Friday, November 27, 2015
Keywords or Terms: US Presidency; Frustrated Veteran Ohio Governor; Campaigning Message; Hitlerish; German Reverend Martin Niemöller; Presidential Aspirations; Muslims; Hispanic Immigrants; Journalists; Republican Party; Democratic Party; US President; Euphoric Multiple Announcements; Associated Socialistic Doctrinaire; Nazi-like campaign structure; Arizonian Barry Goldwater; South Dakotan George McGovern; Communist Party Earl Broder; Socialistic Party Darling Hoopoes; Progressive Movement; Ultra-right and Ultra left Ideology
Ohio’s Governor John Kasich's brief bid for 2016 White House appears to have abruptly come to an end. While it lasted, the governor caught a glimpse of attention from about three percent of Republican voters, rendering his enthusiasm for the race and Office of US Presidency a second time around, remarkably dampened and hopelessly perplexing. This unfortunate experience probably drove the governor to release what is now considered in some quarters, an implosion message or advertisement railing against the Republican Party front-runner, Mr. Trump, on his way out. The relationship between the Ohio governor and Mr. Trump has been remarkably tensed over the campaign season and probably climaxed to an extreme tenuous point where the governor felt so chagrin with campaigning messages and or Tweets from Mr. Trump, that he recently as of this week, categorized and castigated Trump’s campaign for the 2016 White House as narcissistic and Hitlerish.
The dominance of Mr. Trump over the past six months in the polls appears to have frustrated the veteran Ohio governor, and probably contributed to what is probably seen as an all-out war against fellow Republican Donald Trump’s personality and campaign. Mr. Trump was holding a campaign rally in the governor’s backyard the day the latter released the scorching message of attack against the front-runner. With two conference calls challenging – the elect-ability and burden of having Mr. Trump as Republican party polls leader – the governor took to the media, an unprecedented display of disgust for the brand of Trump’s campaign, throwing out courtesy and brandishing discrediting message about what the Real Estate Mogul stands for in the coming years, if he ever occupies the White House oval office. In his Political Action Committee’s (PAC), bar-none and hold-no-prisoner released campaign advertisement, the governor of Ohio likened Mr. Trump’s campaign to the notable early pre-second world war quotation of German Reverend Martin Niemöller: “First they came for the Socialists (Muslims), and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist (Muslims); Then they came for the Trade Unionists (Hispanic Immigrants), and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist (Hispanic Immigrants); Then they came for the Jews (Journalists), and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew (Journalists); Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” The campaign video advert was so moving and telling as dramatized by retired Vietnam prisoner of War, Col. Tom Moe (USAF), that I once again give Fred Davis his due, as a master of negative political advertisement in modern day American politics.
The graphic and vivid depiction of the scorching Kasicak’s video advertisement, curling from Reverend Martin Niemöller’s quote, are not dramatically coincidental; they are probably meant to send a damaging blow to Mr. Trump’s ambition, liking his brand of a campaign to the Second World War’s Nazi propaganda to exterminate Jews. But the characterization, while an eye-popping opener, appears to be too late to come; considered a sour grape among some Republican supporters of Mr. Trump’s ambition; and, probably going to harden the determination of Trump’s campaign to send out other dismissive messages. Going after a competitor’s credibility is best when you are still in, not when you are on your way out the door. Governor Kasicak’s PAC, New Day for America, compiled a couple of Mr. Trump’s campaign messaging and turned them out to bombastic advertisements meant to undermine further efforts from the front runner. Incidentally, New day for America is being threatened to be sued by Donald Trump’s campaign.
Truly, the exit of Governor John Kasicaks from the 2016 White House race may be signaling some unwanted news for other Republican contestants, the wallowing process is commencing for the initially huge and wielding number of Republican aspirants. About half of the remaining thirteen Republican contestants may soon be returning from their campaign trails to their home state, some from shallow pockets consequent to slower donations to their campaign chest, others from possible self-examination of the possibility of their being the 2016 nominee of the party. In hindsight, many of these contestants have endured a gruesome schedule of crisscrossing the states, testing and broadcasting their ambitions and controlling message released to the press; none of these ever dared to take on the US Press or antagonize the ‘Black Lives Matter’ protesters, the way Donald Trump’s campaign has done.
