Monday, August 31, 2015
Keywords or Terms: Real Estate Mongol Donald Trump; Neurosurgeon Ben Carson; August Polls; Quinnipiac University Polls; Dark Side; GOP Base; Racists; Early Front-Runner; Gov. Jeb Bush; Sen. Lindsey Graham; Sen. Marco Rubio; Political Action Committee; Narcissistic; Nationalistic; Racists; 14th Amendment; Transformation Campaigning; Award Winning Journalist Jorge Ramos; UNIVISION; Politics of Demagoguery; and, Principles and Ethos of Civil Campaign.
Going by recent, and the totality of the month of August polls, one thing is absolutely clear, Donald Trump is the front runner for the Republican Party; while Hillary Clinton, with a few stumbling steps on the way, is probably the front-runner for the Democratic Party. While Senator Bernie Sanders is gradually catching up to Secretary Clinton in the Democratic Party primary, the former front runner for the Republican Party, Jeb Bush, is being drown out, like many other Republican aspirants, by the bold message on anti-immigration, which some observers consider as racist in nature, which is being peddled by Aspirant Donald Trump. Republican Aspirant Lindsey Graham exasperatedly indicated that Donald Trump’s Candidacy represents the “dark side” of the GOP base; a connotation which many in this group will readily scorn at and gladly inform Senator Graham as being out of touch with the GOP base.
Love it or hate it, the Republican base is made up of anti-immigration, anti-big government, anti-women, anti-minority and pro-fiscal responsibility groups, some of whom may be seen as narcissistic, nationalistic, sexist, racist and uncompromising, if you ask others. As long as Donald Trump continues to cater to this type of campaign messaging, his polls number will continue to grow and his candidacy receive the blessing, of even the most unreceptive Republicans in current campaign exercise. Above all, each Republican aspirant will need to assess his or her campaign messages to the need of close to thirty percentage of Republican voters, the way Donald Trump’s campaign messaging has done, going by month of August Polls.
Once the laggards among the eighteen or so Republican aspirants are able to understand why Donald Trump’s message is resonating well with the Republican base, probably then, will they be able to skew their messaging to those voters that can make or break their candidacy in this early run for the party’s flag bearer position. Now, Senator Marco Rubio had made advances on the issue of immigration, and has been considered probably one Senator that has a forward or progressive articulation of the national issue of immigration; however, he has not been able to reach the tenth in percentage among the GOP base. How has Donald Trump done it, while Marco Rubio, who once worked on a bi-partisan group in US Congress who had sort answers to the eleven million undocumented immigrants in America, is not able? What’s wrong with Marco Rubio’s or any other Republican aspirant campaign messaging that has made it difficult for them to reach a higher note on the national polls?
“Super” political action committees have hauled millions for Senator Marco Rubio’s campaign, just as they have done for Jeb Bush’s. Miami Herald reported at various times in the month of August, that Marco Rubio has been beneficiary of close to ten million dollars from Norma Braman, an auto magnate and civic activist, who considers his candidacy as one of the future. Across town, Mike Fernandez raised a whopping One hundred and three million dollars for Jeb Bush’s Presidential bid. With each candidate’s Super Political Action Committees raising more money donations than the candidates themselves, you wonder why the huge hauls have not translated into support from the Republican grassroots.
Is it their campaign messaging that is at fault? Is it their inability to read the Republican base that is the question? Is it the whimsical thought that either Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush would be a great president, as hoped by some of their astute Floridian supporters that is crux of the matter or the problem. August polls have shown that name recognition may help, campaign donations and big name hosted campaign fund raiser may contribute to a candidate’s advertisements prowess; however, nothing is as promising as campaign messaging, the way Donald Trump has dominated the national media with his candidacy that points to the mantra: the best candidate running! For the rank and file Republicans in the month of August and in various early polls for the past few months, the Real Estate Mongol Donald Trump is the best candidate running.
Not only has Donald Trump polled in to thirty percentage range among the GOP base, no other candidate, except Neuro-surgeon Ben Carson, has come any closer to Donald Trump. As of Wednesday August 27th, the national survey conducted by Quinnipiac University puts Donald Trump at the top, with twenty-eight percentage range of likely GOP voters, Ben Carson at twelve percentage, Seven percentage a piece for Governor Jeb Bush, US Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. No other Republican aspirant in the pack tops six percent and there are still eleven percent, undecided voters. Yes, you may say early national campaign polls can be likened to Weather Forecasts, it may or may not predict the likely candidate or flag bearer come November, 2016. You may also want to take consolation in the fact that the Quinnipiac University Polls also reports that twenty-six percent of likely voters say they would not support Donald Trump, or no-way would they help advance his candidacy; however, early campaign polls have helped obscure aspirants to seize the initiative to refocus, redirect or diversify their campaign messaging to gain greater traction with likely primary voters in the Party caucuses. An aspirant’s goal is to ensure that he is positioned in the party’s campaign and voter’s psyche to receive the greatest number of support from the greatest number of voters who are enthusiastic and truly supportive of their candidacy, to see them throw as the ultimate party’s flag bearer.
When National Newspapers and online news sources are reporting that Donald Trump’s perceived offensive language about Mexican immigrants is not deterring his candidacy; rather, it is actually alluring his candidacy to the rank and file in the Republican party, one has no other option, than to recognize the fact that as extreme as some of Donald Trump’s comment are, there are some Republican voters who identify with this type of messaging or rhetoric and are willing to support his candidacy. When Donald Trump’s supporters are reported as saying, I’m so glad he is running; I’m so glad he is highlighting issues of concern that Republican Party leaders are afraid to talk about, then one has to be mindful of the interest of this group, no matter how out of place they are in mainstream national politics.
This is the latest instance, in which a perceived obscure candidate in Party nomination process, skyrocketed to the fore-front and took over the establishment’s candidate’s position. An African-American with probably the clumsiest name to pronounce in the 2008 early nomination process, with about three year’s Senatorial experience, catapulted ahead of the establishment candidate to become the Democratic Party flag bearer. The aspirant not only won the 2008 Democratic Party primary, he did same in 2012 and remains the President of the United States today, to the chagrin of many rightist and extreme groups in the Republican Party. As one of the long-term political strategist contemplate, voting matters, early voting matters, even with some of its improbabilities, they are never to be underestimated, no matter who is involved.
