2016 GOP Aspirant’s First Debate: Sharing American Destinies with FOX-News’s Chosen 10!

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.
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SECOND 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: A New Development in possible Use of Presidential Power?

Events and Narratives in American Presidential Campaigns: Are Americans listening to either of the Presidential candidate for 2016 White House?

President Barack Obama: Farewell Address as he rode to sunset!