Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Secretary of State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Secretary of State. Show all posts

Saturday, October 29, 2016

May You Live in Interesting Times ~ Ancient Curse (Part Ten)

Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion
10.29.2016

May You Live in Interesting Times ~ Ancient Curse

Part Ten

There has been a lot of talk throughout the month of October, about the so-called October surprise; the piece of breaking news that will slip into the consciousness of the electorate and throw the election one way or another.

For Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s nominee for President, there were no surprises, there was just a steady stream of revelations regarding his character, and conduct toward women; revelations that were not surprising at all, because they were consistent with a decades long history of public statements he has made, and actions he has taken that show him in the light of a serial abuser of women, some in his employ, some merely seeking work, other merely sitting next to him at a nightclub, or on an airplane.

T-Rump strikes again, and again in a long stand pattern, or habit of sexual assault.

For the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the surprise came in the form of a statement from the director of the FBI; James Comey. A man whose office was charged with investigating thousands of e-mails; either sent to, or sent by Hillary Clinton, through a private server at her estate in New York.

Throughout the political season, until July of 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign had been operating under a cloud of suspicion, the suspicion that she may have broken the law, by revealing or sharing classified intelligence materials through her private system. Other prominent public officials had recently been charged with crimes, found guilty, faced imprisonment, and heavy fines for such violations.

However, in July, after an intensive investigation, and after hours of testimony given by Hillary, to the FBI, and to Congressional committees; it was the judgement of the investigators that no crimes had been committed by Hillary. She had, perhaps been careless, but no there was no evidence of a crime they felt they could prosecute, or prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Comey, the FBI director; he has been serving the Obama administration throughout Obama’s two terms. He was appointed to the ten-year post by President George W. Bush. He is a republican, and he had previously held partisan political posts, nevertheless he is the director of the FBI.
When he issued the statement in July, that Hillary would not be prosecuted for any crimes related to her e-mails, he did so in such a way as to level serious criticism against her. He accused her of incompetence, carelessness, and malfeasance to a level just shy of being criminal.

His political friends cried foul, while at the same time making as much hay out of his statement as they possibly could. His political friends wanted Hillary prosecutes, regardless of the fact that there was no evidence of any crime.

Now, two and half months later, with just eleven days to go before the election; Comey announces that he has reopened the investigation into Hillary’s e-mails, based on some evidence they found in an unrelated case.

He gave no other information, except to say that the new evidence may not be significant at all; the FBI was merely investigating it, and Hillary’s critics pounced.


The FBI director did this; contrary to a long standing protocol of the justice department, to not issues statements about investigations or any political matter within sixty days of an election. He violated justice department protocols in order to aid his republican allies in the current election cycle.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

May You Live in Interesting Times ~ Ancient Curse (Part Nine)

Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion
10.21.2016

We are in the last three weeks of the campaign for President of the United States.

Last week marked the end of the presidential debates between the Democratic Party’s nominee, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; and the Republican Party’s nominee, television personality Donald Trump, the T-Rump. The two of them wrapped up the third and final debate, in what was the most substantive of their contests, in which both candidates performed better than they had in the previous two debates, even though T-Rump continued to talk fact-free, to fidget, to sniffle, to cast insults, call names, and at the end suggested that he would not concede the race if he lost.

This would be a first in American politics, it is a threat to cyclical, peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next that has been the hallmark of our Republic.

This is not new for T-Rump. During the primaries, while he eventually promised to support the Republican nominee, if it should turn out to not be him; after that promise was extracted from him, he began to cast doubt on it by suggesting that he would not support the nominee if he lost in a contest that he deemed to be unfair.

T-Rump knows he losing, but he cannot entertain the thought, his mental illness is such that he can only admit to losing if the conditions were not fair; in which case he did not lose at all, but he was cheated.

His rhetoric three weeks before the election has encouraged people in the crowds at his rallies to suggest that if T-Rump loses there will be an armed revolution, that Hillary should be forcibly removed from office, and the government should be overthrown.

T-Rump has not called for the violent overthrow of the government. But he has not condemned the people in his crowds who are speaking this way. And he has told Hillary that if by some miracle he should win, he would lock her up, put her in jail; despite the fact that she has never been charged with a crime.

I believe that Donald Trump is a threat to our Democracy. While he promotes himself as a defender of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution; an appeal to his armed and radical followers, whom he has asked to provide “2nd Amendment remedies” on his behalf should he lose; at the same time he threatens to lock up journalists, deny the freedom of the press, approve standards of religious persecution, commit torture, deny people due process and etc…


Vote…Bury Donald Trump in a landslide! 

Sunday, February 7, 2016

Voting for Hillary, Part Two – HRC v BS - Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion

02.06.2016

Voting for Hillary, Part Two – HRC v BS

There is an election coming on Tuesday, people are voting in the State of New Hampshire, and the election matters.

The choices the voters face is not between republican and democrat, that choice is coming. The choice is between former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and sitting Senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders.

