News & Politics

Gary Tischler • May 3, 2012

By the time anyone reads this, the New Hampshire Primary for the Republican Presidential Nomination will be over, unless its closer than the Iowa Caucus, in which eight votes separated winner Mitt Romney and runner-up Rick Santorum.

Romney should come out on top, on the way to his seemingly obligatory nomination—unless the quirky New Hampshire political Gods decided to intervene. Romney had a 20-point lead over his rivals and was rolling.
And yet, something seems to be sticking in the collective Republican craw. There is no joy in the GOP version of Mudville. Mighty Romney has failed to strike a chord, even though the words ‘inevitable,’ ‘easy to understand,’ and ‘hard to stomach,’ seem to be attaching themselves to him.

Consider the recent GOP doubleheader, the two debates before the primary within ten hours of each other.
The first, on prime time television on Saturday night with only an NFL playoff game for real competition, offered national viewers of all political stripes a chance to look at what’s left of the slowly winnowing and wavering GOP presidential field. (Michelle Bachman, once the tea party’s darling, conceded that the Iowa voters had spoken and they weren’t talking about her, and dropped out without so much as a tearful farewell).
The two debates—the first a Hound of Baskerville type of occasion in which the anti-Romney dogs didn’t bark—offered some thumbnail pictures of the candidates, and what appears to be of concern to GOP voters, even though almost every prospective voter interviewed by the army of media types covering New Hampshire indicated their main concern was jobs.

Did any of the candidates talk about a secret, previously undisclosed plan to create jobs? Did the candidates trailing the front-runner set on him like a pack of wolves? No to either case.

They talked about gay marriage, they talked about Iran—sort of—they talked about service in the military, they talked about abortion, they talked about contraception. The trailing candidates took swipes at each other but, strangely, not at Romney. That changed the next morning, possibly because Newt Gingrich, Santorum, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry suddenly realized that they were in the 11th hour of the New Hampshire primary.

The thing about Romney on both occasion, and almost any occasion, is that he looks presidential. Sometimes he’s doing his Reagan-in-blue-jeans thing, but most often he’s smiling in a suit. He looks like a man who is used to wealth and success, a businessman and a seasoned politician, always smiling, not a hair out of place.
With Herman Cain and Bachman out of the race, the party on the podium retains a certain one-dimensionality. Scanning the audience during the ABC debate, managed by George Stephanopoulos and Diane Sawyer, you’d never get a hint of American diversity.

Romney won by default—nobody laid a glove on him—as the irrepressible Paul, who is about as much a Republican as I am, laid into Gingrich for backing foreign wars when he never served himself. Paul remembered serving even though he was married with children at the time. But the dais was strangely quiet when Gingrich rambled on with great passion about the defense of marriage act, about the “sacrament of marriage” and the Obama administration’s attack on Christianity and religion. This devotion to the sanctity of marriage as defined by a man and a woman was stated with a straight face—for a moment some of us thought he might sniffle again—but coming from the oft-married Gingrich, this was a farcical performance.
Romney never answered a question directly and pursued what’s beginning to sound like a general campaign theme—GOP meritocracy vs. Obama entitlements. This campaign, he said, is a “battle for the soul of America,” which could be a tough fight for the smooth, polished, slick Romney machine. Let’s face it, Romney is running a rather soulless campaign.

The following day, after his pious baloney rant on the sanctity of marriage, Gingrich went after Romney with a demand to “cut this pious baloney.”

Romney had actually attacked Huntsman, the highly successful former Utah governor and fellow Mormon, for working with Obama as Ambassador to China. Huntsman who refused to attack Romney even when invited by Sawyer to take a shot, finally took it the next morning, saying Romney’s attack was the kind of thing that divided America.

Those early-morning back-and-forths may not change things. For the trailing candidates, survivability was the issue in New Hampshire—finish second or in double digits so you can carry on the fight. For Santorum, the hope is that the next stop in South Carolina, where social conservatives and Evangelist Christians are strong, will prove a more fertile ground for him.

