the super PAC and outside Republican caucus groups. It’s serious. It’s smart.”

Now, here is what is serious and smart about these outside super PACs and caucus groups: They are prioritizing states over the federal government.

Take, for example, the catchy new State Government Leadership Foundation (SGLF) – a 501(c)(4) affiliated with the one of largest Republican caucuses in the country. You can check out SGLF here. I would encourage you to check out the issue pages (and, yes, for the sake of full disclosure, I am currently working as a policy consultant to SGLF). It’s refreshing to see an entity out there that is focused on the states and real policy issues, without espousing an extremeist agenda.

Here is how SGLF talks about itself:

“The SGLF firmly believes that good policy will ultimately be realized at the state level. As per usual – there is grid-lock in Washington, and the Federal government is out of control and getting absolutely nothing done. Contrast this with the states, who are getting things done – some better than others. America is at its most prosperous and productive when there is limited government, less spending, less taxes, less dictation from Washington; and less encroachment into the states.

“The SGLF intends to help place public policy back into the hands of our states. That’s where we will find leadership and good governance. 

“The SGLF is dedicated to educating policymakers and the public about the benefits of smaller government, lower taxes, balanced budgets, and efficiency in governing.”

Politico noted this group’s launch on Thursday, mentioning the fact that the site offers an interactive legislation tracking tool for all of its readers.

This is, indeed, a smart and serious site.  It’s hard to argue with promoting states and state leadership, and holding them accountable for meaningful and sensible legislation.

Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net.

Sarah Lenti

The GOP is definitely getting its act together. And, guess what? New Mexico is going to be right in the thick of it. This is not me being delusional or overly optimistic. This fact that the Republican operatives are working smartly, strategically, and adeptly – in an under-the-radar manner – is pointed out in a Sunday New York Times piece.  You can and should read Nicholas Confessore’s piece right here.

Essentially, gone are the days of the RNC. Today is the dawn of the super PAC and outside Republican caucus groups. It’s serious. It’s smart.

New Mexico is one of a few states cited twice, not once, in this article. No one is denying that The Land of Enchantment is a target. If you thought you were a battleground in 2008, just wait for 2012. Fun for you. (As such, you might want to consider getting all of your prime-time television watching out of the way now…)

In case you don’t have time to read the article, here are the two New Mexico citations:

“Groups that have made defeating Mr. Obama their top priority expect to invest heavily in some of the new swing states where Mr. Obama made inroads in 2008, like Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico.”

“…Although the outside groups maintain their own strategies — American Crossroads, for example, stays out of Republican primaries, while Americans for Prosperity takes sides — they collaborate and divide up duties where possible. This month as American Crossroads pounded Mr. Obama with advertising over his jobs plan, Americans for Prosperity organized more than a dozen rallies against the proposal in states like Colorado, Missouri, New Mexico and Washington.”

Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net.

Herman Cain

It’s all about the 9-9-9.

And 9-9-9 translates into the latest political wonder man, Herman Cain. But he’s your non-Fred Thompson political wonder man. Herman Cain is not exactly Mr. Law & Order. In fact, he’s the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza. And that is precisely and  ironically why Herman Cain is so entertaining to watch.

To be fair, the GOP nomination process has become a fast form of entertainment in and of itself. Think about it: The debates have about the regularity of a TV series and you have a regular cast of characters. The variable in the series is the lead character. He shifts. It’s Romney to Perry to Romney to Cain. Romney is the steady, and most relied upon lead, it’s true. But, now enter Herman Cain…

And, so, the flavor of the month has taken off. Note the Oct. 10 MSNBC/Wall Street Journal poll that found Cain leading Romney by four percentage points (27 percent to 23 percent). Two days later, a Rassmussen Report poll showed Cain and Romney tied at 29 percent. Somehow between the Sept. 22 GOP debate and winning the Sept. 23 Florida straw poll, the man from nowhere became the man going somewhere.

One message

How did this happen? Herman Cain told reporters in New Hampshire the other week that it’s message, not money. Well to that point, Cain has successfully voiced one message and one message fully: 9-9-9.