Mr. Donald Trump’s candidacy rise began in May and it has sustained the months of June, July and August. He has presented himself as an advocate of anti-immigration stance, among other takings. Many rank and file in the GOP side or recognize his message(s) and are willing to stand up for them. In a feud with Univision anchorman Jorge Ramos, a renowned journalists with the Latin-speaking audience, some call him a political journalist, others, an activist with an immigration and other pressing issues of concern or interest to Mexicans and other Latin America communities, depending on which fence you’re sitting, was bluntly told to get out of his country by one of Mr. Trump’s supporters, after Mr. Ramos, was ejected from a recent Dubuque, Iowa conference given by the candidate. This was subsequent to Mr. Trump’s humiliating comments of: “sit down”; “go back to Univision!” One may debate the issue of order and protocols in questioning an aspirant or candidate in organized news conferences; however, one will not deny the fact that Mr. Jorge was asking about aspirant’s Donald Trump’s immigration proposals.
Other presidential aspirants may not want to talk about this guy as exasperatingly intoned by Governor Jeb Bush at another news conference, or distracted by the flamboyant Republican front-runner as characterized by the Democratic Party front runner, or belittled by Senator Lindsey Graham’s depiction of beating his brains out in South Carolina primary; however, Mr. Trump to date has a huge fellowship among the GOP base, and this growing group probably shares his conviction regarding anti-immigration. Yes, Senator Graham may perceive Mr. Trump as catering or pivoting to the “dark side” of the GOP base, or disenchanted by the policy of demagoguery as offered by former NBC-TV reality show presenter, however, there are thousands or millions in the Republican Party who secretly nurse the ambition to talk as they please, the way aspirant Donald Trump is now accustomed in his campaign. We all know that Demagoguery politics is never going to go away and this is actually not the first politician running for national office to default to politics of demagoguery, however to attack his candidacy as shallow, or render his candidacy as those of other Republicans without the pizazz of the heir, may be an underestimation. One may even take the position of the award winning Univision journalist, Jorge Ramos, who characterize Donald Trump’s campaign as spreading hate and getting personal, including comments as immigrants from Mexico are criminals and rapists, anchor babies or illegals, the uncomfortable truth about this is that there is a market for this type of demagoguery in the Republican Party.
Henceforth, will Senator Graham’s characterized dark side of the Republican Party continue to win? Will aspirant Donald Trump’s rhetoric exacerbate bigotry or continue to attract Republicans who possess it? Will Donald Trump’s type of demagoguery triumph in 2016Republican Party Politics? No one knows; however, one thing is for sure, if other Republican aspirants do not tidy up their campaign message(s), if they do not engage in transformation campaign messaging and continue to allow Mr. Trump to accelerate his brand of messaging and continue to gain more grounds, there is no mistaken, Mr. Donald Trump will end up becoming the Republican Party Flag bearer, even if with a very slim margin. You may not like Mr. Trump’s call for the repeal of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution or detest his backing by White Supremacist groups; you may even abhor the fact that your party is increasingly being defined as a racist party; and, can hardly stomach the “dark side” side of your party. The truth is often hard to swallow; however, if you are interested in moving fast, in changing the discussion and in bringing more people to your fold of influence, you must provide an alternative for Donald Trump’s supporters to launch unto without losing your principles and ethos of seeking the highest office in the land.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Keywords or Terms: Bernie Sander’s Campaign Performance; National Nurses United; City of Oakland, National Nurses United; Black Life Matters; City of Seattle; City of Los Angeles Arena; DNC, Blood Bath; 2016 White House; Corporate America; Fruits of Economic Recovery; Campaign Promises and Messages; Governor(s) Jeb Bush, Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chaffee; Chris Christie; Social Security; Medicare; Seabrook, New Hampshire; Secretary Hillary Clinton; Presidential Aspirant Likeability Barometer; Keystone Xl Pipeline; TransCanada
Senator Bernie Sander’s performance on the campaign trail can no longer be ignored. I love the idea of having Former US Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as the next President of the United States. However, the huge number of people and supporters gravitating and gyrating towards Bernie Sander’s candidacy all over the federation is making me and other astute political hedge makers take a second look. When you are pulling over capacity room and stadiums of supporters, when supporters and wannabes are fainting at a place as the Los Angeles Arena or coliseum immediately they catch the glimpse of your presence, you know you’ve got or you are getting them hooked on your campaign promises and messages.
Further, when potential supporters, sometimes to the tune of thousands, are dying to touch or shake your hands, when the caring nurses of the National Nurses United at a brunch for Bernie in the city of Oakland, California, were showing so much enthusiasm that you burst into an exhilarating smile and a message of promise to end institutional racism, you pretty much about got it made. When you are asking for more aspirants’ debate time because you believe Americans are demoralized about the state of politics and many other presidential aspirants and democrats are agreeing with you that the Democratic Party Committee’s debate schedule ought to be expanded and or explained, then you are really on the upswing ride or onto something very promising that no serious aspirant for the White House in 2016, can no longer ignore.
In addition, when campaign review websites are pointing out that your campaign effort is turning out to be as phenomenal as Barack H. Obama’s run for the White House in 2008, if not more golden, and predicting probably a blood bath at the first 2016 Democratic National Committee’s debate scheduled for about middle October, the Democratic National Committee, big wigs and establishment Democrats, had better be listening. When barely a day or two after the Black Lives Matters group derailed one of your rallies in Seattle, Washington, you are being welcomed with open arms and warm smiles in California, then folks are hearing and connecting with you and your presidential campaign message. When the probable Republican Party nominee, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, is fighting from being bitten by two huge brown lobsters at Seabrook, New Hampshire, and your campaign staffers are eating Doritos just to while away the time under a shade in the City of Angels, then you have overcome the first competitors and heading out to shore for a beautiful stroll to a new beginning. Bernie is packing them in like no one, Democrat or Republican, in this early stages of the campaign for 2016 White House!
It is not sufficient to merely criticize the Democratic National Committee on the six scheduled campaign debates the way aspirant and Governor Martin O’Malley is doing, you need to gear your efforts toward packing them in, the way Bernie is doing in the West, East, South and North! It is not enough to shrug your arms and say, ‘We’ll be there” as Craig Crawford, spokesperson for Democratic aspirant Jim Webb or Debbie Rich, spokesperson for another democratic party aspirant, former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, retorted: “her boss is looking forward to the Democratic National Committee’s scheduled debate.” You should be exhibiting the positive energy and hoopla over how you are connecting with America and many of them are chanting, they don’t make them the way they made Bernie Sanders as a Presidential aspirant anymore; remember the old McCoy Way? Bernie Sander’s candidacy seem to be meeting needs, concerns and desires of many middle income and disenfranchised Americans, and they all are loving it and reciprocating the love from the Independent Vermont Senator, who is running as a Democrat in the 2016 White House race.