Governor Nikki Haley, another tea party fave, has already endorsed Romney, thus entering the VP sweepstakes with the increasingly omnipresent New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Christie, popular with the media and the tea party, made another campaign appearance for Romney in New Hampshire, this time not trying to joke like Tony Soprano.

Can anybody stop Romney? Not in the GOP. But out there in the coming general election, where the volatility of the economy and the great wide world are daily factors, the outcome is up in the air.

Robert Devaney •

U.S. Park Police Sgt. Michael Boehm, who suffered a fatal heart attack responding to an injured man near Key Bridge at the C&O Canal towpath Dec. 16, was eulogized and honored Dec. 28.

Boehm’s funeral mass was at the Church of the Nativity in Burke, Va. The funeral procession of police and other vehicles moved north on I-395 to the Memorial Bridge, entering Washington with D.C. Fire Department trucks extending their ladders as an arch of honor in front of the Lincoln Memorial. The procession went on to pass the headquarters of the U.S. Park Police in Potomac Park near Hains Point and then turned back to Virginia to Fairfax Memorial Park for the burial.

Boehm is survived by his wife Corrina and son Christopher. He entered service with the U.S. Park Police on Oct. 11, 1992.

The injured man near Key Bridge — to whom police and firefighters first responded — also died that Dec. 16 night. The nature of the unidentified man’s death is still under investigation by police.

Robert Devaney •

IN

P Street Pictures is now on O Street on the west side of town. After losing her lease on the P Street shop, owner Judy Schlosser opened next to Emi and Harry’s Georgetown Dinette. Schlosser is grateful for the community’s support and is a welcome addition to the block. Check out her new space: P Street Pictures on O, 3204 O St., N.W. 202 337 0066, PStreetPix@Gmail.com.

Barre3, a yoga and dance fitness studio, opened last week at 1000 Wisconsin Ave, N.W., Suite G-100 (on the ground floor of Old Dodge Warehouse at the corner of Wisconsin Avenue and K Street; its front door is next door to Chadwick’s Restaurant). It offers classes seven days a week in two studios with a locker room and a shower, lounge with fireplace and a childcare area. 202 450 3905. Georgetown@Barre3.com.

Pie Sisters of Georgetown has opened at 3423 M St., N.W. With ovens, coolers and counters ready for action, Allison, Cat and Erin Blakely will feed Georgetown’s ever-expanding palette for all things sweet, creamy and fruity—with a few savory options, to boot. Flavors include apple caramel crunch, pecan, key lime and banana, coconut and chocolate cream. The shop sells pies in three sizes: the four-dollar “cuppie,” and seven- and nine-inch pies ($14 – $16 and $35, respectively). But if you return the glass plate that the pie comes in, you receive $5 off your next purchase. There are chairs and tables in front of the shop with a coffee counter as well. Pie Sisters is next door to Dixie Liquors, one of the shops along Regency Row: 202 338 PIES (7437). PieSisters.com.

OUT
Barnes & Noble closed in M Street store Dec. 31. A favorite of residents, the large store at M and Thomas Jefferson Streets had lost its lease. Except for Philip Levy’s Bridge Street Books on Pennsylvania Avenue, the Latern Bryn Mawr Bookshop on P Street and Georgetown University’s book store, almost no book stores remain in Georgetown. There is speculation that Nike will take over the space.

The Pinball Museum moved out of the Shops at Georgetown Park and has re-located in Baltimore.

Walter Grio •

If the world had a house band, it would be Pink Martini.

This 12-piece band from Portland can perform in so many languages that it was no surprise when Srgjan Kerim, the former president of the United Nations’ General Assembly, ordered 30 copies of Pink Martini’s second album, “Hang on Little Tomato,” and planned to share it during an official UN meeting.  

