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!
No comments:
Post a Comment