Further, it isn’t enough to be lamenting that the Democratic National Committee is facilitating the coronation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by denying a robust debate during the primary process as Governor O’Malley laments, you need to be ensuring that voters and potential supporters are handing you their babies to kiss and waiting on you for twelve hours, in some cases, before you show up for a 20 minute campaign speech, with supporters waving huge signs with the text BERNIE; offering intermittent and persistent applauses during your speeches, and surging to meet you with a nodding head of approval when you are done railing against Corporate America, or explaining away the new reality in America’s social and economic life. It is not just connecting the dots on the campaign trail that is the matter, Bernie is making potential voters question their old held values and positions on establishment candidates and wondering if they are not doing this seventy something-year-old politician a disfavor. That is primetime Presidential Aspirant likability barometer, extraordinary!
Interestingly, there is hardly a shortage of Presidential aspirants in America. There are close to eighteen in the Republican Party and six in the Democratic Party; however, the challenge is to have that tantalizing campaign speech or supporter-connecting message that make other counterparts jealous and see you as their #1 competitor, someone able to derail their dream and campaign for the White House; a pain in the you know what, as some lovers of the candidacy of the former US Secretary of State put it. The wildly enthusiastic and overwhelming positive campaign from Senator Bernie Sander’s camp is not only infectious, it is creating a new standard for a clean and wholesome approach to connecting with the American voters. As articulated by Bernie Sander’s himself to the Christian Monitor, his is not an educational campaign nor one of protest, but this is a campaign to win. Senator Bernie wants to raise taxes to pay for a universal health care system, he wants to make Corporate America pay for its past indiscretions, he wants to raise America’s minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour; and is convincing many voters that the current Federal minimum wage of seven and a quarter dollars an hour, is a starvation wage. Supporters agree with his mantra: putting middle-class interest ahead of corporate greed!
Skeptics of Senator Bernie Sander’s campaign maintain his staunchly Anti-Corporate America’s message and unabashedly liberal policy stance are not winners in a general election. Even if the number of people attending his infectious rallies continues to grow, there is no way this would guarantee his eventual success in the general elections. Putting the interest of Corporate America in a second place is a tough sell, as the business of business is the business of America. Bernie Sander’s Presidential campaign is asking questions and demanding answers to several global questions regarding economic and social fairness; however, his direct competitor within the Democratic Party, Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton, has a more moderate leftist and or progressive message that do not rob corporate America of its complete agenda or perceived dominance. Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton has developed a hub of compatible campaign messages to both the middle-income earners and Corporate America that is not so much outlandish as those from Senator Sanders. Mainstream America believe that she has a comparably easier policy proposals to work with, if not even better chances of drawing more support from hitherto unlikely sources in the Democratic Party and the undecided voters or independents, in the race for the White House in 2016.
To the apprehensive, Senator Bernie Sanders will have to formulate a new order of communicating his liberally-biased campaign message, so they gain better traction or credence with the generality of American voters, to actually transfer his current allure from many groups, to increase his chances in the national polls and expand his trending among the hosts of thousands attending his campaign rallies. Such a communication strategy will seize on the opportunity to change the narrative that Corporate America is necessarily evil and heartless. Thus, if his campaign could negate the current perception of Corporate America as the enemy, maybe his socialistic agenda can be vilified, and perhaps the love from the America people will culminate in votes that can see him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC. His re-focusing of communication message will not only strengthen his candidacy in the general election, it will refute the disdain from Corporate America; and or fear from the far right.
On the other hand, critics must recognize that America has just come away from what may be perceived as a tittering economic disaster of 2008-2013 that absolutely, if not nearly shook the faith of the ordinary America regarding the fairness of our economic system. There was a recession where millions lost their homes and livelihood and felt cheated out. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that Corporate America got scot free for their misbehavior in the financial arena, with none spending time in jail; and there is the preponderance perception that it was unfair to bail out AIG from bankruptcy while millions of ordinary Americans were left to hold the bag for the indiscretion of very few money managers and insurance executives. Such an environment, or a lasting bad taste in the experience of the recession, continues to draw millions of Americans to the need for reform, where the ground for competition is much level than currently obtains. This is the energy Bernie Sander’s campaign is feeding off; and will continue to work to win over. There are millions in this group of Americans that have not benefitted from the improving economy; millions are still unemployed and hardly recovered from the pain of the American recession. Bernie Sander’s message is a great reprieve for this group and they are loving the pace at which Bernie is handing out the gospel truth according to an ultra-liberal.
The most significant factors influencing the movement or gravitation of supporters to Bernie Sander’s somewhat ultra-liberal campaign messages are not found strictly at his rallies, but rather in the perception that his campaign message is attending to the needs of disenfranchised America’s middle-income groups, and the disproportionately disadvantaged American poor, who have not benefitted from the fruits of the economic recovery. It is hard to discountenance this group(s) and present a generally or particularly optimistic campaign message as is being done by many candidates, Democrats or Republicans in the current race for the White House. While other candidates like the Republican Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, are seeking to gauge Social Security and Medicare, two social programs that seem to stand out as safety net for the poor, elderly and some middle income earners; and, the current polls leader in the Republican Party, is attempting to sell the message of America’s greatness all over again, millions left behind are looking forward to a messiah and readily finding it in Senator Bernie Sanders for the 2016 White House.
Finally, the former mayor of the largest city in Vermont, father of four and grandfather of seven, speaks truth to the power that be and relish in somewhat of a maverick candidacy, geared towards lifting American workers from despair and disillusionment. Sander wants nothing to do with the Keystone XL pipeline that could have allowed TransCanada to move dirty tar sands from Canada to Mexico through the United Sates. His populist message(s) continues to resonate with American voters; the ultra-liberal senator from Vermont who believes that ‘establishment politics and establishment economics is not working for the middle class’ is calling for a new economy order under the pretext that ‘the greed of Wall Street and the greed of corporate America is destroying the great American middle class, and folks from coast to coast [are fed up and want them to be accountable]’ As professed by real liberal political contributor, Jason Easley, in June 11th, 2015 edition of PoliticusUSA, ignoring Senator Bernie Sander’s campaign message(s) is to neglect the fundamental leftward shift in American politics. Whether this is real or unreal, is better left for time to tell. However, Bernie is connecting with many people and supporters and this could add up to a waterloo for any opponent, Democrat or Republican.
