Friday, October 16, 2015


Keywords or Terms: Civil Decorum; Political Issues; Democratic Party; Republican Party; Black Lives Matter; Bernie Sanders; Hillary Rodham Clinton; American Justice System; Climate Change; American Capitalism; Gun Violence; Debt-Free Higher Education; Changing Campaign Financial Rules; Raising the Federal Minimum Wage; Progressive Solutions

To adapt to a more civil decorum in discussing political issues in presidential debates, the Republican Party – along with the far right elements of their party, the tea party faction – will need to do some radical thinking regarding the approaches and methods of addressing pressing issues in the American narrative experience; including discussions of personal experiences, using publicity stunts, or resorting to bravado in explaining away domestic and or foreign issues, that affect the lives of Americans. Imagine Bernie Sander’s response to the question: whether Black Lives Matter? The erstwhile Senator from the State of Vermont succinctly said: “The reason those words matter is the African-American community knows that on any given day, some innocent person like Sandra Bland can get into a car and then three days later she’s going to end up dead in jail.” Democratic Party Presidential Aspirant Bernie Sanders did not sugar quote or avoid the question; he did not palatalize or erupt into self-aggrandizement to promote his campaign; he did not capitalize on his personal experience with families of victims of injustice; nor, resort to breathless campaign propaganda in the American narrative experience; he simply said, there is need for all of us to ask ourselves a simple question: Is the American Justice System serving every American, Asians, Blacks, Latinos, White, or what have you? This essentially is why for all intense and purposes, US Senator Bernie Sanders has been acclaimed for class, integrity and civility in his campaign for the Office of the President of the United States, in a world where the front runner for the 2016 Republican Party nomination has been built around breathless propaganda-laced media campaigning, with effusion of classless and insulting comments about a huge sector of American population.

The question of political civility needs to begin with the next Republican Presidential debate scheduled for October 28, 2015 at Coors Event Center, Boulder, Colorado. We may debate socialism against capitalism or question if we should afford for a different political doctrine to drive our governance; however, what we must never forget: 2016 Democratic Presidential Aspirants, beginning with Bernie Sanders, brought back civility in political discussions and debates at the first Democratic Party debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 13, 2015; and, Republicans can learn a lot from that debate. In a world where presidential debates are driven by television viewership and not the relevance of the content of issues impacting American lives and experience, there are going to be letters with comments such as: “Neither Mr. Trump or Dr. Carson will participate in your debate if it is longer than 120 minutes including commercials and does not include opening and closing statements.” Whether the Republicans know it or not, or the television executives driving the Republican Party Debate appreciate it or not, including FOXNEWS, CNN and CNBC, the purpose and essence of America’s Presidential Aspirants’ debate(s) are not to rake money for the networks or publicize the position of a narrow group within a political party; rather, it is to offer Americans, opportunity to witness serious deliberations over what impacts or would impact their lives and who is best to be in the driver’s seat, or in the helms of affairs of this nation, come Friday, January 20, 2017.

It is neither a competition between those in support of a reality-show guru, or emphasis centering on one aspect of American lives over another. It is not about entertainment and network television ratings, although network executives believe this is the main essence of the debate; however, it is more about: the process of elimination devoid of dazzle-dazzling commercials to line the pockets of a few. It is more about the Democracy of a Republic built on time tested doctrine of excellence of one-man, one-vote; although constitutional purists will raise objections to this latter characterization. For the records however, nowhere in the constitution does it say, the furtiveness of competition between the two political parties or among aspirants, Democrats or Republicans, seeking the office of the US Presidency, must rely on televised ratings or viewership of such discussions and or debates. 

The John Kennedy-Richard Nixon Televised watershed debate changed the dynamics of campaigning for the White House oval office; however, it was never meant to substitute, the old tested fight of ideas, devoid of entertainment that characterizes current day debate for the White House. To uphold the natural interest of Americans for issues affecting their bread and butter, it is essential that aspirants present their opinions and ideas regarding where they stand on an array of political, economic, social and foreign issues; and, the presidential debates offer each of these candidates a forum. Using television or internet broadcast as an outlet for these debates is acceptable; however, they are never to subsume the essence of the exercise. Mind you, no one is saying we must return to those olden days’ experience; rather, we must never allow a few self-centered propagandist or entertainers to hijack the altruism of our collective purpose as a nation, because of the medium of broadcast of the exercise.

