Why Gingrich might clinch the Republican nomination

There’s been a lot of talk lately about Republican dissatisfaction with Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. You’d think, listening to all the chatter, that these are the only people running for the GOP nomination. The media are decidedly fixated on the horse race between the two candidates, focusing very little on the others.

I believe we’re yet to see a full scale coronation of any republican candidate until the causes and primary season actually begins. Having followed the 2008 elections closely, history tells us that a certain John McCain was polling in the single digits around this same period during the last election cycle. In fact if you followed the Iowa logic, you wouldn’t have guessed right who Obama's Republican opponent would be. McCain came up a distant third place trailing Huckabee and Romney and tied with guess who—Fred Thompson at 13%.

I think it’s still too early to hedge bets on who gets the Republican nomination. Gingrich has some bold ideas and is the only one so far among all the nominees to put forth a straightforward plan on how he’d go about solving the country’s problems.

I don’t necessarily agree with all his ideas but there’s little doubt that this is a man of immense political strength and deep conviction. Newt is a big thinker who has to be credited at least for being bold and clear minded with his proposals. He may be polling badly now but could end up pulling a McCain.

SIKANKU: In the US, “African” stigma runs deep as some prefer to be called Black American instead of African American.

"Look at me. I’ll accept it if you say I’m black. But I’m definitely not African."

Once in a while, amidst the tumult that is graduate school, an interesting conversation comes up. My African American friend, Abrianna and I recently had a conversation about her “ethnicity”.

This topic came up because I had inadvertently referred to her in a different conversation as an African American. Now you wouldn’t imagine this would offend anyone.

But before I could finish my sentence, she shot back: “I’m not African-American”. I was shocked. At first, I was tempted to dismiss it as one of her many backhand jokes intended to derail the merits of some argument (or the other) I was putting up. But the angst in her voice was clear.

“Oh, if you’re not African-American, then what are you”?
“Black-American” she, answered. I couldn’t believe my ears. For me, out of all the things that could offend a black person in America, this was not one of them.
“What’s the difference, I asked.”
“Well, I don’t come from Africa so I don’t see why African should be associated with my identity as American”.

Wow.

If her first admission caught me off guard this completely knocked me out. I didn’t know whether to be surprised or disappointed. It would have been easier if this was one of those academic arguments people make just for the sake of arguing. But no, Abrianna Chapman was dead serious. So I just laughed gently.

Well, I think my laughter incensed her all the more.

“How you going to say I’m African when I have never been to Africa and don’t know what it’s like”. Look at me. I’ll accept it if you say I’m black. But I’m definitely not African.”

Boy, where do I start from. I wanted to explain to her that although she has no idea what Timbuktu, Cape Coast or Abeokuta looks like, historically we share a common ancestry. But Adrianna is a college senior. Surely, she must know all about the trans-Atlantic slave trade or at least watched a movie or two about it.

To be sure, I asked. “So where are you from?"
“I’m from Mississippi” she said matter-of-factly. This was it. I couldn’t contain myself anymore. I was besides myself with laughter

“That would make you a Native-American” my other African friend Paa Kwesi Annan quipped.

Seriously though, I believe this is a topic that merits some serious thought. I will never forget this conversation I had with Abrianna. It belies the commonly assumed notion among Africans that every black person in the US is a brother.

Has our reputation as Africans fallen so low that our very own are now shunning their roots? Is it right for African Americans to dissociate themselves from the continent or is there enough fodder for closer collaborations between Africans and the black Diaspora?

Are we really overstretching it when we assume that blacks in the US have any sort of connection to Africa? Or drawing closer home, was Abrianna’s indefatigable defense of her ‘blackness’ as opposed to her ‘African-Americaness” justified?

SIKANKU: Is Nick Clegg Britain's answer to Barack Obama?

by Etse Sikanku

There are some days when I secretly thank God for C-SPAN. This past Thursday was one of such days as I happened to catch Britain’s presidential debate live on the network. Though such debates are a staple in US politics, I was surprised to learn it was Britain’s first. Makes me wonder what else the English are late with. But to be fair both democracies work quite differently so my amusement might be quite unjustified. Even worse, my familiarity with British politics is highly remote so these thoughts should be taken with a grain of salt.

