Drop the "I" Word

If the 2012 presidential election taught us anything, it's that anachronistic thinking can be a colossal political liability.

Republicans learned this lesson the hard way when their strategy to dilute the Democratic voting bloc backfired: resulting in Barack Obama's sweeping victory and a Senate majority for Democrats.

Given the trifecta of Todd Akin's theory on women's natural defenses against "legitimate rape" (which killed the senate candidate’s chances of upending Claire McCaskill's incumbency in Missouri), evolving attitudes on what it means to protect the civil rights of all Americans in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington (where voters have legalized same-sex marriage) and Mitt Romney's calls for "self-deportation" during the GOP primary (which provoked the wrath of immigration activists) I imagine it'll be a long time before wedge issues on abortion, gay rights and/or immigration are deployed in an effort to divide and conquer like-minded Americans of any political stripe.

In hindsight, it can be argued that the tens-of-millions of women, young voters and people of color who were standing in Romney’s blind spot during the entire campaign season are what ultimately cost him the election. And then there was the juggernaut of Latino voters who were also, apparently, beyond the former governor's scope of vision. Estimated at 11.8 million strong: the contingency has been credited with playing a pivotal role in the presidential election for the first time in history. Battleground states like Colorado, Ohio, Nevada and Virginia were one such example, where Latinos helped deliver the critical electoral votes Obama needed to defeat Romney.

Past being prologue, it stands to reason that as the face of America changes it is in everyone’s best interest to recognize the shifts and adapt to any new paradigms accordingly. Choosing to stay in the dark surrounding this reality not only makes for bad neighbors and bad business, but as Romney supporters could attest by November 7th, bad political outcomes. 

Election Night found me channel surfing between ABC, CNBC, FOX and CNN. But well before polling places closed and all the votes were tallied, news pundits were predicting that Republican Party losses could be attributed to their gross disregard of current trends. I could not have agreed more. Which is why I found it so ironic when John King and Wolf Blitzer blithely referenced a CNN poll on “illegal immigrants” midway through their broadcast-- leaving me to wonder how much longer it would take for news leaders to get the message that characterizing human beings as “illegal” is not only pejorative and offensive, but fast becoming an anachronism.

"You who are so-called illegal aliens must know that no human being is illegal. That is a contradiction in terms. Human beings can be beautiful, or more beautiful, they can be fat or skinny, they can be right or wrong, but illegal? How can a human being be illegal?"

-Elie Wiesel

When Eli Wiesel-- a Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor whose reputation as a champion for human rights is unimpeachable-- issues a call for us to rethink language which dehumanizes entire swaths of humaity, we might want to take heed. And when the Supreme Court makes a conscious effort to banish the terms “illegal immigrants” and “illegal aliens” from a ruling on immigration (as they did last July in the landmark Arizona case), journalists might want to follow suit. Or, we could all consider the logic of one reporter who has been at the vanguard of this movement for reasons that are both personal and professional.

Last year the New York Times Magazine published an essay titled “My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant” by Jose Antonio Vargas. A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist: Vargas was born in the Philippines, raised in the United States from the age of 12 and had no idea he was in the country illegally until he applied for his driver’s license as a 16-year-old. 

Though his intent was to promote dialogue about the DREAM Act and what he regards as a broken immigration policy, Vargas’s appeal to news organizations to stop using the term “illegal” to describe immigrants will likely be his greatest legacy.

http://www.onthemedia.org/people/jose-vargas/ 

In his article, Vargas points out that because being in the country without proper documents is a civil offense as opposed to a criminal one, “it is legally inaccurate to describe an immigrant as illegal.” He also makes the case that “when journalists, who are supposed to seek neutrality and fairness use the terms, [illegal immigrants or illegal aliens] they are politicizing an already political issue.” A point buttressed by Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio-- whose re-election in Maricopa County demonstrates the power of such discourse to shape public opinion on immigration policy-- regardless of the speaker’s intent.

To be clear, I respect the need for strict border controls. I believe all visitors to the United States should be required to follow any laws pertaining to residency and a path to citizenship before gaining either. I believe that citizenship is a privilege, not a right. And I often question the wisdom of undocumented immigrants marching on Washington, DC, Chicago and Los Angeles to demand equal protection under the law while the threat of deportation hangs over their heads for an infraction far greater than that of civil disobedience.