Last summer’s initially euphoric multiple announcements of ambitions to run for the White House in 2016 by many aspirants are yielding, somehow gradually turning to be whimsical for some, or overestimation of broad support from voters, by others. The party’s arranged debates for the aspirants have not been boring, a few of them yielded fireworks; others, a reevaluation of the possibilities on ending up as the party’s eventual nominee. Although it is too early to predict the candidate with the best chance, the fruits of efforts by one Republican candidate, Donald Trump, while still bemoaned by critics, appear to be encouraging; for others, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Chris Christi and Carli Fiorina, probably need more time to flourish or stand the test of time. For Democrats, barring the unforeseeable, Hillary Clinton would probably be the nominee; and Bernie Sanders, the resurgent candidate that can easily replace Hillary Clinton, were it not for associated Socialistic doctrinaire, would have been an ideal candidate for many supporters of the front-runner for the Democrats. The far-left liberal wing of the Democratic Party is alive and well; only time could tell, if they will be able to sway the hands of the eventual nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016.
For as long as campaigns for party nomination proceed, overzealous and short-tempered aspirants may suffer a setback. As 2016 campaigning becomes intense, states’ primaries get completed, loyalty would become divergent, many supporters will shift allegiance, and competition will become somewhat of a cutthroat contest; however, this is often the nature of the beast. Candidates who fail to change with the tide, time and messaging, no matter how they perceive their campaign’s entitlement, would suffer unfortunate voters’ revolt or setbacks. In the chaos of presidential aspirants’ campaigns across the fifty states, polls’ leadership would go through multiple changes or shifting; and, the dynamism of the process would willow out the weak from the strong, the flat-footed from the resilient, and the unexpected as usual, would triumph over preconceived certainties, on the road to the White House’s oval office. Further, the acculturated call for unyielding support from leading candidature to supporters will meet with some resilience or unfortunate news for a few of the aspirants; and, the ideal party candidate will hardly triumph without some unscating brutalization.
And the threat of having a Nazi-like campaign structure or messaging will dissipate as some candidates eventually realize the shortcomings of shooting themselves in the foot with poor campaign messaging over the months. The initial vociferous supporters of extremely spirited aspirants would take to their heels, once they notice an uncharacteristic insanity in the position of their initially favored candidate. It is difficult to say how many changes in the polls’ leadership would be experienced in the course of a campaign cycle, however, it is going to be difficult for an aspirant not to be reminded of his chosen language at the beginning of the exercise. This is probably why no one should be surprised, if a candidate that seem rather impermeable or extreme in his views at the beginning of the campaign cycle, abruptly shifts his messaging, once he or she becomes the party’s flag bearer. The shifting to middle ground messaging from the far right or left candidature, is often; if not completely predictable, in each of the last forty years of Presidential Campaign exercises and experiences. That Donald Trump will change his messaging after being nominated the Republican Party flag bearer is probably a given, except he is ready to lose the election to the other party’s candidate, or his supporters insist on his continued radical and extreme position on many issues, and the opposition candidate is unable to offer a better and hopeful messaging that will carry more weight; and or, exploit the obvious weaknesses. For now, it remains expedient, or appears easier, to maintain a radical or extreme position when running in a somewhat extreme far-right supporter based party, in what is a heavily weighted conservative Republican Party nomination process; however, in a general election, it has always been risky to maintain an extreme nature of campaign; either in a far-right of far-left position.
Historically, since the end of the Second World War, many extreme Presidential aspirants, Earl Broder of the Communist Party and Darling Hoopoes of the Socialistic Party in the 1950’s, Arizonian Barry Goldwater of the Republican Party in the 1960’s, and, South Dakotan Democratic Party George McGovern in the 1970’s have either fanned hate messages, used offensive language or established campaign apparatus that fanned fears among the populace. The story of a 1972 far-left extreme-candidature, coupled with missteps in the choice of a Vice-Presidential candidate, from a US Press categorized, ‘reflective liberal’ can down a campaign as can be told by the current 2016 front-runner Democratic Party Nominee, Hillary Clinton, who was then, in collaboration with her husband, worked in Texas on George McGovern campaign for the 1972 White House. Once you are labeled a candidate of extremity, either amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot, just as was for 1972 far-left candidate, George McGovern, or 2016 far-right, anti-immigration, anti-press, xenophobic and anti-black candidature, Donald Trump, the likelihood of you winning the White House is at best as 30.7%, factoring out the Watergate influences of Richard Nixon, if not a landslide! That was how far an extreme far-left candidate was humiliated in 1972. The same cannot be ruled out in 2016.
