Is there a difference between putting together a coalition to win an election and creating a coalition to lead a nation?

President Obama and his campaign were able to find and target enough groups this year to attract just more than 50 percent of the vote and win the Electoral College convincingly. This coalition won blacks, Latinos and Asian voters overwhelmingly; liberals by huge margins; and Democrats, moderates, single women, younger voters, urban voters, voters on the coasts, and folks with either little religious affiliation or who attend church occasionally.

The president lost among conservatives, Republicans, independents, older voters, white voters, many folks in the heartland, rural and small town voters, and people who attend church regularly. In addition, in this year's exit polls, unlike in 2008, a majority of the voters said they believe the federal government is doing too many things and should do less.

The demographics of the country have moved inexorably to favor Democrats, and they are doing increasingly well among voting blocs on the rise. Meanwhile, the Republican brand is more and more out of step with these fast-growing blocs of the American electorate -- they are a Mad Men party in a Modern Family world.

The electoral coalition that President Obama put together is almost the mirror image of the winning strategy that President Bush cobbled together in 2004. Yet President Bush and the White House made the mistake of thinking the coalition that helped win a very close election in 2004 gave them a mandate and was enough to lead the country and govern. They didn't reach across to the blocs they lost on Election Day and bring folks together. And, as we know, that turned out badly for the Bush administration and the country.

I hope President Obama understands that the only way to govern this country is to bridge the divides that have become so apparent. A winning effort on Election Day doesn't automatically translate into a governing coalition that will enable leaders to move this country forward.

President Obama so far seems to be very aware of this in his statements on Election Night and in the days afterward. His desire to solve the fiscal crisis facing the country through a balanced approach of shared sacrifice and compromise seems sincere. Let's all pray and encourage all sides to make this to happen.

The re-elections of President Bush in 2004 and President Obama this year highlighted deep divisions in our country and showed that we are, more and more, a tribal society in how we view politics and values. And as we have become a more diverse and heterogeneous country (which is a good thing), many of the participants on the left and right have become less tolerant of each other (a not-so-good thing).

President Obama and the Republican leaders in Congress have a chance to create a governing coalition. I hope each side in this partisan country gives them the path and support needed to get this done. The very best leaders realize that, though they "won" on Day One, the rest of the days of the year require a sense of perspective, humility and compassion in order to move ahead.

This article first appeared in the National Journal.

WASHINGTON -- California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said Sunday the federal government should respect states' rights to decide how to regulate marijuana use, in light of votes Tuesday to approve legal use of the drug in Colorado and Washington.

"It's time for the Justice Department to recognize the sovereignty of the states," he said on CNN's "State of the Union."

His state has legalized medical marijuana use, which is illegal under federal law. Colorado and Washington went even further by making marijuana legal even for recreational use.

Brown said he's not predicting another push to legalize marijuana for recreational use in California, calling drug use "dangerous."

"We already have a fair amount of marijuana use in the guise of medical marijuana," he said. "There's abuses in that field."

Still, he said Colorado and Washington should be allowed to do what they believe is right on marijuana law, adding there was adequate debate within the states on whether it was the correct move.

"We are capable of self-government," he said. "We don't need some federal gendarme to come and tell us what to do. I believe in comity toward the states, that's a decent respect."

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court said Friday it will consider eliminating the government's chief weapon against racial discrimination at polling places since the 1960s.

Acting three days after the election, the justices agreed to hear a constitutional challenge to the part of the landmark Voting Rights Act that requires all or parts of 16 states with a history of discrimination in voting to get federal approval before making any changes in the way they hold elections.

The appeal from Shelby County, Ala., near Birmingham, says state and local governments covered by the law have made significant progress and no longer should be forced to live under oversight from Washington.

The high court considered the same issue three years ago but sidestepped what Chief Justice John Roberts then called "a difficult constitutional question."

Since then, Congress has not addressed potential problems identified by the court. Meanwhile, the law's opponents sensed its vulnerability and filed several new lawsuits.

Addressing those challenges, lower courts have concluded that a history of discrimination and more recent efforts to harm minority voters justify continuing federal oversight.

The justices said they will examine whether the formula under which states are covered is outdated because it relies on data that is now 40 years old. By some measures, states covered by the law are outperforming some that were not.

Tuesday's election results also provide an interesting backdrop for the court's action. Americans re-elected Barack Obama, the nation's first African-American president. Exit polls across the country indicated Obama won more than 70 percent of Hispanics and more than 90 percent of blacks. In Alabama, however, exit polls showed Obama won only about 15 percent of the state's white voters. In neighboring Mississippi, the numbers were even smaller, at 10 percent, exit polling found.

The case probably will be argued in February or March, with a decision expected by late June.

The advance approval, or preclearance requirement, was adopted in the Voting Rights Act in 1965 to give federal officials a potent tool to defeat persistent efforts to keep blacks from voting.

The provision was a huge success, and Congress periodically has renewed it over the years. The most recent occasion was in 2006, when a Republican-led Congress overwhelmingly approved and President George W. Bush signed a 25-year extension.

The requirement currently applies to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers certain counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some local jurisdictions in Michigan and New Hampshire. Coverage has been triggered by past discrimination not only against blacks, but also against American Indians, Asian-Americans, Alaskan Natives and Hispanics.

Before these locations can change their voting rules, they must get approval either from the U.S. Justice Department's civil rights division or from the federal district court in Washington that the new rules won't discriminate.

Congress compiled a 15,000-page record and documented hundreds of instances of apparent voting discrimination in the states covered by the law dating to 1982, the last time it had been extended.

Six of the affected states, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Texas, are backing Shelby county's appeal.

In 2009, Roberts indicated the court was troubled about the ongoing need for a law in the face of dramatically improved conditions, including increased minority voter registration and turnout rates. Roberts attributed part of the change to the law itself. "Past success alone, however, is not adequate justification to retain the preclearance requirements," he said.

Jurisdictions required to obtain preclearance were chosen based on whether they had a test restricting the opportunity to register or vote and whether they had a voter registration or turnout rate below 50 percent.