By the same token, it is difficult to overlook the hypocrisy of non-Native Americans laying down the law on who should and should not be granted a residency, green card, visa and/or US passport. 



From Christopher Columbus’s “discovery” of (an already occupied) America, to the Atlantic slave trade... from to the Trail of Tears, to the Annexation of Texas, it can be argued that all Americans lay very shaky claims to the citizenships we hold so dear. And given that very checkered past, I am more than a little reluctant to adopt a hard line approach regarding the next wave of immigrants yearning to breathe free and realize their own dreams of US citizenship.

As with most core beliefs, my viewpoints on immigration took shape at an early age. I can still vividly recall the day a letter addressed to Resident Alien was delivered to my childhood home in Mt. Vernon, NY. I was about six or seven-years-old at the time, and when my mother explained that the correspondence was neither a joke nor the result of a typo, all I could think was “There’s an alien living among us?”

Alas, the alien was my father. 

While I was aware that he was born and raised on the island of Jamaica-- as was my mother and every member of my extended family older than my siblings and me-- it had never occurred to me that a person’s place of birth might be held against them...

...until that day. 

Ultimately, my takeaway from two small words printed on a government form letter was that Daddy had been thrust upon the “them” pile of humanity... when even a kid could tel you it was far better to be an “us,” if you had any choice in the matter. Old enough to make the distinction, but far too young to process the mix of emotions the alien designation evoked in me-- including anger, hurt, shame and a dawning sense of having been marginalized-- the experience sensitized me and informed my sensibilities around the power of language to either hurt or heal others. 

Of course, it would be naive of me to expect politicians, television and print media outlets to alter their language for the sake of being kind and respectful to all human beings. (Although The Huffington Post, which stopped using the term “illegal immigrant” in 2008, gives me great hope!) 

Then again, given the ever-expanding purchasing power of Latinos, as well as their propensity to vote in relatively high numbers; it seems to me that self-interest might motivate anyone seeking Latino support going forward to pay attention to the writing on the wall. Lest they find themselves on a path to irrelevance... right behind a one-time, would-be president whose time has come and gone.

For all his protests to the contrary leading up to last night’s debate with Barack Obama-- Mitt Romney proved himself a worthy adversary. Each of Governor Romney’s remarks, points and counter-points sounded thoughtful, rational and, at times, conciliatory. His delivery was measured. His eye-contact: solid.

Even his body language exuded respect for President Obama.

In short, Romney turned in a masterful performance and wound up exiting the stage looking and sounding more presidential than the president of the United States.

That he managed such a coup in 90 minutes is astounding. But that he also did so in spite of knowing that thousands of hours of his own soundbites, actions and policy positions having been recorded and broadcast, worldwide, while campaigning over the last nine months is probably something to which I am unqualified to speak, because I am not a psychiatrist. But I’m pretty sure the layman’s term for a person who is adept at changing their spots on cue-- even if their audience just saw them looking and sounding like a zebra the day before they transformed into a leopard-- is sociopathy. 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

According to Wikipedia: the term psychopathy derives from the Ancient Greek “psyche”, -soul, mind and “pathos” -suffering, disease, condition. The personality disorder is characterized by “shallow emotions (in particular reduced fear), stress tolerance, lacking empathy, coldheartedness, lacking guilt, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity and antisocial behaviors such as parasitic lifestyle and criminality.” 

To be sure, most politicians would get high marks when measured on such a scale. Though it’s worth emphasizing that I have never regarded Mitt Romney as a parasite or a criminal-- at least, not based upon existing US tax codes, as he likes to remind us. But what most concerns me about him is his duplicity. 

As I watched Mittens unveil his shiny, happy new persona last night all I could think was “Where’s the man I’ve come to know and distrust?” 

 I found it impossible to reconcile the breezy, jocular candidate with the cold hearted teenager who once pinned the most defenseless and marginalized person in his peer group to the ground, before cutting off the terrified boy’s hair against the his will. 

Likewise, his numerous slights of hand in broad klieg lights had me wondering about the Republican nominee’s capacity for feeling guilt and/or shame.

When discussing the spending cuts he’d enact as president, for example, Romney bore zero resemblance to the political animal who came up with the individual mandate requirement for the uninsured. To the contrary, he actually threatened, “Obamacare is on my list. I apologize, Mr. President, I use that term with all respect.” 

