Saturday, January 31, 2015

Romney Out, Lindsey Graham in, bringing back the Republican Hawks into the Mix

Keywords or Terms: Mitt Romney; Senator Lindsey Olin Graham, Military Hawk; Military Industrial Complex; South Carolina; Los Angeles Times; CNN; Senate Judiciary Committee; Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act; Immigration Reform; Militarization of America’s foreign policy; Security through Strength; ISIS, Al Qaida in Arabia and Boko Haram; and, White House’s action

Early spring of 2015 is getting unusually hot among Republican Presidential hopefuls – not counting the dropping out of Mitt Romney from spade of candidates gunning for 2016 Party Nomination – the Republican Party is experiencing some schism due to infighting for campaign strategists, fund raisers, bundlers and message brokers. Republican aspirants have been jostling to recruit competent persons into their campaign teams; and the few with prior experience with the exercise are scarce, pretty scarce. Though unconfirmed, there was speculation that Romney’s Iowa political strategist for the 2012 exercise was hired away by Jeb Bush. In a phone conference from Provo, Utah, Mitt Romney did what was probably expected after interaction with supporters, money bags and rank and file, and personal reflection or assessment of his chances third time around, and arrived at the conclusion to give it all up.

So, Romney announced late on Friday as reported by Los Angeles Times that: ““After putting considerable thought into making another run for president, I've decided it is best to give other leaders in the party the opportunity to become our next nominee… I feel that it is critical that America elect a conservative leader to become our next president. You know that I have wanted to be that president… But I do not want to make it more difficult for someone else to emerge who may have a better chance of becoming that president.” Pundits on twitter lit up with speculations that the new generation of Republicans Romney was refereeing to, included: Senator Marco Rubio of Florida; New Jersey Governor Chris Christie; Kentucky Senator Rand Paul; and, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, among others. Party insiders claim there are other Republicans as capable, if not even well grounded in Conservative values, including military hawkishness, especially Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Today’s exposé looks at one of such hawkish and conservative Republicans, Senator Lindsey Graham; a man Senator McCain calls my personal friend.

Who exactly is Lindsey Olin Graham? What does America know of this Southern Carolina Senator who is a veteran of Senate among other accolades? The unique nature of grassroots campaigns is very complex and sometimes dicey. Mitt Romney who announced his intention to run in 2016 barely two weeks ago at a gathering of Republican National Committee members in San Diego has suddenly dropped out. No matter what accolades and praise Republicans are offering, you sure certain that some Republicans are happy, Mitt is out of the way! It is now left to other candidates to appeal to the rank and file and or appease Republican leadership that they are the real deal. Can Lindsey Graham do this better than Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Scott Walker or Bob Carson?

Well, let’s look at him: Mr. Graham is a fifty-nine year old senior senator from South Carolina who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Never been married, he’s a lawyer, a former Colonel in the South Carolina Air National Guard; and currently, US Air Force Reserve. Graham served in Iraq and Afghanistan as a reservist for short periods in 2007 and 2009. Although never been in military combat, he carries with him a sympathy for men in uniform and once said, if found as embellishing his credential as a war hero, he is not fit to serve in US Congress. He holds a Psychology BA and JD from the University of Southern Carolina. A right winger, who probably feels welcomed by the Tea Party group as Texas Senator Ted Cruz; he is married to public service and once criticized President Obama verminously on Benghazi, going as far as calling him an Imperial President.

American voters have the burden of proving that one with such a credential is not fit for office of the presidency; however, Republicans have a double duty to scan Mr. Graham’s private life for suitability as their party’s flag bearer. Campaign strategists would do well to analyze the period before his advent in public service, to figure out if there are some embarrassing events that may derail a presidential bid. A man who started promoting his own presidential ambition or candidacy on CNN less than two hours after Mitt Romney announced that he will not be running in 2016. The senator, who prides himself as ready to make the Pain-capable Unborn Child Protection Act virtually useless, recently announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee, the Security through Strength Committee, to channel his dream to a reality.

If Senator Lindsey Graham anchors his presidential campaign on militarization of America’s foreign policy or immigration reform, he sure has some explaining to do to voters. The foreign war voyeurism of the last Republican President seems to have traumatized the psyche of the average American; and, any talk about wars at this time may be nauseating to many, especially American families who lost loved ones in what many consider as duped or dubious wars. As a member of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham hopefully understands how difficult it is for people to believe a party or government that led the nation to what is considered unnecessary war. As a lawyer, voters believe he appreciates the difficulty of being lied to and the burden of proof to show transparency in governance. Whatever his explanation for justifying returning to hawkishness in foreign policy, hopefully, the senator is not attempting to revisit policies that brought severe damage to America’s foreign policy and US presidency?

The last Republican Administration was filled with many ironies, with Republican leadership being caught in a web of lies to justify going to war in Iraq, while ignoring common sense policies and actions that lead directly to the culprits. After the bombing of September 11, 2001, there was unanimous opinion in Washington that the Presidency has the obligation to go after the culprits; however, rather than face this group or master engineers, the Republican Administration headed to a country that probably contributed through the support of State terrorism; but was not the actual culprit. One thing that the September 11, 2001 hearing have demonstrated is that, our leaders may run afoul of the law by being deceptive of the real reason for their actions in a foreign war. The formidable task of cleaning up after the last Republican Administration by current Democratic Administration pronounces ill-will verdict on the seasons of Republicans in the White House. To anchor your presidential campaign on this dicey and very troublesome concept at this time may seem unwise.

Despite this apprehension, no one is advocating passiveness in US foreign policies. With growing terrorism across the globe and the flexing of muzzles by ISIS and other terrorist groups in the Middle East, one is not discountenancing the need for strategic policies that halt their advances. Six plus years of President Obama Administration have shown that success in foreign policy does not have to be accomplished through go-it-alone foreign wars; occasionally a systematic maneuvering of the opponents or enemy is all that is needed.

‘Security through Strength’ slogan for a presidential campaign seems prudent at a time when voters are not weary of wars. The strategic superiority of the American military is not in question. Unnecessary aggressive strategy to counter invisible or suspected risks is hardly tenable when the nation is still fighting to re-absorb and care for the veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Prolonged Kremlin leadership vacuum was the reason President Reagan was able to curtail Russia in the cold war era; however, ISIS, Al Qaida in Arabia and Boko Haram in Nigeria and others across the globe are definably a different animal. We are dealing with group(s) that is chameleonic in character; our goal is to understudy them and use tactics far different from what were used in curtailing state sponsored terrorism. It may entail establishing innovations and initiatives at the intelligent and security agencies that mirror similar tactics elsewhere used for fighting unconventional terrorism. We cannot politicize this rather grave new frontier of foreign policy; and, we are not ready to make concession at any time.

The epigram, nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought, hardly applies to fractionalized terrorism groups across Middle East. Even though the Obama Administration made some advances through the drone program to curtail terrorists, it is still not in the nation’s interest to capitalize on some of the failures of the program, by drawing them into our domestic politics. President Obama has not weakened the nation by charting a different course in fighting terrorism or addressing some of the world tough spots. Many political observers have detected and criticized the failure of one jackets fits all doctrine towards foreign policy. A more practical rather than nationalistic foreign policy may have greater influence on the new enemy as we now know.