Still, I was overjoyed to find a presidential debate on TV in an off-season year for us. I refused to engage in any mental debates of my own regarding whether it was the best use of my time. I told myself: “If any slipped through, they will be filibustered no matter the merits.” Woa, now I know how it feels to be a Congressional Republican.

I was also very much interested in seeing at firsthand what the excitement about Nick Clegg was all about. From what I saw I think Cleggmania is actually a euphemism for Obamamania. It’s no secret that the Obama effect has traveled well beyond the boundaries of the United States. America is viewed more favorably around the world because of its young, intelligent and wildly appealing president. Surely, it’s understandable that any country will want an Obama of their kind.

But there’s no reason to force it.

Nick Clegg is no Barack Obama. Yes Clegg is young, fresh and way more appealing than the dour Brown or the stoic Cameron. If you believe McLuhan’s theory that the medium is the message, then the Liberal Democratic candidate is obviously a strong magnet for television viewers. But presidential elections are not reality shows. Obama did more than woo voters with impressionistic or stylistic performances. Nick was so focused on coming off as different that he looked choreographed. I was still waiting for him to hit the home run but all I heard Clegg say during his summary was that “We can do something new, something different” without saying exactly what. Yet there was the British press fawning over the next day: “The Other One Wins,” said the conservative Times (London); “Nick Clegg Seizes His Moment in the TV Spotlight” wrote the liberal Guardian and so on.

These are serious and perhaps dangerous times in both domestic and international politics. The UK needs a steady and experienced hand at the wheel. That hand belongs to Mister Brown. Clegg is not ready to lead though he will be a terrific candidate come the next elections. As for Mister Cameron the fact that he has failed to capitalize on Labour’s “incumbent-fatigue” problem says all about his status as a credible challenger.

The biggest question that remains is whether the Americanization of British politics is good or bad for the country. From one perspective it is good if only for the purpose of open, direct and plain-leveled politics where each candidate competes on equal grounding. However from another perspective, I fear that the grand strategizing, pre-screened sound-bites and the desire for glamor that produced a certain Sarah Palin might be the coup de grace for British’s parliamentary democracy. What do you think? What's your take on Britain's latest infatuation with American style politics?

In Iowa, student journalists report on Obama’s visit to their campus

Sam Kienzle, a senior from environmental science, wore a pro-health care reform button on Thursday outside of the Field House. He said he was there mainly to observe. “Iowa City is my home town. And this is a spectacle,” he added. He liked to see all kinds of signs people held during the demonstration, but those that indicated racial slur bothered him, he said. He also said he was expecting to see about 100 more people join the demonstration. Photograph by Josie Liu, PhD candidate Unv. of Iowa

We’re grateful to students from the University of Iowa who offered grassroots reportage on Obama’s visit to Iowa. If you’d like to read direct and non-mainstream filtered accounts of this pivotal visit, here are some summaries:

Heather McKeag gives an account of the drama that ensued as opponents of the bill picketed outside the venue of Obama’s speech:

Demonstrators from all over Iowa gathered in protest and support of the new federal health-care reform legislation.

Supporters of the reform proudly raised signs that read “Health Insurance Reform Now” and “Standing Together for Health Care Reform,” while protester’s signs read “You’re Fired” and “Obama Stole My Wallet.”

“I disagree that health insurance is wasteful spending. However, I wouldn’t disagree that we are in a huge deficit.”
Andrew Alemao, a UI senior said.

Also check out this quote McKeag reported on from another protester:

Nancy Bothius, a doctor of pharmacy and clinical assistant professor came to protest critical issues she has witnessed in the medical field. Nancy’s sign stated, “I support health care reform but NOT this reform.”

However Lisa Brahm reports that it wasn’t all about protests as Obama found a friendly audience at the Filed House:

President Barack Obama applauded Iowans on their support of the health care reform just as much as the packed audience in the University of Iowa field house applauded him. People from the Iowa City area and students from the University of Iowa waited in a line around the corner from the field house eager to listen to the president speak.