A divided panel of federal appeals court judges in Washington said that the age of the information being used is less important than whether it helps identify jurisdictions with the worst discrimination problems.

Emmett Tyrrell, The American Spectator
We shall be getting a new government next week.WASHINGTON -- Reviewing the last few months of this tumultuouspresidential campaign, I see the debates as having a wondroussalience. The first was the most momentous since Nixon vs. Kennedy,though that 1960 confrontation was mostly a matter of cosmetics.Listening to it on radio, many in the audience came away thinkingthat the participant with the five-o'clock shadow had won. Thatwould have been Richard Nixon.In debate this time around, Mitt Romney hammered Barack Obamamercilessly. Under the ongoing assault Obama's knees buckled and...

The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly False | Obama says Romney opposed any government help to rescue carmakers

The recovery of the American auto industry offers proof of the old saw that success has a thousand fathers while failure is an orphan. Mitt Romney has said that President Barack Obama followed the plan Romney laid out in 2008. For his part, Obama has said Romney would have let General Motors and Chrysler fend for themselves as they went through bankruptcy. In their final debate before the election, Obama repeated his charge against Romney. "You keep on trying to, you know, airbrush history here," Obama said."You were very clear ...

>> More

Last week, a letter was sent to Congress by several prominent American Christian leaders that called on lawmakers to "make U.S. military aid to Israel contingent upon its government's compliance with applicable US laws and policies." While most wouldn't consider it unreasonable for our nation to insist that an aid recipient abide by U.S. laws, a number of Jewish organizations nonetheless chose to attack the letter publicly, all but labeling it anti-Semitic, and pulled out of a planned Christian-Jewish Roundtable.

Last Thursday, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) announced it was withdrawing from a national Jewish-Christian dialogue planned for Oct. 22 (Washington Post, Oct. 11). Now, seven other Jewish organizations are following suit and stepping away from the planned roundtable. Explained ADL director Abraham Foxman: "The blatant lack of sensitivity by the Protestant dialogue partners we had been planning to meet with has seriously damaged the foundation for mutual respect, which is essential for meaningful interfaith dialogue."

As fellow Jewish leaders, we are profoundly disappointed that some in our community have chosen to literally walk away from the table of dialogue. Actions such as these run directly counter to the spirit and mission of interfaith understanding. Indeed, true dialogue does not only occur in the areas in which both parties find agreement, but particularly in those difficult places where there is disagreement and divergence of opinion.

Considering the vehemence of such a response, one might assume the Christian leaders' letter was filled with outrageous and incendiary anti-Israel rhetoric. In fact, the letter is a sensitively worded and faithful call, citing "both Israelis and Palestinians in their desire to live in peace and well-being," acknowledging "the pain and suffering of Israelis as a result of Palestinian actions," the "horror and loss of life from rocket attacks from Gaza and past suicide bombings," and "the broad impact that a sense of insecurity and fear has had on Israeli society."

Yes, the signatories of the letter also express their concern over "widespread Israeli human rights violations committed against Palestinians, including killing of civilians, home demolitions and forced displacement, and restrictions on Palestinian movement, among others." But as difficult as it might be for some Israel-supporters to accept such claims, these are not spurious or arguable allegations.

We believe this decision is a terrible mistake, and reveals these Jewish organizations' confusion about the nature of interfaith cooperation. It is not the role of these Jewish organizations to dictate how their Christian partners can live out their conscience or their values -- no matter how much they may disagree. After all, the signers of the letter, and the churches they represent, have ancient and continuing ties to the land of Israel just as we do -- and we must be ready to admit that their concerns for the safety and dignity of Christian Palestinians in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are just as compelling as our concern for the safety and dignity of Jews there. Indeed, these Christian organizations have expressed their concern for the security of Jews in the Holy Land, while the ADL letter, as well as the one released by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, denies the reality of Israeli human rights violations against Palestinians. Unpleasant realities cannot be discarded simply because these organizations regard such issues as off limits. Attempting to control what, when, and how our interfaith partners can live out their moral convictions undermines the entire premise of true dialogue and the potential for interfaith partnership.

It is hardly outrageous for American taxpayers to require Israel's compliance with our nation's laws and policies. The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act specifically prohibit assistance to any country which engages in a consistent pattern of human rights violations, limiting the use of U.S. weapons to "internal security" or "legitimate self-defense."

As the letter notes, the most recent 2011 U.S. State Department Country Report on Human Rights Practices covering Israel and the Occupied Territories detailed numerous human rights violations committed by the Israeli military against Palestinian civilians -- many of which involve the misuse of U.S.-supplied weapons.

As Mideast analyst MJ Rosenberg has rightly pointed out, in response to the current economic downturn, Congress has been scrutinizing all domestic assistance programs to ensure that they are being carried out legally and in compliance with stated U.S. policy. If we are willing to scrutinize such venerable programs as Social Security and food stamps, why should U.S. military aid to Israel be exempt?

By contrast, U.S. aid to the Palestinians, though miniscule in comparison to the massive unconditional military aid we send to Israel, has, as Rosenberg himself points out, "so many conditions [that] USAID barely knows how to legally deliver it."

While some might feel that requiring assistance to be compliant with U.S. law would compromise Israel's security, there is every reason to believe that precisely the opposite is true. Israel's human rights abuses do not make it more secure; they serve only to create further instability and resentment in a profoundly unstable part of the world. As Israel's primary ally, our country alone is able to create the kind of leverage that might challenge Israel to turn away from policies that impede the cause of a just peace for Israelis and Palestinians -- and true security for all who live in the region.

We regret that these Jewish organizations opted to disengage from their Christian colleagues on this painful issue that is of such deep concern to both faith communities. We believe that if we face down our fear and suspicion, Jews and Christians will invariably find that we do indeed have much to learn from one another.

Rabbis Alissa Wise and Brant Rosen are the co-founders of the Jewish Voice for Peace Rabbinical Council.