Here are leadership questions impacting American lives as offered in the first Democratic Party debate at the Wynn Luxury Resort and Casino, Las Vegas, Paradise, Nevada : 1) Countering Climate change and protecting African-Americans from police shooting and brutality; 2) Unfair-Criminal Justice System; 3) American-form of Capitalism and its associated excesses, including the disenfranchisement of the poor and middle classes; 4) Gun Violence and its associated menaces and difficulties; 5) Potential of a Debt-Free College Education for Americans; 6)  Changing Campaign Finance Rules; and, 7) Raising the federal minimum wage. These issues are considered moral imperatives and challenges facing the nation; and more than four candidates on the Democratic Party’s rostrum contend that for America to have a brighter tomorrow, answers and solutions must be provided.  With these deliberations, Democrats appear futuristic in their deliberations and contemplation, looking at what is ahead for America and attempting to provide policy solutions or answers to the thorny issues. Congruently, unlike Republicans and their past debates, Democrats see the issue of Gun Violence as a menace that continues to petrify the living hell among a huge number of Americans; with the leading Democratic Party aspirant for the 2016 nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton, advocating for tougher background checks and stricter regulations regarding the purchase and transfer of fire arms.

On issues of foreign interventions, especially with Syria, hardly any 2016 Democratic Party aspirant is completely subscribing to the age-old President John Kennedy’s inaugural Rhetoric – “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall… support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty” – every time some people’s liberty is threatened anywhere in the world. While Secretary Clinton considers Vladimir V. Putin a bully and would likely confront him as such, her immediate contender, Senator Bernie Sanders, would rather watch the Russian leader capitulate under the pressure of public opinions regarding war-time causalities from Russian people. One senses that Democrats are weighing whether Russians are logistically and financially capable of delivering significant outcome from their interventions in Syria; or, whether an intervention can truly bring about a desirable outcome that the public will support with American lives. The tricky thing is, Republicans are ready to engage with their war-mongering philosophy and are ready to damn the consequence the way they have done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On the road to 2016 elections, there are issues regarding the number of debates offered by the Democratic Party; and, there has been criticisms in some quarters that the limited number of debates contemplated by the National Democratic Committee appears much of facilitating a coronation rather than promoting a robust process of wallowing and elimination. If Democrats restrict themselves, the nation may not have the privilege of having aspirants deliberate thoroughly issues that impact or may impact America. Republicans on their part, have to contend with the issue of wielding issues of deliberations, with some of their deliberated issues at the debates, looking more like an out-of-power party, with no precise issue that could catch the attention of the average American voter, or draw attention towards the Republicans’ viewpoints. This is why to a relative extent, drama and side-entertainments have consumed the process of sifting or weeding the huge number of Republican aspirants, fifteen as of date. The unfortunate and noticeable characterization of solution offered by the slate of Republicans, have made one wondered, if in reality, Republicans can field a viable candidate for the upcoming contest in 2016. Jeb Bush, the establishment candidate is not doing as well as Donald Trump, the so-called activist or far-right preferred candidate. Take one issue that seems in-congruent between leading Democratic and Republican Party candidates in the polls: while Democratic Party leading candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders offered progressive solutions and recommendations at the first debate on Climate change, with the later identifying the problem as the number one national security threat facing America, Donald Trump, has insistently denied decades of scientific research and evidence. No one can find a better reason, why more of these debates are essential for the American voter to have a truer choice in the upcoming election.

Monday, October 5, 2015

Hillary is roaring back from Republican Email Machination Scandal: What the polls are not saying?

Keywords or Terms: Former US Secretary of State; Presidential campaign trail; Republican House Speaker; Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA); NBC/Wall Street Journal polls; National Rifle Association; Curbing Gun Violence; Restoring Trust in Political System; Increasing support for Undergraduate Education and financing; Benghazi Embassy Killing; Restore economic growth with rising wages for Americans; and,

The former US Secretary of State has had her bad and good days on the 2016 Presidential Campaign Trail. However, her assertiveness, like I am the most transparent candidate in US History, is speaking well in the polls, better than when the email machination or scandal festered from the other aisle of US Congress. The fact that the front runner for prospective Republican House Speaker, since the stepping down of John Boehner, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), claimed in a statement that his cohort’s machination on the purported email scandal led to the declining presidential campaign poll number of the former US Secretary of State, truly says a million. Who can expect a dramatic and sometimes disturbing pronouncement(s) of Republican leadership regarding how they use their Congressional positions to capitulate or derail efforts of well-meaning public figures? In all major discussions shaping the 2016 presidential campaign, one strongly feels the average American’s interest hardly inform policies contemplated by Republican aspirants.

Like Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), other extreme Republican leaders in the US House of Representatives, probably used the purported Secretary Clinton’s email “scandal” for political gains, an admission considered a felony by the US House of Representatives Rules and Standards. A fifth time US Congressman, Republican House Majority Whip, representative from 23rd California Congressional District, 2008 Chairman of Republican Platform Committee and current US House Speaker preferred successor, ought to know you cannot use witch hunting, back-door harassments, and committee rules to impact or derail efforts by a Presidential candidate for political gains. The fact that Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders polled ahead of US Secretary Clinton in New Hampshire (48-39 percent), while she remains ahead in the State of Iowa by 11 points (47-36 percent), according to NBC/Wall Street Journal polls out on Sunday, indicate that the race is not completely over; however, neither should we expect a mayhem that could prevent Ms. Clinton from being the Democratic Party flag bearer come November 2016.