On the matter of immigration, it is not enough to criticize President Obama for using executive actions. There is sufficient blame to torch all parties, US Congress and the White House. However, there are no reasons to believe that Obama has politicized the process; it behooves congress to legislate on issue of immigration. If Congress has failed; the consequential decision for the White House to remain docile on this rather important issue affecting close to twelve million people living within American borders, is symptomatic of irresponsibility. Indeed, in some instances, the pressure groups wanting action on the issue of immigration reform have weighed heavily on the White House’s action; however, to turn around to blame the action taken by President Obama as dividing the Republican Party is untenable. Is the Republican Party the party of self-deportation as you asked? President Obama deferred to Congress for very long time; and since Congress continued delaying or reneging on its responsibility, the President acted out of choice or by succumbing to public opinion. To some advocate of immigration reform, President Obama’s action seemed to be “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”

It is in this context that the apprehension of Republicans of the White House’s executive actions on immigration and other public interest issues must be taken. The tension rising between Congressional Republicans and the White House demands for political openness, a very important ingredient of governance that has escaped the two. Both parties must appreciate the limitations of each other and the place of each other in a bicameral chamber of congress. Congress must take responsibility for its inaction on very important public issues of legislation. Likewise, the White House must curry fuller engagement with Congressional lawmakers so that urgent legislation are raised and passed for the President’s signature. For a more responsive government, everyone has to play its part, US Congress and the White House.

For now, American voters are looking forward to meeting the Senior Senator from South Carolina on the campaign trail. Nowhere in America are voters looking forward to a time of isolation from the rest of the world; however, no one is expecting a government which is authorizing or underwriting excessive spending on the military intervention where the direct interest of America is not at stake. What America wants is for both Republicans and Democrats to provide solutions to the nation’s pressing problems, not finger pointing or using epigram to drive presidential campaigns that they can hardly identify with. The unity sought between lawmakers of both major political parties is to drive result-oriented governance, where the White House would not resort to executive actions to better the welfare of Americans. Good Luck to Senator Lindsey Olin Graham!

Friday, January 30, 2015

Of Marco Rubio and the Republican Party: Coping with the minority gap in Reagan’s Party?

Keywords or Terms: Reaganomics Sympathizers; Luxury Yachts and Homes; Minorities; Earned Income Credits; Cuban American Marco Rubio; Anna Rogers, Conservative group American Crossroads; Karl Rove; immigration Reform; Poverty Eradication; President Ronald Reagan; Godfather of Republican Conservative Values; Right-wing Movement; Tea Party Group; President Barack Obama; Travels to Cuba; America’s Political Experience; Narcissistic Culture; NAACP; 1964 Civil Rights Act; Barry Goldwater; President Lyndon B. Johnson.

Republican leadership – especially the Reaganomics sympathizers – laments the dart of minorities in their party. Each holds views that the free market system needs no invisible hand to correct for the excesses of the market place or the short-comings of their doctrine. In consequence they declare, “Minorities” are welcomed in the party, as long as they are willing to work, even for meager wages that put them always below the poverty line. They introduce policies and programs that take away the possibility of a living wage for many underprivileged groups and go behind in their luxury yachts and homes to celebrate their conquest of the marketplace, while talking about how lazy many of the minority groups are; and, why the Earned Income Credit line item deduction on federal income tax is a transfer payment that the system can no longer afford.

This is hardly surprising. The spectrum of their contact with many of these minority groups is probably limited to their housekeeper and groundskeeper, who often are immigrants from Latin America. Apart from this group, the ‘Reaganites’ hardly seek out other minorities and pay attention to their opinions regarding the challenges of surviving in a cut-throat competitive marketplace, where winners always takes all. The question of wage stagnation and immigration which probably form the anchor for the Cuban American Marco Rubio’s quest for Republican Party’s flag bearer are shared by a whole lot of people of color, majority of who are hardly Republicans. No one – least of the Republican leadership – shares sympathy with Rubio’s Mexican-born spouse opinion that illegal immigrants come to the United States to provide for their families out of love. Neither are they also interested in eradication of voter’s identification laws and reforming the criminal justice system. Marco Rubio can therefore rest assured that he has the slightest chances of being nominated as his party’s flag bearer. Apart from the candidacy of his fellow Florida Republican Jeb Bush, Marco’s support is rather thin among Republican rank and file; and, his constant and fierce criticism of President Barack Obama is hardly going to win him currency with other minority groups in America.

Rubbing Shoulders with Conservative Republicans and Reganites

It is true of the idiom, show me your friends and I would tell you who you are. Marco Rubio’s choice of Anna Rogers, the finance director of the Conservative group, American Crossroads, as his fundraiser in California as well as, finance director of his Presidential Campaign, is rather telling of where Rubio’s ambitions and sympathies lie. Voters will recall that Karl Rove, former President George W. Bush adviser, founded American Crossroads. Karl Rover probably has fewer admirers in today America, although he holds bag for many rich Republicans who like to claim Ronald Reagan as the Godfather of Republican Conservative Values.

Reaganites that Rubio is rubbing shoulders with are not more likely to feel at home with immigration reforms or allow more undocumented immigrants to remain in America. Cuban-Americans who have established deep roots in Miami will inform Rubio that the singular action of President Barack Obama to afford for American travels to his native ancestral land has done more good for that island nation than his presidential candidacy can ever do for the same group; and or, Latin America as a whole. Meteoric rise in a more right wing tilted Republican Party for a minority is likely to have more difficulties; Rubio’s candidacy could have been better served by a much centrist or liberal Republican party.

The right-wing movement of the party, the Tea Party Group insurgent, makes it difficult to canvass for enough party votes to lead to a flag-bearer’s nominee. The insurgents of the Tea Party group in the Republican Party is a radical conservatism which many Republican leaders are finding difficult to contain; or unable to manage for a number of reasons that are better left for other times. Marco Rubio’s candidacy is in line with my philosophy of encouraging more minorities to seek higher national political office. However in the case of the Republican Party, Americans understand correctly that a decision to seek party nomination, or one to go it alone out of association or familiarization with some pseudo-power broker by a minority candidate, has the potential of producing two perversely unexpected results. First, to ward off claim of tokenism, Marco Rubio’s presidential candidacy must be broad-based enough within the Republican Party; just as Barack Obama’s candidacy in 2008 in the Democratic Party.  Rubio’s 2016 candidacy may improve the ability of future minority members of the Republican Party to seek party nomination as flag bearer; but hardly for Marco Rubio in the present day Republican Party. One may want to liken Marco Rubio’s this time around to Jesse Jackson’s in the 1984 Democratic Primary.  Second, Marco Rubio’s candidacy could actually bring a reflection in Republican Party’s leadership; or, a new cautiousness among Republicans who would rather continue to push the party to the far right political culture. It should now be clear to the Reaganites, who claim to be sympathetic to the affairs of minorities that, when their party can hardly put forward a minority to lead in the capacity of a Presidential candidate, then there is hardly the question of diversity in the Republican Party. Maybe Marco Rubio’s candidacy will prevent the bus of disunity from going much farther and faster down the road of conservative Armageddon that will herald into America’s Political Experience, Narcissistic Culture.

With its huge Presidential Campaign contribution chest, Republicans certainly have the wherewithal to defend their values. Their campaign chest with the reported Koch brother’s donation of close to 900 million, definitely, the Republican party has enough money to re-arrange support for a capable candidate, even if only a minority as the party’s flag bearer. The good news is that, by every lesson of history, a person, party or institution, can move towards a better or improved stratosphere. Marco Rubio’s candidacy can contribute more to the diversity that is currently absent in the Republican Party. The bad news is that the diversity clock of the Republican Party has the tendency of moving too slowly; and with too little and too late in response to minority group’s pressure.

It is true nevertheless, that the numbers of minorities seeking Republican Party nomination as flag bearer are improving with the passing of time. As further evidence, the potential Republican class of 2016 minority candidates for party’s flag bearer, may include an African-American neurosurgeon, Bob Carson; an Indian-American governor, Bobby Jindal; one Hispanic Senator, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and a female business leader, Carly Fiorina. Those who wonder about the exclusion of Ted Cruz, the Senator from Texas is Canadian-born, that disqualifies him according to US constitution. The growing number of minorities has the potential of growing the big tent, as the Republicans sarcastically always put it. It is no longer news that the Party has struggled on the issue of diversity since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential nominee opposed diversity of their party when then Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson, signed the Civil Rights Act into law. This current terrain is a hard or tough one, if you ask Anne Romney?