As I think on the last four years, I think about the blockbuster film, The Hangover. Obama has so far had a Hangover Presidency with a first term that began the same year that The Hangover came out in theaters.

Of course, instead of the hilarious Zach Galifianakis, who drugged the guys he was with at the bachelor party, we had George W. Bush. He got this entire country on such a binge, such a wild tear that, like our heroes in The Hangover, by the end of his second term it became difficult to remember what we even did during the last eight years.

Unfortunately, while it's funny to watch the guys in The Hangover try and piece together a disastrous night of impromptu weddings, self-inflicted tooth-pulling, and a crazy incident with Mike Tyson... America has far less to laugh about. Our disastrous wild night was not funny.

We should currently have thousands of young men and women living their lives who were sent back to us in coffins. Over one hundred thousand Iraqi civilians have been killed and we are partly to blame. The old song, "Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans" has taken on a resonance of meta proportions, as New Orleans was irreparably decimated, not simply by a hurricane but by George W. Bush's incompetent government.

It's a laundry list that many of us know by heart. And not least of which is the economic disaster known as the Great Recession.

Piece by piece, Obama has tried to restore a nation hooked on George W. Bush's inebriation to a nation that is sober: be it through restoring our reputation with our allies abroad or our broken economy at home. It's been long, it's been arduous, and like most programs in sobriety, it has been lacking in immediate rewards.

But in spite of Republican obstructionism on the road to health, Obama has proven to be enormously capable of getting our nation to survive a hangover the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression -- and if you throw in the violence, since the end of the Civil War. His second term promises to be far more about getting us to not only get out of the woods of addiction but to proactively become a nation dedicated toward our own health.

Unless we choose Mitt Romney. Every one of Romney's policies comes from a very deep-seated wish to go back to George W. Bush's inebriated America. After all, as they say, "hair of the dog." The quickest way to get out of a hangover is to just start drinking again. Romney's plan is to get us even more inebriated than George W. Bush. He's beholden to a Tea Party whose ideas do not simply contain "sweet tea."

If Romney is elected, if he serves two terms, let alone one term, the hangover this country will receive may be so great that we will be forever broken.

Our choice in a few weeks is to continue to slowly emerge from a hangover into a state of fantastic health and wealth or go into a relapse that we may not be able to emerge from ever again.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials.

Issa posted 166 pages of sensitive but unclassified State Department communications related to Libya on the committee's website afternoon as part of his effort to investigate security failures and expose contradictions in the administration's statements regarding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi that resulted in the death of Amb. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

Chuck Todd, NBC News
CHUCK TODD: This is really making me crazy. The Federal Reserve gets questioned now for politics these days, the Supreme Court and John Roberts. We have corroded, what we're doing, we are corroding trust in our government in a way, and one-time responsible people are doing to control it. And the idea that Donald Trump and Jack Welch, rich people with crazy conspiracies, can get traction on this, is a bad trend.

President Obama and Governor Romney spent a fair amount of time debating about the economy and the middle class. There was an interesting article posted on Bloomberg this week by Peter Robison. This article discussed a problem within our economy that Farr, Miller and Washington have been highlighting for several years now. The problem is the growing income disparity between the rich and the "not rich." The unmistakable reality is that the middle class has not benefited much from the economic growth we have seen, not only since the Great Recession, but also for the past two or three decades. More and more of the aggregate wealth and income in the country is accruing to the relatively well-to-do. This long-term trend had been masked by the rapid expansion of credit up until the credit crisis. In other words, many moderate-income people were still able to buy most of the things they wanted to buy until recently. These folks were unable to cover their expenditures through income growth, so they chose to take on more debt to support their expenditures. The credit crisis we experienced a few years ago reflects this trend: Middle-class Americans were simply on an unsustainable path with regard to taking on debt to support unaffordable lifestyles.

Putting all political bickering aside, the continued disparity in wealth and income is not a healthy thing for the long-term growth of the economy. The economy can only grow at its potential if there is a large pool of consumers that is both willing and able to spend money to drive that economic growth. The increased spending we had seen up until the financial crisis was largely driven by the expansion of credit rather than widespread growth in income. And the growth in incomes and spending we've seen since the financial crisis has been driven by those at the top. The Bloomberg article said, "The earnings gap between rich and poor Americans was the widest in more than four decades in 2011, Census data show, surpassing income inequality previously reported in Uganda and Kazakhstan." The article goes on to say:

In 2010, the top 1 percent of U.S. families captured as much as 93 percent of the nation's income growth, according to a March paper by Emmanuel Saez, a University of California at Berkeley economist who studied Internal Revenue Service Data."

Not surprisingly, this issue is taking center stage in this year's presidential election. Republicans argue that a stronger private sector is the answer to the problem of inequality. They argue that government spending and taxes should be cut so that private industry can create more jobs, effectively lifting up the middle class in a process known during the Reagan administration as "trickle-down economics." Democrats, for their part, advocate a more direct redistribution of wealth through heavier taxes on the rich and more direct government support to those of lesser means. While tempted, our objective is not to pick sides in this debate. Rather, we simply want to make the point that the trends leading up to the financial crisis continue today. The only difference now is that many of those needing or wanting credit are unable to get loans. This means that these people cannot spend as freely as they used to, and the onus of economic growth has been placed solely on the relatively few at the top of the wealth and income spectrum. And while the rich certainly have significant means to drive aggregate spending, they cannot do it alone. Again from the Bloomberg article:

Although U.S. consumer spending climbed to its highest level in four years in August, according to Gallup surveys, it still lags 2008 levels by more than 20 percent. Most of the spending came from higher-income households.

The erosion of the middle class in America continues to be one of our greatest challenges. While a lack of middle-class income growth can create headwinds for any economy in the short term, the longer-term risks of political instability and civil unrest can become much greater. The unfortunate reality is that the federal government has made promises to too many people that far exceed its ability to meet make good on these promises. Bringing the country's fiscal house in order, and thereby returning the American dream to the middle class, will undoubtedly require some combination of spending cuts and tax increases for those most able to afford them. We have no doubt that we can meet these challenges, but it will require some pain and sacrifice by all.