Embolden by new opportunities and undeterred by naysayers, Ms. Clinton issued a couple of proposals, including one this morning to curb gun violence. According to Democratic Party front runner, she will: 1) like to lead a ‘national movement’ to counter the National Rifle Association; 2) work hard to make a first case in the Iowa caucuses and then the New Hampshire primary; 3) restore economic growth with rising wages for Americans; 4) restore trust and cooperation in our political system; 5) manage the resurgences of Islamic State, and more. Her disdain for the opposing party's front runner for nomination showed very clearly in her response to Reverend Al Sharpton on the MSNBC’s “Politic Nation” program on Sunday when she said: “[Donald Trump] has been stoking prejudice and paranoia. He’s been really appealing to the worst instincts of human nature. I think it’s dangerous. His demagoguery is no longer amusing.” This statement hardly seem from a candidate that has been cowered by machination of a few wrong-headed extreme right Republicans in the US House of Representatives.

US Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), member of Congressional Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government-sponsored Enterprises and the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit may have been working with a few, if not the “Hell No” Republican Representatives in Congress to torpedo the progress of former US Secretary of State; however, her policy proposals and advances hardly seem one of a presidential candidate perturbed or beleaguered by such mean efforts. According to her campaign WEBSITE, what her candidacy offers for America are: 1) government programs and spending to help undergraduates pay tuition at public colleges without extra financial debt loads; 2) funding and supporting medication assisted treatment, especially against opioid epidemics; 3) Promoting Gay Rights; 5) Fighting for comprehensive immigration reform; and, 6) taking on systematic racial inequalities and bringing down barriers against women and minorities, among others.

Why are Republicans so focused on things that stumbles Ms. Clinton, like the botched health care roll out of the 1990’s and Benghazi Embassy killings as admonished by the Republican’s National Committee Chairman, Reince Priebus? What efforts should Ms. Clinton make to defect these criticisms. In the months following her declaration of running for the Presidency, the former US Secretary of State has Promoted populist messages, including the release of a media video where she chastised CEOs making 300 times the average American worker, noting that Americans are fast losing believe that their hard work will be rewarded; and, espoused the influence of her mother during the early years of her legal career. What she probably missed out is campaigning against those things that have immersed her profile in those issues that have made her come across as untrustworthy. After her role as the first lady of the White House, it is important for her to counter the perception from those who have either worked for her or engaged her in political fist fights, those still having belated lamentation regarding how Secretary Clinton come across as very brutal and untrustworthy. In part, ironically, some of the criticisms against Ms. Clinton’s candidacy are residues of her husband’s performance as the President of the United States and his global campaign initiatives since getting out of the White House.

Under the benevolence oversight of her campaign team, including Robby Mook, Campaign Manager, Joel Benson, Chief Strategist, Jim Margolis, Media advisor, Adam Parkhomenko, Director of Grassroots Engagement, Marlon Marshall, Director of State Campaigns and Political Engagement, and Amanda Renteria, Political Director, she must develop and promote campaign messaging that counters the polls’ attested mistrust, especially among those people who have once worked very closely with her husband and herself. Campaign messaging are not constant; they are often fluid, based on the news cycle sometimes; that is why the campaign team must be proactive and ingenious in addressing those known shortcomings of their boss or candidate. Buying an advanced two million dollar airtime in Iowa and New Hampshire seem a right decision; however, changing the narrative in some quarters that Republicans have used as fodder for engaging Democrats in general and working to address unknown biases from voters, are quantifiable material dividend which an engaged and proactive campaign team can only deliver.

As Democrats, we all are worried as Ms. Clinton once intoned, “The worst thing that could happen to our country, is for Republicans to rip away that progress [under President Obama] and do a big U-turn back to trickle-down economics”. We also know that for Ms. Clinton to bring together folks from the right, left, red blue and get them into a warm purple space where everybody is talking and actually solving problems, we must have trust. Folks are often apprehensive in group dynamics when they think their leader is about or, is hood-winking them on some issues. The biggest investor(s) in campaigns are not necessarily looking for a quick fix to all problems; rather, a consistent and reliable effort, where the issue of trust is past settled. Today, America trades considerably with China, just the way it did with Japan in 1990s. The values of shares changed on the New York Stock Exchange, immediately Chinese fiddled with the values of their yen exchange value. For the foreseeable future, China’s current account surplus will continue to grow at the expense of our expanded deficit spending. There are no indications that import from China will decline anytime soon. What is “President” Hillary Rodham Clinton going to do about this to save American jobs, declining wages and benefits? These are the bread and butter issues that Bernie Sanders is hammering upon; and, that is why he is doing well against the Hillary 2016 Logo in the polls, lately.