Let’s chat about this 9-9-9 plan. Essentially it’s a valiant effort to scrap the existing federal tax structure, entirely, to include the elimination of the Social Security tax, the estate tax, and the capitol gains tax. The 9-9-9 would mandate three things:

• a 9 percent flat individual income tax rate.
• a 9 percent flat corporate income tax rate.
• a 9 percent national sales tax.

Now, quite frankly, I don’t understand the beauty of the 9-9-9 plan. I’ve worked it over and if you are a small business – or any business – it’s a triple tax on your income. Not ideal. If you are a low- or middle-income family, in many cases you are going to pay more under the 9-9-9. Finally, regarding the national sales tax, let’s not forget the fact that you still have local and state taxes to contend with (in most states).

The math here is simple: A 9 percent national sales tax plus state and local levies equals a tax on goods of 17 percent or more. Again, not ideal. Of course, as a fiscal conservative I fully understand that the tax structure is in dire need of restructuring, but I’m not so sure Cain’s messaging on this point – his one point – sustains him.

Maybe VP, maybe Mr. Secretary

Switching from the policy to the political, I would posit that the critical point for Herman Cain is going to be Iowa. In less than three months, on Jan. 3, the Iowa caucus takes place. Cain stands a chance here if he can capture the social conservative vote, for which he, Bachmann, Perry and Santorum are all competing. If Cain can edge out the others here, then he might just be able to pick up traction. However, in this day and age, I am not sure you can get there with a staff of 35, one fledgling idea, and such a money disadvantage. Others might argue with this point, as pointed out in a Washington Post article over the weekend:

“If Facebook could be used to topple the Egyptian government, then perhaps Herman Cain can use it to win Iowa,” said Phil Musser, a Republican strategist who most recently worked for the short-lived presidential bid of former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty. “Thus far, the traditional approach to running for president in 2012 has paid few dividends, and the old must-dos have proven to be less important milestones than expected.”

Truth be told, I don’t think Cain can clinch the nomination with 9-9-9. Because, ultimately, I think money and the machine matter in politics in addition to the message. So, while I’d place my bet on Romney (and, yes, I worked on his book), I don’t disagree that Cain is certainly someone to watch.

Mark McKinnon, one of my favorites for the last 11 years, had this to say about Herman Cain in The Daily Beast:

“Herman Cain is going to be around for a while, and people should start taking him seriously. If he’s not president, he could be vice president. Or bet the under and just start calling him Mr. Secretary.”

That’s fine. I could live with a Secretary Cain.

Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net. For full disclosure, Lenti is a Republican strategist who worked closely with GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s former PAC and on Romney’s book.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice, left, and Frances Fragos Townsend

That’s what former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice says; she and former Homeland Security Advisor Frances Fragos Townsend reflect on a changed nation and what we still have to learn from 9/11

This is one of a handful of pieces written by NMPolitics.net columnists reflecting on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

As a starting line, to everyone who lost a loved one or survived the horrific disaster we have come to know as 9/11, I am sincerely sorry. Suffice it to say that the vast majority of America is thinking about you and praying for you and yours. While America remembers what happened on that day, we can’t even begin to speak for you. And so, with that, here is my post.

A few weeks ago, Heath asked his little band of bloggers to start thinking about the 10-year memorial of 9/11. Not easy. Not easy, not because I don’t have my own thoughts and sentiments surrounding this terribly tragic event – I do. Not easy, because I honestly feel that I have no right to comment on this day when no one in my personal or immediate family was directly affected. Meaning we didn’t lose a loved one. As such, I was conflicted on what to post.

Then it dawned on me. Why not ask two of the most influential women in my life, two women who dealt with the aftermath of 9/11 for the next seven years of their lives?

Suffice it to say that my first boss, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, might have something to impart, especially seeing that she was serving as President Bush’s national security advisor on Sept. 11, 2001. And then there is a mentor, Frances Fragos Townsend, who went from working at the NSC to serving as the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism from 2004-2008.