Also co-authored by Jason Mraz, Ian Somerhalder, Graham Nash, Lisa Ling, Olivia Munn, Joely Fisher, Rosanna Arquette, James Valentine ("Maroon 5"), Brenda Strong, Frances Fisher and Noah Wyle

Dear America,

We humbly ask our fans to not watch our TV shows or movies, or listen to our music tonight. We ask you, instead, to invest 90 minutes in our country, and watch the first debate between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.

The differences between these two men and the Republican and Democratic party policies in 2012 are enormous.

And exciting.

Never before has there been this kind of opportunity for Americans to choose such vastly different philosophies, priorities, values and direction for our country. We, truly, get to Choose our America on November 6.

And, it is really easy. This year, you don't have to be a political "junkie" and watch CNN, Fox, MSNBC or C-Span all day, every day to understand the choice. Just 90 minutes tonight is likely to give you a pretty good idea about which candidate, and which party, sounds and feels right for you.

An astonishing 98.6 million adult Americans did not vote in the 2008 presidential election. Over 145 million sat out the 2010 congressional elections. As the world's leading Democracy and one that is the symbol of hope to those around the world who have yet to have free elections, we must do better. Our goal here is to help encourage the tens of millions who will waive this treasured democratic right because you may believe a) your one vote is not important, b) that politics is a bunch of overwhelming nonsense, c) that there is no meaningful difference between the candidates, or d) you may be disgusted that the parties fight all the time and "can't agree on anything". Or, very likely, e) all of the above.

There is a reason that there is so much fighting, and so much gridlock these days. It is because the parties - genuinely - have two almost completely different visions of America. The great news here is that you can end the fighting and the gridlock. Choose a) a president, b) 218+ members of The House of Representatives and c) a filibuster-proof majority of 60+ Senators from the party that most shares your views on November 6, (279 or so Republicans OR 279 or so Democrats), and we change America in one day.

In one day we can move beyond partisanship and gridlock and create a mandate on either side of a ton of super important issues, such as . . .

1. Whether large corporations and others will identify themselves and disclose the contributions to campaigns that buy the billions of dollars of television, radio and online ads we now see. One party supports this kind of disclosure and the other does not.

2. Whether America's wealthiest individuals will be asked to move closer to the tax rates under Republican Ronald Reagan and Democrat Bill Clinton or whether taxes and government will be reduced for all in an effort to encourage spending and economic growth in that way. Just a few votes in Congress will make the difference on this issue.

3. What America does about the issue of abortion and the government funding of this procedure. This issue is facing many challenges in the Supreme Court and our next President may be asked to choose the next Justice (or Justices) who could change the Court's majority for decades to come.

4. What steps will be taken to address the millions of "undocumented immigrants"/"illegal aliens" that grew up, went to school and/or live and work in our country. The two candidates and parties have very different views on this and how to secure and protect our borders.

5. How America will reduce its deficit and its debt, critical to the survival of our nation, and create jobs. One party hopes to achieve this by cutting taxes, regulations and government investment -- wanting to make government smaller and rely more on the success of individuals and businesses to stimulate the economy and create jobs. The other party believes that raising taxes on the top 1%, taxing corporations that outsource jobs, keeping defense spending in check and having government invest in education, alternative energy infrastructure, technology, arts and the like are the ways to reduce the debt, increase jobs and rebuild the American economy.

6. We get to decide who runs the Legislative Branch of the federal government . . . whether John Boehner and the Republican policies or Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic policies control The House of Representatives and all the committees, and whether Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and the Democrats or Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and the Republicans control the Senate and all their committees. And, this is worth repeating, we get to decide whether it is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama who chooses the next Supreme Court Justices and the rest of the federal judiciary - all of whom serve life terms.

8. We get to decide so many issues. Should the EPA be allowed to regulate carbon emissions or environmental toxins, or be limited or even dismantled? Will our investment dollars in energy go primarily to drilling, mining and fracking for oil, coal and gas or go increasingly to the development of solar, wind and other alternative energies? Will we prohibit the purchase of assault weapons? Will we allow homosexuals to legally marry? Will we repeal "Obamacare" or build upon it? Will we subsidize oil companies, privatize our social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare, increase our defense and military spending, reform the tort system, acknowledge and address man-made climate change, shift the role that money plays in our federal elections and the way we conduct future elections . . . the questions, the issues and the differences go on and on.

This is a truly historic moment. An historic chance for us to choose.

So don't watch our shows, our movies or listen to our music - or anyone else's tonight. In fact, tonight we challenge you to even turn away from your favorite source of news and opinion as well as the billions of dollars of negative campaign ads that attempt to scare and manipulate you. You are hiring one of these men, and their parties, to run our country for the next 4 years. So, be an "Employer", a "Citizen" and a "Patriot" and invest a few minutes to watch them tonight and experience the differences for yourself. And then, make your own decision.

And, yes, YOUR vote DOES count! The 2000 presidential election was officially won by the votes of 537 men and women in the state of Florida, out of over 300 million Americans, and congressional races are also sometimes decided by hundreds or a few thousand votes.

Don't sit this election out. Go to www.RockTheVote.com, www.VotoLatino.com, www.NationalVoterRegistrationDay.org or any other site that will help you get registered, now, before the deadline in your state.

As our beloved President Lincoln once claimed, this is a "government of the people, by the people and for the people". The politicians don't determine the direction of this country, we do, and November 6 is our day to exercise that power, the day to Choose OUR America.

9:00 - 10:30 pm Eastern. Tonight. 90 minutes. We will be watching. Will you?

Many of the celebrities signing this letter are participating in the Choose YOUR America campaign, a nonpartisan educational effort created by Richard Greene to highlight and simplify the key differences between the candidates and the parties on the major issues of the 2012 election and increase voter engagement. Go to www.ChooseYOURAmerica.org to learn more.

FORT HOOD, Texas -- A military appeals court wants to hear oral arguments before deciding if the Army psychiatrist charged in the Fort Hood shooting rampage can be forcibly shaved before his murder trial.

