Friday, January 29, 2016

Seventh Republican Debate: Analyzing statements made by other candidates but Donald Trump!

Keywords or Terms: Donald Trump; Lone-wolf Organized Event; Republican Party Seventh Debate; Jeb Bush; Chris Christie; Family Political Legacy; Ted Cruz; Marco Rubio; Iota of Electricity; Maniac, Stupid, fat and Ugly; Racial Profiling; Abortion; Politics of Annihilation and Narcissism; Megyn Kelly; FOX News Moderator; Exercise of Gamble: Unnecessary Emotional Outburst; Vulnerability of Establishment Politics; Strategy of demonizing rivals; and, Campaign Trail.

If Candidate Donald Trump was expecting to divert attention from other rivals in the Republican Party with his lone-wolf organized event, probably he truly accomplished that yesterday; however, no one can say with certainty that the nomination process will be the same henceforth. By organizing a competing event within the same city against the seventh Republican Party debate, Donald Trump appears to have said he is the candidate to beat and any other impostor at this time in the Republican Party makes less of a difference. He is sure he could leave the field of debaters for the party’s flag bearer and still come on top! If his prediction or presupposition this time around would prove overtly optimistic, only time will tell.

Here is what we’ve learnt so far from the two-hour face-off Republican Party debate, without the probable front-runner candidate and former reality television star:

1) Governor Jeb Bush and Chris Christie appeared to have presented a more formidable argument for their candidacies as each hammered home most of their earlier known stance that had been absent when Donald Trump was physically present on the rostrum with other candidates;

2) Unfortunately, Governor Chris Christie sounded more of a one dimensional candidate, bashing Hillary Clinton as if she was a policy item for Americans;

3) For probably the first time in the series of debates, Governor Jeb Bush sounded out more of his points and owned his family political legacy, except of his clumsy closing remarks;

4) Senator Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz duke it out unlike ever before on the issue of national immigration and security and for once, exemplified some iota of electricity to either of their campaigns, depending on how voters perceive the importance of those issues on the hierarchy of national importance and urgency;

5) Senator Rand Paul equivocally expressed his deep seated conviction on issues the party’s establishment has often failed to acknowledge let alone talk about: racial profiling and hostilities against abortion;

6) Senator Ted Cruz took up the usual insulting and aggressive role associated with candidate Donald Trump, trading insults and attempting to embarrass other rivals with statements as: “I’m a maniac and everyone on this stage is stupid, fat and ugly”; “Now that we’ve gotten the Donald Trump portion out of the way”; and, “If you ask me one more question, I may have to leave the stage”;

7) Poking fun about the absence of the front-runner candidate Donald Trump on the stage and in reaction to similar comment coming from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio added: “Don’t worry, I’m not going to leave the stage no matter what [question] you ask me”; and,

8) Donald Trump’s probably garnered more attention, at least on the Social Media side than the live Republican debate, and as Zoomph Social Media Analytics’s released data showed about the events, Donald Trump’s event out-twitted the competing event across town, four to one; and, was able to bring in about seven hundred guests, raised close to five million dollars with Trump’s personal contribution of one million dollars; and, two low polling Republican candidates, Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, gracing the MSNBC and CNN television broadcast-ed event.

The Politics of Annihilation and Narcissism:

If Donald Trump insistence that FOX News Network treated him rather badly by one of its host Megyn Kelly insulting him, maybe it would have been better to have taken up this issue on a private level with Ms. Kelly and her employer, FOX News. Frankly, the nation is hardly interested in personal squabbles between two adults; as these debates were expected to explore or open up discussion on public policy proposals and aspirants’ message of where they are about to move America, when elected President of the United States. The relevance of Donald Trump’s complaint and reason for not participating on the Iowa Republican Party organized debate at Drake University, was probably well articulated with former Virginia Jim Gilmore statement regarding why he is not showing up at Donald Trump’s self-organized event: “I’m not about to go across town tonight to carry the coat for some billionaire”.

If any Republican voter or American was interested in knowing what the Seventh Republican candidates’ forum would look like without the front runner, Donald Trump, maybe the two competing events in Des Moines Iowa, answered this question; albeit, what came across was that the stage appeared to have belonged to trailing candidates, offering themselves and their campaigns, a new lease of life before Monday’s Iowa caucuses. Donald Trump’s absence was probably an opportunity for undermining the fast moving Donald Trump’s campaign train and a unique exposure that gave two closely following candidates to Trump’s lead, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, the chance to clash harshly and fervently to the pleasures of those watching the political horse-race.

The unique situation of a ‘Trump-less’ Republican candidates debate forum after a sixth, was probably a divergence or shed in water for the fierce competition among seven or so candidates, seeking the nomination as the Republican Party. Although January 28th Thursday’s night Republican debate afforded a trading of jabs between trailing candidates, it appears to have exposed the magnitude of the rifting faults within the Republican Party between or among competing support or ideological groups. Unlike the past debates, the seventh republican debate may end up being universally accepted as a turning point in the competition or an albatross on the neck of the front-runner in 2016. For one thing, the response to the initial announcement earlier in the week that Donald Trump may be boycotting the FOX Television televised debate represent a recognizable non-traditional attempt to upstage a party’s organized event by one of their far-more recognizable candidate, who but for his xenophobic and racist comments on the campaign trail, could have been a fresh voice in the Republican Party of today. It is possible that Donald Trump’s absence from the seventh debate forum will reduce interest in future Republican debates, if he ends up winning with a landslide the Iowa caucuses. The peripheral Thursday’s attacks from the next rivals in step for the Republican nomination, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, will be irrelevant as these may end up increasing further, the momentum of current Donald Trump’s lead in polls for the nomination.

An accurate perspective of Donald Trump’s choice and its meaning for Republican Party’s unity toward November, 2016 general election is further clouded by this new development or subjective choice of the front-runner to ignore participating in the seventh debate. There is less perspective of which veteran support group(s) will end up with money received from Trump’s competing event to the seventh Republican debate in Iowa; and, the likely impact of organizing a competing event during a somewhat official party sanctioned debate for nomination. Establishment Republicans and the powerful media, precisely FOX News, that once saw themselves as power-brokers for viewing audience(s) were probably challenged by Donald Trump’s subjective choice to withdraw from the Seventh debate because of what he considered as insult from a moderator, Megyn Kelly. However, the veracity of the debate moderator on public policy issues and astuteness in questioning other candidates at Thursday’s debate, may call to question the heap of attacks from the candidate absent from the stage. Could other candidates choose to withdraw from further debates because of some other subjective opinion regarding how they are treated by the moderators of these debates, television personnel or insider State’s Party organizers? The choice of answer to this question, just as Donald Trump’s subjective choice not to participate in the seventh debate exercise is a huge gamble, if not an unnecessary emotional trauma.