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Keywords or Terms: Disdain for women; Disdain for spending too much money on women’s health; Sexist Comments; Megyn Kelly; Rosie O’Donnell; Donald Trump; FOX News Organized Republican Party Debate; Conservative Republicans; RedState.com; Erick Erickson; Sideshows; Civility and Respect; Barnum Effect; Women’s health; Planned Parenthood; Religious and Social Beliefs; Female voting group; Male dominated America; Presidential Campaigns; House and Senate Primaries
There is always a sideshow in every general election cycle in America. Think of it this way: Going by the early polling results, Real Estate Mogul Donald Trump is one of the most promising aspirants in the 2016 Republican Primary Campaign. This past week at the FOX News organized debate for the GOP aspirants, the leading candidate by polls, came off as not only assertive of his disdain for women and probably a much aggressive bully on the podium, he characterized the nature of questions from Megyn Kelly, one of the FOX News hosts, as not up to snuff or friendly. He immediately appeared at another competing network, CNN Television the next day (Friday), to chastised Megyn Kelly’s questions as ridiculous and off-base during the debate.
Subsequently on Saturday, the Republican front-runner tweeted, ‘you could see there was blood coming out of her whatever (Nose)’ to clarify probable misunderstanding of his comment to CNN’s Don Lemon a day before, where the Real Estate Mogul had made a closely similar statement to the tweet: “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes; Blood coming out of her wherever.” If the Republican front-runner was having fun with his feud with Megyn Kelly, maybe establishment Conservative Republicans were not finding the insistent derogative and probably sexist comments from their front-runner, funny anymore. It was fun and games when Mr. Trump railed against Rosie O’Donnell on Thursday night or when he made what Ms. Kelly passed as misogynistic and sexist comments at other times, during the FOX News organized debate.
Development over this very absurd situation has probably turned for the worse, as Erick Erickson, one of FOX News program contributors, disinvited the Republican front runner from an earlier scheduled RedState.com gathering in the city of Atlanta, Georgia. This high-profile gathering by Redstate.com under the auspices of its editor, Erick Erickson, will continue with other 2016 Republican aspirants including Carli Fiorina, Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Tom Cruz, Scott Walker, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee and Marco Rubio. In place of Donald Trump, Megyn Kelly was invited to sit on the podium with the remainder Republican presidential aspirants. The sideshow has involved a lot of name calling and tit-for-tat comments from the Republican front-runner and the organizer of the conference; with Mr. Trump adding the following characterization of the RedState.com host: “Erick Erickson is a total loser who has a history of supporting establishment losers in failed campaigns.” For Mr. Trump, his altercation with Megyn Kelly isn’t a personality test or a Conservative Republican test of who qualifies to be at a conservative event, as he added to his comments on Mr. Erickson, “It is an honor to be uninvited from this event.”
If any supporter of Mr. Trump’s campaign was disappointed by his absence from the Redstate.com pow-wow, maybe another heartfelt statement from his campaign will suffice: “this is just another example of weaknesses through being politically correct… For all the people who were looking forward to Mr. Trump coming, we will miss you.” This is where the fun and games probably will end with establishment Republican Conservatives and their party’s front-runner. Mr. Trump still tweets that, Republicans ought to get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense! The difficult aspect is this: While some Conservative Republicans find many of Mr. Trump’s “misogynist” comments as reprehensible and unworthy of someone aspiring to become the President of the United States, other Republicans believe that the party’s establishment are attempting to discredit their party’s front-runner because they are very much afraid or scared of him and his candidacy.
Americans listening to the rumbling in the Republican Party are probably saying it is now too late for Republicans to complain about the outrageousness of Mr. Trump’s comments, or what the establishment Republicans consider as unacceptable from their front runner. The birther’s hegemony was appropriate against the Democrats for as long as it lasted, the misogynist comments from the darling of the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party must also be okay and in order? The three-ring circus has been peddled by the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party over the past six years. Their position has often remained, our way or the highway. Often, derogative comments about the current occupier of the White House were in order or okay with the Republican Establishment who could not stand the fact that President Barack Obama is black. The shoe is now on the other foot within the party. Women, a voting block that often makes the formidable impact every four years during the presdiential elections, is now being lampooned, and probably insulted by the Republican front-runner. It is hardly acceptable to use inflammatory language to carry on a campaign, it is even much difficult, when you call women fat pigs, dogs, slobs, disgusting animals and bimbo in this modern day communication environment. Often comments as these have a way of creeping into social media with very dastardly result for any person, not to talk of a Presidential aspirant currying the favor of voters, who may make or break his or her chances.
Mr. Donald Trump may not be a fan of political correctness; however, reliable presidential campaign strategists will inform the Republican Party front-runner that, the safest strategy is to remain likeable always when you are seeking favor from over 100 million voters who may make or break your dream. When you have women opinion leaders and fellow female contestant getting into war of words on issues of civility and respect, no matter how great you consider your candidacy and campaign, the chicken would someday come to roost! Any Presidential aspirant will do himself or herself a favor by distancing his candidacy from any side shows that will derail his message for the White House oval office. The type of acrimonious and personality issues, including a candidature’s credibility regarding respect for a huge chunk of the American voters, must be troubling for any concerned aspirant for the highest office in the land. The issue of trust and respect for women and their major concerns, must not and may not be taken lightly in a presidential campaign.
On the surface, the current sideshow, and probably prior ones since 2012 Presidential campaign are seemingly unacceptable, even with the far-right group in the Republican Party. If Mr. Trump reflects on the incidence(s) surrounding his campaign since his altercation with Ms. Megyn Kelly, he would have objectively come to the conclusion that, taking the fight to the media or someone well revered by his perceived supporters, is not actually a good idea. You do not want to bite the finger that feeds you; however, how do you want your candidacy to be distinct, one that is really not ready to fall in line with the expectation of the establishment in your party? The instruments of communication in modern media environment call for the reliable and consistent outpour of opinions that are easily identifiable or acceptable by a preponderance of supporters.