Fort Hood released the decision late Tuesday from the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.

Maj. Nidal Hasan says he grew a beard because his Muslim faith requires it, despite the Army's ban on beards.

He is appealing the trial judge's order that he be forcibly shaved, which his attorneys say violates his right to practice his religion without substantial government intrusion.

The appeals court, which is on Fort Belvoir in northern Virginia, will hear from prosecutors and defense attorneys Oct. 11.

Hasan faces the death penalty if convicted in the 2009 shootings that killed 13 people at the Texas post.

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney seems to be both candidate and campaign CEO these days, and some Republicans say he's trying to do too much.

He reviews TV ads and polling data on an iPad. He writes many of his speeches. He's often talking like a consultant.

One instance of that gave him trouble last week, when a secretly taped speech to donors was posted online just as polls show him narrowly trailing President Barack Obama.

"Here are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them," Romney said at the May fundraiser. "And so my job is not to worry about those people – I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Democrats accused Romney of writing off half of the country. The former Massachusetts governor insisted he was just talking about the polls and trying to make the point that 47 percent of people probably will support the Democratic incumbent, no matter what their reasons.

Some Republicans grimaced.

They say Romney's explanation was evidence of a big problem with his campaign: The nominee simply is taking on too many duties. Romney's job is to inspire voters, they say, and not manage every detail of his campaign.

"He was talking about the electorate as if it were a ledger sheet," said Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist who worked closely with Romney on his 2008 presidential campaign. "It diminishes him."

More broadly, the episode illustrated Romney's leadership style, which he's honed over decades in the private sector, where he was an actual CEO. It also provided a look at how he might lead the country as president.

Romney spokesman Kevin Madden defended Romney's approach.

"It's his campaign," Madden said. "On a campaign like this, everything is derived from the candidate's vision, and the reason they are offering their leadership to the American people."

During three decades in private business, Romney made big money turning around struggling companies with hands-on leadership and a laser-like focus on the smallest details.

Romney insists all is well with his campaign despite several rocky weeks.

"It doesn't need a turnaround. We've got a campaign which is tied with an incumbent president to the United States," Romney told CBS' "60 Minutes" for an interview set to air Sunday.

Like most presidential candidates, Romney keeps a close team of aides and advisers. They describe campaign decision-making at the highest levels as collaborative discussion where advisers have the chance to offer opinions. Romney does delegate responsibility. For example, he put longtime aide Beth Myers in charge of the search for a running mate.

But he also is directly involved with many parts of the campaign.

He likes to watch the TV ads before they go on the air. He reviewed Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan's financial information before selecting him for the No. 2 spot. He's rarely separated from chief strategist Stuart Stevens. They often spend hours conversing and poking at an iPad on the campaign's charter plane. If Romney's not with Stevens, he's often calling him.

Then there's the political jargon Romney has adopted.

Why did Romney want support from Donald Trump even though the real estate mogul pushed debunked theories about Obama's birth certificate?

"I need to get 50.1 percent or more and I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people," Romney said earlier this year.

Why wasn't he releasing more than two years of tax returns?

"In political environment that exists today, the opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy," Romney said.

It's all too much for Peggy Noonan, a conservative columnist and former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, who last week wrote in her column: "The candidate can't run the show. He can't be the CEO of the campaign and be the candidate."

"The candidate is out there every day standing for things, fighting for a hearing, trying to get the American people to listen, agree and follow," Noonan wrote Friday. "The candidate cannot oversee strategy, statements, speechwriting, ads. He shouldn't be debating what statistic to put on slide 4 of the PowerPoint presentation."

Romney publicly shrugs off such talk. He has embraced his CEO skills, saying he would use a hands-on model to govern the country and follow the example set by his father, George Romney, who served as governor of Michigan.

Former business colleagues say that's how Romney has operated his whole career.

As CEO of Bain Capital, Romney paid careful attention to the companies he invested in and often possessed a deep knowledge of the numeric requirements for success. Detail was what made Bain different from other private equity firms in the first place. Instead of just investing money, Bain would delve deep into each company, getting to know the ins and outs of its business almost better than the company itself did.

Bain Capital carefully avoided what company veterans call "imponderables" – enterprises where success hinged on doing something that couldn't really be estimated. A biotechnology firm working on a cancer cure, for example, could offer a high payoff, but it was difficult to assess just how likely it was that the research would ever succeed. Instead, the companies were often old manufacturing enterprises or companies that sell everyday products.

Presidents have to solve those types of intractable problems.

"I've seen how the issues that come across a president's desk are always the hard ones," first lady Michelle Obama said recently. "The problems where no amount of data or numbers will get you to the right answer."

__

Associated Press writer Phillip Elliott contributed to this report.

__

Michael Totten, World Affairs
Cairo has issued international arrest warrants for eight Americans"”seven of them Coptic Christians from Egypt"”who are allegedly involved with the anti-Mohammad video everyone's rioting over. The prosecutor's office also issued a warrant for Terry Jones, the Koran-burning nutjob in Florida, just because, and says if convicted the defendants may get the death penalty.Mahmoud Salem (aka "Sandmonkey") was interviewed on CNN yesterday. He says the new Muslim Brotherhood government is much more oppressive than the Mubarak regime....

As the violent protests against the United States spread throughout the Middle East over an amateurish anti-Muhammad film, profound cultural and legal differences over the freedom of expression have come to the fore. In most countries in the Middle East, blasphemy is a crime and the government often operates as censor. So a pervasive assumption there is that the video could not have been produced and distributed without the approval and support of the U.S. government.

The United States, in contrast, is more protective of speech than any country in the world. Our free speech tradition is so dedicated to, in the words of the Supreme Court, "uninhibited, robust and wide open" debate, that we are accustomed to looking the other way when those on the ignorant fringe spew vile and hateful opinions. And we understand that the government is not typically in the business of choosing what people can and cannot say.