The precursor to the 1972 experience, Senator Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican Party flag bearer, espoused extreme right, American Conservative, and Libertarian Movement messaging and virtues, that cost the Republican Party the White House that year. His Democratic Party opponent, Lyndon B. Johnson, was able to paint Senator Goldwater as a ‘reactionary zealot’ in the general elections; and, his initial vocal crusade against Labor Unions, Welfare State and the Soviet Union met disaffection, in general, elections, which ultimately delivered the White House to Democrats; and, a unanimous Democratic Party Majority Congress, that ushered in the Great Society programs that many Americans still admonish or dearly love till date. With Mr. Trump’s surging in early polls, what is currently considered “the most outrageous lambasting comments about minority groups in America” may turn out to be an opportunity for greater things to come in general elections. Despite all the anguish among the Republican party establishment, and what seems to be upsetting for some American minorities, the ultimate repercussions of the extreme stance of a candidate, may become a blessing in disguise.
Democrats on the corollary to Republicans aspirants have somewhat of a tidy primary, with only three candidates standing before the very first state primary in Iowa. The question for Democrats at this time, is whether any of the three remaining candidates can corral the mantle of Theodore Roosevelt ethos of the Progressive movement, delivering: “the perfectibility of man, and in an open society where mankind was neither chained to the past nor condemned to a deterministic future; one which people were capable of changing their condition for better or worse.” This ethos is no more telling when you consider the issue of disparity of wages between sexes, legal injustices, and rising poverty among Americans. The Democrats under Barack H. Obama were able to draw the union out of health poverty with the launching of OBAMACARE; despite the Republican insistence to overturn the law.
Essentially, the rigorous and consecutively arranged state primaries have the tendency of wallowing out politicians that would not win out in a general election, because of their extreme positions on the campaign trails, or some missteps or known inadequacies of both, or either candidate on the ticket. 2016 Republican Party Primaries may go the same way; however, if this fails to happen, the chances of Aspirant Donald Trump winning out in the general election is rather dismal, considering historical data and experiences. Further, if Aspirant Donald Trump fails to win the Republican Party flag bearer status; and, he chooses to be a third party candidate as he has intoned, because of reliance on his wealth to launch a third party candidature, he still may not necessarily be assured of the White House’s oval office. Historical performance and data of third party candidates in general elections have been often dismal. The blunt eccentricities and shortcomings of railing against minorities, or holding the extreme far-right opinion of a huge chunk of the electorate are invariably undermining to any presidential ambition. The comments of Mr. Donald Trump may look appealing at this time to the far-right voting base of the Republican Party, the truth of the matter however, based on historical data and experiences of US general elections, extreme positions and or comments that initially coral support to a fascist candidacy, has a way of denying the White House to the offending party or candidate. What does this mean for the Republican Party in 2016, if it chooses to field Donald Trump? Your guess is as good as mine.
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Keywords or Terms: Ben Carson; Donald Trump; Jeb Bush; Marco Rubio; Republican party Flag Bearer; Minority Groups; Religion; Race; Immigration; International Terrorism; Florida Politics; Floridian Republicans; Ultra-conservative; Ultra-Nationalistic; American Party; and, American Independent Party
Contrary to establishment Republican Party expectations, and probably a generality of predictions by presidential campaign polls watchers, Mr. Donald Trump’s precipitous rise during the summer months and polls’ leadership during the fall months have not abruptly ended. Republicans, as well as presidential campaign polls watchers, are becoming accustomed to Mr. Trump’s campaign shenanigans and are living with an uncomfortable reality that it is very unlikely the real estate mogul is going to suffer a meltdown that may scuttle his chances of being the Republican Party flag bearer come next year. A few pollsters, who predicted Mr. Trump is unlikely to escape the wrought or criticisms of the disaffected minority groups he is known, or assumed to have offended with his campaign rhetoric, are rethinking their predictions. Neuro-surgeon Ben Carson’s lukewarm meteoric rise in polls in the past few weeks had a few Republican voters longing for a different polls’ leader; however, his controversial resume and a few of his rather unsubstantiated declarations about the Paris’ unfortunate disaster, and what the White House has at its domain information on national security and international terrorism, have waned his allure and many potential supporters are gyrating back to initial candidates or preferences.