It is difficult to agree on all aspects of the new dilemma within the Republican party regarding the forces or weight that interest groups and or formidable candidates are pulling around the nomination process. The amorphous nature of a temperamental or excessively vocal candidate, or objection to having a perceived “hostile” moderator on the stage, makes it difficult to assess authenticity of the pace of rivalry among 2016 Republican candidates within the nomination process. The new or unexpected shadow castes on the exercise from Donald Trump’s choice has added a new dimension to the nomination process: the difficulty of fashioning out a united party’s image towards the general election. It is possible to discern the differences of opinion on public policy offered by individual candidate or repudiate such, when made in a forum of party organized debate as the one just held at Drake University, Iowa. However, when the focus moves to personal choice of raising question regarding fairness of treatment from a moderator or host at party’s organized debate forum, the party may be moving into new terrain of muddy waters, where any candidate or political aspirant can choose to upstage any official activity designed to weed the grain from the chaff in a party nomination process and election year.

The Geopolitical relevance of Donald Trump’s absence from the seventh debate forces the Republican voters and party’s stalwarts to make choices that are extraneous to an objective consideration of the public polices proposals or direction that any of the candidates is drumming up in his or her campaigns. One of the new consideration that entered into the Republican lexicon and nomination process with current Donald Trump’s choice, is the emergence of the calculus of degree of perceived influence on the nomination process by a leading candidate in polls; what else would you say, when Donald Trump made what would be considered narcissistic in some quarters, with the statement: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” Most establishment Republicans may shy away from these types of statement, others may consider it as boastful or insignificant; however, like-it or not, the GOP front-runner, is not only saying I have enough clout to change, not only this nomination process, but also the direction of the party without losing any support from the base. The effrontery of this is probably found in Donald Trump choice to organize a competing event right across from the official venue of the debate which he publicly acknowledged he would have preferred to participate in, but for the fact that he perceives being treated unfairly by a moderator and or her broadcast network.

The revealed vulnerability of establishment politics in the Republican party was probably revived by Donald Trump’s choice or effrontery. Republican debates since the Regan era had taken a rather formative and media salivating embracement; however, when a reality television participant in a party- nomination process, takes his supposed clout to overturn or stir-the-honest nest, the party may end up with a show down, down the ally of the 2016 nomination exercise. One of the most obvious beneficiaries of Donald Trump’s pullout from the seventh debate, were candidates present on the stage, who earlier were unable to get their words out from previous debates. In the grandeur celebration of the absence of Donald Trump on the stage, voters and Americans probably noticed some of his similar strategy of demonizing rivals and undercutting competitors with statements that were equally as narcissistic as those credited to Donald Trump in past debate or campaign trail, from his rivals. Maybe voters and Americans are now trading one new sets of unfathomable and insulting political language for another, with Trump’s step-off the stage for a day or moment, from the Republican Candidates’ Debate.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

FIFTH AND LAST 2016 DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES DEBATE: Is the preferred choice of party flag bearer determined?

Keywords or Terms: Iowa State caucuses; New Hampshire Primary; CNN; Des Moines, Iowa; Income Inequality; Bipartisanship; Social Security; Democratic Socialism; Capitalistic oligarchy; Foreign Policy; Qualification for the Office of the Presidency; Free Public College Tuition; Fixing America’s Tax loopholes; and rebuilding Crumbling Infrastructures and public policy

Two weeks and a day to the first New Hampshire State Presidential primary and one week exactly to the Iowa State Caucuses, the Democrats had their concluding debate or town-hall styled chit-chat for party nominee. From the look of things, except another unforeseen event arises before the November 8, 2016 general election, one for now  can repudiate President Harding’s campaign manager’s assessment of the 1920 republican nomination process in the context of the 2016 Democratic Party nomination: “the convention will be deadlocked, after other candidates have gone their limit, some twelve or fifteen men, worn out and bleary-eyed for lack of sleep, will sit down, about two o’clock in the morning around a table in a smoke-filled room in some hotel, and decide the nomination. When that time comes, Harding will be selected”

Why exactly? Well, the fifth and final debate for 2016 Democratic Party was in Des Moines, Iowa not Chicago, Illinois, and the 1920 Republican Campaign Manager Harry Daugherty’s conception of the nomination process, while very likely for the 2016 Republican Party, is untenable for the 2016 Democratic Party nomination. Time and events have changed for Democrats; however, for the Republicans, it appears time has stood still. Democrats have two very viable and probably, unique candidates with enough experience and conviction to hold forth as the President of the United States; and, going by what Democratic Party observers are saying, either of the two candidates will be satisfactory or suffice as the party's flag bearer.

The prime-time Cable News Network (CNN) town-hall styled debate, hosted by Iowa Democratic Party at Drake University, Des Moines, offered the three remaining candidates standing, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a last chance to woo voters to their side; an incredible opportunity for Iowans to see: "[Democratic candidates] detail their plans to move our country forward"; if you ask the Chair of Iowa Democratic Party, Dr. Andy McGuire. The town-hall styled debate is not only a different format or experience for all viewers, it offered the three candidates an uncontested podium for a specified period, without interruptions from other contestants, to convince likely voters that their campaign has the creativity and dynamics to attend to what Americans consider as paramount in moving America ahead.

The give and take format probably enhanced the status of the three candidates as exceptionally articulate, intelligent and passionate; though one maybe be perceived as more credible in terms of honesty of purpose as a politician seeking the highest office in the land. After some personal deprecation regarding his suit, Senator Bernie Sanders unloaded uncanny and withering attacks on Senator Clinton, discountenancing her avowed establishment favored political campaigns and strategy and calling to question the relevance or essence of that campaign to address the political, social, judicial and economic problems the nation is facing. For Vermont Senator Sanders, an aspirant’s political experience is just as important as a sense of good judgement. Identifying a couple of lapses associated with the voting records of Ms. Clinton over national issues of war, foreign policy and commerce, Senator Sanders appears to repudiate Clinton's experience as all in all argument for her candidacy. 