So despite a host of disagreements over how to respond to the protests, Americans seem to agree that the film is completely protected by the First Amendment. Mitt Romney noted that "under the 1st Amendment, people are allowed to do what they feel they want to do." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained that "we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be." Yale law professor Jack Balkin said in The Atlantic that the film is "totally protected by the First Amendment."

Is there any wiggle room?

Anyone who has spent more than a few minutes thinking about the freedom of expression knows that not all speech merits constitutional protection, and the history of the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence is a travelogue of the border between protected and unprotected speech. Obscenity, perjury, threats, criminal conspiracy, securities fraud, and libel of private individuals are categories of speech the regulation of which does not raise serious constitutional problems. The government can also constitutionally punish those who incite others to lawlessness, as long as the the speaker intends to incite, and the law breaking is imminent. A speaker whipping a mob into a lynching frenzy can be held accountable for the acts of the mob.

None of these exceptions to First Amendment coverage is applicable to the film. Incitement is the closest fit of these, but there is no reason to suspect that the filmmakers intended viewers to break the law.

But there is an additional category of unprotected speech -- so called "fighting words." Seventy years ago, in Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man who had yelled abuse at his local police chief. The Court issued a now-famous description of "low value" speech, including "insulting or 'fighting' words -- those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." The Court reasoned that "such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

So we could call this the "yo' mama" exception to the First Amendment. If a speaker voices an epithet "likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace," then it can be constitutionally punished.

This is probably the best argument for some kind of regulation of the anti-Muhammad film in question. Certainly many of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims find the film deeply offensive, and some have reacted violently. The violence of the protests cannot be excused and should be condemned, of course. But the doctrine does not ask whether the violence is reasonable, only if it is the likely reaction of the "average" person.

But using the fighting words doctrine to regulate the film would raise a number of serious concerns. The Court made clear in the 1992 case R.A.V. v City of St. Paul that the government could not pick and choose which fighting words could be punished on the basis of the government's viewpoint as to which such epithets were worse than others. So the government could enact a general ban on fighting words, but not one aimed at protecting Muslims from offensive speech, for example, or even all people from offense based on religion.

Another concern would be how courts would decide whether the "average" person would respond with violence. If the consideration of the "average" response is infected with a focus on the "actual" response -- as it seems to have been in Chaplinsky itself -- then there is a real risk that the doctrine ends up tilting toward punishing offensive speech aimed at those who tend toward violence. Meanwhile, offensive speech aimed at the meek or powerless would be protected, since hearers would not likely respond violently. That would be an awkward outcome indeed.

This situation makes obvious something that is often ignored when we discuss our laudable First Amendment tradition. When we protect vile and ignorant speech like this film, it is not a cost-free social choice. Speech has effects, sometimes dire. The system works best when the freedom to speak is exercised with a sense of personal responsibility toward those who will be affected by it. When a speaker ignores those effects, it is cowardly to hide behind the First Amendment, even though it is within his rights to do so.

WASHINGTON -- A newly surfaced Congressional Research Service analysis of the government's targeted killing of suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens, suggests the Obama administration's view of due process in these situations is similar to that of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

According to the CRS memo prepared for members of Congress, the administration's position "seems to conform more with Justice Thomas's dissenting opinion in Hamdi, in which Justice Thomas argued that in the context of wartime detention for non-punitive purposes, 'due process requires nothing more than a good-faith executive determination.'" In the 2004 Supreme Court case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the other eight justices found that due process required the possibility of judicial review of such executive branch decisions.

That a CRS analyst would find the Obama White House in some regards simpatico with one of the high court's most conservative justices won't shock civil liberties groups that have criticized the administration for the killing-by-drone of Anwar Al-Awlaki and two other American citizens in Yemen last year. But the memo also pointed out the legal gymnastics used by government officials to justify the use of armed drones to take out civilians outside "hot" war zones.

The 23-page CRS memo is dated May 4, 2012, but hadn't been made public until now. It was obtained by the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy.

The document takes an "on the one hand, on the other hand" approach. Written by CRS legislative attorney Jennifer Elsea, it states, "This memorandum is an effort to clarify the debate by providing legal background, setting forth what is known about the Administration's position and identifying possible points of contention among legal experts and other observers."

From the start, Elsea makes clear that the record she is parsing is spotty. Her memo was sent to Congress shortly after White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan laid out details of the secret drone program for the first time. In a major policy speech in April, Brennan said each drone strike was carefully vetted to ensure that it was "ethical and just." He said, "As a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces, in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense."

The administration has refused to release the memo by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that sets forth the legal basis for the targeted killing program, although details were leaked last year to The New York Times.

The CRS memo seeks to glean the administration's rationale through those leaks, speeches by high-ranking government officials, and court filings in a lawsuit brought by Awlaki's father. The footnote-heavy memo also draws on papers by military lawyers and outside experts that address the legality of targeted killings.

"Because the Obama Administration has been evasive about the legal rationale for targeted killing of suspected terrorists, especially when they are U.S. citizens, observers in Congress and elsewhere are left trying to fill in the gaps," Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy, told The Huffington Post in an email.

"The memo concludes that the justification is not a simple, straightforward one. Rather, the administration seems to have taken elements of the law of armed conflict, combined them with different arguments for self-defense, and downplayed constitutional considerations (in the case of U.S. citizen targets). The result is a patchwork of arguments from multiple legal domains. Some parts of it are more persuasive than others," he said.

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor declined a request for comment.

The CRS memo finds that the administration's explanations of the legal rationale for targeted killings leaves a number of questions unanswered. Among them is whether the laws of armed conflict or self-defense should cover the use of drones against terror suspects. Another is how the U.S. Constitution applies to enemies who also are American citizens, like Awlaki.

The memo says the administration appears to have changed the definition of "imminence" when deciding to use force in self-defense. As the Project on Government Secrecy noted in summarizing the report, "The standard definition of imminence refers to an overwhelming threat that allows 'no moment for deliberation.' But the Administration uses imminence idiosyncratically 'to refer to the window of opportunity for striking rather than the perceived immediacy of the threat of an armed attack.' This novel usage 'may pose some challenge to the international law regarding the use of force.'”