Politics of personality, while very much in making in the Republican Party, has a downside to it: it is not often that a ‘Barnum Effect’ applies in all campaign circumstances. It is not often that a sucker is born every minute as postulated by the 20th-century industrial psychologist. The personality test for a politician seeking the highest office in the land is credibility with multiples of interest groups, power brokers, matchmakers, movers and shakers in a party. The female voting blocks in America is not made of all suckers; consistent and perverse disrespect of this very important group of voters, will not get an offending aspirant anywhere no matter what his or her campaign strategists are feeding you.
As with body odor, the adverse effect of blatant disregard for the feelings of a huge chunk of the voting populace, reads very much as a disaster in the making. When you liken complaints about your use of language as an overzealous attempt by your critics to undermine your credibility, you may be failing to put yourself in the shoes of your critics. You may think the use of divisive language is appropriate to what you consider as off base and ridiculous statements; however, those statements are better imagined than voiced out in a public forum, where all eyes and ears are watching and listening to every of your movement and comments. No one goes to an in-laws house and disrespect the females in the household and expect them to willingly offer you the hands of one of their princesses!
Only a heretic would want to deny the obvious place of the far right in the Republican Party; and or their contributions to the candidacy of Real Estate Mogul Donald Trump. To a great extent, the far-right Republicans live in the shadows of aspirant Donald Trump or vise versa. Far as mainstream Republicans distance themselves from comments made by the front-runner of their party, and considering many unfortunate and or unflattering comments from Mr. Trump, especially on and to women, there are still some factions in the Republican Party who will continue to support and acknowledge the right of Aspirant Trump to say whatever he feels like; and, would not tolerate any effort by the establishment Republicans to coward or mess with Trump’s candidacy. The far right Republicans uphold a mixed legacy; they are made up of powerful and vote changing supporters who stand by their beliefs, no matter how abhorring those beliefs maybe for the mainstream establishment Republican leadership; they provide a rallying point for opinions and positions that this pressure group considers excluded from party's general discussions and or, radar of party leadership and or mainstream Republicans.
Stripped of the passion and romance of Mr. Trump’s candidacy, the far right Republicans may surround themselves with even more radical position on many political-economic-social issues that are of importance to mainstream Republicans and or, Americans in general. Behind the sound and fury over aspirant Trump’s castigation of women, are other mainstream Republicans’ denial of women’s right to equality. How about Governor Jeb Bush’s blunder, questioning the veracity of the nation spending so much on women’s health as he attempted to attack the organization, Planned Parenthood.
Many Republicans, including some 2016 aspirants, have some weakness of their traditional or higher order, the disdain for women’s right, either on voting issues, equal pay for equal work issue, or right to self-preservation when it comes to the issue of abortion. Each Republican aspirant feels a sense of intense crisis when it comes to women’s right and acknowledgement of their contributions to American life What many progressive Americans consider as backward and decaying in the twenty-first century, are acceptable to many in the far-right Republican camp. For example, each anti-abortion Republican aspirants, Scott Walker or Marco Rubio, even in instances in which the life of a pregnant woman is at stake, believe his position is in order and will arrest the pace of abortion in America. Some Republicans are stagnated in their religious and social beliefs; and, find it difficult to shake away prior conception or imminent convictions about the place of women in American society. As hopeless and embarrassingly weak their argument to undermine equal rights for women, many of them are compromised, disconnected from women’s feelings and would rather subdue the chances of women breaking the glass ceiling than upholding the ethos of decency and equality, no matter what. This is a reality that all Americans must contend with and fight against in order to make this Democracy a much equal, accommodating and reflective one.
The energy that propelled women to winning the voting suffrage nationally in 1920 is comparatively moderate to what is expected to bring about equality of sexes and probably races, in America of the twenty-first century. Women will have to step up to protect their right to recognition and challenge the ever so consistent and repeated bias of the male-dominated American society that continues to hammer on the message of inequality for both sexes. Men who make unfortunate statements to undermine the place of women in modern day discuss, have the onus to prove their superiority over the women in America society; even while some women, on religious basis and habitation of certain states in the union, believe that all that is paramount is being married, pregnant and bear footed, playing the loving and compassionate wife and mother at home!
Men, especially opinion leaders, and politicians, need to be more educated about a world of equality for women and the huge contributions that women make towards the growth and development of society. Like men, women are talented, thought-leaders and proven leaders, if only the men will stand away from their way. Use of denigrating and self-serving comments have always been the strategy to undermine equality of sexes. Many advocates of the woman movement activities will gladly inform you that many of their successes in terms of equality with men, have come at a prize; with women fighting and sometimes imprisoned on the way to freedom from oppression. This is just the honest truth, no matter what some open minded men say about the unfortunate status of inequality.
In the twenty-first century, women revolutionary voices must be persistent, observant and unrelenting in the fight for equality. No more, must women accept the notion they are inferior, pigs, dogs, slobs, disgusting animals when uninformed men and politicians make flippant comments. No more: “You can see blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her whatever”; No more: “ I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health issues”; and, No More: “Allegation of fanning the flame of controversy” in a bid to get under or away from the wages of egregious and flippant comments. Just as the women’s suffrage was the cornerstone of women activities’ movement in the 1920’s, so also should the new assertion of self-actualization and freedom from shackles of denigration and or abuse from the male counterparts. Let them know that women are no longer going to roll over and take it any longer; make them pay during the Presidential primaries; make them pay also during the House and Senate primaries!
Friday, August 7, 2015
Keywords or Terms: Fox-New’s Chosen 10: (Jeb Bush, Scot Walker, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Mike Huckabee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, Ben Carson); Republican Party Flag Bearer; National Security Agency; Civil liberties; Immigration Issues; Budget issues; Abortion Issues; Secretary Clinton; Democratic Philosophy and Principle; FOX’s Hosts, Megyn Kelly; and Rosie O’Donnell
At the FOX News organized debate last night for GOP aspirants seeking the White House, great minds were asking where the National Security Agency went wrong regarding surveillance. Rand Paul and Chris Christie were at each other’s throat for a while. Senator Paul was on the side of citizens’ privacy, while Governor Christie was on the side of due diligence, not so much against NSA tactics of listening and collecting data on possible terrorist contacts, in and out of America, but hardly in support of complete protection of citizen’s right to privacy when it comes to national security. Was either of these Republican aspirants flawed in their premises or were each position of the aspirants worthy of consideration; genuine enough to be visited or revisited in the general election debate? Is the issue of Civil Liberties violation so alarming as to be of greater concern than say, issues of income inequality and or unfair justice or legal system? National Security Agency has been functioning under new rules since President Barack Obama came to office, and the agency has been experimenting on other means of collecting data on terrorists’ activities without necessarily violating citizens’ liberties. Americans, Republicans and Democrats, will do well to pose other questions to their eventual party’s flag bearer after the storm settles on who is best to outdo the other party’s candidate for the 2016 White House. What exactly were the Republican Aspirants proposing as policy or America’s destinies in the debate yesternight? What were their individual positions on a number of social and budget issues during that prime time television slot?