Bandleader and pianist, Thomas Lauderdale, says “Pink Martini draws inspiration from the romantic Hollywood musicals of the 1940s or ’50s . . . with a more global perspective.  We write a lot of songs, but we also champion songs like Ernesto Lecuona’s “Andalucia” or “Amado mio” from the Rita Hayworth film “Gilda” or “Kikuchiyo to mohshimasu (My name is Kikuchiyo)” made famous in the 1960s by the great Japanese group Hiroshi Wada & His Mahina Stars. In that sense, we’re a bit like musical archeologists, digging through recordings and scores of years past and rediscovering beautiful songs.”

Lauderdale met China Forbes, Pink Martini’s lead vocalist, while they were both in Harvard.  Three years after graduating, Lauderdale called Forbes who was living in New York City and asked her to join Pink Martini.  They began to write songs together for the band.  Their first song “Sympathique,” with the chorus “Je ne veux pas travailler” (“I don’t want to work”), became an overnight sensation in France and was even nominated for “Song of the Year” at France’s Victoires de la Musique Awards.

“Both China Forbes and I come from multicultural families,” says Lauderdale.  “All of us in Pink Martini have studied different languages as well as different styles of music from different parts of the world.  So, inevitably, because everyone has participated at some point in the writing or arranging of songs, our repertoire is wildly diverse.  At one moment, you feel like you’re in the middle of a samba parade in Rio de Janeiro, and in the next moment you’re in a French music hall of the 1930s or a palazzo in Napoli. It’s a bit like an urban musical travelogue.  We’re very much an American band, but we spend a lot of time abroad.  And, therefore, have the incredible diplomatic opportunity to represent – through our repertoire and our concerts – a broader, more inclusive America, comprised of people of every country, every language, every religion.”

Pink Martini has performed its multilingual repertoire on concert stages and with symphony orchestras throughout Europe, Asia, Greece, Turkey, the Middle East, Northern Africa, Australia, New Zealand and North America.  Pink Martini made its European debut at the Cannes Film Festival in 1997 and its orchestral debut with the Oregon Symphony in 1998 under the direction of Norman Leyden. Since then, the band has gone on to play with more than 25 orchestras around the world, including multiple engagements with the Los Angeles Philharmonic at the Hollywood Bowl, the Boston Pops, the National Symphony at the Kennedy Center, and the BBC Concert Orchestra in London. 

In 2011, Pink Martini performed at the Kennedy Center and at the Strathmore in Bethesda.  Unfortunately, China Forbes could not make either trips since she was recovering from vocal surgery.  She’s been performing a few shows since then, however, including the time when Pink Martini was on Jay Leno’s show. For most of the year, vocalist Storm Large filled in.  She has the voice worthy of singing the multi-lingual songs that Pink Martini has basically trademarked, and she can grab your attention with her sultry moves and playful old hollywood vibe. Despite their differences in style and personality, Storm Large worked very well on stage with Ari Shapiro.

When Pink Martini performed with the National Symphony Orchestra at the Kennedy Center earlier this year, Ari Shapiro, the White House correspondent for National Public Radio, also made his Washington, D.C., debut.  Shapiro has been moonlighting with the band for the last couple of years.  He is included on the band’s fourth album, “Splendor in the Grass,” as a guest vocalist on the track, “But Now I’m Back,” as well as the band’s holiday album, “Joy to the World”.  When he first glided on stage at the Kennedy Center, there was a bit of surprise from the audience.  “Yes, I am Ari Shapiro,”  he quickly quipped to the crowd. “And you don’t look like what I expected, either.”

While living up in Portland and before he even had a driver’s license, Shapiro actually snuck in to see a Pink Martini performance.  In the following years, Lauderdale heard Shapiro’s voice and invited the reporter to sing with the band.  Shapiro made his on-stage debut at the Hollywood Bowl in 2009.  Being NPR’s White House correspondent surely has its perks like being on Air Force One and spending time with the president. Still, with Shapiro’s GQ looks and silky butter-itone voice, he most definitely belongs on stage.  In an ironic twist, radio killed the video star.