If Senator Sanders is castigated for announcing that there is going to be an additional tax to be spread around on Americans to make his 'Medicare-for-all' health plan work, maybe his new conviction that gun manufacturers and sellers ought to be held accountable and responsible for unusual number and repeat sales of assault weapons to some Americans who hardly qualify mentally, not to say morally, to own guns and ammunition would be preferable as he intoned: mental health care should be available for all Americans as a way to deal with the issue of Universal Second Amendment right and the escalated violence the country has experienced in recent time.

Sander’s approbation throughout the town-hall styled debate appears more of an honor; however, his aggressive dissent from the voting records or position of Senator Clinton on at least four public policy bills, authorization of the war in Iraq, attempt to authorize the keystone pipeline project, NAFTA free trade agreement and Overturning of Glass Steagall, served to concretize his position that the President of the United States must exercise good judgement in decision making and the nation could not depend solely on a politician's experience to support him or her for the highest office in the land. Senator Sanders not only believes, there is need for economic justice; he argues that Wall Street now has the obligation to step up to the plate, after benefiting from tax-payers funded bailouts, and pay back in kind for some social programs that will alleviate poverty and help the nation achieve some of its social welfare goals. To emphasize his argument for economic justice, Senator Sanders added the following words during the debate: "If we are serious about rebuilding the American middle class, if we are serious about providing paid family and medical leave to all of our people, if we are serious about ending the disgrace of having so many of our children live in poverty, the real way to do it is to have millions of Americans finally stand up and say, 'Enough is enough,' for people to get engaged in the political process, to finally demand that Washington represent all of us, not just a handful of very wealthy people."

But if there is an irresistible dictum to Senator Sander’s position during the debate, maybe his immovable description of what Democratic Socialism means, resonates somewhat with outsiders to his campaign. For record purposes, America is a Capitalistic Democracy, a Republic that hardly shares a love for Socialism. Advancing a case for Socialism therefore is abhorrent to the values of  the democracy and committed citizens. This is probably one reason some observers of campaign messaging claim Sanders’ definition or description of Democratic Socialism is hardly convincing; and his overzealous sale of the ideology not plausible enough for a buy in.

Culling from his former elucidation of Democratic Socialism, including the argument that, when you enjoy social programs as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Abolition of Child Labor, a forty-hour work week and opportunity of working for at least a minimum wage, programs now considered fabric of the nation, you are already benefiting or experiencing Democratic Socialism. Since most of these programs were once considered socialistic, it would be rather difficult to deny the benefit and existence of democratic socialism in contemporary America narrative experience. To paraphrase Sanders: “We cannot continue to have a government and politics that is dominated by a billionaire class, where people are unable to afford health care, prescriptions drugs payment, and what is considered a middle class life style, while just a few, one percent of the top one percent hold billions in wealth at the back and expense of millions of Americans. America needs a government that works for everyone, not just the few billionaires, who control our economy as well as politics.”

If Sanders wanted to close his argument on differences of opinions between himself and Secretary Clinton on foreign policy, maybe his admonition that his campaign has focused on political and policy issues, comparing and contrasting his position with Clinton, and abstaining from engaging in negative advertisement in order to win the nomination will carry the day at the primaries and hopefully, in the general election. As rather passionate and intelligent his responses were to questions from audience and follow-up from CNN host Cuomo, it appeared that Senator Sander left out an opening for Senator Clinton to advocate her establishment-styled political campaign with a lot of huge money donations from self-interest groups. Nevertheless, Senator Sanders handled convincingly questions on: 1) Income Inequality and Wall Street excesses, as he countered with a proposal for increases in national minimum wage for purpose of economic justice and pay equity; 2) Bipartisanship and Cooperation in US Congress, as he reminded the audience of his track records on working with Republicans in getting amendments passed; and, 3) Qualification for the Office of the Presidency, as he affirms his respect for Secretary Clinton and continued vigorously to attack her for lapses in judgement and causing some of America’s problems; invariably impinging Clinton's Campaign in the eye of potential voters.

Maybe the best time for Governor O’Malley to make a good argument for his candidacy came when he approached a question over diversity, racial, sexual and gender equality.  Advancing his past ‘glorious’’ work as a governor in a crime-infested State of Maryland, the genial debater outlined a plan to advance a more inclusive and equal society for America. For Governor O’Malley, the biggest issue for young people, would be Climate Change. O’Malley, who rolled up his sleeves to demonstrate probably a sense of urgency, further advanced that voters can actually overturn the past polls on his campaign performance; attempting to put the voters in the driving seat by adding: "[Iowans are not intimidated by polls] …They're not intimidated by pundits, and they have this birthright, they feel, to upset the apple cart. And with only three of us in this Democratic primary, there's only one of us who can still upset the apple cart. Come on, Iowa, right?" In a debate where it appeared there were only two gladiators standing, exploiting a ground breaking change in voter’s affinity for one’s message as a versatile third candidate, maybe rather difficult.
If Governor O’Malley was solid in his representations on the questions addressed to him, no one could actually tell. Even his argument that he has been a great leader during a time of division appeared more as an eleventh attempt to gain traction with voters to remain relevant in the exercise. The  lack luster chance of O’Malley ever being the Democratic Party flag bearer is probably encapsulated in his words toward the end of his Town Hall session: "We cannot be this fed up with our gridlocked, dysfunctional national politics and think that a resort to old ideologies or old names is going to move us forward." Yes, this was a good sound bite or dig to undermine the two front-runners; however, there was no meat in this quote for the voters to sink their teeth into considering the Governor's tepid campaign style.
Prior to the time Secretary Clinton composed herself from answering the nose-thumbing question, where is the enthusiasm among young people for your campaign, and reiterated with, I have been in the front line of change and progress for years, it appeared that Candidate Clinton had buffered her foreign policy credentials by touting, she worked hard to build an international coalition that forced Iran to the negotiation table over her nuclear program. Further, Secretary Clinton added she brokered a ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Palestinian. Secretary Clinton believes that military intervention should be a cause of last resort and there is going to be a need to build a coalition of Muslim nation to defeat ISIS; emphatically repudiating the front-runner Republican Candidate who have consistently attacked Muslims. She added: “I’m a proven fighter!”Where Clinton is coming from may be imminently visible to her supporters; however, to those still sitting on the fence, there is this lukewarm confinement that Clinton cannot be trusted. This is the dilemma she is facing and one that probably haunts her campaign efforts and team.