As well he should, in light of the fact that “Obamacare” was Romney’s signature signature achievement as governor of Massachusetts.

No one trick pony: Mitt also flashed his superficially charming colleague-across-the-aisle side as he radiated pure warmth and goodwill toward his commander-in-chief for an hour-and-a-half straight, without once breaking character. My blood ran cold when Romney kept a straight face while stating: “I think something this big, this important has to be done in [sic] a bipartisan basis. And we have to have a president who can reach across the aisle and fashion important legislation with the input from both parties,” in reference to health care reform. Not only because everyone knows that Romney was the author of the policy he now dismisses as inadequate-- not to mention that his is the party which once promised, “The single most important thing we want is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” But because Romney knows that we know the truth about his political past-- and yet is still willing to say whatever is most politically expedient whenever it suits his needs.

Which leads me to believe one of two things: either Romney’s definition of bipartisan is different from yours and mine, or the man speaks with a forked tongue.

To be fair, there were flashes of sincerity when Candidate Romney spoke about  his family. But how unfortunate for him (and his sons) that the one of the soundbites heard round the world last night was, “Look, I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying things that aren’t true and hoping I’ll believe it.” Is this something a parent should be proud of? And where, for that matter, might all five of Ann & Mitt Romney’s offspring have learned that if you just speak a lie often enough it may pass muster as the truth one day?

Romney also scored points for being perfectly candid with the debate moderator when he vowed, “I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS... I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I’m not going to... keep on spending money on things to borrow from China to pay for it.”

Now, call me a stickler for manners, but when the man to whom you are speaking is Jim Lehrer from PBS’s NewsHour you might want to refrain from threatening him with a pink slip while he’s in the process of hosting you. Then again, given Romney’s track record of “loving to fire people” part of me had to applaud his willingness to be consistent-- even if it made him seem like a jerk...



... and really pissed off all the little people.

As for the super-power rising in the east-- Romney's offhand remark was typically intemperate as he opened with a five-point plan for turning the US economy around: the second of which was to “crack down on China if and when they cheat.”

Not only was such a crack misplaced at a domestic policy debate, but it buttressed the President’s Democratic National Convention foretelling that his opponent “...might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if [he] can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally.”

When the topic turned to cuts in education funding, the feisty Mitt-of-old came across loud and clear as he sniped: “Mr. President, you’re entitled, as the president, to own your own airplane and your own house, but not your own facts-- all right?”

 Well, all righty then!

After digesting the before & after snapshots of Mitt’s makeover I am hard pressed to decide which is more disconcerting. Watching him come in like a lion of truth, justice and the American way while concealing entire swaths of his personality-- and previously stated political beliefs-- to the point where he seemed likable? Or, witnessing the cunning, duplicitous, self-serving, mean-spirited politician who is so adept at offending others put on a happy face and go out like a lamb?

And with so many faces to choose from, I still don't know which one to trust. 

I can live with a president whose policies are contrary to my own. But the thought of having a president with two faces (or more) representing me domestically and abroad, is a nightmare.

That said, I can see how Romney’s fiscal policies as outlined in Denver will appeal to millions of voters who are out of work and short on hope. 

My hope was that Barack Obama would fill that void in this first of his two debates with Romney. But the president appeared to be MIA for much of the debate: scribbling notes non-stop, making little-to-no eye contact with Romney-- in a gesture that struck me as uncharacteristically dismissive and ungracious, and could not have played well to undecided voters.

As one friend observed in a morning-after email to me, “Obama seemed cranky, ill-prepared and his responses (though he has often been a strong communicator) were mumbled, jumbled, not compelling or “quick”.” 

This, from a guy who loves Barack Obama.

But elections can be a funny thing, and as my friend points out, “It shouldn’t make a difference; a presidency is not a debate. But remembering the Bush “likability” that helped defeat Gore, one knows it might. And certainly last night Obama was the lesser debater.”

I couldn’t agree more.

I was in Washington DC for President Obama’s swearing in four years ago-- and shortly after the historic event  watched Marine One lift off the White House lawn and into the clear blue yonder with George W. and Laura Bush aboard.



One can only imagine what the view of our nation's capital must look like to a departing president. And after last night's performance I fear that Barack Obama may find out sooner rather than later. Because in spite of all the respect he has earned for being smart, trustworthy, credible, likable and empathetic; if he doesn’t shape up between now and November 6th, the electorate will see to it that he too is shipped out, with minimal fanfare, in three months.

