By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III

NEWS ANALYSIS

PHOTO: Courtesy/Afro American Newspapers

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - When President Obama and Governor Romney squared off for their second debate at Hofstra University in New York, Mitt Romney was the same Mitt Romney seen in the first debate.  He was aggressive, condescending, and continued to try try to pass off his stump speech goals as real plans and policy.

In this second debate President Obama was focused, engaged, assertive, and he refused to allow Governor Romney’s misstatements, miscalculations, and baseless assertions to go unchallenged.  By challenging Romney at every turn and clearly presenting his perspective on issues such as  job creation, taxes, and foreign policy, President Obama clearly won the second debate.

In the analysis of the past debates, the first presidential and VP, there was too much focus on style and very little attention to substance.  The Newsday headline after the first presidential debate was “Mitt Romney wins the first debate by being smoother than Barack Obama.” In its analysis of the Biden/Ryan debate the Washington Post stated, “…Biden risked appearing rude and creating an unhelpful subplot with his constant interjections and scoffs. And it was grating at times.”

It’s analysis of Ryan was, “Ryan defined the term “steady.” He didn’t get flustered by Biden’s constant interjections, continuing to make his points and not allowing himself to be cut off.  An analysus of the second presidential debate by an ABC affiliate called it a draw.  According to ABC News 50, “most are speculative as to crowning anyone the “winner” for tonight. Both candidates defended their views with passion and ease…As experts review talking points, gestures, and body language we will have to see who won the debates tonight.

In all of this analysis it is important to remember that these are not a high school or college debates.  Teams of students do not randomly pull issues out of hats and defend positions that do not necessarily represent who they are and what they stand for.  The issues being debated are real and have serious impacts on the lives of real people.  The public needs to see passion from those who are vying for the highest offices in the land.  When a candidate materially misrepresents the facts he should be scoffed at and ridiculed.  Lies have no place in the debate on the future of this country.

As pundits and commentators discuss who was smoother, who was steady, and who did or did not get flustered; how about spending more time focusing on who told the truth?  How about examining whether or not the arithmetic actually adds up and is Iran really a nuclear threat?

In this second presidential debate the President did play fast-and-loose with some of the facts.  According to FactCheck.org:

• Obama claimed Romney once called Arizona’s “papers, please” immigration law a “model” for the nation. He didn’t. Romney said that of an earlier Arizona law requiring employers to check the immigration status of employees.
• Obama falsely claimed Romney once referred to wind-power jobs as “imaginary.” Not true. Romney actually spoke of “an imaginary world” where “windmills and solar panels could power the economy.”

The President’s statements were not nearly as egregious as Romney’s. Romney went well beyond exaggeration into substantive mispresentation of the facts and changed previously stated positions. According to FactCheck.org:

• Romney questioned the president’s claim to have spoken of an “act of terror” the day after the slaying of four Americans in Libya. The president indeed referred to “acts of terror” that day…

• Romney said repeatedly he won’t cut taxes for the wealthy, a switch from his position during the GOP primaries, when he said the top 1 percent would be among those to benefit.
• Romney said “a recent study has shown” that taxes “will” rise on the middle class by $4,000 as a result of federal debt increases since Obama took office. Not true. That’s just one possible way debt service could be financed.
• Romney claimed 580,000 women have lost jobs under Obama. The true figure is closer to 93,000.
• Romney claimed the automakers’ bankruptcy that Obama implemented was “precisely what I recommend.” Romney did favor a bankruptcy followed by federal loan guarantees, but not the direct federal aid that Obama insists was essential.
• Romney said he would keep Pell Grants for low-income college students “growing.” That’s a change. Both Romney and his running mate, Ryan, have previously said they’d limit eligibility.

As a side note, it is important to recognize that for all of the issues that were covered in the first three debates, “poverty” has not been addressed by either side.  Romney mentioned the word “poverty” once in the first debate and twice in his second debate. Many believe that the President is intentionally ignoring the term because of its racial stereotype and he’s running a de-racialized campaign. Talking about unemployment outside of the context of poverty is ignoring the real problem and avoiding the real solution.