Although the CRS document is careful not to draw critical conclusions, Aftergood interpreted the memo as finding that the secrecy-shrouded targeted killing program is, legally speaking, "improvised, inconsistent or otherwise questionable."

The CRS memo, "Legal Issues Related to the Lethal Targeting of U.S. Citizens Suspected of Terrorist Activities," can be read here.

Greg Sargent, Wash Post
Mitt Romney just held a press availability about the attacks in Libya and Egypt and the death of the U.S. Ambassador John Christopher Stevens. Remarkably, Romney doubled down on his claim that the Obama administration "sympathized" with the attackers."The administration was wrong to stand by a statement sympathizing with those who had breached our Embassy in Egypt, instead of condemning their actions," Romney said. "It's never too early for the United States government to condemn acts on Americans and to defend our values."Romney...

SEMINOLE, Fla. -- President Barack Obama on Saturday pronounced Republicans "dead wrong" in calling America a country in decline, offering a rebuttal to the "naysayers" who drew attention to the nation's staggering debt and anemic job growth.

Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney clawed for advantage in a post-convention push through some of the most closely contested states that marked the opening of the homestretch of the tight race.

Obama told a spirited rally that America's "basic bargain" is at stake in the election, the promise that "if you work hard it will pay off." He pledged to make education more affordable, reduce dependence on foreign oil and slash deficits "without sticking it to the middle class" if he gets another term.

Romney, who spent much of the week preparing for debates and laying low during the Democratic convention, was back in motion with a planned Virginia Beach rally and visit to a NASCAR rally in Richmond, Va.,

Virginia and Florida are two of a handful of states that could determine the outcome of the election.

Obama reached for some Ronald Reagan-like optimism in hard times, telling his audience that much about America is essentially right.

"When our opponents say this nation is in decline they are dead wrong," he said. "This is America. We still have the best workers in the world and the best entrepreneurs in the world. We've got the best scientists and the best researchers. We've got the best colleges and the best universities."

He went on: "We are a young nation with the greatest diversity of talent and ingenuity from every corner of the globe so no matter what the naysayers may say for political reasons, no matter how dark they try to make everything look, there's not a country on Earth that wouldn't gladly trade places with the United States of America."

Days earlier, GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan noted that the national debt was reported to have passed $16 trillion on the first day of the Democratic convention. "That's a country in decline," Ryan said.

Unemployment remains stubbornly high, clocking in at 8.1 percent on Friday and keeping joblessness and economic weakness on the boil as top campaign issues.

Obama opened a two-day bus tour in Florida, campaigning in a state with the highest elderly population and an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent, higher than the national average.

As both candidates enter the final two-month sprint to the election, Romney is casting Obama as an inept steward of the nation's post-recession recovery. It's a portrayal Obama has been fighting for months as the unemployment rate sticks stubbornly above 8 percent.

On Friday, the government reported that employers added just 96,000 jobs in August and that, aided by frustrated job hunters giving up, the jobless rate dropped only marginally from 8.3 percent the month before.

"He gave them no confidence whatsoever that he has any plan to make America's economy start to create the jobs it ought to be creating," Romney said Friday, critiquing Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Obama is countering by presenting himself as a champion of the middle class and by repeatedly decrying Romney's economic remedies as failed throwbacks that would further endanger the economy.

But Obama is also eager to turn the debate away from the economy and on to issues that favor Democrats. Obama repeatedly reminds audiences that Romney's running mate has proposed to overhaul Medicare, the government health program for older Americans, with a voucher-like system that could cost beneficiaries more out of their pocket.

Obama's team says the Medicare argument could help attract undecided voters approaching retirement age, more so than elderly voters whose political views are already set.

Obama's visit to Florida is his first since Romney and the GOP held their convention in Tampa last month. With 29 electoral votes, the state is a lynchpin in both candidates' strategies for winning the election.

Romney and Obama are deadlocked in Virginia, where the Democrat is strong in the northern suburbs of Washington, D.C., and Romney does better in the south and rural areas.

Romney sees working-class white voters, who have at times voted for moderate Democrats such as Sen. Mark Warner, as ripe for picking. Polls suggest those voters prefer Romney over Obama. Romney's NASCAR visit was a nod to this potentially pivotal voting bloc in Virginia, as well as Ohio, Florida, Iowa and other battlegrounds.

Romney aides say the Republican can win support by going after Obama for looming cuts in the military that could be factors in Norfolk and Hampton Roads. At issue are threatened deep spending cuts that were designed to force Congress to negotiate a debt-reduction package. But Congress has not acted and the cuts are set to kick in in January. Obama has opposed the depth of the cuts but has said Republicans need to adopt a plan that includes increases in revenue.

Romney faces similar challenges of his own in northern Virginia, where his pledge to cut 10 percent of the federal workforce affects local jobs.

___

Associated Press writers Thomas Beaumont in Belmont, Mass., and Matthew Daly in Columbus, Ohio, contributed to this report.

The Truth-o-Meter says: True | Barack Obama says U.S. has gained a half-million manufacturing jobs

During his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, N.C., President Barack Obama touted recent growth in manufacturing jobs. "After a decade of decline, this country created over half a million manufacturing jobs in the last two and a half years," Obama said. Because of the wording of his claim, we are examining whether the numbers are right, not whether Obama's policies were instrumental. To check the numbers, we turned to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal government’s official source for employment numbers. We used seasonally adjusted statistics ...