When confronted with lapses in her judgement from the Sander's camp when in position of leadership as a Senator and or Secretary of State, Clinton attempted to play these down by insinuating that she had a longer history of voting record and should not be judged by just one vote, which she reflected upon and agreed to have been a mistake, especially in the instance of the authorization of the Iraq war. To the argument from Senator Sanders that while he had worked to avert problems that have confronted America in the past, it appeared Clinton has been part of the political movement that has compounded the problems, maybe the Secretary could have advanced a better argument than the one she had used to address the judgement call over Iraq war. The challenge of presenting a forward looking argument was missing in her conclusions Monday night; but, she remains the brightest star for establishment democrats, when juxtaposed against the two other candidates.

Probably the most redemptive statement from Secretary Clinton regarding her antagonism from both Republicans and folks who do not like her brand of politics came from this: "I have had many, many millions of dollars spent against me. When I worked on health care back in 1993 and 1994, and I don't know if you were born then. I can't quite tell. But if you'd been around and had been able to pay attention, I was trying to get us to universal health care coverage, working with my husband. Boy, the insurance companies, the drug companies, they spent millions. Not just against the issue, but against me. And I kept going. And when we weren't successful, I turned around and said at least we're going to get health care for kids." Her public service effort not only shines forth, it sorts off, justified the respect from Senator Sander and some Republicans who have in the past indicated that She was the best qualified to become the President of the United States from the Slate of contestant fighting for the White House oval office in 2016.
Finally, until the votes are cast and counted, no amount of polling data could deny in actuality, the ultimate candidate for party nomination. Like any of the three candidates, each would like and prefer to have won the town-hall styled debate in Des Moines, Iowa. One unique characterization from each candidate probably sits well with a number of voters to help the aspirant tower above or spring ahead the remainder candidates during the coming Olympics of pandering. Some voters will see eye to eye with Sanders and acknowledge that Democratic Socialism is better than Capitalistic oligarchy; others will argue that having twenty wealthiest Americans holding as much wealth and resources as half the population is rather untenable for an equitable democracy. There are others who would frown at Bernie Sanders argument that health care is a right of all Americans and having free public college tuition for Americans is reachable. However, can the nation afford these and still be able rebuild America’s crumbling infrastructure, make earned income more equitable, or fix American tax loopholes? Maybe a candidate that has the back of Wall Street financiers and PAC would be better positioned to win all in the general elections; so, let everyone just vote for this person. However, the question is still this: Are you winning a fair and firm election with enough grassroots support to outlast the race and competition for the White House? By allowing others to dictate for you, who is the ideal and better candidate to protect your interest, are you not selling off your freedom and right as a citizen? All these are questions that the primaries, caucus and debates expected to answer.



Monday, January 18, 2016

Democratic Candidates Fourth Debate in Charleston, South Carolina: How far is far enough?

Keywords or Terms: Democratic Party Debate; OBAMACARE; Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform Law; Governor O'Malley; Senator Clinton; Senator Sanders; South Carolinian Democratic Party; NBC-NEWS; YouTube; Congressional Black Caucus Institute; Public Policy; Health care; Gun Control and lobby; Systemic Racism; and, Campaign Contributions

The dilemma facing the Democratic Party and its constituent members is the fact that, they have two front-runner candidates, one that appears enthusiastic, authentic and passionate with public policy advancements, the other, very much attuned to upholding present democratic administration’s legacy, with a probable commitment to preserving the signature health care reform law, aptly referred to as OBAMACARE. Senator Clinton was full of accolade for the current democratic administration angling out, the administration’s signed Dodd-Frank Financial Regulatory Reform Law and positioning of the nation towards universal health care in not so distance future. The third candidate, Governor O’Malley, appeared congenial for nearly the whole part of the debate, occasionally signaling his presence on the stage with more than friendly responses in a somewhat confrontational verbal war between Clinton and Sanders. Probably what the fourth Democratic Candidates' Debate offered the audience more than anything, was the aggressive insurgency of candidate Sanders against candidate Clinton, the presumed front runner for Democratic Party nomination

Unlike the Republican Party debate two days earlier, the Southern Carolinian Democratic Party, NBC-News, YouTube and Congressional Black Caucus Institute sponsored debate, was rather softly entertaining, with the concurrent YouTube simulcast of the live debate online, interactive and tantalizing; and the electronic animation advertisementsencapsulating and thrilling. Further, the YouTube simulated debate environment introduced an active debate on the WEB among voters and interested parties and offered an additional platform for fact-checkers and alternative universe for political junkies, who found watching or listening  to the debate on television and radio as old school.

Evolutionary, the YouTube medium stood out as an additional platform for political debate as Democrats forayed different perspectives on suitable public policy for America; and, offered watchers and online community a chance to reflect in solitary, if you may, what they thought about the preaching from the three Democratic Party candidates at the Charleston, South Carolina venue. In addition, if issues of health care, gun control and political campaign contributions were of paramount concern to you in this election cycle, voters had a feel of where the Democratic candidates stood, as each attempted to convince the voters, he or she, is the real deal towards 2016 White House oval office.

As the three candidates in the debate remained focused on wooing voters to their side, it appeared that Senator Bernie Sanders was more effective than the others in delivering a bolstering position of his insurgency within the party politics. The debate was for most part congenial until the gloves came off between the two front runners for party nomination, Senators Clinton and Sander. There were unique differences or points of argument on nodal topics as:

1)      Health care, including who is better positioned of the two to protect or continue the primordial legacy of the outgoing Democratic Party Administration. Senator Sanders was enamored as advancing a single payer healthcare plan, with Clinton pointing out, we are on the way to a universal health care plan, with the OBAMACARE foundation;

2)     Gun Control and lobby, Senator Clinton attempted painting Senator Sanders as friend of National Rifle Association and the gun lobbying groups, pointing out that, he voted against past legislation attempting to reign the NRA and gun lobbying groups’ in; with Sanders countering back that Senator Clinton was too much an ally of big banks and Wall Street to be claiming overt transparency;

3)     Campaign Contributions: Senator Clinton appeared to have said she is unfazed by the criticism from Senator Sander that she is too cozy with the Wall Street Banks, with her countering back that: “[Sanders] has criticized President Obama for taking donations from Wall Street too, but still went ahead to lead the country out of the greatest recession [of the twentieth century]”; and,

4)     Systemic Racism: Senator Clinton overtly promised to address the issue of racial profiling, indicating the need to reconsider relatively disparate ratio of arrests, and incarceration, of blacks against whites. The default of the 1995 Clinton instituted criminal penalty law on illicit drugs peddling and possession that appears to have contributed or compounded this problem. This from hindsight may make it difficult for Senator Clinton to adequately claim degree of innocence in this context, since her husband instituted the law.

