I’ve held off jumping into the iPad fray for the most part, waiting until I can actually buy the 3G version outright before making my own conclusions. But there was always one thing I knew the iPad could truly revolutionize- and it’s already in development.

According to Tech President via TechRepublican-

Project Vote, which describes itself as a nonpartisan organization that promotes higher voter registration rates in low-income and minority communities, announced last week that they are working on a mobile-device-friendly voter registration application, according to a press release, that will work on anything from the BlackBerry to the magical iPad.

But a magic wand it ain’t: In the release, Project Vote admits that there are only four states (Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington) that allow electronic voter registration. …

Using a mobile voter registration application, a volunteer canvassing a neighborhood […] is supposed to be able to collect the information of a prospective voter right there on his iPad, then electronically transmit that information along to that state’s board of elections, or secretary of state, or whichever group is responsible for administering elections and voter registration.

Pretty impressive, no? This could truly revolutionize the way we think of political volunteerism. This has already been used in small part in several races recently- from the McDonnell to the Scott Brown race- I even was able to use a blackberry in a local special election.

However, while the Project Vote organization calls itself “a nonpartisan organization”, when you do more digging you find this little gem-

Working with our field partner, the community organization ACORN, Project Vote in 2007-2008 conducted the largest and most comprehensive voter registration drive in the history of our two organizations, a 21-state community-based operation that succeeded in collecting over 1.3 million voter registration applications.

That’s right- the same Acorn that was recently involved in the prostitution scandals, and more importantly, embroiled in the voter fraud scandals over the last few elections. Project Vote claimed responsibility for the surge in support for Obama campaign in the last election, and was also critical in the 1992 election, bringing in more than 150,000 new African American voters. While Politifact says that Project Vote is was directly an arm of ACORN in 1992, their relationship since then has been rather murky, with Project Vote defending accusations against ACORN as “absolutely false”- even as the FBI launched a probe into the allegations of fraud.

The simple truth is that it’s just a matter of time before we have an entirely paperless campaign experience. Volunteers might be able to download an application onto their own devices and head out to targeted areas near them via their GPS-enabled Google Maps service. From there, they can go door-to-door, armed with an entire visual interactive experience for constituents. Or perhaps they’ll collect names and signatures for ballot initiatives or primary ballots, showing a compelling video that leads directly into a signup form. All of this will come directly from a single paperless device that broadcasts the signature to the database instantaneously.

But what happens when this tool is first used by the same people who infamously enrolled the Dallas Cowboys to vote in Nevada? The potential for abuse is tremendous. This will be something Republicans need to watch carefully, as oversight on matters like this will be hard to scale. As a developer of iPhone applications, the potential excites me- I would love to have a client that would recognize the potential of such a service, but I am also concerned about the potential impact on elections when people attempt to use this for more nefarious purposes. We need to move political volunteerism into the future, but not at the cost of election fraud and manipulation.

The Political Climate blog linked to a post here by Abby Alger from March of last year. However, it seems that the comments following that post are what drew the ire of the other blog. Since I commented on the post referenced, and the discussion seems to have been the focus of the decision to link here, I feel that the need to respond is pertinent.

On the merits of the broader Political Climate post, the author and I incidentally seem to agree; that conservative charges of bias in academia are overstated and unhelpful. College students generally are not necessarily that politically attuned. We agree further that students inclined towards political science are more likely to be civically attuned.

So long as institutions of higher learning instill in their students critical thinking skills, allegations of bias in the classroom are ridiculous. The criticism offered to the spinning of a poll conducted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute is quite valid; there should be no surprise that young adults are more socially liberal than many of their older counterparts. This topic has been touched on in previous NextGenGOP posts and discussions by various authors.    

However, just as it is bogus to cite a poll of college students as proof of liberal biases in the classroom, the absurd parallel drawn on the Political Climate between ethnocultural minorities and the disability community is equally bogus. Even as the author allegedly favors ethnocultural diversity, there is no way the quoted passage below is valid to this discussion as it compares apples to oranges.