His speech consisted mostly of the health care bill that he signed Tuesday afternoon, and while there were several protesters outside and even a brave young man yelling rebuttals at the president inside, many people in the audience were joining in on cheers before the president took the stage and frantically snapping pictures as he approached the podium.

Spectator and University of Iowa student, Paige Wallace described the scenery inside the field house as, “filled with Iowans eager to hear what the President had to say.” As the president walked onto the stage Wallace snapped pictures as she stood on her tip-toes in order to get a better view.

“His delivery was even better in person than when watching him on TV,” Paige said, “He is such a likable person. I didn’t feel like I was listening to the President speak. He seemed just like an average Midwesterner just like us.”

And finally, a summary of reactions before and after the speech from Kelly Oelmann’s report :

Several hundred people from all over the state and country lined up outside the Field House at the University of Iowa this morning in hopes of seeing the President Barrack Obama before or after his speech. While some picketed on one side of the street and others watched from the other side on this chilly windy day, they all wanted to get their voice heard.

A concerned business owner, Robin Staak of Iowa City says, “it is unconstitutional…it’s against the law….your telling people that they HAVE to buy something.” She believes that this bill will absolutely cripple our country.

Logan Garmoe age 14 of Mt. Pleasant is neutral about the bill. He states that the bill is, “taking away choice. They’ll keep doing that. It will keep getting bigger and bigger until we don’t have any way in it.”

College students like Dustin Krutsinger, a second year medical student wanted to encourage President Obama to go back to the Constitution. Krutsinger states, “they continue to ignore the Constitution.”

Tina Thomann of Riverside believes that the health care bill is, “a step in the right direction.” Vernon Rollins of North Liberty agrees and says that it is great that it passed. Vernon was one of the many lucky to receive a ticket to enter the building.

SIKANKU: Is Sarah Palin's runner's shorts photo sexist?

Love her or hate her, the truth is that Sarah Palin has come to stay in American politics. My view on her is that she’s a charming candidate who clearly energizes the right wing section of the electorate. Yet when it comes to substance, she still has a lot to prove.

Despite all the talk about “sexism” in the media, Palin recently posed for a picture in runner's shorts which is now on Newsweek’s cover. Right now, I’m just confused as to why anyone will pose for a picture, approve of it and then turn round to cry “sexism”. I also don’t know how to feel about this because I cannot hide the fact that in my opinion Sarah Palin is a very attractive lady.

This is worrying because anytime I see her I’m not sure whether to concentrate on her looks or her politics. Anyway, that’s the picture right up there folks, what do you think?

SIKANKU: CNN must act boldly: Martins, Smith are worthy replacements for Dobbs.

by Etse Sikanku

It’s pretty clear that CNN is going through some rough times. Now that Dobbs has left the network there is even less reason for conservatives of any kind to tune in.

If CNN is going to do well in this time slot they will have to recognize that just another hour of straight news will be downright boring. Yes, we all know that journalists are supposed to be transmitting information but journalism is also a privilege.The public service role of journalism will be incomplete if those in this position do not go beyond regurgitating “facts”.

Now I love John King because he’s my favorite kind of reporter (right up there with Ed Henry).However I doubt he’ll do anything to change the situation unless he alters his straight jacket reporter kind of presentation. Indeed if you consider CNN’s attempts at in-depth coverage, hard news and investigative reportage you’ve got to feel sad for their current position.

There’s got to be a reason why O’Reilly and Olbermann are doing better: partisanship and opinion journalism. CNN can tap into this model by appealing to the truly independent, non-partisan base. How? By finding someone who combines neutrality with the kind of forcefulness exhibited by Roland Martins, all mixed with a dose of Fareed Zakaria’s intellectual stimulation and Shepherd Smith’s on air presence. Is this so impossible? I know this sounds improbable, even mischievous and might NEVER happen but if it gets too hard they could take a chance on me, lol.