In all, Senator Clinton positioned herself as the candidate better able to carry on President Obama’s legacy on health care. In the alternative, Senator Sander considered the secretary’s position that the nation finally has a path to universal health care as rather disingenuous. Just as Senator Sander continued to advance argument for expanding Medicare with a support of a single-payer plan, Secretary Clinton admonished the Vermont Senator, with: “We have accomplished so much already. I do not see the Republicans repealing [Obama’s Administration signature health care reform law; and, I do not want the nation to start again on a contentious debate”]. For Clinton and Sander, the former believes she is better experienced and prepared to assume the presidency, and knowledgeable enough of the inner working of the present Democratic Administration; while the latter consider himself a leader with a sense of political revolution to shake up things for the betterment of underprivileged Americans.

Here is where the competition and probably corollary recognition of the merits of the two front-runner Democratic candidates' campaigns appear to be obvious: 1) In a dead heat in polls with Senator Clinton in the State of Iowa and probably a double-digit lead in the State of New Hampshire, Senator Sanders attained an unquestionable impetuous at the Debate that might be likable to a superhero taking on an opponent that is probably better funded, but with some rather weak link that exposes that she is not all that invisible to defeat as she may be making the competition contemplate. For the night, Senator Sanders convinced some viewers that he is not only a better alternative to the former Secretary of State, but also, can maintain his independence from the current White House when it comes to ideology and where the country should be moving; 2) As a Democratic Socialist, Senator Sanders was under the glare of light to show more specifics regarding his plans for America as many are getting worried about his ultra-conservative view of the influence of the Wall Street and financial industry on American lives; 3) The ‘Medicare for all’ proposal from Senator Sanders was probably explained further with: ‘payment for this  proposal coming from a combination of sources, changes to income tax code to afford new tax revenue, savings from current health care spending and additional employers’ premiums; 4)If there was any consolation to those apprehensive of the ultra-conservative view of Senator Sanders on his animation with the fact that no one has gone to jail for the Wall Street excesses that nearly brought America's economy to its knees during the last recession, maybe the fact that on about four occasionsSenator Sanders agreed with the opinion of his arch rival in this contest will suffice, the one he aptly branded a stooge of the Wall Street, Senator Clinton.

For Democrats, it is entirely possible to articulate that their debates are not as disagreeable as what is found in Republican Party debates. For now, one can assume that there is eagerness on the part of Democratic candidates to be re-conciliatory on many policy proposals and sharing few exceptions in others,  where there are obvious philosophical discrepancies. The greater the underlying demand to remain conciliatory – a fa├žade that remain uncontested at this time in the race – the lesser a chance for voters to experience fireworks at the Democratic Party debates. However, no one can rule out the type of fireworks between Sanders and Clinton at some moments in the fourth Democratic Party debate during the future debate contests. And if one is going to give a benefit of doubt, there would be other policy fights coming in the campaign advertisements or press releases regarding the position of the candidates as they debate henceforth. The disparate source and inflow of campaign contributions from self-interest groups as highlighted by Senator Sanders as a handicap to Senator Clinton's campaign, especially in campaign contributions from the financial industry appears to be a logical apprehension of the issue of credibility and transparency for the Clinton's team.

The two fore-runner Democratic candidates benefit from disparate sources of campaign contributions, with corporate contributions to the front-runner proving more resilient and individual contribution to the second runner up, less measured. If there was any transition for the perception of how much influence  campaign contributions can met to a campaign's goal and transparency effort, maybe the question of transparency would die down; however, candidate with the smaller campaign war chest and contributions is more likely to raise the issue of self-interest influence in a candidate’s campaign and offering. The disadvantage for now, regarding campaign contributions from either sources have not reached that threshold that allegation has risen to mud sling in the Democratic Party. It is often such transitions that exercises pressures on campaigns as party nomination exercise concludes.

If any candidate finds him or herself in a situation, where they anticipate their level of campaign contributions and war chest are dismal and probably likely to hamper their chances, it may be time to re-assess strategy of attacks or re-alignments of campaign positions. Once a candidate finds that he or she has not achieved the threshold that would improve his or her chances at the polls from campaign contributions, tightening of campaign budgets, reduction in expenditures and staff, or securing improvement in campaign advertisement may become an obvious strategy alternative. For now, it may just be well and dandy to remain re-conciliatory; however, as the nomination exercise concludes, we will perhaps see some divergence in media message; such is the experience of campaigning for the highest office in the land.

One more thing this time around, is report that communication trending on Twitter and Facebook were at variance from what television viewers considered as very urgent or in play with the debate forum. For example, it was reported that trending issues on Twitter were healthcare, foreign affairs, energy and environment, economy and national security, consecutively. However, those of us viewing, at least with me, it was: health care, Gun Control and lobby, Campaign contributions and System racism in the judicial system. It will be interesting to find out what the strategists at the individual campaign camps were visualizing as the trending issues at each moment of the fourth democratic party debate.

Friday, January 15, 2016

Readily Predictable Politics of Division at the Sixth Republican Presidential Aspirants’ Debate?

Keywords or Terms: Divisive Strategy; White House oval office; New Yorkers; South Carolinian; Canadian-Born Ted Cruz; American-born Donald Trump; New York Post Editorial; Advocated Trump’s tariffs against China; US Navy; Iranian water; Marco Rubio; Ben Carson; Jeb Bush; Chris Christie; John Kasich

For close to a century, the politics of race baiting, to differentiate American Political Landscape, has been exploited by both political parties; however, the Republican Party has benefited most especially in this realm, as its leaders had fanned aura of hate, divisions and or divisive variables that appear to have heralded their ticket to the White House Oval Office on a number of occasions. As the nature of this strategy appears to have worked rather well for Republican Presidential Aspirants in the past, one of the current front-runner for the 2016 Republican Party nomination, Senator Ted Cruz, attempted the strategy at the Sixth Republican Party debate holding at North Charleston, South Carolina; only this time, pitching the values of New Yonkers against Southern Carolinian came out flat or undignified. The strategy, based on long-standing apprehensions or bigotry, significantly modified to undermine another candidate's dominance of the race in the 2016 Republican party contest, nearly re-defined what it means to be cautious and circumspect as you attempt to bring down your opponent in a race.

