Showing posts with label REPUBLICANS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label REPUBLICANS. Show all posts

9 Sept 2011

Candidate grades are based on both performance and success in using the debate to improve their standing in the nomination contest.
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
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+
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-
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-
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+
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
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-
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

1 Nov 2008

By Dee Dee Myers

Despite George W. Bush's improbable path to the presidency—he was, after all, elected not by the people but by the Supreme Court—neither he nor his chief strategist, Karl Rove, felt compelled to moderate their agendas. In fact, Rove went public with his grand ambition early and often: to use Bush's presidency to build a permanent Republican majority, not just in Washington but across the country. Give Rove credit for always thinking big.

Eight years later, however, the verdict is in. And Rove's plan has been a spectacular failure.

George W. Bush is the most unpopular president in modern times. Barely two in ten voters approve of the job he's done, and the other eight wonder how anyone could still find things about his administration to like. In better days, Bush was in high demand, as candidates across the country sought his endorsement, his energetic presence at their events, and his prodigious ability to raise money. How times have changed. According to NBC News, Bush hasn't made a single public campaign appearance with a G.O.P. candidate this cycle. Not one.

When Bush was elected, Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. And after the events of September 11, their majorities grew. But as voters soured on the war in Iraq, the administration's endless ethical entanglements, and its abominable response to Hurricane Katrina, they gave Democrats back control of both chambers. And this year, Democrats are poised to make even bigger gains: somewhere north of 20 seats in the House and enough seats in the Senate to put them tantalizingly close to a filibuster-proof majority.

And what about the electorate more broadly? To begin with, Republican registration has fallen, and Democratic registration has grown, particularly among new voters, the ones forming impressions of the political parties that can last a lifetime. First-time voters, who are mostly between 18 and 21 years old—as well as those who haven't voted in recent years—prefer Barack Obama to John McCain by huge margins: 69 to 27 percent, according to one recent poll. These same voters prefer a Democratic controlled Congress by 66 to 31 percent.

So even if Barack Obama doesn't win—an unlikely outcome given the dynamics of this race—the Republican party will be in shreds: divided, demoralized, and long, long way from Karl Rove's erstwhile dream of a permanent governing majority.

SOURCE: Vanity Fair

24 Oct 2008

Click HERE and HERE to read the stories.

3 Oct 2008

Mdahalo kati ya running mates wa vyama vya Democrat na Republican,Joe Biden na Sarah Palin,respectively,umemalizika hivi punde.Uchambuzi wa haraka haraka unaonyesha kuwa Palin amejitahidi kufanya vizuri kuliko ilivyotarajiwa.Matarajio kwamba Palin angefanya vibaya yalitokana na performances zake za hivi karibuni katika mahojiano (ya nadra) na wanahabari.Hofu zaidi ilikuwa ni kweli u-kilaza wake kwenye mambo mbalimbali.Kwa upande wa Biden,huku akitarajiwa kuutumia vizuri uzoefu wake wa muda mrefu kwenye ulingo wa siasa,hofu zaidi ilikuwa ni katika tabia yake ya "kusema ovyo" na kuwa gaffe-prone.Hata hivyo,uchambuzi wa awali unaonyesha kuwa Biden amefanya vizuri sana katika mdahalo huo,kiasi cha mchambuzi mmoja kudai kwamba it was his best ever performance.

Kwa upande mwingine,Palin ameonekana kama amethibitisha kwamba McCain hakufanya kosa kumchagua yeye kuwa running mate wake lakini ameshindwa kum-portray McCain kama mtu anayefaa zaidi  kuwa rais kuliko Barack Obama.Lakini Biden,pengine kwa kuhofia kuonekana kuwa ni sexist dhidi ya Palin,ametumia muda mwingi kuonyesha kwanini Obama anafaa zaidi kuwa rais kuliko McCain na wakati huohuo kuonyesha kuwa tiketi ya McCain-Palin ni mwendelezo mwingine wa miaka minane ya George W Bush.