Both Dr. Rice and Fran graciously agreed to contribute to this post. I would note that Dr. Rice’s portions are direct quotes from a piece she has done with the New York Times, to be printed this Sunday, and are quoted courtesy of The New York Times News Service. Fran Townsend’s comments are original for this blog post. My thanks to them both.

Below are my three brief questions to them. I’d be curious for you, the readers, to also weigh in.

What have we learned from 9/11?

Dr. Rice: Ten years later, it is clear that 9/11 made encouraging democracy and supporting political institutions a global necessity… Since 9/11, we have come to understand that no country can secure itself in isolation and that helping failed states heal is no longer simply a matter of largesse – it is now a necessity.

Fran Townsend: That we are a nation of courage and determination. We are capable of putting policy differences aside when we need the strength of the whole. While there are important policy debates worth having inside the U.S. political process, when attacked from outside we are smart and resilient and will band together to solve problems. Congress and the president worked together post 9/11 to pass the Patriot Act and to create the Department of Homeland Security. Our enemies should learn that our political debates are less important to us than our security and our freedom.

How is the nation different?

Dr. Rice: For those of us in office on that day, it is as if time was suspended. For us and for the victims’ families, every day since then has been Sept. 12. Our sense of what constituted security and what it takes to protect the country had been irrevocably altered. The United States, the most militarily and economically powerful country on Earth, had experienced a devastating attack. And it had been carried out by a stateless band of extremists, operating from the territory of what was at the time a failed state, Afghanistan.

Fran Townsend: Security is now an accepted part of daily life. We go through security screening not only at airports, but now there are canine patrols on trains and bag searches at sports arenas and rock concerts. We now understand if we see something suspicious we must say something. That security is every citizens’ responsibility, not just the government’s. And we understand now that security measures are how we protect our fundamental freedom.

What lessons have we failed to learn or are we still learning?

Dr. Rice: In 2002, a group of Arab scholars at the United Nations issued the Arab Human Development Report, identifying three gaps – respect for human freedom, women’s empowerment and access to knowledge – that are holding back the progress of millions of people. And these gaps do even more harm: They cause the hopelessness that in turn creates a vacuum into which extremism and hatred flow. This is the link between what happened on 9/11 and the urgency of democratic reform throughout the Middle East. For 60 years, the U.S. sought stability at the expense of democracy in supporting authoritarian regimes. But we should have known better. If people have no way to hold their governments accountable through peaceful change, they will do so violently… Now decent political forces – those that will defend women’s rights and religious and ethnic tolerance – will need the time to organise themselves to fill the void. Authoritarianism is simply unsustainable. As difficult as the journey to democracy may be, it is the only pathway to true stability.

Fran Townsend: We must accept that the threat of terrorism remains because our enemies, though substantially weakened, continue to target the U.S. For this reason, though officials work to prevent terrorism, we must plan and prepare for a successful attack. That means we must be determined to be resilient and recover quickly. While we must preserve our intelligence, law enforcement, and military capabilities to detect, disrupt and defeat terrorism, our resilience will be a powerful deterrent to terrorists.

Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net.

Lenti, third from left, with In-Country Director Haidari, E.D., and future students. (Courtesy photo)

Yes, I am well aware that Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann are on your minds. Fair point, it’s all things Iowa. That said, I am guessing if you’re anything like me, you’re ready for a new topic. As such, I will give you a brief post-Afghanistan readout. While I had intended to write from the road, war-zone conditions made it less than easy to accomplish.

As you know, I was in Afghanistan last week, laying the ground work for a model village project in the province of Herat. The Marshall Plan Charities team and I finally arrived in country last Sunday, Aug. 7, after about 36 hours of planes, planes, and more planes. (Go ahead and Google Herat and Shindand Airfield and you will get a feel for our exact geographic location). To set the scene, we have posted some pictures for you of our trek and arrival.

We arrived at Herat International and were immediately greeted by a swarm of very intent Afghani boys (ranging from ages 6 to 10) with wheelbarrows — in 106 degree heat — ready and persistent on carrying our bags. Talk about a strong work ethic — no cartoon-watching here. The thought of being able to help provide these children — girls and boys — with books and better access to heath care became immediately exponentially more exciting. And the thought of being able to provide their parents with greater agricultural opportunities, cleaner drinking water, and vocational training was equally as exciting.