A strategy Aspirant Donald Trump, a proud New Yorker, shut down with the following: ‘When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on Earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York’; and, the New York Post editorialized with this: “that line aimed to get Iowa voters to contrast him with Donald Trump and Hillary … rings pretty odd, once you know his history with at least two big New York Banks.” Both responses to division politics or political idol baiting were not only ineffective in the debate, they left the New York Post's-credited Canadian-born US Presidential Aspirant, running home with his tail between his legs. For once in the Republican Party, fanning flames of division, either by known demagoguery or self-chosen political prejudices that readily served bigoted or discriminatory politicians, turned out to be an albatross that may heighten questions regarding the qualification of Senator Cruz for the presidency of the United States. Simmering prejudicial problems have solutions, including demagoguery; and those who fan hate, occasionally find the guts to question that same affinity when found in their competitors.

At the beginning, Aspirant Ted Cruz would have loved to benefit from usual republican party strategy of pitching one group against another, or one prejudice against an unknown, a strategy that has been adopted ever so often by many Republican Presidential aspirants or candidates, including the party’s touted 2016 front-runner candidate, Donald Trump; however, this time around, the strategy that has often fueled Republican politics, was found abhorrent by same party member, past accustomed to demagoguery on the campaign trail, and one not shying away from making outlandish statements about minority groups. How about shutting the doors against Muslims and making American Muslims register in a new registry? Did you recall something about building a big and fanciful border against Mexican rapists coming from the southernmost borders of America; or, “probably some Black Lives Matter folks called them [Group of Black Pastors] not to support me,” as advanced by the front-runner candidate. However, with New York Post asking Senator Cruz to go back to Canada where he was born and offering the middle finger of lady liberty, one can only imagine how offensive this type of strategy is, especially with those at the receiving end of the dig. Maybe this occasion might make Presidential Aspirant Trump reflect on his strategy of divisiveness in the race for the White House; including other credited divisive comments of his campaign that appear to have catapulting him to the front-runner status among the slate of Republican hopefuls. One thing was absolutely clear and true on Thursday’s night tit-for-tat rhetoric between Senator Cruz and Real Estate Mogul Trump, the divisive strategy backfired big-time, as the latter invoked what would go down in the annals of Republican Party Aspirants’ debate as a ground-shaking smack down of a Canadian Texan over the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on American soil.

Frankly, the salient and unchanging fact of prejudicial altercations between or among presidential hopefuls is that, party presidential aspirants’ debates cannot be attested as resolute in serving the needs of Americans, if aspirants are not able to articulate and discuss problems that directly impact the lives of Americans without pitching one group against another; or, running one group down for personal expediency or political point.  The tit-for-tat rhetoric between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump is an example of this assertion or affirmation. While often you have witnessed the frustration of presidential aspirants on the status of governance in the past five Republican debates, and probably got the intuition that many Republican party presidential aspirants for the 2016 White House race wore their frustrations on their sleeves rather thinly, the inability of many of them to stay laser-focused in deliberating issues that truly matter to American lives in the debate, practically undermine the essence of the deliberations and or quality of the discussions and debate.

You can hardly attain magnanimity in advancing arguments tainted by attempt to undervalue your opponents or deride their credibility. Further, you can also hardly advance newer frontier or reasoning in resolving burning national issues of widening income inequality, unfair judicial system, sporadic or galloping unemployment, domestic and international terrorism; or, design best strategies to combat these and other problems, when all your choice of words or reflections are laden with unfounded prejudices and unwholesome classification of the positions of your opponents. If your political rhetoric is laden with innuendos and an attempt to hoodwink the public regarding your campaign finances or nation of origin, maybe it is in your better interest to advance statements that are not demagogic or wish-washy. Maybe you are better off interpreting the constitution as inclusive rather than exclusive; or specifically favoring desirable outcomes that are cost-effective for the management of public finances and national budget. To put it in Senator Marco Rubio’s words to Senator Ted Cruz: “This is not consistent conservatism, but political calculations.”

As in past Republican Party Presidential debates, the onus or challenge is to draw a clear difference in the campaign message of the individual aspirants, to develop a coalesce around consistent ideologies and further a fellowship of consistencies on most matters of social, political and economic priorities. However, if this fifth debate was meant to enhance chances of one candidate over another, one came out further confused regarding how each of these Republican aspirants defined their candidacies, as many if not all of them, left voters with unclear or little understanding of their positions on many national political issues. How about Donald Trump’s advancements or arguments for tariffs against Chinese products? Instead of taking the initiative to advance vigorous arguments for an alternative economic solution for challenging or reforming the trade surplus in favor of America against China, aspirant Donald Trump either confused the audience further or failed to secure a better understanding of what exactly he is proposing, and whether the former forty-five percent credited threshold as articulated by him in other forums is actually feasible or reasonable, to assuage this problem. Indolent or unimaginative arguments on public policies are never convincing to the seasoned mind. Even for the average mind that are slow to recognize when they are about to be hood winked, some of the emerging responses to questions from the moderator, showed an attempt to be evasive by some of the Republican aspirants. How about Governor Chris Christie’s allusion that Tin Pot dictators were taking over US Navy Ships or Senator Ted Cruz’s braggadocios that any country that makes US Service members get on their knees will feel the full force or the fury of the USA? Are we about to go to war again as envisaged by someone who never served in the US military? How do these advances address a circumstantial suspicion of incursion of American sailors into sovereign Iranian waters?  Would Chris Christie and or Ted Cruz take America to another war for a minor international disagreement that was resolved by diplomacy under twenty-four hours, using more disciplined communication tactic?