At the Strathmore, Shapiro performed several songs on stage with Storm Large and Portland cantor Ida Rae Cahana.  In addition, Pink Martini also brought out a special guest: Japanese singing legend Saori Yuki, whom Lauderdale introduced as the “Barbra Streisand of Japan.”  And Saori Yuki did not disappoint.  In Pink Martini’s latest album, “1969?, Saori Yuki is the lead singer in most of the songs.  In the album and also during the performance, Saori Yuki sang a Japanese version of “Puff the Magic Dragon” as well as a Japanese version of “White Christmas.” Lauderdale explained that it was only recently that “White Christmas” was allowed to be performed in Japanese.  Considering what happened in Japan in 2011 with the earthquake and that the performance was one week removed from the 70th Anniversary of the Pearl Harbor, the significance of her performance was felt by everyone.

Since 2007, author Walter Grio has raised more than $100,000 through his philanthropy photo project, Shoot for Change, which has benefited numerous nonprofit organizations.  He is a regular attendee at the world renowned Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week in New York, Berlin, and Miami, photographing the fashion runways of many of the top designers in the world.  When he’s not taking photos, he works full time managing software implementations for Oracle.  For the record, he has seen Pink Martini perform in Paris, London, Washington, D.C., Seattle, and in a couple of New Year’s Eve shows in Portland.  He thinks they’re all right.

Gary Tischler •

The GOP primary race remains a wacky brew, although one with fewer fixins.  Gone is the amazing pizza king and his hazy harem.  Long gone is the man from Minnesota whom nobody knew.  Gone, too, is the prom queen of the Tea Party along with the Texas cowboy who couldn’t speak straight.  This week, four remain, and the man at the top is not Mitt Romney.

Newt Gingrich scored a somewhat remarkable upset in South Carolina — I throw in the caveat because South Carolina is, well, South Carolina, first in war (the Civil War, that is), a place where Yahoo is a state of mind as well as a search engine. He won the primary with 40 percent of the vote to Romney’s 28, with Rick Santorum, who didn’t light the evangelist fire and seems to have only one sweater vest to his name, finishing third, and the sweetly sunny Ron Paul fourth. Rick Perry had already dropped out earlier and endorsed Gingrich.

In South Carolina, the Evangelists and the Tea Party are strong factors, much stronger than in the Republican party at large. It’s a state where — among the GOP faithful — Barack Obama is not just the Democratic president, incumbent and opponent, he is reviled, hated and perhaps a socialist and perhaps not even a citizen of the United States. 

It’s a place, where Romney — not a moderate, not really a conservative, a nobody-knows-what — probably shouldn’t have expected to do well and where John McCain’s candidacy was derailed in 2000 and didn’t exactly rock and roll four years ago.  But Romney had a double-digit lead over what remained of the field—Gingrich, Santorum and the increasingly Yoda-like Ron Paul — as late as mid-week last week. That was before a surge toward Gingrich, mysterious but real, was detected. His surge was driven by tough debate performances, and his response in the last debate to ABC’s airing of an interview with his ex-wife in which he reportedly had asked her for an “open marriage.”

The CNN debate moderator, John King, made the mistake in bringing up the subject right off the top, giving Gingrich an open-ended question.  As all observers noted, Newt knocked it out of the park.  He railed against the establishment media, he questioned the appropriateness of the questions and railed against the media some more, all of which the audience cheered. Bashing the media in South Carolina — except for Fox News and Rush—is a no-brainer, like taking lunch money from a kid who is half your size with no karate experience.

The CNN moderate was entirely right to bring the subject up, but he asked the wrong question. It should have been, when Gingrich starts sputtering about fairness, privacy and the sanctity and sacrament of matrimony, whether Christian theology has room for open marriage and about the hypocrisy in his constant talk about family values and marriage. But, then, Gingrich thinks he’s as wise as Solomon.

Gingrich has admitted that he has made mistakes, but he’s never acknowledged what they might be. He says that he is a changed man from the bruiser, bullying Speaker of the House of yore, who led the impeachment drive against President Bill Clinton, but he never says how he’s changed. 