The candor of Neurosurgeon Ben Carson’s characterization of who should be the ideal flag bearer for the Republican Party and Senator Marco Rubio’s self-depreciation assertion that, were aspirant’s resume the basis of who ends up in the White House in 2016, only Secretary Hillary Clinton qualifies to be the next President of the United States. This self-depreciation or comparative assessment of the current field of Republican aspirants against the presumptive Democratic Party flag bearer, demands a comparable dose of adoration and introspection. Democrats have never expected an acknowledgment from Republicans that none in their field of 2016 aspirants is as knowledgeable and qualified as the potential flag bearer for the Democratic Party. Democrats have never expected a hoopla or mia culpa from Republicans and have always prided themselves on their capacity to attend to needs and aspirations of all Americans; especially the poor and middle-income earners. This has always been the goal of Democrats and their potential flag bearer, Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, each has often represented the best in avowed Democratic principles and philosophy. Yet, other Republicans on the stage with Senator Marco Rubio, especially Real Estate Mogul Donald Trump, may be slow to acknowledge the obvious and defer to the most admired woman in America for nine consecutive years.
Discussions framed to deal with illegal immigration, budgetary issues, national debt and women’s right to abortion in situation where the life of the potential mother was at risk, were muddled up with issues of personality clash, as Donald Trump characterized his hate for Rosie O’Donnell as probably representative of the Republican war on women. For the records, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Scott Walker indicated that they will ban abortion even on instances where abortion was necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. As if the Real Estate Mogul's personal differences with Rosie O’Donnell was of national importance, what one takes out of Donald Trump’s representation yesterday wasn’t only the fact that he continues to depreciate women or put down past associates, but his insistence that, were it not for his alert on illegal immigration since the beginning of the campaign circle, none of the aspirants would have been discussing the issue at the forum. His take on illegal immigration or need for immigration policy reform is probably acknowledged here; however, his recalcitrance on denigrating Mexicans as rapist and all what not, is bewildering; and even much so, is his position that, once he is not the Republican flag bearer, he is open to being a third party candidate in his quest for the 2016 White House. Maybe Republicans were mystified or bewildered by former NBC Reality Show host’s refusal to take a pledge of loyalty to the Republican Party by supporting the eventual Republican Party flag bearer, were it not him. However, many outside observers including some close Republican associates of Trump’s campaign, have not been oblivious of his intention to run as a third party candidate, if he is not the eventual party’s flag bearer. After all, the polls have indicated he is the Republican Party front-runner; and, he has indicated that he has the wherewithal to fight for the White House in 2016.
As evidence showed in the debate, the issue of national debt, ranging from eighteen to twenty-four trillion dollars, depending on which candidate you were listening to yesterday, challenges all Americans; and appears to be an issue that may catch on in the coming months as the race for the White House proceeds. If some past or present state governors’ aggrandizements of their stewardship, from Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee to John Kasich, were anything to go by concerning public policy, one would have been taken aback by many pronouncements, including Jeb Bush’s postulation that he can achieve a four percent GDP growth for the nation under his potential stewardship of the White House, Chris Christie’s proposal to raise the Social Security Retirement Age for Americans, Scott Walker’s proposal that American Police needs additional training to avert the current perceived police brutality against civil society, especially minority Americans, and Mike Huckabee’s advancements that illegals, prostitutes, and drug dealers should be made to pay taxes as a way to get out of America’s Social Security actuarial shortfall. If Governor John Kasich’s public policy initiative for Ohio on Medicare was referenced in terms of his potential occupation of the White House oval office, maybe the audience could have drawn some useful example of his stewardship with Medicaid in the State of Ohio. Unfortunately, he did not have enough time to stress his point or position in this realm; neither was he able to tell his audience if he was going to repeal OBAMACARE.
As Donald Trump lashes out at one of FOX-News’ Debate hosts, Megyn Kelly, and pushes his opponents around in the debate, he advanced probably the best original public policy initiative from the slate of aspirants on the stage; intoning the suspicion of America for the single-payer health care system that has worked in Canada and Scotland and acknowledging this health policy as probably overdue for America. His reference to how Medicare is similar to how a single-payer system works in Canada and Scotland, gives America another shot at looking at the possibility of improving on OBAMACARE, so that the nation could finally resolve its differences on the ideal healthcare reform for America. Maybe the quest of bullying that seems to be characteristic of Donald Trump’s candidacy runs into his self-articulation of the argument for the single-payer system, as he additionally professed in other contributions that the single-payer system is not currently suited for America’s problem without thoroughly explaining himself as to why he thinks so. However, the fact that this original health policy initiative is raised by one of the Republican aspirants is worthy of credit to the party, especially to aspirant Donald Trump.
Even without much dramatic departures from the known opposition of many of the Republican aspirants to the issue of abortion, there is ample reason to believe there is some sort of witch-hunting against women’s right to abortion by some of the Republican Aspirants. Apart from Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Scott Walker’s position not to exempt women for abortion on grounds their lives are at stake during difficult pregnancies, Senator Tom Cruz promises to open an investigation into the five sting videotapes from the anti-abortion group documenting Planned Parenthood Executives’ discussions of disposal of fetal organs and tissues for research purposes. Senator Cruz wants to prosecute these Planned Parenthood Executives for criminal violations. The take away from his position and representation of the other two Republican aspirants against abortion is this: Republicans have hardly departed from their need to fight pro-abortion groups; neither have they blundered away from any public policy initiative designed to undercut women’s right to abortion or equal pay for equal work.