Kiujumla,na kama ilivyotarajiwa na wengi,Biden ameonekana kuwa msindi katika mdahalo huo japo hilo haliwezi kukubalika among the Republicans.Pia matokeo ya awali ya kura kadhaa za maoni baada ya mjadala huo zinaonyesha ushindi mzuri kwa Biden hasa miongoni mwa undecided voters.

27 Sept 2008

Hatimaye mdahalo wa kwanza kati ya wagombea urais wa Marekani kwa vyama vya Democrat na Republican,Barack Obama na John McCain,respectively,umemalizika dakika chache zilizopita,mdahalo huo ulikuwa katika hatihati ya kufanyika kufuatia uamuzi wa McCain kusimamisha kampeni zake na kuomba mdahalo huo usogezwe mbele,kabla ya kubadili uamuzi huo (wa kushiriki mdahalo) mapema jana asubuhi.

Uchambuzi wa haraka haraka unaonyesha mambo kadhaa yaliyojitokeza kwenye mdahalo huo.Baadhi ya wachambuzi wanaona kwamba udhaifu wa Obama ulikuwa kwenye kuunga mkono hoja za McCain takriban mara saba (saying John is right on...) wakati McCain alikazania kuonyesha udhaifu wa Obama akitumia maneno kama "naivety","Obama doesnt seem to undestand",nk takriban mara nane.Kwa kuafikiana na McCain katika mitazamo au hoja zake,Obama anaweza kuonekana kama alikuwa defensive huku mpizani wake akiwa offensive,and that matters in politics.

Hata hivyo,kama ilivyotarajiwa,Obama ameonekana kufanya vizuri kwenye eneo ambalo anaaminika kuwa stronger kuliko McCain:uchumi.Kwa mwenendo wa mdahalo ulivyokuwa,yayumkinika kuhitimisha kuwa Obama alifanya vizuri kwenye nusu ya kwanza (takriban dakika 40 za mwanzo) ambapo hoja kuu ilikuwa uchumi.Kwa upande mwingine,McCain ameonekana kutawala zaidi kwenye nusu ya pili ya mdahalo huo ambayo iliangalia suala la sera za nje za Marekani.Kwa upande mwingine,pamoja na kutoonekana mshindi kwenye eneo hilo la sera za nje (ambalo McCain anachukuliwa kama mwenye uzoefu zaidi) Obama ameonekana kufanya vizuri zaidi kuliko ilivyotarajiwa kwa kusimamia anachokiamini na kutoyumbishwa na kauli za McCain kwamba mgombea huyo wa Republican ni mzoefu zaidi.Wapo wanaoona kwamba Obama ameweza kufanya kile alichotarajiwa kwenye "eneo lake la kujidai" yaani uchumi ilhali McCain ameshindwa kumfunika Obama kwa namna ilivyotarajiwa kwenye eneo la sera za nje.

Kadhalika Obama ameonekana kushindwa kuipigilia msumari ipasavyo hoja kwamba McCain amekuwa mshirika wa Bush katika kipindi cha miaka minane iliyopita.McCain nae kwa upande wake anaonekana ameshindwa kuitumia ipasavyo fursa ya kuonyesha yeye ni mzoefu zaidi katika eneo la sera za nje (kwa mantiki kwamba japo alifanya vizuri,hakufanya vizuri sana kama ilivyotarajiwa).Kwa kigezo cha hali mbaya ya uchumi nchini Marekani,Obama alipaswa kuwa mshindi lakini hilo halijalishi sana kwa vile mada ya mdahalo huo ilikuwa sera za nje,ambalo ni "eneo la kujidai" la McCain ambaye hata hivyo hakupata ushindi mnono kama ilivyotarajiwa.Kwa maana hiyo,kwa kushindwa kutumia vizuri "eneo lake la kujidai" (foreign policy) McCain anajiweka katika nafasi ngumu kwenye mijadala miwili ijayo ambayo inatarajiwa kuwa na mada ambazo ni strong points kwa Obama,kwa mfano uchumi na domestic affairs.