We can expect that as more minorities put themselves up to serve, each major political party will continue to give them the opportunity. The Presidency of Barack H. Obama has brightened the chances of others. The current spade of minorities in the Republican class of 2016 is a new development that can broaden diversity and participation in national elections of minorities at the Presidential level. Hopefully this will not be an option for the Republican Party. To paraphrase Benjamin Jealous, former President of NAACP, Republicans have to make a decision about whether they are going to build a meaningful multiracial coalition that respect the civil rights of people in this country or they are going to continue to play the dog-whistle politics that has besmirched the Republican Party. Common sense or the realities of this time say, the party may not continue to alienate minorities by pushing archaic laws like the voter identification laws that disproportionately impact minorities while resisting changes in immigration and criminal justice system on the road to diversifying their party.

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Between O’Malley and Warren: trying to visualize an unthinkable in 2016 Democratic Party Nomination?

Keywords or Terms: 2016 Democratic Party Nomination; Martin O’Malley; Elizabeth Warren; Secretary Clinton; Unknown Variables; Doug Duncan; Bob Ehelich; Roger Freeman; Jack Dovey;  Perceptions; Wage Stagnation; Income Inequality; Middle Class Earnings; Immigration; Social Welfare Programs

Would political contest for 2016 Democratic Party Nomination boil down to a contest between Governor Martin O’Malley of Maryland and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts? Does that possibility require us [Democrats] to subordinate the ambition of the former US Secretary of State and to dismiss the front-runner status of the former first lady of the United States – or at least, believe that this scenario is a possibility? Anyone whose memory stretches back to the early sixties, can tell you there have been a couple of political heavy weights who were initially projected as front runners for party nomination, who eventually chose not to run for reason of health or the demands of a national campaign and family schedules. Campaigning for Party nomination is a serious business, both physically and financially; and, if one contemplates going into this venture, one has to be put together as my wife always says about tasks that needs to be accomplished around the home and office. The question at any rate is not unforeseeable. It is implicit in this nightmare vision, like, Secretary Clinton choosing for other reasons unrelated to political contest to throw in the towel. The horror of a health issue cropping up; or, a secretly kept tape about an embarrassing event that may derail a presidential bid; consider a Benghazi unknown event that Republicans can handily exploit, which calls for the secretary to review her intentions to run.

As Governor O’Malley surmised, "It's really not about any horse race aspect of this. I've been full-time governing and helping a whole lot of people in the midterms. It's very essential that if you were to offer yourself in this sort of service that you do so after a lot of reflection and proper preparation…; and, [I am not going to wait on Hillary Clinton to make a declaration]." This last statement is reminiscent of the current hypothesis. Martin O’Malley became a beneficiary of the choice of his main opponent in 2006 race for the office of Governor of Maryland, Montgomery County Executive Doug Duncan, who abruptly dropped out a few days to the Democratic Party primary due to a diagnosis of clinical depression. Doug Duncan threw his support behind O’Malley and he went head to head against Governor Bob Ehelich and won the governorship of the State of Maryland in that year.

The dramatic choice of a candidate dropping out or refusing to declare clear intentions is hardly a fallacy or in-feasible. A favored candidate, not opposed and with enviable credentials have gone into an election bid and three days before the voting, passed away. Not ready to be called a Prophet of doom, the Democratic Party nominee and incumbent of Washington State 30th district legislature, Roger Freedman, passed away a little less than a week before last November mid-term election. He won the election against his opponent, a Republican Jack Dovey, who was determined to be a tax dodger based on filed papers in the courts. It seems far from contemplation; however, these events do happen and the expectations of supporters must not be sacrosanct as not to envisage a possibility.

To this hypothetical contest: O’Malley versus Warren; the contest will end up being a good fight between two progressives that hardly any Democrat, will find it easy to cast his or her vote. The formidable governor of Maryland, in 2011 signed a law that made certain undocumented immigrants eligible for in-state college tuition on conditions; and in 2012, legalized same-sex marriage in Maryland. To her credit, apart from stirring up a lot of progressive ideas in legislation, Senator Warren, a former Harvard law professor of Bankruptcy and hypothetical O’Malley’s competition, have advanced consumer relief initiatives and fought hard in US Congress against those crooks who brought the nation to its knees during the financial crisis. Her questioning of top corporations’ financial brasses during congressional inquests or hearings into the financial mess has been hailed as profound and very outstanding.

Senator Lizzy Warren other repertories include: 1) Foresighted - She slammed the sequestration that President Obama is currently advancing to retire; and co-sponsored the Job Preservation and Sequester Replacement Act, which was meant to repeal the sequester and increase revenue generation by taxing corporations and the super-wealthy; 2) Defends Democratic values, fighting for ordinary people and not Banks – She said from the get-go in Senate, Corporations are not people and introduced as first bill, Students Loan Fairness Act ; 3) Hardly afraid to confront and stir down regulators; 4) open-minded and critical of half way legislations – when US Senate passed a mild filibuster reform deal, she raised her disappointment and objections; and 5) proposed legislations with both Democrats and Republicans on the government-sponsored enterprise initiatives, a legislation designed to prevent government from using guaranteed fee hikes from Fannie May and Freddie Mac to pay for spending initiatives or selling GSE US Treasury preferred shares without formal reforms.

If the objectives for Democrats and our Party are to advance coherent vision of the economy and build a bridge to further financial reforms and rapid information and technology development, thereby addressing the problem of wage stagnation, our new focus must not be limited to humane and functional economic advances as suspected avocations of the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. Further, we must see beyond economic, immigration and financial reforms; and, if we are to subscribe to Nation’s magazine John Nichols’ take on Clinton’s campaign: “[It] cannot be about nostalgia for the 1990’s or even continuity with the Obama’s presidency.” The inherent danger of us losing the White House in 2016 is our failure to offer more revolutionary policies that voters will identify with and our supporters are ready to stand up and go vote for on Election Day. Our domestic and foreign policy initiatives must promote cohesive vision which Americans will vote in support; and, no more complacency among our supporters, where they are tempted to sit back in their recliners on November 8, 2016, as they did in the mid-terms.

The notion that economic progress has brought on more income inequality because of great wage slowdown is untenable under our (Democratic Party) stewardship. The Republican Party has attempted to squeeze our message off the front page; that when we occupy the White House, we have sometimes failed to ring our own bell or accomplishments. President Obama has been successful in his administration no matter what Republicans insinuate; however, some of us have maintained that current White House failed in casting or urgently re-casting its successes on time in the media ecosystem, electronic and print. Our position is that, we must have message driven arm of the Democratic Party, working closely in telling and re-telling our accomplishments, immediately success is in the offing. Sometimes, it is not the accomplishments alone that matters; rather, it is how you put the message surrounding the accomplishments out there. Is it timely, is it broad-based and is it coming in real time in the 24/7 information cycle. One good lesson I have learnt in politics is this: Never allow your opponent(s) to tell your story and or message!

Recent Calculations of the Republican Party leadership is that they can usurp some of our established stomping grounds on public and social welfare programs. Mitt Romney’s and Marco Rubio’s rebranding of wage stagnation and eradication of poverty as campaign messages in forthcoming election cycle are probably the grimmest usurpation. The probability that American voters can defer to their recast is feasible, only if Democrats allow this. Therefore, we must now get on our earnest definition of our vision for 2016 and broadcast the potentials for the American voters; or, suffer the repercussions. Leading Democrats have expressed concerns regarding how current White House handled some messages regarding our recent successes; we must recognize this slackness, even if this is not true. You know the story about how perception is everything!