Romney, in his clashes with Gingrich, has steadily shrunk to the size of the rest of the field, which was generally considered weak, if not downright mediocre or worse.  Once the steady front-runner, even when the rest of the field was doing the dance of the seven minutes of fame, Romney is slowly emerging as that guy behind the curtain in “The Wizard of Oz.” He’s made some interesting comments, all of them indicating that he appears to have no clue how most Americans live, which is to say the 99 percent, in hard times.

From the $10,000 bet, to saying that his speaking fees of more than $300,000 are not a lot of money, to claiming that he feared getting the pink slip, to the blue jeans, Romney reveals himself to be out of touch with common human beings like the rest of us. He may soon release his tax information, but we already know he’s a 15 percenter.

Gingrich, on the other hand, scares the bejesus out of the regular Republican establishment types. This allows Gingrich to claim the status of fighter, rebel and Captain America, although he needs to get into the gym to get into that costume. It’s an odd thing — he’s a populist, a Reaganite and a pugnacious intellectual who presents himself as someone who can beat Obama . . . at least in a debate or in a dark alley, whichever works.

Lo and behold, here is Newt Gingrich, the Washington outsider, after years as an insider, including Speaker of the House.  This Newt is confident — always a danger for him—he’s ready to fight the long fight and lead the American people out of socialism. He’s already had a remarkable career.  As speaker, he orchestrated an amazing comeback for the GOP after it lost the presidency to Clinton.  In two years — much as was the case with Obama — he had the GOP in control of both the House and the Senate, a feat he frittered away through high-handedness and arrogance, making lots of enemies in the party, a fact which is starting to become clear now.

Old timers are starting to fret about the possibility of a Newt victory. They’re casting rumors about third parties. A Washington Post headline hyped: “A New Twist in the Search for Mr. Right.”  The GOP fears that it will get Mr. Goodbar instead.

David Post •

Since Franklin Roosevelt was president, Republicans and Democrats have created diametrically opposite methods for choosing their presidential nominees.

Republicans pick a nominee with deep roots in the party, usually a man who previously lost an a run for the presidency. Democrats pick a nominee with virtually no name recognition, shallow roots and who is running for the presidency for the first time.

Republicans know whom they are going to nominate. They go through the motions, but they select one of their own, a proven commodity, a person who has been running since before the previous election. Democrats nominees are a surprise to their own party, to their own voters, to the public and to the Republicans.

Republicans don’t emerge. They run, lose, run again and win. It’s called paying dues. Democratic nominees seem to emerge out of nowhere and have to battle “no experience” charges which continue even if they are elected.

Before Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932, the parties’ conventions selected their nominees, so all candidates had deep roots and internal party allegiances. Roosevelt had been Secretary of the Navy and Governor of New York. Entering his fourth election for president, however, Roosevelt changed vice presidents and selected a former clothing store operator, a political pawn, a little known senator. Harry Truman became president a month into Roosevelt’s fourth term, having spent very little time with Roosevelt and was completely unaware that an atomic bomb – that he would order dropped a few months later – was being produced.

Since then, the parties have followed their unique paths to the presidency.

In 1948, the Republicans anointed New York Governor Thomas Dewey, a presumable shoo-in. He was so far ahead, the pollsters quit taking the public pulse in September. Truman prevailed.

In 1952, both parties knew World War II hero, Dwight Eisenhower, would win and begged him to join their party. (Remember both parties pursuing Colin Powell?) Eisenhower picked the Republicans and cruised into the White House. Richard Nixon was his vice president.

In 1960, Nixon moved into position as the Republican nominee. The Democrats selected the little known, little accomplished, junior, but wealthy, Senator John Kennedy. Kennedy defeated his Senate boss, the inside-the-party favorite, Lyndon Johnson. Nixon lost, but he won the nomination – and the presidency – in 1968.

In 1976, President Ford, the country’s only non-elected president, faced a challenge for the Republican nomination. Ronald Reagan was a famous movie star, TV commentator and a popular governor of California, the largest and typically Democratic state. Ford beat him but lost to Jimmy Carter.