Absence of Malice

Of all the breathless coverage that's come in the wake of Thursday's Thrill in the Ville--

from pugilistic metaphors out of the West Coast...

 to a blustery bravado from the Midwest...

 to the back-handed big-up from the East Coast

--no newspaper headline has heralded the only morning-after story I've been dying to read. Because after watching Vice President Joe Biden debate the Presumptive Nominee in Danville, Kentucky-- I'm still trying to figure out how Amtrak Joe managed to stay on course even though Republicans deployed their most dastardly weapon of mass destruction on the veep to date. 

I am speaking, of course, of Paul Ryan's big, blue, bedroom eyes.

The closest thing this country has seen to a Jack Kennedy lookalike since... well... Jack Kennedy, Paul Ryan's eyes are so enormous that his real-life features are actually more exaggerated than those of his caricature. 

Couple those two big assets with a physique  so ripped (if Ryan's claims of his prowess at the P90X workout are to be believed) that the heroine of any Harlequin Romance novel could be forgiven for ripping the Wisconsin's congressman's bodice-- and I'm really impressed that Biden was able to keep all those facts and figures straight in his head.

And speaking of figures: how 'bout them guns?

Far be it from me to guess the Top Ten things going through Ryan's mind when Time Magazine snapped this picture of the yet-to-be-chosen candidate in 2011 (as have the brilliant writers at The Late Show), http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkTVeZ8EomM&feature=youtube_gdata_player but I can tell you my top ten thoughts in the opening minutes of the debate had very little to do with tax reform, medicaid, joblessness rates or either candidate's position on timetables for US troops withdrawals from Afghanistan.

Though the command "Show me your guns!" kept reverberating in my brain. As did the question on the right to bare arms.

Smokin' Joe, on the other hand, was having none of this crap.

When Ryan hit him with the "Who loves ya', Baby?" gaze-- that would have made the original bald-headed sex symbol himself, Telly Savalas, blush-- Biden stayed on point.

Same deal when Ryan channeled Rodney King's "Can we all just get along?" plea with his eyes.

And if I didn't know any better, I would swear that Biden was a cold-hearted bastard for being totally immune to Ryan's excellent version of puppy dog eyes. 

Something tells me Seamus fixed that same doleful stare on his master, Mitt, seconds before the infamous family vacation of 1983. 

"You're gonna' put me where, Bro?!" I imagine the Irish setter imploring-- with those soulful brown eyes-- as he and his crate were being strapped to the roof of the family car in preparation for lift-off.

Little did Romney know that his choice would one day be the rallying cry of the Bark for Obama set, but that's what you get for messing with man's best friend.

Whoooooooooo's a good boy????!!!!!!

Meanwhile, back to that other little, blue-eyed devil..

Whether unleashing the earnest eyes (that could make even the most squeaky clean boyscout look like a thug in comparison); the Hollywood heartthrob eyes; the assassin's cold-blooded glare; the benign, wide-eyed expressionless expression (that, until now, I've been more accustomed to seeing in the faces of dolls as opposed those of grown men);  or the fixed focus of a cyborg-- Ryan's facility for slipping into and out of character with his eyes alone alternately mesmerized and freaked me out.

I even found myself wondering, "Do you want to debate him, or date him?" based on the way Ryan kept looking at Biden as if he were a first crush or long-lost love.

Unlike me, Biden saw right through all of the malarkey from the get-go, and made no bones about it.

Even the legendary sucking up for which Ryan was renown as a senior at  Joseph A. Craig High School in Janesville, Wisconsin had no impact on Biden. 

 

(That talent, incidentally, has shown no signs of abating as Ryan made sure to thank the Vice President's son, Beau, for his military service in Afghanistan within seconds of answering the first question posed by moderator Martha Raddatz.)

Biden proved just as adept at avoiding any numerical rope-a-dopes as an economics wonk.

As the Wisconsin representative likes to remind us: mathematical possibilities abound-- if we just try to see things his way.

But whether owing to slights of hands (does anybody understand how Romney & Ryan plan to free up $5 trillion in tax loopholes if elected?); an inability to master the concept of percentages (which could explain Ryan's error when he claimed to maintain 6 to 8 percent body fat); or simple math anxiety (perfectly understandable, given his declaration of having run a marathon in "under three [hours], high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something." When Runner's World discovered his time was actually 4:01:25)-- far too often, Ryan's numbers simply have not added up. 