Thus, whether Hillary, Martin or Lizzy, we must get out there and make our vision and message large and loud!

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Why America has Republican Party turned-off: Sarah Palin and Chris Christie?

Keywords or Term: Iowa Republican Freedom Summit; Field of Dreams; Republican Hopefuls; Lampoon or incoherent speech of Governor Sarah Palin, Governor Chris Christie; Eloquence, Leadership, Congressional Republican Leadership, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, US House Speaker John Boehner, Dick Cheney; Donald Rumsfeld, Communication, and Immigration.

The Republican Party had a freedom summit in Des Moines, Iowa this weekend; probably with the intention of preparing for 2016 general elections. Considering the number of hopefuls on the speaker’s list of the local organizing committee: Jim DeMint, former U.S. senator from South Carolina; Newt Gingrich, former US House Speaker; Donald Trump, real estate mogul and TV personality; Sarah Palin former 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and former governor of Alaska; Steve King, Seventh term Congressman from Iowa and host to the summit;, Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin; Rick Santorum, former US Senator from Pennsylvania and Republican winner of 2012 Iowa caucus; Rick Perry, Governor of Texas; Reverend Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas; Carly Fiorina, former CEO of the computing giant, HP; one is apt to believe the congregation provided a spectacular contrast to what Democrats are anticipating.

The dozen or more Republican hopefuls advanced several theses as to how their party will win back the White House. Out of the twelve fields of dreamers, probably only three actually have the backbone of their party’s leadership, the rank and file; and or, the loyalty of the far- right group, the Tea Party that is weighing heavily on the direction of the party. Absent from the meeting were Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney, whom some polls say are probably the party’s front runners. The Republicans prided themselves on being the favorites of the American people based on the 2014 mid-term election successes. Apart from the usual Obama’s Administration’s bashing and hammering, immigration became the main topic of their discussion. And, if an assessment of the accomplishments of the meeting is to be written, there is none more telling than the headline: GOP has a Sarah Palin problem!

The Republican Party sent across the nation or probably the world, that at least one of their potential candidates is predictively hardly eloquent. It wasn’t that the field of dreamers is hardly energetic enough. It wasn’t the jumbling together of the definition of what is meant to be conservative for a Republican Party aspirant, it was the fact that Sarah Palin, being Sarah Palin, had a long and unyielding speech which even by Republican Party’s standard, was considered meaningless, incoherent and disjointed. Her speech and other unfounded criticisms by other speakers made observers say, if this group is the field of candidates Republicans are offering in 2016, baring the inclusion of Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, Republican Party has now set the standard for nomination or inclusion so low, potential candidates attempting to seek the Republican Party nomination need no political laurel to jump into the race or bandwagon.

In 2012, the crucial downfall of the Romney-Palin candidacy was how light-weight Sarah Palin was with her interview with then, CBS Katie Couric. Her speech at the Iowan Republican Party Freedom Summit was likened to a buffoon’s and truth be told, early elimination of the former governor of the State of Alaska, is justifiably prudent based on her performance. Further, some newspapers likened her statements to those most familiar with FOX News audience, like John Stossel’s: “No good data proving second hand smoke kills nonsmokers”; and, Mayor Giuliani’s: “President Obama has issued a statement asking everybody to hate the police.” In addition, Her Iowa Freedom summit speech was not only incoherent, Republican reviewers themselves agree that it was close to being given by an idiot! That is telling enough of a candidate Republican Party’s leadership once considered a Vice-Presidential material; and now, a potential candidate for nomination as the party’s flag bearer in 2016. With former Alaska’s governor’s performance at the Iowa’s Republican Party’s Freedom summit this weekend, Republicans will invariably come to a realization that poor old Sarah isn’t only incoherent, she has no business ever seeking to become anything at the national level.

Eloquence, leadership and the Republican Party

One Republican aspirant, Governor Chris Christie, made an argument for leadership quality for potential inhabitant of the Office of the Presidency. This agreeably is credible; however, his technique of communication proved to be rather in your face or with that torch of New Jersey brashness that many across the nation hardly buy. Governor Christy who argues much for leadership in that office came across as insulting when he said, if Iowan’s are not so much into his candidacy why do they continue to invite him to this type of forum. By the last time I checked, one of the qualities of a good leader is the ability to communicate effectively with people; including not talking down or up to the people you are leading. If Christie does not articulate this simple philosophy, either he is disingenuous in arguing on the point of leadership in the inhabitant of the office of the Presidency; or, he hardly understands what is appropriate before a host.

Over the intervening years of President Obama’s leadership, America saw how eloquent and dynamic a leader he has been even when some disagree with his handling of a few foreign policy issues. By contrast, Congressional Republicans have been either staid, almost stodgy, on what type of leadership is necessary in working with the opposition party; and, what exceptions are essential in communicating with the incumbent of the White House. With the exception of probably a few Congressional Republicans, the choice has either been to embarrass, insult or ignore protocol as regards communicating with the White House. A recent example is the US House Speaker invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to combined body of congress without the normal protocol of communication with the White House. A few of us take away from such congressional Republican leadership’s action, an incurable ignorance of what leadership entails at the national level.

When the Republican Party entered the post-Reagan Era, the party inherited some brilliant ideas that offered great promises and were vigorously debated and sometimes accepted by Democrats as viable options of dealing with some thorny national issues on wars and the promulgation of wars on behalf of the people of America. At some point, Democrats were sold on the two doctrines of American nuclear preeminence and military superiority, doctrines developed during the 1950’s and which had been administered and followed by various Republican as well as Democratic Administrations, as documented in Spring 1986 issue of Foreign Affairs by Casper Weinberger, US Secretary of Defense during Reagan Administration. Nuclear deterrence, strategic stability, counter insurgence and extended deterrence were part of that strategy. Some of these ideas and strategies were unfortunately bungled under Republican Administration’s leadership. The first Republican Bush’s administration Noriega debacle, when the 41st President of the United States secretly encouraged a covert operation to simulate a nascent guerrilla movement in Panama; and, turned around to invade Panama. Second Republican Bush’s Administration leadership failure, where the 43rd President of the United States used American military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan under the pretext of overthrowing a dictator and or assuaging the September 11, 2001 World trade Fair bombing, to create a huge mess that the current Democratic Administration is cleaning up.

Some people believe some of these misplaced direction or bungled national strategies and or policies are traceable to failure of Republican leadership under the guidance of two men, or with implicit recommendation to Republican White House from the two: 1) Dick Chaney, Chief of Staff under Republican Gerald Ford’s Administration and Vice President to George W. Bush (Bush II); 2) Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense for Gerald Ford and President George W. Bush (Bush II). Donald H. Rumsfeld took over from Dick Cheney who was second Bush’s first Secretary of Defense. These two Republican men or bureaucrats probably created more challenges for America on issues of national security and foreign policies than anyone you may know. A few believe both were foreign intervention cabals that were on the pay role of the military industrial complex.

The argument is not that Democrats haven’t had their bad days while occupants of the White House or executing; however, over the past six decades Democratic Administrations have fared better on question of leadership and have swayed the nation towards economic progress and national stability more than Republican Administrations. Those aside, the current hot button issue of immigration, is one that has been tackled by both Republicans and Democratic Administrations in the White House. The current surge of opinions to look at the problem once again, has been met with proclivity of Congressional Republican leadership recalcitrance. No longer are the debates over executive order taken by the Obama’s Administration to do something about the issue of immigration confined to Congress, aspiring Republican candidates for the 2016 general elections are already creating divisiveness regarding action taken by this administration to address an ongoing problem that US Congress have failed to take action on; or, waited until the problem blows in the face of the occupant of the White House, before taking responsibility for what taxpayers already paid lawmakers to complete or execute. Today, Republicans are in the majority in Congress and everyone is looking at what their accomplishment is going to be in the next two years of President Obama’s Administration.