There is a lot of talk going around about which of these candidates best represents the Democratic Party; its values, and aspirations, even though only one of them, Hillary, is actually a democrat. Nevertheless, there is a lot of momentum behind the candidacy of Bernie Sanders, and that needs to be addressed.

In politics there are many vectors of concern.

On the one hand our politics are about the future, our ideals, and where we want to see the country move to. Politics are aspirational.

On the other hand, politics, and voting are about the practical reality of governing.

Politics are just as much about the public policies we would like to see enacted, as they are about the public policies that can be enacted, practically, in a nation that is ideologically divided between left and right.

As we listen to our candidates propose the policies they would like to implement, it is vital that they articulate more than the goal of their policies (though the end game is important), they must also be able to articulate the path they will take to get there, the specific strategies, strategies that demonstrate an appreciation for the past efforts to move us toward those goals, as well as realistic appraisal of the political world, with its ideological divisions, that we live in at the present time.

Let us not pretend that if Bernie Sanders is elected, like magic, Citizens United will be overturned; wave a wand and will have a new federal minimum wage, blink and there will be a trillion dollar package of new domestic spending, wiggle his nose, and we will have universal health care.
That would be revolutionary, and sober minds know that the likelihood of any of that happening in America today, is very remote. Yes, we must move toward those goals, but any such movement is aspirational, can only be aspirational, as it always has been.

That is because our country is deeply divided, and it will take cooperation from those on the opposing side of the divide to make those political aspirations a reality. It will require consensus, and it will require compromising with people who believe in their heart that corporations are people, who believe in their hearts that there should be no minimum wage, who believe in their hearts that the government should be dissolved and that there should be no public spending on infrastructure; because the private sector can do it better.

Hillary and Bernie Sanders both want those things for America. What differentiates them from one another is that Hillary talks straight about these aspirational goals, and Bernie Sanders is pretending that he can get it all done with a wink and a nod. I value Hillary’s practicality on this matter, and I am offended that the Sander’s campaign will not address these political realities.

The answer that Bernie Sander’s has settle on, in response to this line of questioning, is that he intends to lead a political revolution, a revolution that will sweep aside the old way of doing things, and sweep in a mandate for his agenda.

The language of revolution is unfortunate, it touches on the romantic notion of radicalism while leaving unspoken the violent realities of conflict. For a revolution to be swift and sweeping it must be supported by an overwhelming percentage of the people, people who are united in their ideology and their aspirations. That is not where we are as Americans. We are deeply divided, we are a 50/50 nation, we are left and right. That is not the fermentation bed for a revolution, it is the fermentation bed for deep civil unrest.

Set this aside for a moment, because I do not wish to be gloomy in the face of hope and optimism. I am both hopeful and optimistic that our collected aspirations can be achieved.
Let us discuss the qualifications of our candidates, who is best able to carry on the work of fulfilling our liberal and progressive ideals.  

Some think it is a significant qualification that Bernie Sanders was chief executive (Mayor) of Burlington Vermont, a city with a population of 200,000 people. I think Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State, speaks to a wider degree of executive experience.

Some have suggested that because Hillary was merely appointed Secretary of State, not elected to it, this does not count as a political achievement, but are talking about is political experience; individual accomplishments and experience managing government, in that context it does not matter if you are elected, appointed (and confirmed), or if you are a career bureaucrat; experience is experience.
Some have suggested that Bernie Sanders’ 25 years in congress, as a Representative and a Senator means that he has the institutional knowledge and relationships to aid him in accomplishing his agenda. I think they are an indictment of his ineffectiveness. He has been making the same speeches for his entire life, and has failed to advance his agenda, failed to grow a grass roots movement to do anything.

To be clear, I don’t think that Hillary has a stunning record of legislative accomplishment either, but I value her experience as First Lady, as Senator, and as Secretary of State more than Bernie Sanders’ time as an “outsider” in congress.

They are both smart people, but you need more than smarts to succeed as President. You need relationships. Hillary has those relationships, and Bernie Sanders is still an outsider, as evidenced by the overwhelming number of endorsements Hillary has from: sitting and former members of congress, as well as private organizations, unions and newspapers, not to mention the count of super delegates who have committed to her.

As we are talking about their respective legislative records and success rates, let us appreciate a few salient facts. During the time that Hillary and Bernie Sanders both served in the Senate, they voted the same 93% of the time.


This article from the New York Times tells the tale. On the very few things where they differed from one another; I would suggest the outcome is mixed, with each of them demonstrating wisdom in some things and a lack of wisdom in others. Some votes had tragic consequences, like the war in Iraq, but Bernie Sanders would have let the entire economy sink in 2008 – 2009, because the TARP bill and other economic stimulus bills, that were put in place to stem the economic disaster that was taking, were not “perfect.” That also would have been tragic.

Let us dwell for a moment longer on their general records of success in congress, remembering that they voted the same 93% of the time.

