Do Americans know what they are voting for?

Here in Election 2016, the two major political parties have delivered two most imperfect candidates. In my new book, How to Select an American President by James George with James Rodger (c) 2016 Archway-Simon & Schuster, as far as resumes go, Trump and Clinton are equal. That is, for different reasons they amount to about the same strength. However, both are far below what American voters should find acceptable.  The political parties have failed to produce the most qualified candidates of the caliber needed to address the nation's essential needs.

When it comes to evaluating candidates' manifestos or agendas, there is more difficulty because there is a disparity between candidate's manifestos and their host party platforms.

Party platforms are the core value statements and foundational elements of values and priorities expressed by political parties as their brand. Presidential candidates (and other candidates for elected office) wear a parties badge symbolizing allegiance for which they stand.

A candidate's manifesto is different from the party platform only in the sense that it should be a more detailed and time sensitive accounting for what a candidate intends to accomplish in a two-term incumbency. Those details should have been published for public scrutiny far in advance of the final months of campaigning.

That is not the case today. There remain serious discrepancy between candidates and their party's platforms, arguably more discrepancy between Trump and the GOP than between Clinton and Democrats.

Discrepancies are indicative of two things:

1. Deficiencies in allegiance

2. Degrees of risk

When candidates are too loose at this late date in the cycle, that spells uncertainty and instability down the road.

The process is flawed. Candidates are flawed. Most important, the political parties are failing to accomplish their purpose and service to their member constituents and voters.

There is much more to come about this topic as American political parties are under direct fire, as in "You're fired."

"Two flawed candidates 

The Spectrum 11:32 a.m. MDT August 12, 2016 

Clinton and Trump are flawed candidates running for president. 

Clinton has questionable scruples, and she has made significant mistakes. As Secretary of State, she set up an unsecured private server in her home for government email communications and sent and received secret and top secret information. She had ultimate responsibility for the Benghazi debacle where our ambassador and other Americans were killed by Islamic terrorists. Her foundation accepted contributions from foreign entities. 

Trump is the most unqualified person to ever run for president. He is a vile loudmouth with possible bigoted views who only cares about himself, and he does not respect our Constitution and our institutions. Trump could have dictatorial tendencies. He has no knowledge of government operations and has no understanding of our domestic and world economies. His lack of knowledge in foreign affairs and military matters will hurt us in the world. 

The choices are: Vote for who you dislike the least, or vote for a third-party candidate, or do not vote. How sad. 

Donald Moskowitz
Londonderry, New Hampshire

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/opinion/2016/08/12/two-flawed-candidates/88593802/ 

Originally Published on Clusterfuck Nation June 20, 2016

How to Select an American President: Post Election 2016: Next big story

How to Select an American President: Post Election 2016: Next big story: In anticipation of the news upon the conclusion of this chapter in American election cycle history, it isn't too early to reflect on les...

Post Election 2016: Next big story

In anticipation of the news upon the conclusion of this chapter in American election cycle history, it isn't too early to reflect on lessons learned. Having sent my manuscript for a new book to the publisher that is titled, How to Select an American President by James George and James Rodger (c)2016 Archway-Simon & Schuster Publishing, problems with the American political system are so abhorrent that there is no time to waste in addressing them.

The essence of the new book is that citizens need to improve how they evaluate and select candidates. Citizen-voters are the drivers in the American system, and improving government performance begins with We the People. Suggested is that we need to set high standards for candidates for elected office. We need to insist that political parties address their responsibility in helping voters establish standards for candidates and for improving how they are recruited, nurtured, and vetted before being franchised to wear their party's brand.

In the Democratic Republic such as the United States of America, the government is formed and sustained as the instrument of all citizens to attend to priority outcomes. We need to identify and define those priorities and to achieve consensus as that constitutes the purpose of government.

In past articles and books, I have advocated that the highest purpose of the U.S. Federal Government is to create an optimal environment in which individuals and their corporations may flourish. The federal government exists to optimize return on national resources such that all citizens can realize a high quality of life by working hard at applying their inherent abilities. No one should live in poverty. All who are unable or are physically or mentally challenged should be ensured the capacity to live in the absence of poverty.

