Showing posts with label US POLITICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US POLITICS. Show all posts

4 Nov 2014

Chama cha Republicans kinaelekea kushinda viti vingi katika Bunge la juu la Seneti, na hivyo kuwapa nafasi ya kuwa na 'wabunge' wengi katika mabunge yote mawili, yaani bunge la juu la Seneti na bunge la chini la Kongresi.

Ushindi huo tarajiwa utakuwa wa mara ya kwanza tangu walipomudu kufanya hivyo wakati wa utawala wa Rais George W. Bush. Ni jambo la kawaida kwa chama cha Rais aliye madarakani kupoteza viti katika chaguzi za kati ya muhula (Midterm Elections). Kwa sasa, chama tawala cha Democrats kinaongoza kwa viti 10 katika bunge la Seneti na kilikuwa na matarajio ya ushindi katika uchaguzi huo utakaofanyika Novemba 4 mwaka huu.

Kwa bahati mbaya, sababu kadhaa zimejitokeza kuwa vikwazo dhidi ya chama hicho cha Rais Barack Obama, ikiwa ni pamoja na rekodi inayokaribia kuwa ya kihistoria ya kukubalika (approval ratings) kwa Rais Obama, mwenendo usioridhisha wa uchumi wa nchi hiyo, upinzani dhidi ya sera ya afya ijulikanayo kama Obamacare, na matarajio ya kujitkeza wapigakura wachache katika uchaguzi huo.


Mwelekeo wa kushindwa kwa chama cha Democrats unatokana na zaidi ya kuporomoka kwa umaarufu wa Obama ambapo wapigakura asilimia 53 hawaridhishwi na Obama kulinganisha na asilimia 42 wanaoridhishwa) na kawaida ya uchaguzi usiohusisha uchaguzi wa Rais (off-year election).

Democrats pia wanasumbuliwa na matokeo ya uchaguzi wa mwaka 2012 katika maeneo ambayo wapinzani wao wa Republicans walifanya vema.

Kuna sababu nyingine pia. Moja ni mikakati ya viongozi wa Republicans kuwezesha sheria kali za uchaguzi ambazo zinakwaza wapigakura watarajiwa, hususan katika maeneo yanayoelemea kwa Democrats. Katika miaka 10 iliyopita, takriban sheria 1000 za kitambulisho cha mpigakura zilitambulishwa kutokana na jithada za Republicans. Sheria hizo zinawataka wapigakura kuonyesha kitambulisho chenye picha au kupunguza masaa ya kupiga kura. Katika ya sheria hizo takriban 1000, karibu 100 zimeshapitishwa. Mahakama kuingilia suala hilo kumechangia kukanganya mwenendo wa upigaji kura (jambo linaloweza kuwapa wapigakura kisingizio cha kutopiga kura siku ya uchaguzi).

Bado haijafahamika ushindi wa chama cha Republican katika uchaguzi huo utamaanisha nini kwa siasa za Marekani kwa sababu haijulikani mkakati gani chama hicho kitautumia pindi kitakaposhinda. Hata hivyo, baadhi ya mipango muhimu ya chama cha Democracts, kwa mfano mageuzi kuhusu uhamiaji na hatua za kisheria kuhusu mabadiliko ya hali ya hewa, imeshakumbana na upinzani katika bunge dogo la Kongress linaloongozwa na Republicans. Iwapo Conservatives watafanikiwa kuongoza na Seneti pia, wanaweza kumpa wakati mgumu Rais Obama kwa kupinga uteuzi wa majaji,uteuzi wa mawaziri na teuzi nyinginezo zinazohitaji kuthibitishwa na Seneti.

Uongozi wa Republican kwenye mabunge yote mawili unaweza kumlazimisha Rais Obama kutumia kura yake ya veto kama kimbilio la mwisho.