In all of Bernie Sanders’ time in congress he has only sponsored 5 bills that became law, while Hillary, in her much shorter tenure sponsored three bills that became law. Hillary co-sponsored 74 bills which became law (100% success rate). Bernie has co-sponsored over 5,000 bills, only about 200 became law (5% success rate). Please be mindful, I am not talking about the merits of these bills, I am just speaking to their success rate as legislators.

In my judgement, Bernie Sanders, if elected, would be a disaster as president, and a disaster for the progressive causes you and I care about. Ineffectuality will quickly turn into a referendum against him, and the party he represents. I point to the Carter administration, as evidence for this claim. Jimmy was a smart and capable leader, if we had followed his plans for domestic energy consumption (among other things) the world would be a different place. But Jimmy Carter was an outsider, he had zero ability to execute his agenda because he had no relationships with anyone in congress, no relationships among the career people in the federal government.

We know how history has treated him (even though he doesn’t deserve it). We do not want to set up a right wing reaction against that kind of failure, as happened with Ronald Reagan.

Hillary has those relationships. The Clinton team will come to the job with those relationships in place, they have already managed the government, have been managing the government, and they are good at it.

I must reiterate; the excitement for Bernie Sanders fails to acknowledge the political reality that the right-wing controls congress, controls the Supreme Court, controls the majority of gubernatorial seats, and the majority of statehouses across the country. The people who elected them do not even want the things Bernie and Hillary are talking about. They think the liberal agenda is un-godly. They don’t want a minimum wage (at all), they don’t want the federal government…they are not going to help. They will actively obstruct. We on the left will do a disservice to our cause if we put people in power who will meet their obstruction with obstruction.

If we desire the liberal and progressive agenda to move forward we will work toward fostering political and economic stability in our country. We are only ever able to expand the franchise of citizenship and social empowerment when the people at large, feel secure; when they are frightened (for real or imagined reasons), when there is chaos, they will move the other way.

In my work as a manger of systems and people I have come to understand the following things:

It is always easier to point out problems than it is to find solutions.

It is always easier to imagine solutions than to form the plans to put them in place.

It is always easier to make plans, than to actually implement them.

It is always easier to begin an endeavor than it is to keep it moving forward.

I believe that Hillary, not Bernie Sanders has what it takes to carry us all the way through these steps.

That belief is based in part on the fact that Hillary is being honest about these challenges, while Bernie Sanders is pretending otherwise.


If you believe that Bernie Sanders is in reality an aspirational candidate, just like Hillary, and not a revolutionary; if you believe he is not made of magic and his agenda will take a generation (or more) to take effect, then you should get behind the person who shares the same aspirations, but is willing and able to negotiate the political resolutions, to cut the deals that will take us there. 

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Voting for Hillary, Part One - Editorial, The Week in Review – Analysis, Commentary, Opinion

01.30.2015

Voting for Hillary, Part One

I did a couple of things this week that I have never done before.

      1.      I made a financial contribution to a political campaign.
      2.      I committed to caucus for a candidate.

I took these steps in support of Hillary Clinton. I have been a vocal supporter of hers for many years, since I was first introduced to her, in her role as First Lady of the United States.

I favored the high profile role she played in the first Clinton administration. I was both disturbed and amused by the reaction the conservative talkers had toward her in those early years. Rush Limbaugh coined the term “feminazi,” in relation to her; in order to spread paranoia, and mistrust of her agenda, but not just of her agenda...they were afraid of her.

The conservative movement in American politics is afraid of women, of a woman’s independence, of a woman’s intelligence, and of a woman’s perspective on the world. This is not to overlook the fact that there are women in positions of leadership in the conservative movement, both in and apart from public office, but those women only succeed insofar as they are willing to undermine efforts to strengthen and support the role of women in our society, to undermine public policy in regards, to pay, health, privacy and self-determination.

In the twenty-four years since she became First Lady, through her eight years as Senator from New York, and her term as Secretary of State; those conservative talkers have relentlessly kept up their attacks on Hillary, and have succeeded in shaping the public perception of her in such a negative light, that the majority of the country sees her as “dishonest,” without being able to say exactly why (or exactly why she differs from any other politician for this quality). This is true even among those who support her candidacy for President of the United States.

I reject the efforts of conservative talkers to shape my view of this strong, intelligent, powerful, intellectual woman.

I support Hillary’s candidacy because I believe that she, and the team she will bring with her to the White House, have a better chance to advance the liberal and progressive vision for the future of our country than any other candidate. I believe she will protect the advances made by President Obama, and she will add to them. This belief is rooted in the notion that it requires more than talking points, more than speech making to enact the kinds of legislation that will be required to advance that vision. It requires a President that is not only willing to compromise, but able to do so in a manner that is adept.

On a more fundamental level I support her candidacy because I believe that it is time for a woman to hold the highest office in the land


Hillary is the right woman, at this time, to take on that burden.