With that being said, this past Tuesday night at Hofstra, President Obama was assertive, commanding, focused, engaged, in control, and most importantly right on most of  the facts.  If facts still matter (and I believe they do) President Obama was the clear winner of the second debate.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is the Producer/ Host of the nationally broadcast call-in talk radio program "Inside the Issues with  WilmerLeon," and a Teaching Associate in the Department of Political Science at Howard University in Washington, D.C.  Go to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,  www.wilmerleon.com , email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..orwww.twitter.com/drwleon

Oct. 14, 2012

Reality Check

By A. Peter Bailey

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Now that the end of the presidential campaign is nearly upon us it is time to state once again that when it comes to promoting and protecting our individual and group interests in this country, we, as black people, have an extremely powerful-- not influential-- but powerful weapon which we don’t effectively use. That weapon is our individual and group economic resources.

We spend too much time focusing on electoral politics and not nearly enough on wisely using the approaching trillion dollars that we gross annually in this country. Somehow many of us, despite strong evidence to the contrary, believe with all our hearts and souls that the path to equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity lies mainly in electing people to political offices.

Not so says economist/ professor James Clingman and clergyman, Rev. Earl Trent, pastor of Florida Avenue Baptist Church in Washington D.C. Insists Clingman, “We must wake up and then get up and be about the business of economic empowerment regardless of whom wins any election. We must not allow the hoopla of ‘making history’ to divert our attention from the real action and that action is building, owing and controlling our own income producing assets”.

Says Trent, “An economic agenda is the central agenda of all politics, for it determines who gets a slice of the pie, who gets the crumbs and who gets nothing. The new agenda for Black America must consciously replace the social agenda with an economic agenda whose central focus is how we can improve the state of the Black economy”.

Their position is shared by Chancellor Williams, who wrote in his must-read book, The Destruction of Black Civilization, Great Issues of a Race: 4500 B.C.-2000 A.D. that “The second great understanding should be that economic activities are so fundamental in any truly upward movement, so clearly indispensable at this stage in history that it should be unnecessary to state it even. The still existing slave mentality causes millions of us to shy away from these basics of life itself because it requires more initiative, training and work and less talk than politics….”

Mr. Williams provides concrete guidance of what should and can be done economically on page 371 of his book under the heading, “The Division of Economic Planning and Development.” Those who are serious about promoting and protecting the interest of Black people should pay close attention to the essential point all three Brothers have made- - which is that there can be no political power without economic power, only varying degrees of political influence. With economic power, there is automatic political power.

While on the subject economic achievement, it must be noted that one of, if not the greatest Black achievements occurred on October 31, 1919. It was on that day that the first ship was launched by Marcus Garvey’s Black Steam Ship Corporation as thousands of people watched on the 125the Street pier in Harlem. According to reports, White newspapers splashed the news in disbelief all over the world. Black people rejoiced... the Black Star Line was designed to show what self reliance could do. It was financed from its shareholder, all of whom were Black and most where UNIA members…” This was a classic example of pooling our economic resources can accomplish.

Oct. 14, 2012

Dr. E. Faye Williams

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - As I digest public discourse of the last few days of presidential politics, I think of an old parable about three fish living in an ocean tributary. One fish was smart, one was half-smart and one was stupid. While swimming, they saw fishermen with nets approaching.

The smart fish realized what would happen if he remained in the river and decided to swim to safety. He determined discussing the outcome of the fishermen with the others would only delay his departure and cause him to doubt the reality of his situation. He quickly swam away.

Realizing he was in peril and unless he escaped, he would become food for the fishermen, the half-smart fish pretended to be dead and floated, belly-up, past the fishermen. He was able to join his friend in swimming to safety.

Unfortunately, the stupid fish delayed his departure until it was too late. Although he swam fast and jumped artfully, he was unable to avoid the clutches of the fishermen's net. His final thought as they began to prepare him for the frying pan was, "If I get out of this, next time I will swim for the safety of the ocean."

Like these fish, in a few days millions of us will be called upon to make a decision that will greatly impact our lives, and the lives of children and grandchildren. We’ll vote for President of the United States and choose the future course of our country.

Like the first fish, millions of us can see through the veil of lies presented by Mr. Romney and understand the imminent danger of his possible election. We remember his "misstatements" of the primary campaign and the positions he has taken in the general campaign.

Who could forget Romney's cavalier offer of a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry of Texas; his "I like to fire people,""corporations are people…," or "I'm severely conservative" statements. Have we forgotten his classic, "I don't know what I said, but I'll stick by whatever it was that I said?" For those who say those statements were made too long ago, what about his disparagement of "The 47%?"

Was there anyone listening who did not hear Romney declare his intention to enact a 20% across-the-board tax reduction for ALL? If you don't understand the significance of this tax plan, most economic analysts agree this plan would add 5 trillion dollars to the country's deficit, decrease the tax liability of the wealthy by $250,000 and place the bulk of the revenue burden on the shoulders of the middle-class.