Rais Obama akipiga kura katika uchaguzi wa kati ya muhula 
Lakini wachambuzi mbalimbali wameonyesha madhara yasiyofichika kwa chama cha Republicans pia. Iwapo chama hicho kitaonekana kumpinga Obama katika kila jambo, watajiweka katika hatari ya kutengwa na umma na hivyo kuhatarisha nafasi ya kushinda uchaguzi mkuu wa Rais mwaka keshokutwa. Ikumbukwe kuwa chama cha Democrats wana 'mgombea' mwenye uwezo wa kushinda urais mwaka 2016, kwa maana ya Hillary Clinton.Kwa upande wa Conservatives, majina yanayotajwa hadi sasa ni ya wanasiasa wasio na nguvu kubwa.Kwa maana hiyo watahitaji mwonekano bora kwa wapigakura iwapo watataka kushinda katika uchaguzi huo mkuu.

Kingine kinachoweza kuwaathiri Republicans ni kilekile kinachokikabili chama cha upinzani kinachojaribu kuking'oa madarakani chama tawala: kuongoza mabunge yote mawili kutapelekea matarajio kwa wananchi kutoka kwa chama hicho.Republicans wameshatoa ahadi kibao kuhusu kupunguza kodi na miradi ya serikali kuu. Wakishindwa kutekeleza ahadi hizo kutaambatana na gharama ya kisiasa. Kadhalika, sheria kali zitakazotungwa kwa kutumia wingi wao katika Seneti na Kongresi zaweza kuwaathiri wagombea urais watarajiwa wa chama hicho waliopo kwenye Seneti, yaani Rand Paul, Marco Rubio na Ted Cruz, hasa wakiunga mkono maamuzi watakayokuwa na wakati mgumu kuyatetea wakati wa kampeni za uchaguzi mkuu.

Iwapo Republicans watashinda na kuchukua uongozi wa Seneti, jambo moja la wazi ni kupanuka kwa mgawanyiko wa kiitikadi hasa kati ya bunge na serikali.

CHANZO: Imetafsiriwa kutoka gazeti la The Guardian la hapa Uingereza. 



