FIRST 2016 DEMOCRATIC PARTY PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: Political Civility Reconsidered?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of Selling Donald Trump’s Presidential Ambition in fifteen minutes!

Keywords or Terms: CBS 60 Minutes program; Aspirant Donald Trump; Tax Plan; Immigration plan; Job Creation Plan;  Corporate taxes; Simple tax code; Reagan-Era trickle down economy; Undocumented Immigrant; Huge Southern Border Walls; China, North Korea; NAFTA; Power of the Presidency; Republican fiscal Policies; Checks and Balances; United Nations; Arab Spring; Latin America; Checks and Balances; and, the Separation of Powers

On Sunday, Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes interviewed Donald Trump, the front-runner for Republican Party nomination in the 2016 Presidential Contest. CBS 60 Minute’s program gave Aspirant Donald Trump a platform to tell the nation about his tax plan; immigration plan; and, jobs' creation plan. In the fifteen minute broadcast, part of  an extended interview, shown on Sunday, September 27, 2015, you came out with either an absurd or unrealistic expectation of the powers of the Office of US Presidency, the place of checks and balances of the three arms of government, and how much the aspirant can actually accomplish in growing the American economy to an extent of outstripping nineteen trillion dollars deficits and debts. You sense a set of complete confusion or an arrogance of disbelief in someone attempting to win the US Presidency with a bravado that can only fool the die-hard; except you believe in the miracle that a US President can actually grow the economy within a span of four or eight years, to outstrip nineteen trillion dollars short falls, good enough to overcome long standing and extended years of deficit spending and federal debt burden.

Here are glimpses of what I deduced from watching the segment of the CBS 60 minute program:

On taxes, Presidential Aspirant Trump’s ideas and conception, spread out in a subsequent infomercial released on Monday, a day after the CBS’s broadcast, while somewhat appealing to the eighty percent of Republican voters who see him as the light in the “darkness” of America’s economy, appears more of a gimmickry. His proposal for a lopsided tax cut for the rich, has been characterized by tax and budget experts as going to cost the nation a hell lot of money.  How is Mr. Trump going to pay for his self-styled simplified tax proposal or system where corporate taxes will be lowered from 35% to 15%; or, manage the shortfalls anticipated from the four individual tax brackets of 25%; 20%; 10% and 0%, that is going to impact the current peak level brackets of 39%. Is the aspirant expecting America to believe that instituting a vastly simpler tax code that drops the tax rate for wealthy Americans is the new solution to the nation’s deficits? Why does the candidate believe that America can suddenly subscribe to another tax code system that is synonymous with the standard Republican fiscal policy of cutting taxes for the rich and hoping it will trickle down to the poor and underprivileged?  Which American household is looking forward to a tax cut so huge, it outclasses those currently proposed by his rivals, including Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush? How does the real estate developer anticipate corralling Republican and Democratic Lawmakers to buy into a once failed Reagan-era trickle-down type tax cut or economy?

A realistic immigration plan would be guided by specified national interest and the means of achieving stability in the population, including prescription of solutions that address the existing number of undocumented immigrants living within America’s border. It need not be inconsistent with the principle of humanness and rule of law. Mr. Trump was further honing his southern border wall building message and how beautiful or probably impressive the wall is going to be; unexpectedly to be paid for by the government of Mexico! Resolution of the logistical problem of deporting eleven or twelve million undocumented immigrants is hardly on the mind of the real estate developer; rather, he continues to regurgitate the somewhat troublesome and racist approach to resolving issue of illegal immigration. History of immigration in America is hardly explained by draconian measures, after all, the nation is, and has always been, one built on immigration. Yet, Mr. Trump’s interest in resolving the issue of undocumented immigrants is to advance outlandish proposal that makes the most anti-immigration Republican cringe at the thought of deporting so many people from America’s commerce, in one swift and clean sweep.

Consider now, albeit Mr. Trump’s proposal to deport eleven to twelve million people, two unwelcome consequences which may be essential for consideration: isolationism and the domino theory.

