These past two weeks have been a whirlwind of political games for many within the democratic party. The special elections in both Kansas and Georgia have proven to be a turning point for the Democrats if they wish to regain Congress and the Presidency.
I had the honor to move to Wichita to work the Kansas Fourth Congressional District special election. During the primary - well, before the district nominating convention, I worked on behalf of Dennis McKinney's campaign. I knocked doors, engaged with voters about the importance of voting by mail, and showing support for my candidate by gathering support from constituents. After the district convention, the democrats in the Kansas fourth decided to have James Thompson represent them as a nominee to run against Republican Ron Estes. I continued living in Kansas, with a close friend of mine, and we both volunteered for the Thompson campaign by making calls and knocking on doors towards the end of the campaign. In the end, the Thompson campaign came up only 6.8% short of winning. This is important because Trump won that district by at least 27 points and the Thompson campaign narrowed that margin. Kansas will be blue again; however, it will just have to wait until 2018.
The Georgia Sixth Congressional District race has been interesting to watch as well. Jon Ossoff was the overall "winner" of the election last week; however, he did not break the 50% threshold so now the race will go into a runoff against Republican Karen Handel. That runoff election will take place on June 20, 2017. There has been a lot of media attention on the Georgia Sixth race and not nearly enough on the Kansas Fourth race, so I won't speak too much on the Georgia Sixth.
With both the Kansas and Georgia races, we see two different dynamics emerge within the Democratic Party. The striking aspect is that both of these races yielded higher turnout numbers than usual for a special election. Even as Georgia Sixth goes to a runoff, the effect of 2016 is still visibly known. In Kansas, the voters in the Fourth decided to put fourth a nominee who is more aligned with the Bernie Sander's wing of the party. Now I am not saying there is anything wrong with that; however, I think this loss does provide some context as to how the Sanders model will prove to be problematic moving forward within the party. You can't have a "my way or else" mindset but have compromise on issues to advance the party. When the focus is shifted to Georgia Sixth race, we see someone who is more aligned with the "establishment" wing of the party. Overall Ossoff was able to speak to a larger audience while still maintaining his progressive candidacy. Furthermore, the problem with a "one size fits all" approach is that not every democrat is the same. To challenge another democrat's "progressiveness" to fit your ideals, or do challenge another democrat's understanding on party politics, does not help the party overall. We need to leave 2016 in the past and realize that it is 2017 and build rapports with all areas of the Democratic Party...not continue to burn them to the ground. If we cannot focus on winning and supporting Democrats in areas of the country that provides a challenge, then we will fail to win national elections - which will trickle down to state governments as well. So let's focus on winning the future of the party and not dwell on a lost past of divided party politics.
Now, let's focus on Montana and the Virginia races....and when Alabama nominates their party candidate, we will focus there as well!
Friday, April 21, 2017
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Trump Knows Real Estate, Not International Law
On April 7, 2017, the United States fired tomahawk cruise missiles into the borders of Syria, destroying an air base which was believed to be the epicenter of a chemical weapon attack on the Syrian people - by the government of Syria. The forty-fifth president of the United States cites this breach of international law as a vital national security concern. During the emergency United Nations Security Council meeting, the Russian Federation (a permanent member to the Security Council) - as well as Syria, Sweden, & Bolivia - strongly condemned violation of international law and/or act of aggression towards Syria. This strength of force has been viewed to some both in Syria and Russia as an act of war. While Iran does not sit on the UN Security Council, it did publicly state it's strong opposition to the use of force and violation of international law by the United States.
While there is standing precedent for a president to act unilaterally without congressional approval (such law was passed back in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks and used to go into Afghanistan and eventually Iraq), it is a long standing tradition for the president to seek congressional approval before any military actions are to take place. Not to mention, a president has always sought Congress' approval for a declaration of war.