We celebrate racial diversity; one does not celebrate a slow child merely for being different.  We offer him extra resources to help him overcome his challenges.   That process of achieving against the odds is laudable, but wallowing in inferiority is not something to be applauded.  Especially when there are ways to train your mind. 

Political colorblindness has nothing to do bona fide needs-based support, and everything to with upholding the best ideals of racial equality. If someone has a real need for unique help, then that assistance should be available to them. However, a wealthy black student lacking developmental disabilities ought to have neither more nor fewer political rights than his equally wealthy white counterpart also lacking developmental disabilities. Fortunately for all concerned, members of Congress from both parties are tackling issues faced by individuals with disabilities.

Ethnic and cultural diversity are valuable and desirable both inside and beyond academia. Nonetheless, such forms of diversity are not all of those important to the ability to think critically. Furthermore, such forms of diversity are judged too narrowly if differing perspectives are truly the aims sought by liberals in their promotion of politics based on race.  The 2000 United States Census found that German-Americans (15.2%) and Irish-Americans (10.8%) both outnumbered African-Americans (8.8%), the largest racial minority group in the country. All three of these groups, albeit to vastly different extents, have faced prejudices earlier in American history. In Census 2010, Hispanic Americans are expected to outnumber African-Americans. Thus, to value one particular cultural group over another of demographic significance in the country is silly without specific context. Yet, to many on the left it seems as if color matters more than other defining factors.

Religious background can add another layer of diversity insofar as fostering greater understanding is concerned. But, religious background or lack thereof is rather more crucial to what is arguably the core aspect of critical thinking; competition among ideas. Spirituality can be an absurd topic to debate as there is nothing to be proven in such discussions. Though rather not absurd, the discussion of political ideas involves competing visions and philosophies, many of which also cannot be proven despite a (theoretical) basis in fact for such notions.

Many on the right may miss the point when it comes to the value of post-secondary education, but so those on the left when they prefer differences in ancestry to contrasts in ideas. While it would not be accurate to draw ideological parallels in these terms, the Soviet Union championed ethnic and cultural diversity just as long as the various groups shared a common ideology. While this does not mean that liberals are communists (sorry Glenn Beck) it does mean that race and critical thinking are generally unimportant concepts with respect to one another.

Republicans, however, must do a better job of reaching out to various communities in the country where its following is presently lacking. To be clear, the goal of such outreach is to grow the party, add to it more perspectives, and enhance its base of support. Despite what some may believe, people of a particular color or culture do not all think alike, as the Conservative Political Action Conference this year demonstrated.

The effective use of technology provided a boost to the Brown campaign absent in far too many Republican operations to date. Scott Brown wisely talked about bread-and-butter issues throughout his campaign, and offered to the electorate a pragmatic contrast to Martha Coakley. Like Obama, Scott Brown had been a state legislator. Whereas President Obama grew strength from the experiences of his youth and background, Senator Brown likely benefited from his professional life, as a lawyer married to a television reporter, and as a member of the Massachusetts National Guard.

The charismatic and articulate forty-first member of the present Republican caucus in the United States Senate has thus galvanized his party in ways others had not. This was true even as the prospects for electoral success by Republicans was growing nationally. In this sense too, Brown is for the right what Obama is to the left; indeed, despite the excitement surrounding his win, 2008 was a Democratic year.

Much of the excitement generated by President Obama during his first year in office has faded away as the realities of governance have set in. Now, there is a growing despondence being felt in the Democratic Party over the actions and inactions of the Obama administration. The State of the Union speech this year was well-tuned enough for the president to possibly regain some traction, but deep fissures of his own creation remain.

President Obama spent the first year of his administration overexposed. The White House took a risk by putting the president front and center on one big policy reform initiative after another. Now, President Obama has been left with little to show for all the attention paid. As likable as the president is, and as popular as he remains in much of the country, he could not deliver to Martha Coakley the seat once held by Ted Kennedy.