Isolationism is ingrained in the nationalistic epithet of deporting all those undocumented immigrants in America. Unfortunately, the aggressive approach as advanced by aspirant Trump will force many Latin American countries to retaliate in ways never before seen in North America and Southern American relationship. Count on many American Companies and citizens being kicked out of many Southern American countries, count on many countries in that hemisphere pursuing protective polices, political, social and economic, including those specifically designed to defeat any American hegemony in that continent. You imagine NAFTA is a job killer, just wait for the deportation of twelve million people!

Reasonably expected, is alliance among South American countries to undermine the real reason for deporting their citizens: illegal immigration. As often is the case with radical ideas in resolving simple problems, America must expect encompassing criticisms from nations in Europe, Asia and Africa. Affected countries will make a case to United Nations, defending the old desire to move the United Nations headquarters from New York, since America is no longer a welcoming environment to do business for foreign governments, companies and entities. Thus, deportation and building a wall of infamy would be denounced and used by other countries to defend expansion of anti-American propaganda and pursuing additional foreign policies hitherto absent in America’s relationship with the world. How does America deal with the ‘double-face’ approach of encouraging European countries to open their borders to new refugees from Middle East and Africa, while it is set to ship out undocumented immigrants within her borders and building a “beautiful” fence to keep them out, according to aspirant Trump’s call?

Russia is already expanding its power of influence directly in the Middle-East, especially with the power vacuum created by early withdrawal of America’s troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is further working through the difficulties of keeping Assad of Syria in power and managing the consequences of the Arab Spring; while America is feisty dealing with harnessing the success of fighting an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, fighting ISIS and international terrorism, and addressing multiple domestic problems without bursting the bank. To deport all the undocumented immigrants within America’s border would not only deal a huge blow on bilateral relations with Southern American countries, it will create an avenue for criticisms of the American ideal of societal openness; and probably, afford for additional sympathetic alliance in the Arab World against America’s interest, especially in fighting international terrorism. Instituting this isolationist policy is to create room for return of Russia’s influence in Southern America. This time unfortunately, hardly will it be limited to Cuba; but also, other Latin American countries like Venezuela, that are sympathetic to the Marxist doctrine and more.

Interestingly, China is already the largest holder of America’s debt and fiduciary notes. Starting an economic war with the Chinese is hardly a wise choice. However, this is what Mr. Trump is proposing in his CBS’s 60 Minute interview. Rightly or wrongly, the real estate developer believes that China has been playing fast and loose balls with its currency exchange regime and trade surpluses arrangement; and thus, it is time for some reconciliation or outright economic war. How is “President Trump” going to reconcile his economic war with China with his compulsion for Chinese Government to take control or cap a lead on North Korea’s excesses in testing nuclear weapons and furthering aggression in the Korean Peninsula? Can he not visualize that an unnecessary economic war with China will degenerate further the already tense relationship between the two countries and impact America’s influence in Asia minor, including resolving long standing conflict between Japan and China over the island in South China sea?

On growing American jobs, Mr. Trump, once again is going to compel American Companies doing business overseas to bring back their jobs or face a huge penalty. Further, he is going to get rid of NAFTA and associated national obligations under the treaty, because he is all about “fair trade” not “free trade”. “President Trump” is repealing "OBAMACARE” and introducing a Universal Health Care System that is going to "take care of everyone", because his new health care law is going to create so much competition between health insurance companies and allow many Americans to save money, while at the same time expanding America’s economy without “much competition” from the outside economies. To put it Donald Trump’s way: “We are going to be rich” as a nation, no other country would ever dare to challenge us, because “we are going to build a better military finer than the finest we have in the world as we speak!