The President of the United States is sending a dangerous message to the rest of the world by launching missiles into Syria. The message is simple: Abide by the demands of the United States or suffer the military wrath of the United States. This is not the first time this president has disrespected another country or foreign leader. The president would not shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel's hand during a photo-op/press conference, he has had tense words with the Prime Minister of Australia regarding refugees coming to the United States set up under the Obama administration, and his continued feud with Mexico over building a wall along the southern border of the United States are just a few examples of his blatant disrespect of international norms and procedures of international laws and geopolitical etiquette. These acts might seem minor to many, but they could have a direct - and potentially long-standing - consequences for the United States on an international level. Some of the repercussions have already started with the European Union rejecting visa-free travel for all Americans.
The President is trying to "restart" foreign policy that has been in place since the forming of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations. What he should be doing is looking to history and recognize that a unilateral intervention has never been in the best interest of the United States - especially in the Middle East. In the vital interest of National Security, it would be prudent to not unilaterally engage in situations that have proper protocols and procedures to handle international violations of human rights and to international law. There are multiple cases such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Vietnam, and even in Libya that show where unilateral efforts by the United States has proven to backfire - either by public/international lack of support or by an increase of recruitment among terrorist organizations which result in a rise in frequent terror attacks around the world (the most recent cases include the attack on Parliament in London and a truck attack in Sweden).
The overall questions we need to keep asking are: why now and what is the end game? Is it a war with Russia, which would be utilized as a 2020 campaign ploy; or, are both countries creating a distraction because both parties understand that they are guilty of obstructing the democratic process of the 2016 election and worked in coordination and are trying to cover their tracks? Regardless, I foresee a new war that will be reminiscent of the Afghanistan/Iraq timeline where the United States will engage in Syria first, and then turn its attention to Russia and that will escalate into a global war as two superpowers who hold power places within the United Nations Security Council will force the world to take a side...and due to the mishandling of words by the current President of the United States will force China to side with Russia. Only time will tell.
While there is standing precedent for a president to act unilaterally without congressional approval (such law was passed back in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks and used to go into Afghanistan and eventually Iraq), it is a long standing tradition for the president to seek congressional approval before any military actions are to take place. Not to mention, a president has always sought Congress' approval for a declaration of war.
The President of the United States is sending a dangerous message to the rest of the world by launching missiles into Syria. The message is simple: Abide by the demands of the United States or suffer the military wrath of the United States. This is not the first time this president has disrespected another country or foreign leader. The president would not shake German Chancellor Angela Merkel's hand during a photo-op/press conference, he has had tense words with the Prime Minister of Australia regarding refugees coming to the United States set up under the Obama administration, and his continued feud with Mexico over building a wall along the southern border of the United States are just a few examples of his blatant disrespect of international norms and procedures of international laws and geopolitical etiquette. These acts might seem minor to many, but they could have a direct - and potentially long-standing - consequences for the United States on an international level. Some of the repercussions have already started with the European Union rejecting visa-free travel for all Americans.
The President is trying to "restart" foreign policy that has been in place since the forming of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations. What he should be doing is looking to history and recognize that a unilateral intervention has never been in the best interest of the United States - especially in the Middle East. In the vital interest of National Security, it would be prudent to not unilaterally engage in situations that have proper protocols and procedures to handle international violations of human rights and to international law. There are multiple cases such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Vietnam, and even in Libya that show where unilateral efforts by the United States has proven to backfire - either by public/international lack of support or by an increase of recruitment among terrorist organizations which result in a rise in frequent terror attacks around the world (the most recent cases include the attack on Parliament in London and a truck attack in Sweden).
The overall questions we need to keep asking are: why now and what is the end game? Is it a war with Russia, which would be utilized as a 2020 campaign ploy; or, are both countries creating a distraction because both parties understand that they are guilty of obstructing the democratic process of the 2016 election and worked in coordination and are trying to cover their tracks? Regardless, I foresee a new war that will be reminiscent of the Afghanistan/Iraq timeline where the United States will engage in Syria first, and then turn its attention to Russia and that will escalate into a global war as two superpowers who hold power places within the United Nations Security Council will force the world to take a side...and due to the mishandling of words by the current President of the United States will force China to side with Russia. Only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)