President Obama has said he no longer has a campaign to run. In that event, Democrats and Republicans of goodwill are welcomed to run for his office in 2016. As we can tell, or as thing stands today, there is a unique opportunity for anyone who meets the constitutional stipulated requirements of a candidate for the oval office. Also, with some degree of certainty, Governors Sara Palin and Chris Christie will not be the nominee of the Republican Party for numerous reasons, one or two of which have been covered here. By the way, going by the Constitution, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, the Canadian born politician who has turned a power broker in the Republican Party and a darling of the Tea Party, is unqualified. The flow of power sharing or brokerage within the Republican Party, lends itself to such exploitation of people of ill-will parading as potential candidate; these people know they are unqualified based on the provisions of the constitution; however, they will continue to stir the pot. As scornful as some of us are of Rumsfeld and Cheney’s leadership, those Republicans had some brazen leadership qualities, for better or worse, which we do not see; or are yet to find, in the twelve that came unto the podium in Iowan Republican Party Freedom Summit.

One final word, In case Boehner and Netanyahu missed it, the people of Israel are already befouling the campaign stunts of Bibi; and, some American lawmakers, Republicans and Democrats alike, are keeping tabs of Boehner’s leadership failure on the issue of communication and more!  

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Religion and American Presidential Campaigns: What is Reverend Mike Huckabee unto?

Keywords or Term: Republican Party; Bill Kristol; Constitutional Principles; Healthcare Law; Huckabee; Control their libidos; Reproductive Rights, Civil Liberties; Civil Rights, Affordable Care Act; Presidential Campaigns; Separation of Church and State; Fundamental Christians; Religious Bigotry; Supreme Court ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins; and, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution

In a heartfelt memo sent to the Republican Party leaders in 1992, Bill Kristol warned that excessive criticisms of precursor to OBAMACARE, the Clinton Healthcare initiative, has the potential of turning voters away from the party. Today, I have the temerity to suggest that religion as used by conservative Republicans like Reverend Mike Huckabee has the potential of turning voters away from the party.

Instead of pushing some arbitrary, fundamentalist Christian agenda in party political discuss, Republicans have the obligation to ensure that thoughtful conversation about issue of civil liberties, even on instances of disagreements on provisions  of a law, are not relegated to the back of the burner. Criticizing voters on hot button issue of constitutionally protected rights, even while opposing a law, is often not taken kindly. When a Reverend Brother decides to judge others and offer close to derogative comments about their body, he is readily creating a divide that may ostracize well-meaning people and voters in coming election season.

Republicans must understand that absence of sterner requirements or provisions in a law, hardly show an amoral, or even immorality of the law; and or its supporters. The protection of reproductive rights in the Affordable Care Act, hardly justifies conclusions as: “Democrats has painted [women] as victims of their gender", as offered by the former preacher and 2008 Republican presidential candidate. Discussing reproductive rights absent issues of civil liberties, paints a contrarian image of a progressive party. There have since been demands, particularly from women groups, that protection of reproductive rights in the Affordable Care Act, or employers’ requirement to cover the full range of contraception in their health insurance plan, is tantamount to protecting women’s civil rights.

I. Constitutional Principles, Reproductive Rights and Civil Liberties

Certain distinctions must be made before one wonders farther into the thicket of problems:
First of all, in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic society, where people are sensitive to civil liberty issues, saying  an opposition party is trying to convince women they need the government to help them "control their libidos, with respect to reproductive rights, has the  potential of creating voters backlash and grievances against a political party or its candidates. Advocates of civil liberties frown at comments that betray basic constitutional principles. They often seek that politicians or preachers clarify or explain themselves regarding comment that has the potential of eroding their constitutionally protected rights.

When Reverend Mike Huckabee stood up at probably a pseudo-presidential campaign trail, the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting, holding in Washington DC, and claiming that the Democratic Party is making women believe they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing monthly prescription coverage in the Affordable Care Act, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government; he is awfully threading, knowingly or unknowingly, on the constitutionally protected rights of American women. When a political party conversation is shifting towards the evaluation of women reproductive rights, that party and its members are stepping in hot water or fire that may come back to bite them. Voters are not seeking moralistic Christian judgment of themselves; or rights protected in laws designed to help them counter privately protected civil liberties.

Affordable Care Act requires most employers cover the full range of contraception in their health insurance plans. The responsibility of the government or current Democratic Administration is relatively diminished in this provision; however, Republican leadership continues to claim that the Affordable Care Act involves the control of women’s private body. What the Affordable Care Act is talking about, is the protection of women’s health in case of eventualities that may lead to probable loss of life from unexpected pregnancy or conditions involving un-progressing pregnancy. Anything more that is second guessing.

Second, Republicans like Huckabee and others, used to making derogative comments about women and women health’s activists, must recognize their comments are offensive. If Republicans are seeking to claim back the White House in 2016, there is going to be need for a more civil communication of those policies and plans they anticipate engineering for American people. Just like Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus intoned in his reaction to Huckabee’s Thursday comment, [Presidential Political Aspirants] have to be conscious of the tone and choice of words used to communicate those policies and plans, effectively. Comments arousing resentments, meanness and discontentment will do the Republican Party very little in their new venture.

Republican Party wants the voters to take them seriously. Their current enterprise must be finding out those common grounds and language that are appealing to voters; and, actions that insert party discipline in conversations regarding policies and plans. The over-crowding concerns of the Republican Party since the passing of the Affordable Care Act have been how to repeal, undermine or discredit the law. Americans who benefited from similar laws on Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid are finding Republicans’ criticisms of the Affordable Care Act as unfounded. Worse still, many of the provisions of the bill, including allowing American children to stay on their parent’s health plan until the age 26, calling private insurance carriers to spend eighty percent of health insurance premiums on actual healthcare instead of administration, and eliminating exclusion of protection due to pre-existing conditions, are polling very well with Americans. When Republicans accept the responsibility of governing and are able to communicate their plans and policies without running down an existing law and or policy, at that time, voters will start to take them seriously.

The unfounded assertions that the Affordable Care Act is a job killer or bankrupting the nation are seen as absurd by many observers and beneficiaries of the law. This assertion assumes that average American cannot think for himself or herself and is not benefiting from the parts of the law that are phased in; and potential provisions that are coming on-board. In an Internet age, it is very difficult to miss-inform or undermine the obvious. The few challenges of the law cannot be more than relative; and to the extent that other provisions in the law are addressing the health needs of Americans, the purpose of the law is served; and, its provisions probably sacred. Continued criticisms of the law by Republicans become mundane and questionable. Once again, the reality is, Americans are catching on to the truth and Republican leadership going around the country running down the law, are becoming more of the uninformed and outcasts
Whoever looks thoughtfully of the persistent effort to undermine or kill the Affordable Care Act by Republican leadership, will have to agree that the Party is doing more disservice to America than ever through their continued effort. If Congressional Republican leadership is attempting to meet the demands of the conservative wing of their party by introducing and reintroducing bills to kill Affordable Care Act, and this effort is going nowhere, it is probably in their own interest to say, enough, it is time to divert energy and attention to more productive ventures.

Finally, Republicans and Democrats, understand that there is no one perfect law out there; and, if there are needs to tweak or make some changes to improve the Affordable Care Act, it is within moral principles to proceed in accomplishing these; rather than devoting attention to repealing the whole law. It is true that there are certain words or phrases in the law that is somewhat confusing or conflictual; however, these words or phrases can be re-written to make the law more explicit and simple. If American women are asked about protection of reproductive rights in the law, they will cheerfully subscribe to this continued protection. Further, when similar provisions, especially those that involve protection of civil liberties and constitutional principles are raised, women and men alike would stand up and be counted. Continued pronouncements of derogation statements or altercations will only prolong undue innumerable confusions that currently becloud the mind of the average American.