The government is the people's instrument and works in partnership with public and private corporations to achieve economic results.

To begin, we need to establish the context for the role and purpose of the American government that operates under the rule of law as defined by the Constitution and on-going body of laws and regulations.

The American political system depends on political parties as a direct extension of citizens to attend to the process of staffing the legislative and executive branches of government. Citizens need a timeout to reflect on what has happened to their process and current performance. As an analyst, I submit that the scope and scale of the nation's needs have evolved to a state of complexity such that Congress and Presidents have created massively complex systems and enabling bureaucracies to perform the work that produces required and desired outcomes.

The trouble stems from certain deficiencies:

Government systems are developed in three dimensions to produce outcomes: 1) Processes define how outcomes will be produced, 3) Constraints (laws, regulation, budgets, and schedules) govern processes as controls, 3) People and technology are enabling mechanisms that perform the work defined by processes.

Congressional legislators define the rules and constraints. They write prescriptions for processes that will produce required and desired outcomes. That is an outcome-driven government.

When enabled by people (organizations), technologies and infrastructure, processes become systems that provide citizens with essential services. That is service-oriented government enterprise.

The skill, knowledge, and experience needed to perform the work of Congress, and the Executive branch requires those who are trained in the law and educated in systems engineering disciplines with high proficiency in computer and communications technologies. In once sense, the government is an automated regulatory environment that controls a service-oriented architecture.

Presently, the American political system that includes parties and their member constituents and leaders are not paying attention to these essential requirements. The system is too ad hoc and is not performing well as a result.

Therefore, the next field of focus will be the political parties, their purpose, their function, and their present performance. They are on the critical path for improving American government by the people.

James George, Author

'Saudi problem' solutions run dry

In the heat of the political season and at the anniversary of America;s greatest terrorist disaster, President Obama has a dilemma. Congress wants to pass legislation favoring 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. Courts. The Republican-led Congress supports the legislation. Saudi's have lobbied hard against it.

To this analyst, the decision is clear. The Constitutional law-trained President should let the matter be decided in the Courts. Therefore, he should agree with Congress.

The Saudi Government and royal family were intimately engaged in supporting al-Qaeda and the attack on America. If it were not for America's dependency on oil, the U.S. would probably have bombed the daylight from the regime. As it stands, the Saudis are customers of U.S. supplied weapons. They are pivotal in subduing violence in the region. Therefore, to maintain the balance of power, the U.S. government cuts deals with frenemies such as the Saudis.

This situation highlights what presidential candidates need to address, and that is the foreign policy with gray-world nations. Throughout the Middle East, Russia, and China, the U.S. and free world allies seek peaceful coexistence. The trouble is that just containing and avoiding problems won't work because the subject gray-world nations are engaged in global trade where they are expected to respect the rule of law. Their rules and standards are different and in conflict with the U.S. Where there is friction, there can be fire as in war.

"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton supports the bill, as does Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is expected to lead Senate Democrats in the next Congress." 

The Hill

The President needs to stand down.

"Obama’s huge Saudi 9/11 dilemma 

By Jordan Fabian and Katie Bo Williams - 09/09/16 06:00 AM EDT
President Obama is facing a dilemma over legislation allowing the families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia in U.S. courts. 

The House is expected to vote overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation on Friday. The Senate has already passed the same legislation unanimously. 

Obama has fiercely opposed the bill, arguing it could both strain relations with Saudi Arabia, and also lead to retaliatory legislation overseas against U.S. citizens. The Saudi government has led a quiet campaign in Washington to kill the legislation. 

Those efforts have been fruitless in Congress, however. 

The legislation has broad support from both parties, and Congress could override an Obama veto for the first time if he rejects the legislation. 

Such an outcome would undoubtedly embarrass Obama and divide Democrats ahead of the 2016 elections and a crucial lame-duck session of Congress. 

Friday’s vote is heavy with symbolism; it will take place on the eve of the 15th anniversary of September 11 terrorist attacks. 

If the House vote is as resounding as expected, supporters hope, coupled with the unanimous passage of the Senate version in May, the White House may reconsider its concerns. 

“I think the pressure is the vote,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), an original backer of the bill and one of its 29 Democratic cosponsors.   