Maybe Americans watching the sixth republican party debate suffered some rude awakenings that some of the arguments advanced by the Republican aspirants were either disingenuous or close to being delusional? Did you hear Neurosurgeon Ben Carson comment: “We have the world’s best military, even though [President Obama] has done everything he can to diminish it?”  OR Donald Trumps’: Our military is a disaster? How about, every weapons system has been gutted from Governor Jeb Bush? It is on record that the US is expending more of its GDP on militarization, than the next eight nations collectively with huge military spending based on both public and private records of military equipment and ammunition builders' expenditures in America. How can these aspirants counter the fact that many military investments have been expended by the Obama’s Administration on special operations to combat the new faceless religious fanatical movement across the globe, which is using theocratic jihad-ism to fight western civilization? The choice to counter this canker-worm or close to universal world’s problems, by redefining where our military spending goes, has very little to do with the broadsided statement from Senator Marco Rubio that President Obama is undermining our military.

In case some of these Republican aspirants are forgetting, it is with inputs from Joint Chief of Staffs and professional experts in this realm that presidential positions and decisions are made, especially with the reorganization of the military and building a more agile force that can respond to issues of hostilities across the globe. The Military Honchos have recommended the modernization of all the arms of American Military, including re-allocation and increased expenditures in some key areas to solidify our progress and re-position our new military might to fight the new frontiers of hostilities or modern mayhem. How an uninformed or slimly debriefed shallow campaign staff of governors and senators running for the Office of the Presidency on cuts to military spending can be adduced to destruction of American military is not only baffling, but rather misguided, especially when made without justifiable facts. Maybe these Republicans want to look at how much harm they caused over 2011 defense budget, or the role they played in bringing America’s Military might to their whimsical discredited junction, especially the question of sequestration. Besides, both the old and new America’s military spending realignments are consequential to the need to re-purpose our military for a modern warfare; one that is agile than before and better responsive to hostilities across the globe.

Reasonably interpreted from the debate is that some Republican Party aspirants have embraced divisive strategies and embraced demagoguery to advance their candidacy in the race towards 2016 White House. What we witnessed at the sixth Republican Party debate is that, one leading aspirant is nervously trolling the same strategy as the most advanced leading Republican aspirant at the polls, based on divisive principles. This strategy is hardy new and has long been used by other Republicans who came before these new presidential political fortune seekers. History of presidential political campaigns is hardly written or explained by political misspeaks or delusional assertions at debates that could hardly stand the litmus test of fact-checkers. Many American voters are not oblivious of what has taken place in the last Republican and current Democratic Presidential Administrations. American voters may not be exposing their personal choices at this time; however, they are also not oblivious to some of the utterances and strategies coming from presidential aspirants, especially, debate responses that call to question the suitability of some of these candidates for the White House oval office come January 2017.  Barring new initiatives or developments in the coming months, one thing that American voters are relatively certain, is that Americans do not want leaders with uncertain political baggage(s), those who are shallow in thoughts, those who have chosen demagoguery to advance their candidacy and those with undefined qualification for office, based on the constitutional provisions; neither are the voters interested in a leader with encumbering divisive profile and excessive militarization principle in foreign policy.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

President Obama Final State of the Union Speech

Keyword or Terms: President Obama State of the Union Speech; The White House Press Releases; Going out in Style

This is probably one of the best statements President Barack Obama ever offered in the State of the Union Speeches. It is so compelling, I had no option but to represent it verbatim:

"America has been through big changes before – wars and depression, the influx of immigrants, workers fighting for a fair deal, and movements to expand civil rights. Each time, there have been those who told us to fear the future; who claimed we could slam the brakes on change, promising to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control. And each time, we overcame those fears. We did not, in the words of Lincoln, adhere to the “dogmas of the quiet past.” Instead we thought anew, and acted anew. We made change work for us, always extending America’s promise outward, to the next frontier, to more and more people. And because we did – because we saw opportunity where others saw only peril – we emerged stronger and better than before.

What was true then can be true now. Our unique strengths as a nation – our optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery and innovation, our diversity and commitment to the rule of law – these things give us everything we need to ensure prosperity and security for generations to come."......President Obama

We've got to reduce the influence of money in our politics, so that a handful of families and hidden interests can't bankroll our elections. - Barack Obama


Going out in style and honor!

Friday, January 8, 2016

Opioids, Addiction and Public Health collide in the race for 2016 White House

Keywords or Terms: Opioids Epidemic; Addictions; New Hampshire; South New Hampshire University; Criminalizing Addition; Appalachian States; Governor Jeb Bush; Governor Kasich; Governor Chris Christie; Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina; Expanding Affordable Care Act; Medicare; Oxycodone Addiction; Kroger Pharmacy; Cutting State Treatment and Addiction Budget; Political expediency; and, Pragmatic Solutions

We can all agree that a healthy citizenry is critical to a thriving Democracy; if not, the spate of 2016 White House aspirants reflecting on personal, family and public experiences in the past week, on the question of epidemic of drug addiction in majority of American cities, especially in the Appalachian States, where opioid addiction has reached a pandemic level, would have been inconsequential. Listen to Republican Governor Jeb Bush: “As a father, I have felt the heartbreak of drug abuse ... I never expected to see my precious daughter in jail. It wasn’t easy, and it became very public when I was governor of Florida, making things even more difficult for Noelle [his daughter]. She went through hell, so did her mom, and so did I.”

Speaking at a Tuesday Republican Party convened New Hampshire Forum on Addiction and the Heroin Epidemic held at Southern New Hampshire University, Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, another Republican hopeful, reflected on her step-daughter and addiction this way: “If we continue to criminalize drug addiction, we're not treating it. And the system we have today is part of the problem, not part of the solution… We now have the highest incarceration rates in the world. And the majority of people we have in prison are people like my daughter, Lori, struggling with addiction." Touting Ohio’s prison programs to fight drug use and addiction, Ohio Governor Kasich, another Republican hopeful, said: “Ohio prison programs give inmates skills to focus on when they leave prison and help decrease the likelihood of recidivism due to drug use. If you are interested in changing your life and learning a new skill, we’re going to give it to you. We don’t want to waste a human life.” Hear Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey: "I think I'm just more experienced on it [fighting drug addiction] than the rest of them. I think I spoke about it much sooner than the rest of them did, but in the end, voters get to make that decision."

Our current alarming problems of addiction and dependence or abuse of prescription drugs, especially the opiates are probably coming home to roast. American Families in the Appalachian States as West Virginia, and parts of Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, New York, Maryland, Mississippi, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama can tell you a thing or two about Opioid’s epidemic; and, the day-to-day struggles of citizens fighting addiction to prescription drugs. In the State of New Hampshire, opiates deaths have been up by close to seventy-six percent since 2014; and, 2013 State data on hospital emergency room visits for heroin overdose has tripled. We are now at a threshold of pandemic opiates overdose and addiction in some of our states.