II. Religious Bigotry and Presidential Campaigns

So much for making distinctions between constitutionally protected rights, reproductive rights and civil liberties; Affordable Care Act and persistent criticism of the law from conservative Republicans; we will now divert our attention to the issue of religious bigotry and public office.
The current array of candidates seeking, overtly or covertly, their party’s nomination as the flag bearer to contest in November, 2016, is growing and hopefully, will become diverse before the deadline. Those who are inspired by social issues like religion and other hot button issues would no doubt face some tough questions. Americans United for separation of Church and State identified eight states (Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas) which once limited public office to people who profess belief in God; and, thanked the 1961 Supreme Court ruling in Torcaso v. Watkins, for dousing this religious bigotry; celebrating that since that Supreme Court decision, public office is open to every American. Really, you mean believers and atheists are welcomed?

Interjection of one’s religious beliefs into political campaigns can be formally defensible only if one’s audience is like-minded; otherwise, such venture is considered injurious to public interest based on US Constitutional provisions. There will be of course, those Americans guided by their faith, who will argue that this nation was built on religious puritan values and no one can write God out of American politics or classrooms. Incidentally, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution requires that officeholders swear an oath or give an affirmation to support the constitution they swear unto. It clearly states no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States laws. Unfortunately, this is not invariably what we see in political candidates, their supporters or others nursing ambition to win the White House in 2016. Many people are more committed to their faith and would want it to reflect in their choices; either in politicking or in formulating public laws once in office.

There are forms of religious bigotry, intolerance, hatred or fear of those that are not part of our faith or religion. While considered generally unacceptable, bigotry against those that are not part of our faith persists; and has been known to slip into the contest for the White House oval office in the past. Many will recall the frenzy of Catholic JFK or Mormon Romney, when both declared their candidacy or won their Party’s nomination to be the flag bearer in 1960 or 2012. Contemporary familiarity with ethnical, cultural, sexual or other bigotries in the American narrative experience are well documented; however, promotion of democracy calls for all to be invited to the table, whether men and women of faith, or not. Few of us can profess to be completely bigotry neutral; however, the ideal is for us to expose anyone, group or institution, that sponsors any form of bigotry in our national life. That is why this entry is calling out conservative Republicans with fundamentalist Christian agenda in the run for 2016 Presidential elections.

Many Progressives are committed to reaching out and engaging people of all faith; however, they are hardly interested in colluding religion with political and public lives. To this group combining faith or Church with politics is very uncomfortable; and even more, unconstitutional. As re-emphasized by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on their WEBSITE:  “Where church and government intersect legislatively, politically and in the public square, it is essential that all voices, both religious and secular, be included in the discussion.” Many varieties of folly and injustices have been committed in the name of faith. The trappings of faith and religion have made some public office holders benevolent authoritarians, in the name of God. Critics of faith or religion in politics have argued that there can be tyranny of a majority men and women of faith, just as can be the tyranny of minority atheists, with one hardly less odious than the other. Our commitment must be the banishments of any form of bigotry in our national life.

Friday, January 23, 2015

The Business of American Presidential Campaigns: Welcome Jeb Bush to the Family Enterprise?

Keywords or Term: Political Heritage; America’s Presidency; Central Intelligence Agency, Order of Skull & Bones; Prescott Bush; George H.W Bush; George H. Bush; Jeb Bush; from Females, Gays, Lesbians, Asians, Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, gentiles; brown skinned Hawaiian-bred man; President Barack Obama; Hillary Rodham Clinton; Elizabeth Warren

Recently my wife suggested that the Bush family has the business of campaigning for the US presidency cornered. At first I thought the comment was absurd, since no specific family or person(s) can claim to have cornered a business as ephemeral as running for a political office. After all, the constitution opens the door for every free-born and willing American to run for any political office of choice, from city council to the Speaker of the House or majority whips in US Senate. To orchestrate my wife’s concern to the level of attention of American voters, I said I’ll visit the candidacy of Jeb Bush in this posting. To be sure that other Americans are concerned about this problem and would like some escalation of some sort, I will affirm here that I do not have complete expertise and or wisdom to address why Americans may be contemplating voting into the Presidency or candidacy of the second progeny of the same man, who once ran the Central Intelligence Agency, in an age of transparency; or, give a second thought to the brother of a former President under whose term America experienced the worst financial melt-down in recent memory.

On second thought, the notion still perplexing, the possibility seemed no longer unrealistic with the announcement from Jeb Bush that he was setting up an exploratory committee and APAC, pending a plan to run for the White House in 2016. The Bush family has been involved in campaigning for the White House for over twenty years, counting twelve for George H.W. Bush (Bush I); eight for George W. Bush (Bush II); and now, the impending two year run of former and 43rd Governor of the State of Florida, Jeb Bush. The Bush clan appears to share a native believe that American problems can only be solved by their family in the White House the third time around. This notion probably springs from their grandfather’s (Prescott Bush) service to the nation as a Senator from State of Connecticut and probably, George H.W Bush’s brotherhood in the secret society of the Order of Skull and Bones, Yale University, Connecticut. No one can deny the lofty resume of the 41st President of the United States: 43rd Vice-President of the US; Chief of US Liaison to the People’s Republic of China; 48th Chairman of the Republican National Committee; US Ambassador to the United Nations; and of course, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Does political power and service generate decadency and ascendancy of some sort to one’s children, grandchildren or great grandchildren? Can one’s political heritage define one’s destiny in seeking the office of the US President; and, or guarantee one’s performance in that high office? The White Anglo Saxon Protestant culture forming the core of the American 20th century outlook is partially if not completely endemic of this family tree; and may be one very credible, if not complete affirmation of the urge or desire to run for the US Presidency by members of the Bush Clan.

When put bluntly and starkly, are the Bushes’ the only family in America who has the wherewithal, either financially or hereditary, to bear the burden of leadership that will see Americans to the promised land; the utopia, which the foremost civil right preacher once said, a nation where my children will be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin? Are the Bushes so very foremost and brilliant in all wisdoms to address the ever so present challenges of making the system fairer or the competitive field livelier; where minorities and immigrants are not castigated for moving here to better their lot in life, while working years in mundane jobs that hardly pay their ways through the ever so competitive free enterprise system? Perhaps this is true, considering how many very competent people, politicians, businessmen, college professors, senators and legislatures, who have same prowess, if not better skills and wisdom than the Bushes, who have failed to come forth to run for the highest office in the land. Until the middle of the twentieth century, hardly did we have men and women of color in high political office. Not even till early eighties, did we have a very viable person of color run for the US Presidency. The Presidency was perceived as the lofty prize of puritan Anglo-Saxon male for over two centuries before came the man who said, Yes, we can, while running for the office in 2007-2008.

American presidential campaigns and political landscape have irrevocably changed since the advent of Barack H. Obama. But the perception still persists that only the puritan male Anglo-Saxon with well-known names or family connections; or, with a brand name American voters are familiar with, can only win the White House. Unfortunately, there are some of us that believe that such myopic notion of voter’s behavior is conflated; and, the successes of the Presidency of that brown skinned Hawaiian-bred man has changed the game, forever! No longer are American voters under the spell or impression that only a group of people or family are called to the Presidency; or favorable enough to be nominated by either major political party; or, move forward to winning the White House. Anglo-Saxons male are not so much the benevolent deities that will profess solution to our nation’s challenges, socially, economically, or politically. The landscape has changed and fresh ideas for change can come from Females, Gays, Lesbians, Asians, Blacks, Jews, Mexicans, gentiles and what have you. Proficient Leadership is not solely germane to one single person or family. The American ideals are self-evident in all the sub-groups that make up America and anyone, anyone with the leadership skill and the spirit to serve is welcomed at the altar of presidential grace.