Anyway my point is this: there’s every indication that television viewers want more than straight news by the time it’s 7pm. Why not replace Lou with someone with a little more gravitas such as Martin or someone in the caliber of Zakaria. In fact CNN could be more daring by negotiating a toned Shepherd Smith from Fox since he’s one of the few personalities who’s loved by both the left and the right.

John King seems a safe choice plus everyone agrees he’s in love with that magic wall but he lacks star presence and will leave CNN playing defensively.

SIKANKU: Lou Dobbs quits: gain or loss?

Etse Sikanku

Yesterday was one of those rare days I got to scout TV channels in order to catch up with the television world. Little did I know that my short glimpse of Lou Dobbs will be the last I’d see of him on that station.

Lou's departure from CNN is a great disappointment because the network has lost one of its most independent thinkers. I know the man has been heavily criticized for his so called anti-immigration stance and his coverage of Obama’s citizenship issue. In addition it's a bit embarrassing to see him almost gagging CNN reporters to agree with his viewpoints anytime they report on his show.

His opinionated show may be at out of step with CNN’s notion of journalistic objectivity but at least he’s got an opinion even if you disagree with it. Don’t you ever get frustrated with people who you know are on TV simply because of their looks and nothing else? You’ve got to admit that Dobbs at least is not pretentious, synthesizes information and formulates an educated opinion which he brings to the public square. Isn’t that what the American ideology of democracy—which they’re seeking to export to the world—is based on? I cannot help but wonder how they expect the rest of us to buy it when they don’t seem to be sold on the idea themselves?

There is nothing wrong with reporting the news as it is but even in journalism school you learn that “news is a socially created product, not a reflection of an objective reality” (Reese, 1996, p.21). Since this is not a class paper (and I should probably be writing one now to save my grades), I don’t want to get into theorization. In fact, I don’t think we need theorists to tell us that news reports are often influenced by a variety of factors other than the search for “truth”.

If this is the case, then CNN’s cancellation is defeatist. Secondly, people are always going to tag them with an ideological label anyway. Moreover their recent slump in ratings shows that television viewers should not always be perceived as passive. Yes, there are times when it pays to be neutral or pursue a “middle along the road” approach. But there are other times when viewers want to be engaged. And that is where people like Lou Dobbs come in. After all hasn’t it been noted that “the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality"? (Dante)

Instead of "throwing the baby out with the bath water" CNN should have re-structured Lou's show to permit his editorializing without allowing him to leave.

SIKANKU: Why Obama’s Nobel is not such a bad thing

By: Etse Sikanku Published: October 11, 2009 9:14 PM CDT

It seems everyone except the Nobel Prize committee is upset that Obama won the Nobel Prize for Peace? Around the blogosphere, twittersphere, facebooksphere, and elsewhere in cyberspace, status updates/posts show folks are quite miffed that a man who many admit has altered the landscape of global politics is being given a pat on the back.

What is even surprising is that the normally reasonable New York Times and Time magazine have joined in drugging mud over what is supposed to be a noble achievement. Is it just me or are people just missing the larger picture?

Yes, I understand that he’s been in office for less than a year. The corollary for this argument is that, his nomination was done less than a month after his inauguration. Surely, only the supernatural could have achieved anything so “significant” so quickly. Yes there might not be anything tangible to point to but therein lies the point.

The value of Obama’s recognition lies in the intangibiles. To be specific, the palpable dawn of a much nuanced, less hawkish administration that believes not in domination but collaboration.

Indeed if the overriding goal of the Peace prize is the “promotion of peace” and “fraternity among nations” it’s hard to imagine that anyone would be nonplussed about this award. After all, most people anywhere will tell you that one of their greatest desires in life is a peaceful world.

To the extent that the stakes for nuclear proliferation are at its highest in contemporary times; that America is engaging rather than pontificating, Obama deserves the award because only heaven knows what even one more day of neo-conservatism could have brought the world to. That is why I find the cynicism from people like Gibbs (TIME) and surprisingly CNN’s Ed Henry very worrisome. (Most especially Henry because he’s my hero and I thought reporters were not supposed to interpret the news but that will be a matter for another day).