"Not mathematically possible," was how Biden put it when Ryan promised to "cut tax rates by 20 percent and still preserve [mortgage and health care deductions]... for middle-class taxpayers." 

And that was putting it mildly.

There is no delicate way of characterizing Ryan's willingness to say one thing to a voter's face, while doing another behind their back: as evidenced when he had the audacity to lecture Biden on the finer points of reaching across the aisle to pass legislation in Congress.

"You know," Ryan began, "I understand you guys aren't used to doing partisan deals [but] that's how you get things done. You work with Congress."

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

That Ryan would take it upon himself to school a 40-year veteran of public service-- a man, incidentally, who was first elected to the Senate the year Ryan was born-- on the finer points of coalition-building was bad enough. But for someone from the Party that rewrote the book on obstructionism to accuse their victim of such tactics was nothing short of audacious.

"That's coming from a Republican Congress working bipartisanly, 7 percent rating?" Biden countered. "Come on!"

Unlike President Obama during his debate with Romney the week before last, Biden did not allow any untruths to go unchallenged. He stepped into the ring alert, present and obviously ready to do battle. And he kept swinging for 90 minutes. 

I am no fan of debates and political-speak-- which have a sleeping pill effect on me-- but even I thought this event was worthy of Pay-Per-View.

Biden's use of the cameras to address voters was also masterful. When challenging Ryan's proposal to replace Medicare with a "voucher", the VP looked directly at seniors and urged "...folks, follow your instincts." He embarrassed Ryan when forcing him to own up to two letters he'd written to Biden, asking for stimulus money-- in spite of Ryan's railing against such relief efforts during the debate. And if Americans didn't know what "a bunch of stuff" was going into the telecast, we have Biden to thank for giving us the skinny on what every Irishman knows is code for "a big, fat lie"-- as was Ryan's suggestions that President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have a fractured relationship.

Ironically, insiders had reported that the younger half of the Republicans' Omni-American ticket had been instructed to take it easy on his elder before the debate. Ryan was accused of being disrespectful to Biden on the campaign trail, and the debate was his chance to change a perception that might hurt him with older voters come Election Day.  

And yet for all the absence of malice in those dreamy, cerulean eyes of his-- I saw Candidate Ryan for exactly who he was when he lost his composure and said: "I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes words don't come out of your mouth the right way."

Likewise, we got to see Biden's true colors when countered, "But I always say what I mean," without skipping a beat.

And when all is said and done-- it's campaign promises like Biden's that make my heart skip a beat.

Gimme a Break!

 Some of my best friends are Republicans. Or, to be more specific, they are a hybrid of fiscal conservative & social democrat. Which is a nice way of saying that when it comes right down to it their pocketbook will be their guide come Election Day. 

This, obviously, is their prerogative. And I'm cool with that.

For all the rhetoric from the Democratic Party this election season about how the One Percenters are "not paying their fair share in taxes", I suspect that the rest of us Ninety-Nine Percenters would make the same choices as Mitt Romney and his peeps if we walked a mile in their wingtips.

I can't recall what year it was, but I once heard Charles Barkley recount a conversation he'd had with his mother about an upcoming presidential election. After telling her that he would be voting for the Republican candidate that year, Mama Barkley was astonished asked how could even think of doing such a thing. "They only care about rich people!" she reasoned. To which her never-at-a-loss-for-words basketball superstar of a son replied: "Mom, I am a rich person."

How often have you heard someone say: "If I had 50 million dollars, I would give half to charity, buy homes for everyone in my family, settle all of my best friends' debt and open a Boys & Girls Club chapter in my neighborhood," or something similar? If I had a dollar for every time I heard a variation on this theme I would have 50 million dollars at my disposal today. But how many people actually take such action when the proposition is real as opposed to theoretical?

   As altruistic as you and I imagine we'd be if we lived on the sunny side of I'm Rich Biatch Street, nothing precludes the human instinct of self-preservation. When people acquire vast sums of cheddar-- whether via success in the NBA, on Wall Street, a Mega-Millions Lottery windfall, dumb luck or an inheritance-- the instinct to preserve that capital is hard-wired into the DNA. As is the desire to keep acquiring more and more. Humans also tend not to know when we have enough. Which is pretty remarkable, because in spite of not being able to regulate our own greed we are masters at calculating the precise moment when other people have had enough. At which point words like "greedy bastard", "the little people" and "fair share" start creeping into the lexicon and our psyches.