Less the more than 80% of Republicans polled as supporting Mr. Trump’s candidacy be taken in by his rather optimistic and bar-none approach to getting into fights with constituencies that do not share his projections and optimism, it is important to call the aspirant’s attention to the realities of American Politics. John Boehner, the Speaker of US House of Representatives just resigned under great pressure from special interest group(s) within the Republican Party, the Tea Party and the so-called “Hell No” caucus in the House of Representatives. The pressure of managing legislature to go along with party dispensations on bills has, and will always remain challenging; the same pressures are applied to the occupant of the White House; and no one in the executive branch of government will tell you it is as easy as it is made to look on television, press conferences and newspapers, once in government. In the words of the US Speaker: “Some legislators are making promises of what they know cannot be accomplished through the legislative process; including over-turning OBAMACARE and defunding Planned Parenthood.” Former Republican Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott, lauded Mr. Boehner’s sacrifice of stepping down from power for the good of the party and the institution of the House of Representatives. The realities of dealing with the checks and balances of government make it difficult for anyone in the pinnacle of the three branches of government to do as he pleases. This is how the forefathers envisaged it and this is how it will remain until hell freezes over.

There is a popular misconception from those who have not had the privilege of holding public office or serving as a public servant; that all it takes is leadership to achieve success in national politics. That with leadership alone, you can persuade people to do things your own way. While this may be true in managing private enterprises when you are a Chief Executive Officer, this is not necessarily so in local and national politics. Many who have served in public offices will tell you about how erroneous and naive this misconception truly is. With numerous constituencies a US President attends to, it takes more than leadership; and hardly is there much wiggle room to use monetary influence and the power of the office to successfully achieve your ambition for the nation and your party.

To be successful as the President of the United States, to be able to grow the economy to outstrip the huge deficit as contemplated by aspirant Trump, it is going to take more than personal achievement in companies’ board rooms and the bravado of telling people, because I said so. Forget the position of making money so much that you will be able to expand health care to everyone. The machination of various characters in and outside of politics, long standing congressional ethos and traditions, and a constant weight of demands from multiple constituencies, limit the powers of the US Presidency. 

Because of the doctrine of Checks and Balances and the separation of powers among the three branches of government, executives, legislative and judicial, it is often difficult to compel one branch of government to do what the other wants. The US President can cajoled the legislature, can lobby party leaders and lawmakers; however, he cannot force votes to achieve his dreams on the floors of both Chambers of Congress, all the time. The President might even have the fair fortune of moving a bill through US Congress successfully with the help of his party leadership and congressional members; however, he cannot force the lawmakers to fund the provisions of the bill. While it is easier to issue directives from the executive branch of government, the Hodge-podge process of law making makes the process a long and arduous one; and often times, the nastiness and brutality of the process, not to consider the crudity of some tenets of lawmaking, ensure that nothing is ever going to be achieved overnight as is expected in the private business sector. It just does not happen that way! Our forefathers have made it so, that our Republic only functions through consensus. Without consensus, a President is as “dumb” as a door knob! A President needs the consent of the people to govern as well as the corporation of lawmakers to pass a bill that he can sign into a law. Issuing out executive orders may save some faces, however, the criticisms that follow, in some cases, are not worth the initial effort or trouble.

Finally, although no one is saying Mr. Trump cannot become a good President with his strong business background; however, it is going to take more than the wheeling and dealing in business suites or boardrooms to pass bills into laws and to implement and fund the provisions of the bills. While Mr. Trump continues to stress that he can work easily with politicians because he has always worked with them, seems more like a face-saver or day dream at this time. There is a difference between you financing a politician’s campaign or donating to his political ambition and actually working with him or her once in office as a member of the august body of United States Congress. A US President’s interest cannot always be of equal importance for all legislators in his party, not to talk of every member in US Congress. Legislators have priorities for their constituencies and often aggressively, if not selectively, defend their turf or rail against the US President over polices, even when he is attempting to accomplish a proposal that is in the interest of all. Counter insurgence within one’s party's legislators as well as proclivity have been known to derail good intentions; both in US Congress and the White House. Often, the challenges of dealing with disagreements on policy directions with members of US Congress have always kept the US President on pins and needles. If in doubt, call up President Barack Obama! Support for a US Presidential aspirant is not the same as providing leadership when in office as the United States President. Overestimation of US Congressional leaders’ willingness to negotiate because of voters’ likability of one’s personality does not readily translate to easy governance. Too often, a candidate has come to the office of the Presidency assuming things are going to be done his own way, work out the way he had planned or pre-conceived while running for the office, only to find out that things are not always the way they seem, once in office. This is just the gospel truth, nothing more.