The pattern of undercutting the poor or denying women’s right to any form of privileges was in the horizon as Senator Rand Paul touted budget proposal(s) that remain devastating for the poor and women raising children. No-one knows where Neurosurgeon Ben Carson stands on public issues; however, his articulation of what characteristics to look for in the next President as aspirants juggle for voters’ attention was reminiscent of a good leadership shortlist or telling; and, would probably erode the perception in some quarters that the current slate of Republican aspirants were light weights. Interestingly from the ten aspirants on the rostrum last night, one could find governors, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee and John Kasich; Senators, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz; Real Estate Mogul and a Neurosurgeon, Donald Trump and Ben Carson. A few of these aspirants have been labelled reactionaries or provocateurs, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, and Ben Carson; others, proactive executives, drawing on their former or current executive experience to seek the Republican nomination, Chris Christies, Scott Walker, John Kasich and Jeb Bush; coattail shakers and movers, Marco Rubio and an aggressive bully, relying on his business world experience to shake things up, Donald Trump. From the debate exercise, Americans once again are inclined to believe that these proactive executives, reactionaries or provocateurs, and especially the aggressive bully on the rostrum, are either subliminally in a war with women or, readily facilitate programs that may disadvantage women and the poor. Invariably, one is left with this notion that the perceived Republican Party fight against women and the poor are not necessarily unreal; rather, they are issues that must be visited and revisited to get some clarification as these politicians campaign across the country in the coming months for the White House oval office.
Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Rethinking FOX News Choice of Republican Aspirants to participate in Party’s first 2016 contest debate
Keywords or Text: Republican Party Debate; FOX News; Five National Polls; Gate Keeper; Influential Player; Multiple Polster and pollings; Effective Criteria of Choice Candidates; Skeptics; Supporters; Jeb Bush; Scott Walker; Donald Trump; Chris Christie; Rick Perry; Newt Gingrich; Mitt Romney; Illinois and Florida; Los Angeles Times; hyperbolic assessment; Debate’s Singular Performance; and Electronic Media Kingmaker
That Republican Presidential Aspirants’ debate scheduled for Thursday, August 6th, 2015 is already considered and perceived as a restrictive process. The organizer, FOX-News, may find itself in deep trouble concerning issues of fairness, representation and creditability. Only ten candidates will be chosen and qualified to appear in the debate, including Governor Jeb Bush, Governor Scott Walker and Real Estate Mogul, Donald Trump. According to the debate organizer, participants in the debate are chosen based on five most recent nationally trending opinion polls, conducted by multiple pollsters or organizations, with FOX-News hardly privy to the formula used by each pollster and probably having very little certainties about the conduct of these five national polls, their associated statistical error of margins or differentials, and any other factor that may hamper the chances of a Republican aspirant participating in the nationally televised debate towards the 2016 Party flag bearer. Imagine a situation in which there is a tie in the polls for the tenth and last candidate: who will be in and who will be out? Los Angeles Times reported that FOX-News media analyst, Howard Kurtz, acknowledges that no sustained questioning would be possible if debate participation is broadly inclusive as ever; say, about eighteen candidates are invited to participate and this probably could lead to bad television! Notwithstanding, with the current arrangement, FOX-News and television has appointed itself the primary gatekeeper and influential player in the Republican Party’s Campaign for 2016 White House.
The lesson to be learned from the experience of short listing “qualifiable” candidates for the debate is probably going to be different when its comes to Democrats’ seeking the oval office in 2016. Skeptics of the shortlisting criteria used by FOX-News and Television are alleging that the news outlet is playing lip-service to “fairness” in the qualification of the notified candidates scheduled to appear in the debate. Skeptics are certain that the effective criteria that may have been prudent is to include all the eighteen or so Republicans who have indicated interest in the race; by so doing, a sense of serving the interest of all representative groups of voters supporting each of the Republican aspirants would have been registered and or acknowledged. For this group, it is simply illusory to think a network’s generated criteria, based on hyperbolic assessment of who is trending in current five national polls, is sufficient enough to pick aspirants to participate in the first party’s debate.
Further, it is probably erroneous to adopt criteria, or part of criteria, used by other persons or polling organizations to shortlist ten contestants for the debate. The error comes out of the assumption that the criteria used by the polling organizations are ideal, locked in time, and reasonable enough to indicate Republican Party’s voters’ preferences of who should be on the rostrum come tomorrow's night. In addition, skeptics believe the current list of candidates scheduled to appear douses the high expectation of all Republicans for the debate points on national issues that impact every American lives; and or, concern the hopes and aspirations of members of American Republican Party. For this group, the debate process could be revitalized, if every aspirant is given a shot at making the representation before all Republicans, viewers and listeners of the program. Supporters of the current debaters’ list and criteria used by FOX-News and Television insist that, due to time constraints, debate logistics and probably the need for high program rating, it is quite unreasonable and functionally difficult, to have every one of the Republican aspirants on the stage making a case for his or her candidacy. Skeptics still insist, some Republican Aspirants for the 2016 contest are marginalized by the process FOX-News and Television has adopted in shortlisting the ten candidates to appear; and this practically has the potential of impeding objective and positive outcomes for the first debate.
Neither of these positions is fully convincing. Any aspirant singular debate performance, while useful in gauging affinity of voters, hardly guarantees better outcome for the ultimate winner of the party’s flag bearer's status; and or, complete voters’ preference of an ideal candidate to win the ultimate prize. Yes, it is possible to weed out the wheat from the chaff; however, at what expense is this being done. Representation of opinions in a radio or televised debate and making a case for one’s candidature can either catapult or sink a candidate’s ambition in earnest in this first time out exercise. Indeed, the concerns for many independent observers of this process is probably, that other candidates not present on the rostrum tomorrow night, have a better chance of building a much formidable candidacy after finding out the weaknesses from the ten candidates present on the rostrum. With executives and members’ concerns emerging from declarations of current presumptive front-runners, including comments credited to some of them on a number of social and economic issues, Jeb Bush going after Medicare and Social Security, Scott Walker barraging Union Powers and Donald Trump’s repeated racial derogation or slurs and others, the debate tomorrow may open further other short-comings of participating aspirants regarding issues of utmost concern for Republicans as well as all Americans.