To be sure, there are exceptions to this rule: people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mother Theresa whose choices are dictated by what serves the greater good as opposed to personal gain. But let’s face it. Most people are not exceptional. We are who we are. And 99% of us are just like Charles Barkley.

That Mitt Romney's tax cuts will be very good for small businesses, corporations and wealthy Americans is inarguable. And a recent visit to Family Court in downtown Manhattan with a friend was all the evidence I needed that Republicans have a very valid point when they claim that our government is bloated, inefficient and wasteful to a nearly criminal degree.

That said, there is more than one way to calculate whether or not Mitt Romney will be an asset when it comes to America's bottom line. And I hope that some of my best friends will consider all sides of the equation before casting their votes on November 6th.

 "You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can't visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally.”

-Barack Obama

When President Obama spoke these words at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC last night, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up because I've been making the same point to my Republican friends for the past seven months. But for some reason, I haven't been getting through to them.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that the last thing my Economics 101 professor at Wesleyan said to me before encouraging me to find my smile in somebody else's classroom (Hello, English Department!) was: "Gail, Economics is not for everyone. For some people, it can be like banging your head against a brick wall. It's just not worth it." Sure, my pride was wounded, but I was secretly relieved for the mercy killing. In fact, my eyes still glaze over when people talk about things like CMBS's [Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities], CDS's [Credit Default Swaps] or QE3's [not to be confused with the heir apparent to the QE2: the QE3 is a Quantitative Easing Three]. (Can you tell my money-managing honey helped me with these fancy fiscal terms?!). 

Still, tyro that I am-- even I know that the first law of commerce is: "If I don't like you, I ain't gonna' do business with you." 

A lot of people around the world do not like Mitt Romney.

When the then-presumptive GOP nominee's ill-timed, ill-conceived and ill-informed question  the UK's preparedness for the Summer Olympics offended London's Mayor Boris Johnson and turned Romney into the laughingstock of the British press-- my knickers were in a twist back home.

I was embarrassed for the United States after hearing Romney's confrontational tone at last week's Republican National Convention, and found it reckless of him to announce: "Under my presidency our friends will see more loyalty, and Mr. Putin will see a little less flexibility and more backbone." 

Hell, I'd like to see less Gary Cooper circa: "High Noon" and more statesman in my president, but maybe that's just me.

Even his well-intentioned tribute to a true American hero at the Convention devolved into an inelegant rant when Romney bellowed: "And I don't doubt that Neil Armstrong's spirit is still with us: that unique blend of optimism, humility and the utter confidence that when the world needs someone to do the really big stuff, you need an American." 

Really?!

I wonder what Jesus Christ, Confucius and Albert Einstein would have to say about that? Never mind those still paying the ultimate price for W's determination to show American muscle when diplomacy might have been more effective? 

But back to that man who took one giant leap for mankind... 

Contrary to Hollywood stereotypes of astronauts as testosterone-fueled macho men, Armstrong had a reputation for being extremely humble, unassuming and even shy. Something tells me that Romney's co-opting the original Moon Walker's good name for political gain probably left him rolling in his grave. While I was left wondering what it would take for American's to keep Romney on a shorter leash, if not muzzled, when representing his countrymen on a global platform.

Is this the man business leaders want to have as the face of American commerce worldwide?

Is this the best our country can offer when the really big job of bridge-building is on the line with emerging markets in China, Brazil, Russia and India?

Can we really afford to have a leader whose foreign policy is "stuck in a Cold War time warp", as President Obama has asked?

Like I said, I may not be a genius when it comes to finance, but any kid running a lemonade stand can tell you there is always a cost associated with doing business. 

What price is the American public willing to pay for a commander-in-chief who already has a well-documented record for losing friends and inspiring negative headlines when he takes his show on the road? 

Will the personal gain of an individual tax break balance the deficit of having to live, work and play in a world where fractured relationships and ill-will toward the United States is on the rise?

If past is prologue, I guess we already know the answers to these questions. 

But I'm still putting my money on some of my best friends who, at the end of the day, can spot the difference between a good deal and a deal-breaker from a mile off.