In Scott Brown, Republicans certainly have a rising leader on the national stage. However, he should be weary of repeating the mistakes made by President Obama. Being the person out in front on a particular issue set comes with risks. Due to his domestic policy prominence in his first year, President Obama has left himself room to take some of the blame for the prolonged recession, the health care debacle, and the recent unpopularity of Democrats nationally.

Scott Brown should be one of many leading voices in the Republican resurgence. However, he is a single person. A movement to succeed always needs more than one prominent figure. Some who voted in 2008 for the first time may now be learning this lesson, but it is relevant to Republican strategists too.

Now, another bi-partisan bill, proposed by Senators John McCain and Maria Cantwell, is attempting to make amends, and reinstate the provisions from Glass-Steagall that blocked the creation of these all-in-one banks. Unlike in 1999, the leadership of both parties seems to be against this bi-partisan bill, presumably because it actually is a good piece of legislation. The very same people on the Banking Committee back then (I’m talking to you, Senator Frank) will do their best to make sure Cantwell-McCain does see the light of day now. Not surprisingly, the major banks are going through great lengths to convince those who wield power that the combination of commercial and investment banking somehow makes sense and to break the two up would somehow hurt the economy. This argument has more holes than a sponge.

This bill presents an excellent opportunity for Republicans. Fair or not, we got blamed for the financial collapse that resulted from the Glass–Steagall repeal. The bill was signed into law by a Democratic President but the consequences came at the end of an already unpopular Republican Administration. Even though this new bill has the support of progressives and moderates alike in the Democratic Party, their leadership will never go for it. Conservatives are also expressing the populist support for this bill.

Democratic campaign officials, meanwhile, have already shown us their strategy for the 2010 elections: tie Republicans to Wall Street. If we come out in support of this bill as a party, two things will happen. First, the argument that Republicans are looking out for the super-rich and not the common man will be null and void. Just as important, Democrats will be forced to go along and support Cantwell-McCain for fear of looking pro-mega banks themselves.

The bill is a win-win for whichever party gets to take the credit for it. As long as the bank lobby does not effectively kill it, it will eventually gain enough support on both sides to pass. It would thus be a very wise move on the part of our Republican Congressional leaders to champion the cause.

Nancy Pelosi has now been the Speaker of the House since January of 2007. Getting that far is a noteworthy achievement, but in her present capacity, promises of a more ethical and transparent Congress have diminished. When not narrowly winning policy votes in her chamber for President Obama’s agenda, Speaker Pelosi has continued her trend of making unsupported political pronouncements and going after her critics. Pelosi’s controversy with the CIA alone should bar her from being “Person of the Year”.

Ben Bernanke similarly makes little sense for the title in question. Like it or not, the recession occurred on his watch, and even with the support of the White House, his reconfirmation to the chairmanship of the Federal Reserve for another term is uncertain. His is a big job, but he knew that when he took it. However, in his defense, the job description for his position has grown since he first assumed the leadership of the Fed. There is no practical reason for him to be Man of the Year.

Among the seven on the “short list”, General McChrystal is perhaps the most deserving. The problem is that I’m not sure that he has done the most to influence the events of the past year. If all goes well in Afghanistan over the coming months, then perhaps next year would be more appropriate. Generals are important to any military force, but in a civil society, they are limited in their actions. In the case of the United States particularly, this means that far fewer people would know the name Stanley McChrystal if President Obama had decided that a swift withdrawal was the right approach to addressing Afghanistan.  

Usain Bolt would be noteworthy due to his skills as an athlete. However, as with McChrystal, I’m not sure that he has been the deciding influence on the events of this year. Bolt is a nice change as he would be a selection from outside the United States. Such a justification would presumably explain the potential choice too of the Chinese worker for the TIME magazine honor this year. Steve Jobs, whose achievements are noteworthy, span several years; it is unclear to me why 2009 of all years should be his.