9 Sept 2011

Candidate grades are based on both performance and success in using the debate to improve their standing in the nomination contest.
Romney
Style: Proved every bit as tough as Perry in opening jousts. More natural and comfortable than usual, even/especially when delivering his pre-canned lines—many of which scored powerfully.
Substance: Strong on a variety of issues, but surprisingly, never shifted the focus to his detailed economic plan unveiled Tuesday.
His worst moment: Had trouble defending his Massachusetts health care law, still sounding addled and uncertain every time it comes up.
His best moment: Fluid, politically potent slap-down of Perry on his inflammatory Social Security rhetoric: “Our nominee has to be somebody who isn’t committed to abolishing Social Security.”
The main thing: Came prepared with clear stats and a good attitude. Showed he won’t back down in the face of the Perry surge. Smart enough to retreat after Perry’s Social Security flap, increasing the odds that it will be the story of the night. Once again, looked fit, at ease, and more like a president than anyone on stage--including his main competition.
Grade: A
___________________________
Perry
Style: Jabbed at Romney whenever possible, and was smooth and confident while doing so. Often looked straight to the camera, rather than at the moderators or in-room audience—an effective alpha male move. Smiled, mugged, and joked easily, flaunting his earthy Texan charm, although occasionally appeared a bit tentative.
Substance: Stood by his stark “Ponzi scheme” record on Social Security. Claimed the federal government is to blame for Texas’ dead-last standing on insurance coverage. Never sounded like a policy wonk, but evinced a reasonable command of policy basics—although he faltered on climate change at debate’s end. Offered a robust defense of the death penalty.
His worst moment: Defiantly stood by the passages about Social Security in his controversial 2010 book ”Fed Up” in a manner as ominous as it was unclear.
His best moment: Telling the world that Michael Dukakis had a better record on jobs than Romney.
The main thing: Largely followed his advisors’ strategy: severe on Romney without being mean-spirited, solution-oriented when discussing the nation’s problems, adept at dodging unwelcome questions, appealingly loose and accessibly human. But his Social Security answer is sure to get a lot of scrutiny from the press, Democrats and Republicans (Romney included). The press will kill him on climate change, too. Not bad for a first debate, but second best is second best.
Grade: B+
___________________________
Huntsman
Style: Displayed the reasonable, conservative persona of a Republican leader. Although mild in manner, sounded smart and constructive.
Substance: Talked in generalities for the most part, but was decent in broad strokes.
His worst moment: Fighting sickness, he seemed to lose energy (and his voice) after a strong start.
His best moment: Made a powerful, sweeping case for his experience on jobs and internationally in response to a question on China.
The main thing: Launched into the debate with aggression and purpose, but faded by the end. With the overheated Perry-Romney focus, did perhaps as well as he could–- but had difficulty breaking through and regaining ground.
Grade: B-
___________________________
Bachmann
Style: Bright and collected, if somewhat tense. Kept her focus on Obama, even when invited to critique RomneyCare.
Substance: Still just skimming the surface, although refrained from excessively touting her record in the House, in contrast to past debates.
Her worst moment: Shied away from attacking Perry despite proffered opportunities--she’ll have to take him on if she wants back in the hunt.
Her best moment: Didn’t really have any, which was her chief problem.
The main thing: Still smoother and more composed than her cartoonish pre-candidacy image, but is no longer benefiting from low expectations. There is an air of desperation around her efforts now that she has been muscled out of the first tier by Perry.
Grade: C-
___________________________
Santorum
Style: Mr. Consistent –- mild, earnest, eager for everyone to know that he was an activist Senator.
Substance: Didn’t own any issue in an eye-catching manner.
His worst moment: More than once, sounded a bit tinny, a little whiny.
His best moment: Defended America’s role around the world in a principled, passionate manner.
The main thing: Wants desperately to be a player in this thing, but has not found the alchemy required to mirror Joe Biden in 2008 and play above his poll standing as a debater.
Grade: D+
___________________________
Gingrich
Style: Cantankerous, accusatory, and unfocused.
Substance: Rarely showed his substantial policy chops.
His worst moment: Angrily suggested that moderator efforts to explore differences between the GOP candidates are a media plot against the Republican Party.
His best moment: Gave a strong, detailed answer on immigration reform, the likes of which hasn’t been seen much in these debates so far.
The main thing: Failed to appear presidential and distinguished. Despite hearty audience approval, didn’t execute any discernable strategy to win the nomination.
Grade: D
___________________________
Cain
Style: Adopted a more presidential mien than in past debates, but was crowded out and made no distinct impression.
Substance: Still unable to break through with a signature policy issue.
His worst moment: A rambling answer about Chile and retirement.
His best moment: Decent response on taxes, just as the debate was ending.
The main thing: Had less verve than usual. Failed to stand out or improve his standing.
Grade: D-
___________________________
Paul
Style: Adopted a more negative tone towards the other candidates, as he and his campaign have started to do in recent weeks.
Substance: Demonstrated a familiarity with Perry’s Texas record that allowed for some detailed critiques.
His worst moment: Hemmed and hawed when challenged by Perry on his record of fidelity to Reagan (at the Reagan library!).
His best moment: Nothing stood out.
The main thing: Was given many opportunities to talk, but made little substantive use of the time. His new strategy -- going after the frontrunner, rather than just following his own drummer -- noticeably tanked. He came across as angry, and he made his ire seem personal, a petty Texas feud.
Grade: D-


SOURCE: The Page

28 Apr 2011


As Donald Trump tries to leverage his brand with a reality-show campaign for president, surging to the top of the 2012 GOP polls, the past is coming back to bite him. The media establishment has been treating him more as colorful sideshow than serious candidate. But now that it seems The Donald might actually run, it’s time to take a closer look at the darker corners of his empire.