Has anyone forgotten Romney's declaration that class size had no bearing on learning or that those who sought to go to college should borrow money from their parents? Did we forget that while class size and college tuition increase, the budget of Romney's running-mate eviscerates Federal funding of education?

How about the elderly or those growing old? What about a voucherized or privatized Medicare or Medicaid funding reduced to the level of state-managed block grants? Most analysts agree the cost of medical treatment for Medicare eligible citizens would increase significantly and that Medicaid funding could be exhausted by the burden of the indigent ill. Of course, a few weeks ago when Romney said the uninsured could be treated in emergency rooms, I'm sure the nation breathed a sigh of relief!

This election is too critical for us to do anything except be the "smart fish." Rolling-over and playing-dead like the half-smart fish will yield nothing and place us in a position of great peril.

Being stupid like the third fish and voting against our own interests is just like voluntarily sliding into the frying pan. If we do that I can only ask, "Do you prefer tartar or cocktail sauce?"

(Dr. E. Faye Williams is Chair of the National Congress of Black Women. www.nationalcongressbw.org. 202/678-6788)

Oct. 14, 2012

By Julianne Malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Our Constitution offers us “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, but we can’t pursue anything if we are unhealthy.  Yet, health disparities in the United States are a fact of life.  African American people have shorter lives than whites for three reasons.  One has to do with income and poverty.  Poor people (and 27 percent of African Americans are poor, compared to about 10 percent of whites) have less money and less access, often having to make a choice between medical treatment and food to eat, prescription drugs and rent.  The second barrier to health equality is proximity and access.  In other words, African Americans are more likely to be located a distance from hospitals.  There are fewer hospitals and clinics in the hood than in wealthier areas, and some preventative clinics (such as a diabetes clinic in Harlem) have been eliminated because of money.  Another barrier to health access is simply attitudes.  Those health providers who have racial and other attitudes choose to treat patients differently.  According to a study by the Institutes of Medicine (IOM), an African American or Latino man who goes to an emergency room with a broken bone is less likely to get painkillers than a white man.

Part of this year’s Presidential debate revolves around the issue of health care.  Mitt Romney, the architect of Massachusetts health care system, which resembles the Obama health plan, is now jogging (at least that’s healthy) away from himself, rejecting plans he once championed.  Or is he?  Recently, he said he would preserve some aspects of Obamacare, not others.  I am sure you have been asked to name three people, living or dead you’d like to dine with.  I’d like to dine with Mitt Romney and the truth!

Those who understand health care challenges understand that the world won’t be the way it was and our health care system needs to be revised. President Obama, offering the first tweak in the social insurance contract in 80 years, has done so by passing health care legislation that pushes the envelope. It’s not enough, but it is better than it has ever been.  Still, the system will be strained by the aging of the baby boom, and challenged by the need to offer patient education and preventative services to prevent costly interventions.   The uncoupling of employment and health insurance allows more people the opportunity to deal with their health.  Thus, the health care industry will be pushed to absorb people who are newly empowered to deal with their health.

Too many folks ignore their health because they have few options.  I spent last weekend in the Mississippi Delta, in Cleveland, Mound Bayou and Ruleville, Mississippi.  I traveled there with members of the Sojourner Truth Statue Committee, under the direction of Dr. Pat Reid-Merritt, the Richard Stockton University Distinguished Professor who led the national committee.  We had the pleasure of offering a statue of Fannie Lou Hamer to the Ruleville community in the peaceful garden where Fannie Lou Hamer and her husband “Pap” are buried.  There are so many reasons that the moment was moving, especially the presence of hundreds of children who joined the celebration.

Fannie Lou Hamer, an international treasure, a tribute to audacity, a woman who endured a brutal beating because she exercised her right to register and vote, died at 60 from untreated breast cancer.  This woman climbed every mountain,  cleared every hurdle, stood down the biggest and the baddest, in the majority community and in her own.  Still, she did not have access to the health care that might have saved her life.  She could stare down the Democratic National Committee, but she could not stare down the breast cancer that killed her because she neither had the dollars or the access to treatment.

Fannie Lou Hamer died in 1977, at 60.  Imagine what we might be as a community had she been able to live to 80, or to 90.  She might have been able to shape and influence our movements, offer advice and influence, keep the Democratic Party accountable, and perhaps, also, explore independent politics and the ways Republicans might be engaged in the struggle for freedom.

Julianne Malveaux is an economist and author based in Washington, DC.