In contrast to his fellow counterpart in the Democratic Party Presidential campaigns, the former NBC reality show host has not backed out of his initial positions on many controversial issues, including hot-button subjects as religion, race, immigration and international terrorism. Mr. Trump has attempted to muzzle his critics at campaign venues as he spills out what are considered arrogant and unwelcomed characterization of fellow Americans. And unlike Secretary Hillary Clinton, who has apparently been reluctant to offend minority groups at her campaigns and campaign venues, Donald Trump has refused to bow down or tone down his criticisms of minority groups in America. There is a strong sense of nationalism, one tinted if you might say, with some level of xenophobic characterization, racism, and dogmatisms that have now embodied Mr. Trump’s campaign message and close to daily ‘Tweets’ for the Republican Party nomination.
Donald Trump’s prominent probable alternatives for Republican Party voters, Governor Jeb Bush and Senator Marco Rubio, are bugged down by other criticisms or baggage that make them not really alternatives, but a second and third options or choices, cut out of the same cloth with Donald Trump. How about Jeb Bush’s choice to accept only Christian Syrian refugees into the US; or Marco Rubio’s ‘specialized test’ for possible Syrian refugee immigrants? After a split and confusion among Republican voters of who best fit to carry the Republican Party flag come 2016 general election, there is recent evidence that the latter two presidential aspirants, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, hardly differed in ideology or specifics on immigration policy and national security. Marco Rubio has survived so far as one of the chief beneficiaries of Jeb Bush’s conscionable restraints and brotherhood with a disaffected former President, George Walker Bush. Donald Trump has responded to his polls leadership by demerging other competitors with his theatrics on the campaign trail; and Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio seem to be waiting for the first or second shoe of Donald Trump, the current Republican Party polls leader, to drop.
Governor Jeb Bush has quickly attempted to refurbish his campaign messages after the second debate with promises of respect for the minority group Donald Trump castigates as rapists, offenders and illegal immigrants, not fit to be accepted into America for legal immigration. Jeb Bush is strongly, if not strangely, making himself look as the capable alternative to the government house executive novice, Donald Trump. Marco Rubio on the other hand continues to believe, if not so whimsically, that his youthfulness will trump the allure of Governor Jeb Bush or Donald Trump’s poor choice in campaign words. Whatever the case, the latter two men’s experience in the gator state, indicate that their campaigns are already decimated by broken loyalty and promises among their homegrown supporters in Florida.
Did you say Florida again? After the inconclusive Presidential election voting in 2000 that led to two term of a President that went to war with a credit card? Is the Republican Party or America doomed to the politics in Florida? Can the similar campaign backgrounds, or splinted loyalty from Florida Republicans, interplay into national politics, if Donald Trump falters? These interesting questions are bewildering to pollsters watching closely the Republican Party primary. Perhaps the largely geriatric Florida voters, the old, retired and sun loving crooners, can convince Republican voters to look away, or grant either of their home grown politicians a chance at the national level. Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio may need to concentrate on convincing their home state supporters that each is the real deal, when it comes to alternative to the real estate mogul, Donald Trump.
Even by the bizarre standard of Florida voting patterns, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio’s ambition for the White House oval office is real salacious for board room discussions or country clubs’ barbeques in that suntanned retirement haven. The early pattern of splintered loyalty between these two Floridian Republicans has provided a framework on how not to trust so much your protégé, when it comes to vying for national offices. Governor Jeb Bush could probably write a book or two on this one at this time. For better or worse, Senator Marco Rubio’s accession to national politics competition, with the tutelage of former Governor Jeb Bush will convince majority of local and state politicians to watch out for those up and rising politicians in their neck of the woods. The presumptions of political patriarchs have been marred forever by the current Presidential Campaign in the Republican Party. Never again will you see a statewide stand out politician attempt to groom a novice for greater opportunities ahead. The reality of the new experience in national politics is probably a price to pay for being so presumptuous or underrating of a local or state politician in the race for a national office.