Four years later in 1980, Reagan returned and defeated George H. W. Bush for the nomination. George H. W. Bush was a Texas Republican whose father had been a U.S. senator. Bush had been a congressman, had lost a run for the Senate, and had been U.S. Ambassador to China. Reagan picked Bush as his vice president and defeated the sitting President Carter.

In 1988, George H. W. Bush was Mr. Republican Establishment, won the nomination and the election against Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. Again, Michael Who?

In 2000, the Republicans nominated Texas Governor George W. Bush, who had defeated a popular Democratic governor in 1994. Had his name been George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, he would never have gone to Yale or Harvard, been given an ownership interest and the CEO position of the Texas Rangers major league baseball team and never have run for office. His last name was Bush, and his dad had been President. George W. Bush didn’t have to lose to win, but how establishment can a candidate be?

Since Roosevelt, the Democrats have selected Jimmy Who?, Bill Who? and Barack Huh?

In 1976, Jimmy Carter, better known as Jimmy Who, was a little known, peanut farmer who had served one term as Georgia’s governor. No one on the national scene had ever heard of him. He had a 1-percent name recognition rating going into the Iowa caucuses and defeated a slew of established Democrats for the nomination.

In 1992, establishment Democrats were afraid to run against George H. W. Bush’s 91-percent approval rating. Bill Clinton, another small-state governor who had given an awful speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention, took the plunge. Most Americans probably cannot find Arkansas on a map. He faced ongoing charges of immoral behavior during the election (and during his presidency).

In 2008, Hilary Clinton had the nomination locked up, but Barak Obama who had served as a U.S. senator for a mere four years, surprised her, the nation and is now president.

When Democrats nominate mainstream candidates, they lose. Vice Presidents Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale and Al Gore couldn’t get to the finish line.

What does this mean? The only Republicans running now who have a chance to win are Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Romney ran in 2004 and lost. He’s ripe. Gingrich talks about being a Washington outsider, but he lives there and is trying to ride President Reagan’s coattails.

Rick Santorum is not and Jon Huntsman was not really running this year. They are running for the Republican nomination in 2016. Whom will they run against? Some Democrat who has a 1-percent name recognition right now.

John Fenzel •

From now until November, all of us will be bombarded in print and on the airwaves with political campaign ads, polling numbers, social media advocacy, vitriol and validation.  All focused on the election of one individual to a single office, the President of the United States.  

But in the grand scheme of things, as you watch these campaign commercials, ask yourself this simple question:  Does the president really matter? 

Think about it for just a second. 

There are those who are reasonably certain that the president they elect will be their personal salvation — rendering their household bills suddenly affordable, putting cheap gas in the tanks of their SUVs, reducing crime in their neighborhoods and taking them off the unemployment rolls. 

The perception of the president as having absolute power over one’s life is nothing new.  But it is a naive and polarizing view. 

In the 1840s, Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle wrote that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.”  Writing about men like Muhammad, Luther and Napoleon, Carlyle theorized that heroic men shape history through both their personal attributes and via divine inspiration — that all great events turned on the great decisions of great men. 

If the entire country defines the chief executive’s span of responsibility, can a president be held accountable for everything that the nation does or fails to do? 

Credit or blame, in their cumulative form, generally define a presidency.  Both are spun wildly by pundits in countless venues with countless agendas.  But the reality is that a president actually has far less influence on our daily lives than we may give him credit.  The president is routinely described as the most powerful person in the world.  It is, after all, the president who creates budgets, develops domestic policy, energy policy and conducts foreign policy.  The president nominates Supreme Court and Federal judges.  He sets legislative agendas and has veto power over congressionally passed bills. 

But they never do so in a vacuum.  There are countless countervailing, equalizing forces that face every presidential decision — from sending troops into a war zone to submitting a budget resolution.  He must face congressional opposition, media scrutiny, lobbyists, foreign leaders and Supreme Court decisions. 