What if Jeb Bush delves further into his conviction to undermine US Social Security or tank Medicare? What if Scott Walker is able to expose his ignorance of the workings of American Foreign Policy, US Employees Union organization or the effective constraints necessary for dealing with international terrorist groups as AlQaida, ISIS or other tones? Would Donald Trump’s uneasiness in acceding to Party’s leadership preferences for restraint in talking about minority groups in America be exposed at the debate? Can the differential level of modesty be deduced from Republican aspirants debating Iran Nuclear deal or the recently announced emission standards for America’s generating power plants? How would a non-debate participating Republican aspirant view defense(s) from participating parents of past Twits or comments: 1) Scott Walker’s undoing any nuclear agreement on “Day One” of his Presidency; 2) Chris Christie warning Republican Party’s donors against backing an aspirant who flip-flops on important issues; or his conviction that the party ought to pay more attention to American voters who traditionally vote Democratic; 3) Rick Perry’s argument that the nuclear deal with Iran is riddled with concession from the Obama’s Administration; 4) Could Scott Walker’s backing away from the Common Core Education Standard after initial support, or his constant change on immigration reform, do him in at the debate? 5) Could Chris Christie’s reservation over Republican Party echelon's focus on data in the run-up to the presidential election or party nomination process, be more pronounced in this first debate? 6) Could Governor Christi’s call to Republicans to focus more on connecting with all Americans, not just the traditionally connected focus groups of the Republican Party, the way of the future? 7) Does data truly drive all elections, or is Christie’s position that no amount of data could correct for a bad candidate is credible enough to jettison the focus of the Republican Party for a true flag bearer? Could answers to all these and more questions, afford opportunities for a non-participating debate aspirant to edge up a nut in future polls? And or, will a non-participating debate aspirant cash in on an appealing slogan that could undermine a participating aspirant, who is unfortunate to make an unforgivable mistake, like a failure to remember a particular point that he or she has previous horned upon; thereby, denying the aspirant’s viability chances of being the party’s flag bearer for the national contest? Unless the issue of inclusiveness is addressed, FOX-News suffers the unenviable status of being labelled as unilaterally minded with the singular objective of building up its broadcast’s rating and serving its money-making agenda at the expense of Republican Party’s objectives and interests.
Frankly, the marginalization of an aspirant’s chances is much deeper than the exclusion from the first debate. Nationally televised or broadcasted debates can build up name recognition(s) for hitherto nationally reclusive candidates; however, time limitation or constraints for each participant included in an overcrowded rostrum could still hamper a candidate’s message from getting to voters. It is not merely due to the shortness of time to make a credible case for why an aspirant should be chosen over a multiple of others, but because of the nature of human behavior and perceptions of an overcrowded field. A debate viewer or listener may misunderstand the argument of an aspirant’s representation of a position; and because there is hardly an opportunity for a do-over in time-limited debate or making credible case for whatever message the candidate is attempting to pass on, the candidate is still short changed. It is possible to see the time limit or constraints as a plus when a candidate makes a snafu; however, in an age of short-attention span, good candidates with great messages can still be unable to articulate their argument within few seconds under the glare of lights, cameramen and microphones.
Recently, the Republican Party seems to be in a consensus malaise crisis, with one of their far right groups finding it difficult to build consensus with moderate members in discussions over party’s preferences, resulting in name calling and isolation of individual(s) or group members in party’s functions designed to build support for the broader platform of the Republican Party. Nowhere is that more glaring as the recent Koch Brother’s jamboree where Donald Trump is left out of the party’s hopefuls; and or, when discussing the issue of immigration reform. A happenstance situation could be drawn from the earlier ambition of intention to run for the White House by another aspirant long gone from the 2016 race. Consider the situation, when Governor Mitt Romney was mulling over a run for the White House and a furry of oppositions from some deep-pocket donors or party’s establishment, to his pronoucements. Just about the announcement of Mitt Romney’s intention, Jeb Bush was known to have, off the curve, mentioned to a reporter that for him and probably most of establishment Republican Party, the goal is, “Winning with a purpose, winning with a meaning, winning with your integrity, is what I’m talking about”. In this scenerio, effort by Jeb Bush is to cast some aspersion on premptive candidate Mitt Romney. The same could be said of him regarding his position on the Educational Common Core Standard. For a time, Jeb Bush was all about the Common Core; today, his response is probably not well as articulated or probably as forthcoming as initially thought in some quarters regarding the continuity of this initiative on a national scale under a Republican administration.
For the outsider, the Republican Party is in more crisis than ever and this is probably why there are so many splinter groups and opinion leaders in the party, where in some instances, the truth is jettisioned for sensationalism and viable public policies are relegated to ideological preferences that ignore commesense. The fundamental claim to party unity is not very obvious to many, even within the party. There are strategic rivalry at the party’s leadership or top echelon level; one similar to what obtained in the 2012 election. In the run for the White House, the 43rd President, G.W. Bush, held over his announcement of support for Mitt Romney uptil the eleventh hour. Mitt Romney was struggling badly against lesser known Republican aspirants during the 2012 primaries and when he sought support of his candidacy from the higher ups, to assauge the new insurgence in the party, President G.W. Bush held back, sitting on the sidelines, as if the issue was not of relevance to his attention; even as candidate Romney emailed and sent private emissaries to try to win his support. President G.W. Bush was not convinced and Romney went through brutalized campaign with Newt Gringrich in Florida. Just as he won convincingly the state of Illinois, the 43rd Presdient gave Mitt Romney a thumbs up or blessing, just as the nomination process was already foregone with the numbers of delegates already in Romney’s kitty.
The truth of the matter is politics is a brutal exercise and one’s presumptive debate performance hardly determines the success of a budding campaign; and or failures of other candidates’. It in fact does not completely convince other supporters who are heavy weights in one’s party and who can make a quick difference to one’s candidature to quickly rally around one’s effort to brake away from the pack. Any first misteps in an exercise as this could be delirious and fatal for a financailly strapped candidacy; or one not yet on a solid ground. Sadly too, the blessing of party’s insiders or heavyweights, does not completely guarantees a win, as always on a national ticket. Each candidate has to earn the trust and support of party voters and those of American voters in general elections to make a difference in the long walk to 1600 Pennsyvania Avenue. There are obviously going to be the highs and lows of the campaign, there is going to be difficult nights and successful nights of debates, the trick is to plod on and never give up. Now, with the advent of FOX-News picking winners and losers of who makes it to the debate rostrum, we now have another Kingsmaker, an electronic presidential debate media kingsmaker!