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are unsure whether Obama will actually use his veto pen on the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. 

“I presume they would have to think very carefully about a veto because it might very well be overridden,” said Nadler. 

To override the president, supporters would need a two-thirds majority in each chamber.
“I think the votes will be there to override it,” said Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), who introduced the bill in the House. 

The White House is clearly aware of the dicey political waters in which it is sitting.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton supports the bill, as does Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is expected to lead Senate Democrats in the next Congress." 

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/295082-obamas-huge-saudi-9-11-dilemma

See the evidence here:

http://documents.nytimes.com/evidence-of-financial-links-between-saudi-royal-family-and-al-qaeda

Democrats are insufficiently frightened

With news that Donald Trump is gaining on Hillary Clinton in key swing states, the Democratic Party and Mrs. Clinton should be reverberating with fear. There is no excuse for the Democratic Party letting radicalized Republicans steal equality and democracy right out from under them by such poorly performing opposition. Incumbent Republicans have failed to perform, and their presidential candidate is unfit for office. That should be patently clear to most Americans, but it is not. Why?

• Mrs. Clinton needs to connect with most voters in swing states. She needs boots-on-the-ground with surrogate help. 

• Mrs. Clinton and the Democratic Party need to punch the lights out in the Trump campaign with no-nonsense blows that knock him out on merit and for his lack thereof.

• The Democratic Party needs to demonstrate less disarray than Republicans. Now, the Republicans are clearly having a civil war, while Democrats are hiding out and sleeping somewhere.

Part of the problem stems from Hillary's apparently trying to slide into office under the radar.

"FLORIDA, OHIO, NORTH CAROLINA REMAIN CLOSE CONTESTS - National polls have shown Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump eroding slightly in the first week of September, and now it looks like a trio of crucial swing states might be following suit. 

Florida - A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday found Clinton and Trump tied at 47-47 in a two-way race, and 43-43 in a four-way contest, with Libertarian Gary Johnson getting 8 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein taking 2 percent. Most of the August polls in the state showed Clinton leading, at times by substantial margins, but Quinnipiac is the second since the beginning of September to indicate that lead might be narrowing. The HuffPost Pollster average has Clinton up by 3.5 points, but expect that to close in if more polls show a tighter race." 

Huffington Post 

Stay awake and lead.

 

Pitching and wooing black America

Reading the headlines with interest today as different media outlets describe Donald Trump's pitch to African Americans in Detroit. With the "help" from Ben Carson, Trump sought to demonstrate empathy.  However, his Republican Party has shown anything but that.

While running for President, Ben Carson had this to say.

"Asked about racial strife in America, this prominent, groundbreaking black politician, long on ideas but not governing experience, called for unity, not conflict.
"Our strength as a nation comes in our unity," he said in a national radio interview. "We are the United States of America, not the divided states. And those who want to divide us are trying to divide us, and we shouldn't let them do it." 

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/10/02/ben-carsons-different-take-on-race

Such strategy would be opposed to Donald Trump's approach which appears to be divisive.

Ask why Black America looks to be more dissatisfied today than before Obama, for instance? Carson and Trump blame Obama, while Obama is a president who has sought to make improvements against the tide of a hostile Republican Congress.

Republican policy has it that people in need should work harder to make a difference on their own. They deny that the nation isn't providing sufficient opportunity, not only for Black Americans but poor and middle-class Americans' too.

Make an exception to that when Donald Trump blamed NAFTA, Mexicans and Chinese for undermining all Amercian workers' opportunities.

Trump has a point. Yet, the ball has been in the Republican Congress' court for a long time and there has been no movement to address the need for a sustainable economy that ensures sufficient opportunity for a good life for all Americans who work for it.

Details, American voters must press for details that define and describe how all Americans will be provided adequate upward mobile opportunities commensurate with their best effort.

Brookings Institute research indicates that half of Black Americans born poor stay that way.

Brookings

How to Select an American President: Why Hillary is struggling in 'deep blue' ?

How to Select an American President: Why Hillary is struggling in 'deep blue' ?: The news is that Trump is closing the gap in Wisconsin. Why is this happening? There are several reasons: 1. The Democratic Party ground t...