We routinely elect our presidents under the promise of “change.”  But presidents are seldom the sole catalysts for change.  They get plenty of help along the way.  They can help set the conditions for progress, but they rarely directly cause it to occur.  If a president goes too far with a policy, opposition sets in, and the intended action is voted down or modified in some way.  In the longer term, if he goes way too far or doesn’t do enough, he’s not re-elected.  The president submits a budget for the nation, but Congress must pass it.  When Congress passes a budget resolution, even when he opposes it, the president has no choice but to spend the money. 

What was the last presidential decision that affected you?  Most of us will be hard-pressed to think of even one. 

Certainly, for our servicemen and women and their families, the question will be readily answered with whatever theater of war to which they or their loved ones have deployed.  For those who have been injured or killed, the loss of life or limb cannot be reversed or changed.  And so, for the 1 percent of our nation who serve, the president and the decisions he makes as commander-in-chief, matter a great deal. 

For everyone else, whoever is president affects our lives to a far lesser extent than we may believe.  We may agree or disagree with a president’s policies, but precious few of those policies represent original thought.  Chances are, for each policy cited, other presidents before them have espoused something very similar.  Agendas may matter far more than the president himself. 

So, here’s a quick drill for you.  Answer this quickly:  Who are the truly great presidents? 

Maybe you answered with names like Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, FDR.  Those Americans born before 1963 may point to President John F. Kennedy, based on the decisions he made during the Cuban Missile Crisis, that played a principal role in averting a global nuclear war. Whomever you picked, chances are, those presidents likely did indeed do great things — created the conditions for our democracy, preserved the Union, averted nuclear war, etc.  But whoever were your top picks, it’s likely that your list represents only a fraction of the 44 U. S. presidents.    

That’s why leadership matters, above all else. 

As politics becomes more and more polarizing, and as Americans are moved further and further to extremes, there will be many who attempt to attach the “Great Man” theory to the Office of the President. 

But don’t fall for it.  For even a second.

Vincent Orange •

On Feb. 16, the D.C. Council Committee of the Whole will hold a public hearing commencing at 10 a.m. on a bill (Bill-19-0566) I introduced titled, the “Early Childhood Education Act of 2011.” I invite you to come and testify.

If enacted, this bill will ensure a curriculum is created and implemented that guarantees a reasonable expectation that our three- and four-year-old children are adequately prepared for entry and achievement in the District of Columbia Public Schools kindergarten program. In addition, the bill will ensure a curriculum is created and implemented that guarantees a reasonable expectation that our third grade children will be able to read independently and be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide upon being promoted to the fourth grade.

Currently, there are 10,000 preschoolers enrolled in our early childhood education program. There is also a large population of children enrolled in kindergarten, first, second and third grades. Before standardized testing begins in the fourth grade, we must ensure that our children are equipped with the basic tools to succeed by being able to read independently and add, subtract, multiply and divide upon entering the fourth grade.
According to the curriculum timetable in schools, the formative years is the time when a child is learning how to read and learning the basics of mathematics. In the fourth grade, the curriculum changes and a child is expected to read for comprehension and is no longer expected to learn the basics of how to read. The fourth grade also introduces a child to mathematical concepts such as fractions and decimals in preparation for algebra and so on.

According to the United States Department of Education, a child who has not mastered the basic foundation for education upon entering the fourth grade will have a high probability of having contact with the criminal justice system. Research indicates two-thirds of students who cannot read proficiently by the fourth grade will end up in jail or on public assistance. Moreover, several states forecast needed prison growth based on third grade reading scores. Clearly, we must do everything within our power to avert our children from having contact with the criminal justice system, by putting in place support systems that help children meet educational standards.

As community residents, parents, grandparents, educators, teachers and taxpayers, we have a vested interest in improving educational standards within our community. As taxpayers, we deserve a return on our investment with efficient and effective high-quality learning environments in which all District children are the beneficiaries.

Education is the starting line to a life of productivity. Please join me in providing our children with a curriculum designed to provide them with the opportunity to have a great start in life.