American minority groups must aim higher than before. They must understand that the notion of being second to anyone is archaic and very much undemocratic. Huge Campaign chest might look elusive at first; however, if professed solutions in campaign messages sync with the voters; and, a candidate is dynamic and convincing enough to carry his campaign to the door steps of voters before November, 2016, winning is no longer an aberration but a certainty to a degree in our probably post-racial society. American political problems are hardly insurmountable; minorities aspiring to higher office of Mr. or Mrs. President just have to believe in their message bringing succor to the tireless working voters who are ready to help along finding solutions to these nation’s problems. Finally, no one is actually ordained or destined to become the President of any country; most people you find in political offices, at one time or the other have doubted if they could actually win an election to that office. Huge and deep campaign purses, often urged by many political campaign strategists, may help; but are not often the complete solution to winning elections.  Sometimes, sedulous pursuit and moral principles of a candidate have surmounted the odds of failure to being elected to a political office.

A winning presidential campaign would be guided by specifiable voters’ bread and butter caviar message; and, by all means the candidate may want to assuage doubts from first time listeners. The US Presidency campaign message(s) need not be inconsistent with the immigrant status, sex, religion, race, morality, or what have you; but should be simple enough not to confuse or damage the self-interest of the voter. Peddling political messages does not necessarily have to be at a warp speed or break the bank to accomplish the goal; history has shown some politicians winning elections with shoe-string campaign chest. Maybe not the Presidency; however, the possibilities are there and there is often a first time! Candidates must never hold themselves back or aloof from voters; or be perceived as such; or worst still, a flip-flopper. The Republican Party of today has been seeking new blood in the mainly Anglo-Saxon dominated party hierarchy; such fresh bloods from minority groups, including Women, Mexicans and Asians, have eluded the party because of their professed bias, clothed in the principle of exclusions in major national issues that affect these subgroups’ welfare. This is why crafting a message appealing to the needs of these sub-groups are so essential to victory at the national level and one that has recently eluded their party’s flag bearer.

Jeb Bush is not a messiah or politician by instinct. Although he had a somewhat meritorious service as 43rd Governor of the State of Florida, no Democratic Floridian will tell you, that he often know and understand what will work and what policy will not work for Floridians. Neither his affiliation to the Bush clan of past Presidents of the United States guarantees his success to become the Republican flag bearer; or eventual US President. Nor his name brand automatically dedicated loyalty of national voters in elections. One judgment a new comer, male or female from the minority subgroups, will experience in 2016 Presidential elections is the possibility of what seems for now impossible: the nomination of a candidate other than Jeb Bush as the Republican flag bearer; and,  the chances of his losing the contest to a female candidate in the overall elections.

Mr. Jeb Bush began talking about the welfare of the middle class tonight in San Francisco. He proposed the overhaul of the country’s immigration and education system, including job training and easement of regulations to spur economic growth. These are not essentially new ideas; in fact, most of them have been proposed, accomplished or in the process of being accomplished by the Obama’s Administration except for the recalcitrance of the Republican Congress. Minorities playing for the same audience could have offered much creative ideas and proposal, and show how they would build a coalition of more resourceful and nationalistic group to help find answers to American Problems. They could have also offered solid and convincing augment as to how they will build on the accomplishments of the current administration.

A major complicating factor to Jeb Bush’s ambition for many outsiders who heard his speech, is the fact that he continues to reiterate the archaic Republican swing song that Obamacare or Affordable Care Act is a job killer and its ‘monstrosity’ must be rolled back, including executive orders that President Obama reverted to, when he could not get help from Congressional Republican legislators on the same propositions he is putting forward as course for his presidential run: middle-income earners welfare, immigration reform, education reform, easement of over burdening laws on the book that has prevented economic growth. For many political watchers, his proposals are not new; his blame game, very emblematic of Republicans; and his informal advancements hardly veer from the condemnation of current administration by Mitt Romney in his run for the White House in 2012.  

Perhaps the lightness of his proposals and the similarity of his criticisms reminiscent of Mitt Romney’s past offer, including the horrible  insinuation that President Obama is to blame for the rise of Islamic State group in Middle East, shows how short sighted and how historically ignorant Jeb Bush is, even in current time. If Jeb Bush can talk about weak leadership in Obama’s Administration season, maybe he should scout the books for the criminally culpable enterprise his big brother led in the course of his foreign voyeurism across the globe while 43rd President of the United States (2001 – 2009). For record purposes, George W. Bush and his Vice President, Dick Chaney, are still wanted in some Europeans Countries for possible war crime conviction. When George W. Bush was exiting the Presidency, his approval rating was so low, the worst ever since records were kept; it is very shameless for the Junior Bush, Jeb Bush, to say anything actually critical of a President who cleaned up after the mess his big brother left behind. No wonder Jeb Bush met with Mitt Romney, the GOP’s 2012 Presidential nominee who is contemplating another run in 2016, at his Utah residence a day before the San Francisco speech. What did he offer as the reason for their awkward meeting: to discuss policy! Come on ladies, a female candidate and President is in the making: wither Hillary Rodham Clinton or Elizabeth Warren?

In the past, competing candidates for a political office hardly share their note books or ambition or inclination towards the office in public. Here is a situation where competing candidates for the Republican flag bearer are meeting and discussing behind closed doors, potential policies for America. Who ordained these guys as America’s saviors? This is the real reason American voters must look themselves in the eyes and say, neither a Bush nor a Romney for America. These guys are from privileged backgrounds that have a sense of entitlement. Let’s us join together to put forth a President who shares our convictions, both establishment Republican candidates must be halted before they get a chance to do damage to America. Jeb Bush’s big brother, George W. Bush just did us in eight years ago; and, Mitt Romney has shown how disdainful he is of the underprivileged and poor. Need I say more?

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Run, Elizabeth Warren run, Betty Run: A Reflection

Keywords and Terms: Media Ecosystem; Elizabeth Warren for 2016; Moveon.Org; bespectacled Bankruptcy Law Professor; Equal Employment for All Act, HR 645; Des Moines, Iowa; Des Moines Register; Sick Burn; Liberals and Progressives; Embarrasses Bank Regulators; and White House Oval Office.

The advent of the internet has changed everything in politics; yet, some politicians are ignoring the very obvious. The media ecosystem is now diversified; and, drives so many unknowns in the political arena. Politicians must now be circumspect of this dynamics as they campaign or refuse to campaign; complement past conquests or curry support for their candidacy; and, probably yield to pressure to get into a real life and death political fight. According to twitter, the 2015 State of the Union Address of President Obama generated more than 2.6 million tweets per minute! No one may deny the relations between instant populism comments and social media response; and, in some cases, the inventor or speaker of those words is hardly aware of the spontaneity of their comments or utterance on the net. Imagine the: “ I have no more campaigns to run.... I know, I won both of them. #SOTU:”; so abyss, not even President Obama could anticipate the ripple on twitter. So is the current campaign for the White House; politicians and or their supporters, must anticipate ripple effect, justifiable or unjustifiably, across social media of their intention. Such are the changing times.

This brings me to an email in my inbox, calling for support of Elizabeth Warren; and possibly hosting a house party to implore or encourage the honorable senator from Massachusetts to run as Democratic presidential Candidate in 2016. This is grassroots politics, community-based campaign efforts rallying round a candidate or course; a new coalition of like-minded men and women seeking to make a difference on the national stage from a local perspective or insurgence. Through a media ecosystem, sponsored by, like-minded people are about to draw into the foray of national politics, a candidate who has once intoned she was rather interested in continuing her current service to the people of the State of Massachusetts; and, would likely be running for the reelection into that seat. Notwithstanding her current preference, supporters of a more national presence for the bespectacled former Harvard law professor are finding new ways and means of reaching and garnering support for her candidacy.