From start to finish, 2009 witnessed the burgeoning of a movement on the American right seeking redress to the excessive and irresponsible spending practices of the federal government. Of course, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have earned the ire of this nascent movement, but neither can be credited with its emergence. That distinction instead belongs to Congressman and medical professional Ron Paul.

Those who know me know that I’ve never been a big fan of the U.S. Representative presently serving Galveston and the surrounding portion of Texas due in large part to his conduct in the 2008 presidential campaign. However, it is precisely that campaign which, arguably, has done the most to influence the domestic politics of 2009 in the United States. Much of the legitimate angst and frustration among the American populace has been manifest in rallies and demonstrations across the country. The whole Tea Party movement has its roots in the 2008 Paul campaign and the excitement it generated on the libertarian right.

If the tax protests and townhall meetings were not enough to demonstrate this point, then perhaps Dr. Paul’s success on the policy front will. A bill he championed to audit the Federal Reserve appears likely to make its way into law as part of broader Democratic legislation aimed at addressing reform in the financial markets. Even in 2008, this effort on the part of Dr. Paul seemed silly to most observers. Yet, in 2009, his effort 20 years in the making will be coming to fruition in no part due to the activism he has inspired.

Despite a poor electoral performance nationwide and a primary challenge for his congressional seat, the Paul presidential campaign had its successes. The fundraising prowess of the Paul operation has left its mark on the American political lexicon. Who, before 2007, had heard of the term “moneybomb“, for example?

Both the mainstream media and the blogosphere latched on to Ron Paul last year. MSNBC broadcaster Christ Matthews compared the Texas member of Congress to former Arizona senator Barry Goldwater. There are numerous reasons by the comparison is an invalid one. However, as was the case with Goldwater, the success of his campaign was not felt right away. George Will has in the past alluded to the victory of President Reagan being in no small part due to the movement Goldwater inspired and helped to shape.

Already, the Paul campaign has factored into the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Kentucky, where his son, Randall Paul, is a candidate. Arguably the efforts of the older Dr. Paul and his Campaign for Liberty inspired the conservative revolt in New York 23 earlier this year that derailed the Scozzafava congressional campaign. Dr. Paul will never be, and should never be, President of the United States, but it’s hard to doubt that he has left his mark on 2009. Thus, there is no better choice for Man of the Year this year than the physician from Texas.

However, the government of the City of Pittsburgh, like those of many other cities across the country, has a $16.2 million hole in its 2010 operating budget.  Almost immediately after his reelection in November, Democratic Mayor Luke Ravenstahl (disclosure: I worked for Ravenstahl’s opponent) announced his previously undisclosed plan to make up for the missing revenue by imposing a tax on college students within the City of Pittsburgh.  The proposed tax will amount to 1% of the student’s yearly tuition, which would translate into approximately $130 for in-state students at the University of Pittsburgh, $230 for out-of-state students at the University of Pittsburgh, and as much as $400 for Carnegie Mellon students.

Of course, the presidents of each of the colleges in Pittsburgh denounced the tax, and as you would expect, so have many students who would be taxed.  The Philadelphia Inquirer interviewed some of these students:

Jacob Brown, a University of Pittsburgh student, said he had earned $3,500 this year washing cars.

“I barely scrape by,” he said, adding that his out-of-state tuition is paid by scholarships and loans. The $233 he would have to pay if the tax were enacted “would be the better part of a month of rent,” he said, or a big slice out of his bottom-of-the-barrel food bill.

Ashley Kunkle, a Carlow student, said the tax would cost her $217. That’s close to one month’s payment on the $3,000 a year she pays the school after financial aid. The tax would apply to the total tuition bill regardless of whether it was paid for with scholarships.

“I make approximately $3,500 working two jobs,” she said. That “$217 means that I could abandon the city of Pittsburgh to study at other fine institutions where there is no tuition tax.”