We arrived at Shindand Airfield later that evening — our home home for the week. And, to all of the U.S and Italian troops there, let it be known that we are so grateful and thankful for your hospitality.

Our first meeting with the U.S. military officers in command of the base took place soon after our arrival. Much to our surprise, the MPC team learned that the Shindand Airfield is about to become the economic engine of Herat. Let me explain:

• Shindand Airfield is about to become the first-ever pilot training base for the Afghan Air force. Our U.S. forces will begin training the first class of Afghan Air force pilots this December. This is no insignificant news.
• In addition, the Shindand Airfield is soon to become the home of the Afghan National Army Regional Center. This is will be a joint coalition effort, shared by Hungary, Italy, Slovenia and the United States.

What does this mean for Marshall Plan Charities? With Shindand Airfield at the helm of economic empowerment in Herat, MPC will be privately mirroring what our U.S. military forces and their allies are already publicly doing for the region. The synergy could not be better for the model village project, and we are thrilled to be complimenting the magnificent work that is already happening here.

Days Two and Three of the MPC trip were spent in back-to-back meetings with the Italian Military Command, district ministers, our agricultural advisor and the deputy governor of the Shindand District. These were a series of very detailed meetings wherein the team was nailing down specific details with respect to timelines and contracts. The take-away from all of the meetings was that the MPC model village project for Khairabad has the overwhelming support of the Italian Command, the  Shindand District leadership. Now, the real work is ready to commence in just a matter of weeks.

Hope in sight

Listening to a message from MPC Director Joanne King Herring. (Courtesy photo)

Day Four was the highlight and culmination of our trip – this was the day for our site visit to Khairabad (the home of our model village project) and personal meeting with Village Elder Siyyad Fazel Ahmad. Truth be told, our penultimate meetings in Khairabad with Fazel and his fellow village elders could scarcely have gone better. We were given a 15 armored vehicle convoy from Firebase Thomas to Khairabad and its surrounding areas by the Italian Military Command. More specifically, the convoy was personally led by the commanding Italian military officer for the entire western Afghanistan battle space, Col. Patane – an Omar Shariff figure straight out of central casting. (He was paired with his second in command, a “young Tony Curtis” type.) Our convoy set out at 7 a.m. sharp and, an hour and a half later, we were at the home of Village Elder Siyyad Fazel Ahmad.

When Fazel Ahmad laid eyes on Lt. Commander Doug Rine (our MPC Advisor), it was a reunion for the ages. This smiling, battle-hardened warlord simply could not believe that “my brother had come back.” Fazel convened a meeting of over 30 village elders in his shura room during Ramadan, no less. Having 3o elders essentially meant that we were party to the  oldest living male from every family in Khairabad. Much to our relief, Fazel opened the meeting by reciting – unprompted – every pledge that we were hoping to seek from the village for MPC.

Fazel started by saying that, “this is a dream come true for the people of Shouz and Khairabad. MPC is here to implement projects that we’ve been waiting for…especially the school, which will only double-up our community.” Fazel continued, “Whatever you choose to help us with, we are going to cherish it, take care of it, and make the best use of it.” Fazel’s words were a relief, for as much as we are excited about giving aid to this village, we are also adament that the village do their part by making this project their responsibility.

After Fazel finished with his opening words, we played a personal message via DVD that Joanne Herring had taped and sent for Fazel and his elders to hear. Fazel translated while Joanne played on screen. The crowd – sitting in 90 degree heat while fasting through Ramadan – was captivated by Joanne’s message and promise. It was quite a moment. We then got down to work by discussing the details of village responsibilities in exchange for the project work that MPC is about to embark on.

Italian Commander Patane endorsed our program to the group of elders and noted that, “today marks just the first brick of the wall that we are going to build in this area.” The symbolism of the brick wall is quite fitting, because at the end of the day the Afghanis want a return to security and stability. This security is both physical and internal. This security is physical, in terms of the Italian and U.S. troop presence that is offering stability to the region as a counterpoint to the insurgency. But it is also understood that this security must also become internal, through the strengthening of villages that are educated, nourished, healthy and productive.