The close to offensive and probably racist comments on the campaign trail of Mr. Trump create an opportunity and a crack for a very viable candidate to take advantage of in the Republican primary. The question now is this: will anyone of the fourteen or so contenders be able to exploit this rosy opportunity? The early patterns of polls indicate that hardly any of the Republican aspirants has been able to come up with the magic to unravel the very much, establishment Republican Party nightmare, or unwanted. Governor Jeb Bush’s missteps or brotherhood with probably a failed Presidency and Senator Marco Rubio’s unlikely betrayal seems to have broken loyalty in Florida Republican voters’ base; and hence, probably majority of the voting blocs across the nation. As Florida Republican voters’ loyalty remain fragmented, so does hitherto unexpected consequential of probable disloyalty and overzealous ambition, playing into the failures of what was once considered a viable candidacy. 2016 Jeb Bush’s campaign for the White House, just like 2008 Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the White House, were the respective establishment’s early candidacy. In the presidential campaign territorial nasty turf fights and state primaries sorting out, the latter of the two failed to win the crown in 2008; unfortunately, or fortunately today, the earlier candidate’s campaign is weighed down by the insurgency or fierce ambition of a former protégé.
2016 Republican Party nomination process has fallen on an unexplainable infighting within the Republican Party, one that no one in the party, at least in Florida Politics, is willing to acknowledge. Governor Jeb Bush; Jeb, as is fondly referred to during his occupation of Tallahassee capitol, a first accomplishment for a Republican governor since reconstruction; and probably through his self-chosen initiative or plan to advance loyalty for the Republican Party brand in the gator state, appears to have come to bite him. The future of the Republican Party brand after this Republican Party primary is going to be a topsy-turvy. Change is going to come to Florida Republican Party due to the experience of having Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio on the campaign trail for the 2016 White House. Building a foundation for the advancement of loyalty for the Republican party brand in the State of Florida may have been a great idea when Jeb sort to groom Marco, but the Cuban water and Texas hurricane hardly mixes; thus creating new understanding among party members that grooming a protégé may not be working so well at this time for the 43rd and two-term Republican Governor of Florida.
Senator Marco Rubio is not going to wait or succeed Governor Jeb Bush by the current infighting in Florida Republican Party. Marco Rubio is not going to succumb to the overbearing auspices of the son and brother of former Presidents. The protégé, whom many Florida Republicans saw as a dutiful up and coming Republican elite, has broken away from the pack; and the currently precipitated infighting and imbroglios appear to be breaking into national politics. If Real Estate Donald Trump wins the Republican Party nomination, Governor Jeb Bush will probably have a hindsight assessment that questions: had Marco Rubio not got into the race; maybe my campaign efforts would have yielded better results? However, if Senator Rubio ends up being the nomination, there is going to be a Florida Republican Party fracas, never before seen in recent memory. On the flip-side, if Governor Jeb Bush ends up being the Republican Party nominee, which seems like a long shot at this time, there is going to be a ‘gotcha’ moment, one that writes: Never bite a finger that feeds you!
Senator Marco Rubio’s 2016 run for the White House has created an upheaval and political destabilization; one hardly envisaged in local Florida Republican politics. A vision of a blossoming Republican Party brand since reconstruction appears to be fading or turning out to be an academic debate exercise nowadays in Florida. The extreme conservative Floridian Republicans are uncertain about how to respond to the two homeboys campaigning for the 2016 White House without looking or sounding partial to either of the two. The likely bemoaned, unwanted or unsubscribed candidacy of a Yankee Real Estate Developer, while so uncomfortable for now, appears only the best option to fall back on, in the face of the confusion that the probable infighting among Republican Floridian voters, appears to be defaulting into.
Aspirant Donald Trump is succeeding in his campaign efforts and fewer Republicans by day, are doubting his nomination as the party’s flag bearer. Mr. Trump is sitting on the keg of traditional conservative values of some extreme Republicans. His openly antagonist comments and ultra-nationalist obfuscations are sounding very palatable to many more Republicans than two months ago. His somewhat Hitler like propagandized presidential campaign efforts are receiving sympathies from a greater spread of the Republican Party members, especially the ultra-conservative of the Tea party group. The time to challenge Mr. Trump’s ultra-nationalistic brand of message is now. If mainstream Republicans fail to do so, if they fail to call out the contentious brand of Trump’s Republican Presidential campaign, not only will the party suffer in the general elections, it is probably feasible that the party will go down the way of American Party of the early 1840’s and the American Independent Party of the 1960’s.