Charles Shull, president of Pitt’s student government board, said he made “negative-$12,000 a year” because he takes out student loans that far exceed what he earns. “I pay rent. I pay property taxes. I pay wage taxes,” he said.

The final vote is set to take place tomorrow (Wednesday, December 2), and five of Pittsburgh’s nine members of city council have come out in favor of the tax. Thus, it seems likely that the tax will pass, despite promises from the universities to sue to invalidate it.

Let this entire debacle serve as a reminder to young voters across the country:  this is what you get when you don’t exercise your civic duty to vote. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette highlights this:

The voting districts in student-heavy central Oakland and North Oakland were busy in November 2008, logging participation rates of 48 percent to 70 percent. This year, though, with a mayor’s race at the top of the ballot, one of those same districts saw just 2.3 percent of registered voters come to the polls, while others were in the teens.

Worse, even after the announcement of the tax, student advocacy was almost non-existent, with only 137 students using outreach tools on a website designed to fight the tax:

After the mayor’s 2010 budget address featured the tax, student government leaders from nearly all of the city’s schools gathered at Pitt. CMU’s student government put up a Web site, www.stoptuitiontax.org. As of Wednesday, 2,543 different computer users had visited the site, 108 of those wrote e-mails to City Council, and 29 used it to report that they had called a council member.

Years upon years of a lack of participation by young voters has cemented into many politicians’ minds that they can get away with patently absurd ideas like Ravenstahl’s tuition tax.  The only way to change this is for young people to actually show up and vote.  If that doesn’t happen, then these young voters have no right to be appalled when they see their own economically struggling city impose its very own tuition tax.

First, while Rachel is right to congratulate McDonnell for his campaign’s youth outreach, I hardly think it has anything to do with young voters having gone to the GOP…

This doesn’t mean young voters have gone GOP, it means that when you put forth the effort to get young voters, you speak to their issues, and you get out the vote you get a good result.

I wish I felt comfortable celebrating the fact that the 2009 elections meant young voters were turning toward the GOP, but unfortunately I just don’t buy it.  Hoff suggests that “18-29 year olds in Virginia voted for Bob McDonnell over the Democrat 54% to 44%” could indicate a new trend, but as Burris notes, in Virginia there was not a “strong Democrat at the top of the ticket but…[there was] a strong Republican.”  The unfortunate fact is that one Republican candidate’s successful effort in winning the youth vote does not indicate any sort of trend for future elections (for a counterargument, just look to New Jersey, where 57% of young voters voted for Corzine).

And while Hoff notes that “turnout among 18-29 year olds was 19% in New Jersey and only 17% in Virginia,” an “alarmingly low” turnout, it would be a huge mistake for the GOP to write off the youth vote based upon these numbers.  As I have written previously, what’s at stake here is that the Republican Party stands to lose a generation of voters to the Democratic Party, potentially for life.  Although Chairman Steele has taken some major efforts to reform the Republican National Committee, such as a huge push to modernize the RNC’s new media efforts, there still has not been a substantial push by Steele’s RNC to win over young voters.

In the end, both Burris and Hoff agree that making a real, authentic effort to earn the votes of young voters will result in young voter turnout.  The Republican Party still has time left to turn the tide and prevent many of today’s young voters from becoming lifelong Democrats; however, the clock is ticking and time is running out.  Major congratulations are due to the McDonnell campaign and their young voter outreach, but there is no time to pat ourselves on the back.  Both the RNC and Republican candidates must follow Bob McDonnell’s lead and find unique new ways to reach out to and ultimately win over young voters.

Republican Bob McDonnell’s mud has been substantive. He has labeled his Democratic adversary, Creigh Deeds, a “tax and spend liberal” because Deeds – get this – has actually proposed to raise taxes during an economic meltdown. Deeds’ would argue McDonnell is obsessed with this fact, but at least McDonnell is arguing about something in the his opponent’s platform. Besides that, the McDonnell campaign has been primarily about Bob McDonnell and what he wants to do for Virginia.