Back to the shura. After contracts were further discussed, gifts were exchanged and pictures were shot, we all headed out to the land that Elder Jamal personally granted for the MPC school project and drinking well. It was quite amazing. There we all stood, in the dessert – 30 village elders, our Italian partners, the MPC team, and little boys from the village excitedly running all around us. It was a tizzy of promise and teary eyed men.

And while it is true that there were no little girls running around, there is hope in sight now that even the little girls will have the opportunity to be standing, even running around, on the school grounds very, very soon.

To all of us who were born in, or are citizens of, America, we are so fortunate. So fortunate.

Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net.

Sarah Lenti

Afghanistan is on my mind of late, as I’m headed there in less than a week now. Recall the movie Charlie Wilson’s War? Well that very same  outstanding lady, Joanne King Herring, who led the fight against Russian expansion in Afghanistan, is now embarking once again to help the Afghani people stand up, just as U.S. military forces begin to stand down. Joanne is back in full force, and I am headed out to Herat to help her accomplish her new mission, if you will.

Never has the mission been so critical, and never has the timing been so perfect and right for Joanne’s erstwhile dream of helping to empower Afghanistan one village at a time. Statistics have proven that no village can lift itself out of poverty without simultaneously introducing five basic elements. To that end, Joanne has created Marshall Plan Charities to provide villages in  Afghanistan with the five essentials – clean water, food security, a health system, schools that educate and an economic model for villages to succeed by producing goods.

It’s not rocket science. An Afghan civilian population with clean water, sustainable food sources, basic health care, modern schools and real jobs diminishes the need for, or reliance upon, Taliban poppy fields or U.S. military protection. To fully capitalize on the ongoing U.S. military successes inAfghanistan, Afghan civilians must be provided with the basic tools of civilization so that a culture of self-reliance can permanently supplant a hopeless return to dependence upon a fundamentalist dictatorship.

And in the process, spare the world a breeding ground and staging area for international terrorism.

Saving a village

Joanne has been building toward this mission of empowering the Afghan people to transform their own villages into self-sustaining and self-standing units of productivity for more than 30 years. And now, after very careful strategic planning over the past three years, Marshall Plan Charities is ready to take on its first model village. We will do this by working with tried and tested non-governmental organizations who are the best in their fields and have uncontested expertise.

It is not Marshall Plan Charities’ intent to tell these NGOs how to run their business, equip a school, construct a clinic, clean a well, or plant a crop. It is MPC’s intent, however, to create a structure wherein organizations can work together seamlessly toward the successful completion of a more developed village. It’s a holistic approach. After our first village has proven this approach superior and effective, Marshall Plan Charities will happily move anywhere in Afghanistan where we can implement all five facets of our program.

The great news is that we can stand up a village in a year at a price tag that is far less than keeping one soldier alive in the field. We can save a village, or we can save a life. In my mind, this is great news. It’s time to bring our troops home.

I’ll be in Afghanistan from Aug. 5-13 and will update you while I’m there.

Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net.

Rick Perry

Here we go. Texas is about to do it again.

I would place any wager that Governor Rick Perry is about to do what former President George W. Bush did in 1999. And that would be announcing his bid to run in the Republican primary for president. (And to all of my friends who know my betting history with respect to the Oscars – not sports – you know this is a good, solid bet.)

So far my who’s-running-and-who’s-not predictions for Heath have been spot on. But for all of you who doubt my word, let me refer you to others.

Let’s start with a blog published in The Wall Street Journal last Thursday. They predict that Governor Perry is going to announce in Houston, on Aug. 6, at a national prayer meeting on a football field. That’s some red meat for you. Here is what the WSJ claims:

“Our normally reliable Republican source reports that Mr. Perry has surveyed the field and decided to get in the race later this summer, perhaps around the time of the national prayer meeting that Mr. Perry is hosting on August 6 at a Houston football stadium. Our source also reports that Mr. Perry is aiming to compete in the Iowa Straw Poll, even though it occurs just a week later, on August 13.”