Take John Robbins. When the retired Army officer heard Trump, in a music-filled tent, talk of putting up the tallest building in Tampa, Fla., he wanted in—“because of the Trump name.” But Robbins lost half his $150,000 down payment when the condo project went bankrupt and was “floored” to learn that Trump had merely licensed his gold-plated moniker: “I just don’t see Trump fitting the role of commander in chief. Somebody has to stand up to Mr. Trump.”

Hamed Hoshyarsar invested $54,000 in a condo at the Trump Ocean Resort Baja for one reason: he was a fan of The Apprentice. He lost every dime when the project was never built. “I want to throw up every time I see him,” says the Los Angeles accountant. “I see all these people talking about him being president, and I would never vote for that guy.”

Trump, who exudes a blustery charm, doesn’t miss a beat. “What about the 50 deals that worked out great—are you going to cover that too?” he asks me. Let the record show he has built some fabulous properties—but has also filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, most recently with his casino unit. “I do play with the bankruptcy laws—they’re very good for me” as a way of cutting debt, Trump says.

He says he’s not responsible in lawsuits over the two failed condo projects because his partners were the actual builders—and, his attorney says, such confidential licensing agreements are standard. Besides, says Trump, the buyers are “lucky” because they would have lost more money in a tanking market had the projects been built.

Another venture, Trump University, had to change its name after New York authorities ruled it wasn’t properly licensed; the school is also under scrutiny in Texas, where officials are examining possibly deceptive practices. Tarla Makaeff spent $35,000 to “Learn from the Master,” as a brochure put it, but the marketer says she didn’t get much beyond two “mentors” who were barely available after showing her some properties needing rehab. “I’m just disgusted by their greed,” says Makaeff, who is suing the school.

But Trump, who is countersuing, has a tape of Makaeff calling two staffers “awesome.” “This is really bullshit stuff,” he says, citing customer surveys that rate the school highly.

Trump sells himself as a head-banging businessman who can shake up a dysfunctional Beltway culture. But as pundits belatedly put him under the microscope, they’ll find him all over the political map. While Mitt Romney is typecast as a flip-flopper, Trump declared in 2000 that “we must have universal health care”; now he says Obamacare is unconstitutional. He once pronounced himself “strongly pro-choice” but recently discovered that, guess what, he’s pro-life. Obama was “amazing” and “phenomenal,” Trump wrote in 2009; now, not so much. And while Newt Gingrich is branded an adulterer, Trump conducted a tabloid-frenzy affair with Marla Maples, the second of his three wives.

For now, the press has pushed back hardest on Trump’s strange decision to peddle the birther nonsense. But he knows his customers: polls show roughly half of Republicans don’t believe Obama is a citizen.

Trump is suddenly inescapable, all over the networks, which love Trump because he’s good for ratings and the field is dull. Remember Sarah Palin? Her spokeswoman chided news outlets on Twitter for largely ignoring her last speech.

Trump may be giving his rivals cover by dominating the stage, but if reporters keep turning over rocks, the master showman might be glad he hung onto his day job. 

SOURCE: Newsweek

5 May 2009


Sarah Baxter

A COMEDIAN who had a walk-on part in the Rutles film spoof of the Beatles is poised to deliver a 60-seat super-majority to the Democrats in the Senate as President Barack Obama consolidates his grip on the levers of power.

Al Franken, 57, a satirist turned Democrat politician, is expected to be proclaimed the winner of the protracted race for the US Senate in Minnesota, in time to give Obama a free hand to appoint a Supreme Court replacement for retiring Justice David Souter without fear of Republican blocking tactics.

If Franken wins, Obama will hold an unassailable majority after Senator Arlen Specter’s sudden defection from the Republicans to the Democrats last week. A 60-seat majority would deprive the Republicans of the ability to scupper appointments and legislation by filibustering...
continue


SOURCE: The Times

14 Oct 2008


CLICK THE GRAPH TO ENLARGE

Categories

Blog Archive

© Evarist Chahali 2006-2022

Search Engine Optimization SEO

Powered by Blogger.