Deeds’ mud has been significantly less substantive and significantly messier. He has tried to cast McDonnell as some sort of arch-conservative sexist, basing most of his claims – and practically his entire campaign – on a graduate thesis McDonnell wrote twenty years ago. Can you imagine being judged in 2029 for a paper you are working on now? I make arguments in papers I do not personally agree with all the time.

This is not to say there are worrisome aspects of that thesis that McDonnell might have agreed with at one time, but if the best argument you can come up for as to why you should be elected is something your opponent wrote twenty years ago, then you have a problem.

The Deeds Campaign has been based on McDonnell’s graduate thesis to everyone’s detriment. This is not just the sentiment of party-line Republicans. Prominent Democrats have begged Deeds to portray a more positive message for over a month.

The election campaign can be summed up in three stages. First, the candidates debated on the issues and Deeds trailed in the polls badly. Next, Deeds refocused his campaign to be an onslaught of personal attacks on McDonnell’s views and he closed the gap significantly but still did not manage to out-poll McDonnell. Finally, the public has wizened up to the Deeds strategy and McDonnell has regained a comfortable lead. The lead is so comfortable in fact, that Republicans our hoping Deeds brings down the rest of the Virginian Democratic ticket.

This wasn’t supposed to be that way. Virginia was supposed to have turned blue the past few elections cycles. McDonnell is the old-school conservative type that is supposed to be a fossil in the Obama Era, not a front-runner. Deeds, the more moderate and less tarnished candidate of the Democratic Primary, was supposed to run a unifying campaign. Negativity threw unity out the window, however.

The Deeds message hasn’t just been negative, it’s been a farce. McDonnell’s oldest daughter served as an Army officer and his other daughters earned master’s degrees. Does this sound like someone who wants to keep women as homemakers?

The Deeds Campaign had the audacity to run an ad claiming McDonnell was against funding for mammograms. This rightfully infuriated cancer survivors who support McDonnell. As Stephanie Hamlett said, “It offends me as a woman, it offends me as a breast cancer survivor, and it offends me as a Virginian. I know Creigh badly wants to be governor, but does he really want to try to win like this?”

All signs point to Deeds losing, however. Hopefully, this will serve as a warning to politicians that if you try to win at any cost, you are still just as likely to lose.

Thanks to recent news reports, there is some idea of what the Obama strategy for Afghanistan may entail. President Obama intens to protect the major population centers of Afghanistan with a strengthened U.S. military presence in the country. According to the New York Times, the administration is now firmly leaning towards increasing the number of American personnel in the country, and is now primarily debating by how much and in what sort of capacity.

If the President of the United States is serious about escalating the American presence in Afghanistan, then protecting the cities will not be enough. Indeed, that which makes a state viable depends not on its political system, but rather its economy. Neoconservatives often argue that it is through the implementation of democracy that peace and stability emerge. However, history suggests that economic viability is more important. The so-called “Asian Tigers” were economic successes not due to democracy, but to a general embrace of capitalism. Indeed, Taiwan (as the Republic of China) and the Republic of Korea have not long been governed democratically, but have from the 1960′s espoused values largely consistent with free market principles.

On this basis, any U.S. strategy in Afghanistan not involving a precipitous withdrawal must focus on providing security for commerce in that country. Thus, President Obama ought to embrace an Afghanistan strategy which not only seeks to protect the population centers of the country, but also its main areas of productivitiy and avenues of trade. A strategy which does not defend the major roads of Afghanistan will almost certainly render that country a failed state. Furthermore, if the trade in legitimate agricultural pursuits is controlled by the Taliban or some other force in the country, then the government in Kabul will have a much harder time establishing its legitimacy with the Afghan populace.

Though the idea of democracy in Afghanistan may now be a faint dream, there are still lessons for that country regarding attempts at democratization elsewhere in the Islamic world. Terrorist and other subversive organizations, if permitted to function as parallel governments through control or provision of education, medical services, and the marketplace, can easily garner and maintain popular support, regardless of who holds the cities. One needs to look no further than the electoral success of Hamas for an indication of this. Hamas, like the Taliban, are a threat to peace and the best values of civilization, but can also amass widespread support within their areas of relevance.