But let’s move on to Nate Silver, the genius political statistician of The New York Time’s fivethirtyeight.com. Silver forecasts that the GOP race is coming down to a race of four, with Perry being right there among the contenders. Silver puts it this way:

“I mentioned last week that I’d thought we’d seen the emergence of a relatively distinct ‘top tier’ of Republican candidates, consisting of Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann. Having taken a deeper look, I am more confident in that claim — I’d posit that there is a better than an 80 percent chance that the nominee will be one of those four people.”

‘Rick Perry senses an opening’

That Governor Rick Perry is running for president really comes as no surprise to me. Friends in Austin have been saying that he’s running since early 2009 because, more than anything, this man loves to campaign.

Speaking of Austin, Mark McKinnon – one of my all-time favorite mentors and political strategists (because he’s just that brilliant) – had this to tell me yesterday when I queried him on Governor Perry:

“Rick Perry senses an opening and I think he’s going to take it. And he will be a formidable candidate. As the longest serving governor in Texas history who attracted 37 percent of all jobs in the country in recent years, he has a powerful story to tell. And he has honed a strong anti-Washington message which will resonate with many GOP primary voters.”

So there you go, folks.  Take it from the WSJ, Silver, and McKinnon. Governor Rick Perry is running for president.

Keeping America united

Recall that back in April of 2009, Governor Perry was laying secession out there as a good option for a very fed-up (with the feds) Texas. It’s highly unlikely that this talking point makes it into his platform, and it’s sure to be a lead balloon in any debate.

At the risk of oversimplification, I would just note that the idea behind running for President of the United States should be to keep America, well, united.

Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net. For full disclosure, Lenti is a Republican strategist who worked closely with GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s former PAC.

This 1960 presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon was the first to be televised.

Malcolm X said this about the media:

“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.”

The statement is bold, and perhaps gives the media more credit than it’s due, but there is large truth to the statement. The media is powerful. Whether it’s because we (the people) have empowered it, or because it empowers itself, the media drives the public discourse and influences our thinking.

With respect to presidential politics, I would argue that since airing its first presidential debate in 1960, the media has been the de facto great leveler of the field.  The televised debates became the forum wherein presidential candidates could stake their claims on issues and impart their lofty ideals on a level field.

In theory, there was no competition for air time, media buys, etc. It was the one place where all candidates had the access and opportunity to discourse and speak their minds, regardless of how much money their campaigns had actually raised. That’s significant.

Well, CNN just changed all that.

Sarah Lenti

Johnson excluded from debate

Yes, CNN just changed all that, and should be ashamed. Since when does the media get to decide who is a credible presidential candidate and who is not? To be specific, CNN consciously excluded former N.M. Gov. Gary Johnson from the June 13 CNN-sponsored debate in New Hampshire. That’s quite an unacceptable smooth move.

Let’s get this straight. CNN invited Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, and Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels – all of whom have announced that they are not running. CNN invited Rep. Michelle Bachmann, former Gov. Sarah Palin, former Ambassador Jon Huntsman, and Rudy Guliani – none of whom have yet to announce. CNN invited former Gov. Mitt Romney, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Sen. Rick Santorum and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich – all of whom have made their candidacies official.

So, then we have Gary Johnson, who has also made his candidacy official (in New Hampshire, ironically, where CNN is locking him out). What is more, Gary Johnson has already paid the $25,000 fee to get on the primary ballot in South Carolina. Gary Johnson is committed to running; he’s not clowning around or flirting with media tours. Yet CNN would like for American voters to believe that he is not a serious candidate.

This is just completely wrong. Regardless of who your chosen candidate is, I think we can agree that anyone who is making a serious run at this grueling process – and is not a felon – should have the same platform as, at least, those other candidates who have announced. It’s just common sense.

The media has hit a new low by attempting to make decisions for us.

Sarah Lenti is the blogger behind NMPolitics.net’s The Savvy. E-mail her at sarah@nmpolitics.net. For full disclosure, Lenti is a Republican strategist who worked closely with GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s former PAC.