Many candidates in the past have signaled a preference for other offices or ventures; and, have often been dragged from their solo quay into a national political drama. Seething ambition for its own sake is often frowned on; however, when there is widespread clamor to drag a potentially viable candidate, the odds might be better. Money and persuasions have often done the trick: Find Betty a moneybag and you never can tell? Jokes apart, the first term Massachusetts senator’s performance and records on bills, seem a compelling argument for Senator Warren’s case. Her Equal Employment for All Act, HR 645, introduced by Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-9) in 2011, is quite representative of her liberal political slant and germane to the interest of her current supporters for a national office as that of the US Presidency. Although the bill has not progressed in Congress as she might want, it is rather telling that 40 organizations, including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Relations (AFL-CIO), National Organization for Women (NOW),  American Association for Affirmative Action (AAAA), NAACP, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Black Women's Roundtable, Black Justice Coalition, National Women's Law Center,  Campaign for Community Change (CCC), National Council on Independent Living, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, Public Citizen , Consumer Action,  Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice, Dēmos, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP), National Fair Housing Alliance, MFY Legal Services , Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), National Work rights Institute, Job Opportunities Task Force, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, National Partnership for Women and Families, Legal Action Center, Americans for Financial Reform, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, U.S. PIRG, National Association of Consumer Advocates, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD),  National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, AFGE Women's and Fair Practices Departments, Poverty and Race Research Action Council, National Consumer Law Center,  Disability Rights Legal Center, National Employment Law Project, National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA), National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Council of La Raza, Asian American Justice Center,  New York Legal Assistance Group, Policy Link, Public Justice Center, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and 9to5,  have all given a thumbs up for the bill. If only broad-based public support of a bill can change the minds of Republicans?

For now, maybe Massachusetts Democratic Senator Warren would make a better impact on the society in US Senate than in a national office. Maybe her current effort to hold fire to corporations’ feet, would better the welfare of ordinary workers and consumers in America. Maybe her current preference to retain her seat from Massachusetts seems a splendid, but hardly convincing answer, to those who would like her to run for the Presidency in 2016. However, her widely voiced reservation or objections for now, seem vulnerable to liberal like-minded group’s pressure, who want her in a head to head fight with that former Secretary of State and the big boys who continue to see the White House oval office as the hugest trophy of all times.

It is easy to say NO at first; but with great and good persistence, supporters of Elizabeth Warren for 2016, may convince the Senator who is committed to reversing Citizen United, who recently twitted, we don’t run this country for corporations; who believes that medical research is good for people and the economy; and, would rather build an economy that works for all families than for a few rich folks, may be persuaded or drawn to the national political battle for the oval office. Because the human mind is subject to zillions of emotions, the call to duty at the national level is sometimes seen as being drawn from other important causes or issues; however, some of her supporters, a few in my neck of the woods, are about to host a flag-off for Elizabeth Warren for 2016 Presidency this weekend in my humble hometown, Federal Way, Washington.

Certainly, her supporters in my home town wish so much that Senator Warren will join the fray of candidates when the final roll call is up. There is no way to verify how much pressure groups can draw a candidate into an election exercise. However, considering the frenzy around my neck of the woods, you’ll assume that Senator Elizabeth Warren is already a candidate for the 2016 Presidential Elections or nominations. The logic is, if you can count the number and show her the money, maybe the honorable Senator from Massachusetts would bow in. However, I am not that sure considering her current commitments and the stride that Hillary has made in the progress towards declaring a candidacy. My reservations apart, there may be an answer to the wishes of her supporters in Federal Way, Washington; but her answer has not been given.

There is a separate development to the weave of story surrounding drawing the erstwhile senator into the Presidential race. On her rounds campaigning for Democrat Bruce Barley for senate in Des Moines, Iowa, the Massachusetts senator Des Moines Register called a passion-filled liberal stem-winder, who has made her mantra, economic equality, may be seen more as a populists and progressive, with a grand theme of indicting Wall Street. This is one thing, the money bags do not like; since according to them: the business of America is the business of business. To introduce a progressive academic with a flair for fairness and opportunity for families and average worker, skirts the wishes of corporations and big businesses. When a Senator is into big red button national issues like comprehensive immigration reform, support for same-sex marriage, raising the minimum wage, abortion rights and contraception, corporations begin to skittle and may go so far to scuttle her chances for the US Presidency; if not destroy her message. That is the nature of the beast!

What can supporters, especially those who want her in the race, do for now? The need to emphasis her qualities in the context of growing a larger middle income class in America is a palatable. Emphasis on the message of a new America that represents not only a few; but also, many who are not necessarily underclass; but who have worked all their lives and continue to work, without reaping the full benefits of successes of the economy, is in order or better. Statistically, this is about 90 percent of the voters; and probably the work force. Re-engineer the message of her candidacy in the context of heart felt needs to change the atmosphere of greed that has permeated the American Corporations. Mention her sponsorship of legislation that allow students to refinance their student loans and emphasize that this for one, will not break the pockets of taxpayers. It ought to seem that the widely held reservations to progressive values or programs, come from how to pay for them. Warren’s supporters must now do a better job of communicating the means of defraying costs of their programs or initiatives. Once they are able to articulate their message in political campaigns and media splash, they are better prepared to advance the lots or chances of their choice candidate.

Much more, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is in a unique situation, she comes with the soulful combative spirit of a ‘can-do’ progressive. A good team of democratic Strategists may cast her as the ultimate candidate without the baggage of being the wife of a former President. It is much easier to torpedo any Republican offensive with the argument of dynamism or capability; and, not much record in a national office to shoot political cruise missiles into. The compatibility of her message to the outgoing President Barak Obama may meet some resistance. If this occurs, her strategists should have alternative but mutually convincing communication that would counter those perceptions. And there may be an opening to tag on the band wagon of President Obama’s success in social media and some media market. It just depends.

The first tasks for progressives seeking to draw the senator who Huffington post once headlined, Elizabeth Warren Embarrasses Bank Regulators at First Hearing, who was once a Republican but now a Democrat, who was once a Harvard law Professor specializing in Bankruptcy law and now a US Senator, and who will probably revisit the scandal that many of those crooks who brought America to its financial knees or ruins in 2008 but are yet to be locked up, you may continue to campaign, romanticize, and implore the dynamic Senator from the state of Massachusetts to throw in her cap. For courtesy purpose and pressure calls to change hearts and mind of  Senator Betty Warren (D-MA), Circulate her Washington Office Phone number: Phone: (202) 224-4543; and, reemphasize how you are going to be on the long walk and hog with her in the enterprise you are about to set on together.

Run Warren Run
Run Warren Run is launching at house   parties all across the country. Is your town on the map?
Next weekend, supporters across the country will gather at Run Warren Run house parties, in the next stage of this grassroots campaign to encourage Sen. Warren to enter the presidential race, and we need all hands on deck to pull this off. We still need someone to host a party in Federal Way. Can you step up and share Sen. Warren's story with your hometown?
Yes, I'll Host a House Party!
Dear MoveOn member,
We're just one week away from one of the most action-packed weekends of 2015. And I'm not talking about Super Bowl Sunday.
Next weekend, MoveOn members and our friends at Democracy for America and Ready for Warren will be hosting Run Warren Run house parties in cities large and small, to kick off the next stage of this inspiring grassroots campaign.
Already, more than 150 gatherings are being planned to introduce Run Warren Run to their neighborhoods and to demonstrate to Senator Elizabeth Warren that she has the broad support she needs to run for president and win. We're getting close to holding house parties in every state in America.
If we can pull this off, it'll show everyone—including the media, which have been closely tracking this effort—that the movement to draft Sen. Warren has growing support all across the country. 
To go big, we still need someone to host a party in Federal Way. Can you sign up now to bring Run Warren Run to your hometown?