In this regard, the Vietnam War offers valuable lessons as well. The Vietcong provided an effective, parallel, pro-Hanoi governing structure in the Republic of Vietnam well into the 1960′s. This made U.S. efforts to prop up the Saigon-based legitimate government difficult. Not helping matters was the failure to establish an economy of significance in the country. Economic success, or the potential for it, serves as a means of winning over popular support, be it in Afghanistan, or elsewhere. Indeed, reforms being made in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China are bringing these authoritarian regimes into the world economy, and fostering gradual change to their antiquated political systems.

The Vietnam War demonstrated the importance of control over avenues of trade and commerce. Said war also elucidated the value of building popular support for a government, and the need for that government to exercise control over its claimed territory. Most importantly, however, the Vietnam War revealed the damage petty politicking can do to a nation, a culture, and a cause.

Lyndon Johnson prosecuted the Vietnam War in a manner designed to preserve his popularity, but in the end only served to fuel discontent and defeat. Wars should be waged to be won. This much every president owes the military everytime he deploys them. Sometimes, this includes taking unpopular steps made necessary by a recalcitrant foe.

Sadly, there is little indication that President Obama cares about anything relating to his office other than his own popularity and partisan agenda. Such sentiments have the potential to hinder U.S. military efforts abroad. How the President of the United States handles Afghanistan could well show a commitment yet unseen from this White House to be above the partisan divide, and put the interests of the country first and foremost.

It also marked the vindication of a certain Ronald Reagan, who was often ridiculed for his public demands to then Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down that horrific physical and symbolic wall that long separated families, and still separates mine. November 9th means so much to me that I have piece of that wall, marking the date the world changed, on my desk.

Apparently, it does not mean nearly as much to President Obama, our Nobel Peace Prize-winning POTUS. He gladly stops by the city of Berlin, Germany to campaign, but not to honor the twentieth anniversary of one of the most singularly defining global events of our lifetime. We should not be terribly surprised.

That is the piercing and well-evidenced argument WSJ Foreign Correspondent Bret Stephens made this past week. Stephens took Obama to task, point by point, on a utterly disheartening record on human rights issues.

One would assume President Obama would be tea buddies with the Dalai Lama. Wrong, the POTUS has refused to meet with the dignified defender of Tibet.

One would assume President Obama would at least attempt to follow his campaign rhetoric in regards to the genocidal government of Sudan of applying pressure. Wrong, Darfurian Rights activists must be asking themselves, “what pressure?”.

One would assume the social-network loving Obama staff would be filled with glee over what happened in Iran this summer. If they were, they sure did an excellent job of hiding it.

One would assume that someone who spoke so forcefully of applying the will of the American people would not forget the will of the Russian and Chinese citizens who are being murdered and tortured at the hands of government thugs. Wrong, the Obama Administration would not want silly things like human dignity get in the way of China bankrolling the farce of an economic recovery and does not think what Russia does with its people and its neighbors is any of our business.

Stephens puts it best when he says,

“It also takes a remarkable degree of cynicism—or perhaps cowardice—to treat human rights as something that “interferes” with America’s purposes in the world, rather than as the very thing that ought to define them.”

For all his rhetoric, Obama continues to act like a Nixonian realist instead of a democratic liberalist.

Stephens and I are not the only ones who have caught on to this. Mona Charen lambastes Obama’s Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, for her comments that human rights issues, “can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis.” “This is moral uplift?” Charen asks her audience. A world of oppressed masses awaits the answer in muzzled silence.

Maybe it’s a good thing President Obama will not tarnish Berlin with a hypocritical visit. Maybe he realizes he doesn’t belong there. Maybe it’s time our party begins to re-earn a place on that consecrated ground.