>> More

This Democratic convention has set the table for a rousing finish tonight by Vice President Biden and President Obama. The myth-making of the Republican convention has been convincingly debunked by the best debunker and policy teacher of all time, Bill Clinton. Their policy ideas have been exposed as the failed policies of the past. The achievements of Obama's first term have been celebrated, as they should have been: Lily Ledbetter kicked ass; Obamacare has been embraced and argued for as it should have been; Elizabeth Warren was spectacular in talking about the central importance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Most importantly, Democrats have made the arguments they needed to about the fundamental difference in values between the two parties, from Michelle Obama's powerful, passionate speech about her husband's values to Julian Castro's beautiful summary of the difference between the two parties' approach: "Of all the fictions we heard in Tampa last week, the one I find most troubling is this: If we all just go our own way, our nation will be stronger for it. If we sever the threads that connect us, the only people that will go far are those who are already ahead." Or as Deval Patrick said about kids in a poor school: "But those Orchard Gardens kids should not be left on their own. Those children are America's children, too, yours and mine. And among them are the future scientists, entrepreneurs, teachers, artists, engineers, laborers and civic leaders we desperately need. For this country to rise, they must rise... "

The three featured speakers last night completely delivered. Sandra Fluke showed guts, grit, and grace as she movingly laid out the choices we face for our country in this election. Elizabeth Warren made the case better than anyone else could that what we need for our economy is a level playing field and a cop on the beat. (My only problem with Elizabeth's speech was that she didn't take nearly enough credit for getting the CFPB passed, because it never would have happened without her toughness and negotiating skills, but I guess that would have been tacky.) And Bill Clinton, the old lion, he roared. No one is better than Clinton at talking policy, common sense, and values with the American people. As he does so well, he explained policy ideas in a way that seems simple and makes common sense, but he didn't talk down to people. His memorable lines -- such as the one about arithmetic, and the one about the Republican argument being that we messed things up really bad but Obama didn't fix it fast enough so put us back in charge -- are so funny and sum things up so well that they will be repeated over and over by Democrats everywhere until election day. There's no one else like him, and never will be.

Now that the table is set, Joe Biden and Barack Obama need to finish the meal. They need to convince voters that there is a way out of the constant economic stress and hardship of the last dozen years, that there is a way forward to rebuilding and expanding the great American middle class over the long term. Americans are fearful of the economic future for themselves and their families, and Obama needs to show them clearly and convincingly that he has a plan to get them to the other side of these troubled waters. They need to do what Clinton and Elizabeth Warren did: explain to the American people in down to earth language what the policy choices in front of the nature are.

News accounts, as well as my own private conversations with the Obama team, reflect mixed feelings over the nature of tonight's presidential speech in terms of how big it should be.

Stanley Greenberg, a pollster who helped develop Mr. Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid" campaign in 1992, said, "People want to know the plan," adding that Mr. Obama has "to talk about moving America to a place where the middle class can prosper."

But analysts say Mr. Obama must be careful about how he talks about investments, because voters understand that the federal government is broke and are therefore wary of promises. "If you stand up and say, 'Here are all the things we're going to spend money on,' you risk getting yourself into a big argument you don't want to have," said Jared Bernstein, former economic adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Bernstein's line reflects the thinking of many Democratic strategists, including ones I have been talking with in Senate and congressional level campaigns as well: that if Democrats think too big about our economic problems, they will be burned by voters' worries about new government spending programs. I understand the hesitation, as swing voters are very sensitive to government deficit fears and don't have faith in government spending programs as a way to get the economy going again. But I fundamentally side with Greenberg on this issue, because I see in focus groups and polls, and the hundreds of conversations I've had with non-political people around the country in cafes and airports and barber shops and pizza joints, that people's anxiety over the big long term problems of our economy and the middle class has created a deep hunger for political leaders to step forward with a serious plan to really change things. People are tired of short term solutions that don't ever seem to get at the big problems, and trumped up short term political "crises" that are never about the main things they care about.

Given the economic frustrations of the last dozen years, voters want to hear that someone has a real plan, a serious well-thought through plan, a plan that goes beyond the usual slogans and basic electioneering, to finally make the middle class in this country start growing and prospering again.

As to the concern of Bernstein and others in the party worried about the president just sounding like another tax and spend Democrat, I would argue that while of course investing in the future -- schools, roads, bridges, R&D -- must be part of what we are for, that this kind of bigger plan definitely should not only be about what we are going to be spending money on -- it should be about taking on the big special interests that are hurting our economy.

For one thing, such a plan should have cutting the real government waste that is there in federal contracting, in military spending, in subsidies to oil companies and agribusiness giants. It should also include real savings in health care spending by, for example, having Medicare negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies, and having a public option that forces insurers to compete. If I were writing this economic plan it would include breaking up the biggest banks and re-instituting Glass-Steagall so that we end Too Big To Fail banks and begin to stabilize our financial system again; being tougher about taking China on re trade and currency issues; reworking trade deals to actually start benefitting workers; a public-private infrastructure bank; vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws so that big companies cannot run roughshod over small business; changing the way the federal government does procurement and contracting to benefit businesses that pay better wages; forcing the biggest banks to write down underwater mortgages so that those homeowners can stay in their homes and have more money to spend in their local communities; getting wages back on an upward path again by raising the minimum wage and making it easier for workers to organize.

OK, I'm going to admit that President Obama will not be proposing all those things tonight, although maybe he'll include a few. But my point is that there are a great many economic policies that strengthen the middle class, take on wealthy special interests, and help rebuild our economy for the long run that don't involve more federal spending. The president should lay out big, bold ideas tonight, ideas that actually put us on a real course to building a strong economic engine with enough horsepower to move us down the track in the right direction.

The first two nights of this convention have been the best pair of opening nights I have ever seen. Now the vice president and president need to give the American people the assurance that they have a serious long term plan to take us out of these tough economic times. They need to have the confidence in the American people to explain what they are for and why. It would be a welcome contrast to their opponents' substance-free convention. But most importantly, it will give voters the confidence that Obama has a path out of the economic wilderness, and that this country's middle class can grow and become prosperous again, from the bottom up.

E.J. Dionne, Washington Post
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Bill Clinton is typically described as the empathetic, feel-your-pain guy. But his greatest political skill may be as a formulator of arguments -- the explainer in chief.And it's no accident that the former president's role in this year's Democratic convention is very nearly as important as President Obama's. What's most striking about this conclave is that it bids to be a three-day tutorial session aimed at aggressively defending a view of government and the economy for which, over most of the last 40 years, Democrats have usually apologized.