It is our duty to do everything that we can to ensure that citizen’s addiction to opioids and prescription drugs do not consume our democracy. Maybe that is why discussions on using social norms to fight adolescents’ addiction, the place of community-based interventions and broadcasting dynamic and practical information to fight addiction to opioids and other prescription drugs are not only necessary, they are now unavoidable if we are to get ahead of these challenging problems. Pharmaceutical and Drug companies, including unscrupulous health professionals in some of America’s big cities have made drugs use and abuse relatively too easy; and, are probably part of the problem. The desire to make quick profit and push the can down the line have made many negate their responsibility to the profession and society. Some hard hit poor areas and state governors continue to wonder why Alcoholic and Drug Administration in collaboration with Drug Enforcement Administration, and Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau have not moved into some Appalachians States to arrest some culprits, who continue to facilitate illegal drug trade, dispensation of narcotics, and by inculpable design, facilitate the growing drug overdose and addiction in many of these areas. To some degree, we have failed to recognize and report drug sales and dealing in our communities and by default, remained accomplices in the mayhem that are ravaging some adolescents and adult souls, hooked on narcotics, opiates and prescription drugs.

Adolescent alcoholic and tobacco abuse that once seemed insurmountable problems in many big cities are receding comparatively; however, without new creative designs in public policy formation to combat a new demon, America may be losing another generation to opiates and prescription drugs addictions. Prescriptions drug abuse in some small and medium size cities are up so are the addictions to heroin and methamphetamine. The growing menace is gradually creeping from the poor to middle and upper income households, as it continues to manifest itself as no respecter of any boundaries: income strata, race, social and political stature or agenda. The level of opiates addiction and prescriptions drug abuse in some Appalachian States have grown so fast and so rapidly as to overtake alcoholic and tobacco abuse; colossally far outstripping budgeting and funding capacities of many smaller Appalachian states public health in some instances.

At a 2013 Opiate Conference in the State of Ohio, workshops and technical papers discussed how to turn the tides against addiction to opioids, including subjects as supporting family through pregnancy and delivery; prescribing guidelines to preventing fatal overdose and combating opioid epidemics; medicated-assistance treatment; place of regional psychiatric hospitals in treating opiate addiction; integrating vocational rehabilitation with addiction treatment; medical examiner and toxicologists perspectives on the rising heroin addiction; and, law enforcement strategies to combat epidemics of opiates and heroin use. All of these initiatives can create a culture of resistance and embracing a new direction of progress in fighting the now, newer American killer. Maybe that is why Ohio’s Governor Kasich’s New Hampshire forum comment that, if you get mentors in the schools telling kids about their potential, about what education is about, the fact that they're loved, about the fact that they've got great potential, changes everything," maybe one of the way out of the menace of prescription drug addiction and drug overdose in America.

For those doubtful of Ohio’s Governor Kasich’s proposal of dedicating more money for drug rehabilitation and expanding Medicaid under Affordable Care Act to accommodate fighting drug addiction and overdose, an assessment of his recent effort in the realm of fighting Opioid epidemic, as documented by Ryan Donnelly, a former abuser of Oxycodone, with the Calm Support Organization in Ohio, will suffice: “Governor Kasich visited a Kroger Pharmacy in downtown Columbus to draw attention to the plans he now has to further curb the opiate issues in his state. The governor announced a plan that will spend up to $1.5 million during 2016 to integrate the Ohio Automatic RX Reporting System, also known as (OARRS), into the prescription drug monitoring system they are currently using. To strengthen the fight against opiates, the new system will track prescription opiate history and show trends to be able to detect the risks of addiction or abuse to these particular kinds of prescription medications” Although his efforts in the State of Ohio may not be asymptotic of the experiences in other Appalachian States or across America, there are reasons to believe that his efforts may germinate other plans that can help Americans, especially those in dire needs, fight through addictions and dependence on prescription drugs.

Now, the needy gritty of this problem: 2016 presidential aspirants or politicians may be talking about how better to fight this pandemic of drug addiction and overdoses, however, cutting state treatment center’s budget will not yield dramatic result and will hardly help addiction rehabilitation. Yes, drug addiction is dilapidating for families, friends and the public; however, we cannot be two-faced in our approaches to fighting these problems, if we really want to overcome them. We cannot continue to blame doctors for over-prescribing prescription drugs, while pharmacies and pharmacists are not keeping up to refusing to refill over-prescribed drugs to one patient. We cannot fail to call the judicial system to order as they fail to bring drug dealers, over prescribed dispensers and other drug use facilitators, to book. New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie is known to have cut funding and budgets for treatment centers and programs; however, he wants America to believe he has been ahead of the problem. How can an aspirant who failed to support efforts to fight this ravaging problem at the state level, either through defunding of corrective public health initiative or encouraging alternative treatment initiatives, deliver better results at the federal level?

It is good for Presidential aspirants to hub-nub over national issues at discussion forums as the one completed last Tuesday in New Hampshire. It is also okay for them to spend as much money as they like on campaign advertisements for their brand of opinions and politics. However, the public is not looking for a fluke or deception; they are looking for pragmatic solutions to the economic, social and political problems facing America. Further, American voters are looking for leaders with experience, knowledge and temperaments of a reflective leader, not one attuned to lip-service. America is looking for a record of tested achievements in the spheres of issues that impact their lives directly. In addition, the public is tired of improper classification of problems or experience for political expediency; an approach or strategy many aspirants are accustomed.

Prescription drugs and addiction treatment programs are great tools that can be used to accomplish and encourage users to get off the path of self-destruction. As a presidential aspirant, leader and or politician, you may want to mount programs and initiatives that address these problems. If treatment programs and policy initiatives are misdirected or undefined for political expediency, including funding or defunding, based on the reclassification or redefinition to help save money or balance long-term deficit spending, it is going to take time and distance to make a difference in the lives of those directly and immediately, impacted. If you create and design programs that are unfunded, no matter how great an initiative you have, you are unlikely to make much of a difference, either in the short or long run in resolving this problem. Programs designed to incentivize unwanted behavior, must not only be talked about, they have to be funded and supported to achieve appreciable results.