For those Americans who’re skeptical about anything “non-American” (clue: think John Bolton) including—gasp— the United Nations or the Nobel Peace Prize for that matter, I’d like to say that there’s nothing embarrassing or ridiculous about your president promoting global “efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". And for those who quip that this is an award for “aspiration rather than achievement” I’d like to say that sometimes preemption rather than reflection is the way to go.

Conservatives of all people should know this: after all it was preemption that took them to Iraq – “to preemptively neutralize the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of a rogue leader” (referring to Saddam Hussein) were Donald Rumsfeld’s words for justifying the invasion.

To be honest, I’m not a starry-eyed follower of Barack Obama but what the Nobel committee has done is to offer us the rare benefit of hindsight by encouraging global peace because as they taught us in elementary school, “a stitch in time saves nine”.

SIKANKU: Why Obama may be wrong on Ghana

By : Etse Sikanku

Africans especially Ghanaians made much ado-and rightly so- about Obama’s first visit to the continent of his father. And while there was no question about the depth of symbolism associated with his trip, intense debate prevailed-and still does-over why he chose Ghana.

Despite the bright spots in the country’s contemporary politics-and the huge potential it exudes, there is one fundamental point missing from the whole story.

Why isn’t anyone talking about the fact that from the realistic viewpoint, Ghana’s democracy still remains doubtful?

It has been said that “facts are sacred”: so let’s start from there since unlike opinions there can only be one set of them. Ghana’s place in history is unquestioned: first Sub-Saharan country to gain independence, five successful democratic elections since 1992, high voter turnout at elections and a relatively peaceful political atmosphere.

For the most practical purposes Ghana was the political beau idéal.

But while it is okay to encourage a seemingly progressive nation, any honest observer of our politics knows this isn’t quite the entire picture. Let’s get things straight. The irony of Obama’s trip is that while upholding the country as a model of democracy he failed to acknowledge the unmistakable paradox. Ghana may have organized five back to back elections since 1992 but its democracy remains shaky.

The official Washington explanation is that they’re “lifting up successful models” such as Ghana as a ‘reward’ for their democratic credentials. The media reported that Obama hopes his visit will spur others to “emulate the West African country’s democratic record.”

Ghana. Model of democracy? Really?

Is the US so desperate to prove to the world that democracy works or are they just naïve? Here is a country which cannot even fulfill the most basic of the democratic requirements: credible elections. Secondly, events from not just the last election in Ghana-but the ones preceding it-where a number of lives were lost from Accra to Bawku show that the democratic experiment is far from emulation. Party politics in Ghana is still largely defined by ethnicity, religion, money laundering and the cult of personality. Not issues and ideas. The “North” and Volta will continue to vote for anyone other than the NPP and Ashanti will always go NPP. What Tocqueville said of French society in the 19th century holds true today for Ghanaian politics- “shared hatreds are almost always the basis of friendships.”

It is only in Africa that sloppy elections are acceptable and everything is seen in relative terms; “Relatively peaceful” “relatively developed” “relatively stable” “relatively prosperous”. On what parameters is this relativism defined? I think most of us in Ghana like to hide our shortcomings by taking the easy way: make ourselves look good by pointing to worse neighbors.

Unfortunately, a nation that continues to lower standards is only preparing excuses for inevitable failure.

Many Ghanaians will be hard pressed for answers (since we’re supposed to be a model) if you ask them to identify a couple of reasons why we’re so “successful” and other African countries are not. If history indeed repeats itself, then in fact, Ghana’s contagious influence should be viewed with skepticism--considering how our predilection for coups right after independence caught on with the rest of the continent.

Almost everyone is writing about how inspirational Obama’s visit to Africa has been and I don’t want to be the party pooper. However the crux of my argument is that ignoring the underlying problems that continue to make us poor and “relatively stable” is hardly helpful. Worse still, we may one day find ourselves where Kenya did in January 2008. Don’t forget that like Ivory Coast, theirs was a country which had not experienced a single coup before the electoral violence marred what was otherwise a bastion of “relative stability”.

Better to admit and confront our shortcomings head on than risk asking ourselves later on: what happened?