Japo sio hoja ya muhimu,yayumkinika kusema kwamba baadhi ya kauli za McCain kwa Obama zilikuwa kana kwa yuko patronizing.Ni muhimu kuonyesha kwamba wewe ni mjuzi zaidi katika eneo flani kuliko mpinzani wako lakini unapaswa kuwa makini kutoonekana "patronizing."Lakini pengine la muhimu zaidi,and this is my conclusion,Obama ameonekana kuzungumzia zaidi future ya Marekani na hivyo wakala wa mabadiliko (change) wakati McCain,kwa kusisitiza rekodi na uzoefu wake,ameonekana kuwa anapingana na msisitizo wake kwamba nae yuko for change.

BONYEZA HAPA kusikia mdahalo mzima.

18 Sept 2008

Picha ya hapo juu inafurahisha.Ndio namna jamaa wa The Huffington Post wanavyo-summarize masahibu yanayomkumba John McCain.Kwa mujibu wa Gallup polls,Barack Obama amefanikiwa kumwengua McCain kwenye kura za maoni ikiwa ni mara ya kwanza tangu mgombea huyo wa Republicans apande chati kufuatia convention ya chama hicho hivi karibuni.Zaidi,angalia video hii hapa chini

3 Mar 2008

It's every Blackman's dream to see a fellow Black person in the White House.And for that matter,every Black person has is supposed to wish Barack Obama success in his attempt to rewrite American history by becoming the first non-White President of the US,the first Black President of the US of A.However,I just wish Obama does not win the Democratic Party nomination.Sounds weird,doesnt it?Well,simple reason is he would make too soft a target for Conservative smear campaign.And I believe that's why they pretend to admire his performances in the Dem's Primaries and Caucuses:they pray that Hillary Clinton loses to Obama,and that offers a Republican candidate an easy ride to the White House.I'm not suggesting that Obama is a weaker candidate than Hillary,he's shown over and over how strong,determined and likable he is.Conservatives are scared of competing AGAINST Hillary,who they paint as a divisive and controversial figure,because they know how strong and effective the Clinton's political machinery is.Why then is Hillary trailing in some polls?Well,it's not hard to see that she isn't only competing WITH Obama for a Dem's presidential spot but also AGAINST the Republicans and conservatives who knows what to expect should she emerge the winner in the Dem's race.The clips below might give you an idea as what to expect come a day when Obama is the Dem's Presidential candidate.If it's started this early while he isnt yet nominated to run for the presidency,imagine how dirty and vile swiftboat campaigns would be against Obama.

6 Feb 2008

Makala yangu ndani ya toleo la wiki hii la gazeti la Raia Mwema iliandaliwa kabla ya "kimuhemuhe" kilichoanza leo huko Bungeni.Kwa kifupi,makala hiyo inaelezea namna siasa inavyoboa (au ni wanasiasa ndio wanaoboa?) na kutoa mfano wa namna baadhi ya wahafidhina katika chama cha Republicans "wanavyotiana vidole kwenye macho" kufuatia mwenendo mzuri wa harakati za Seneta John McCain kuingia White House kwa tiketi ya chama hicho.

Pia makala hiyo inagusia vimbwanga vya siasa za huko nyumbani kwa kuonyesha mshangao wa namna Spika Samuel Sitta "alivyoruka kimanga" kwamba aliwahi kuweka vikwazo dhidi ya harakati za Dr Slaa kufichua ufisadi wa BoT.Pia makala inazungumzia "utoto" wa CCM (licha ya kuwa majuzi ilitimiza miaka 31) pale inapodai kuwa yenyewe ndiyo iliyoibua hoja ya ufisadi.Hivi Chama hicho kimeishiwa busara namna hiyo hadi kusahau kwamba sababu ya mawaziri wake kuzomewa mikoani ilikuwa ni reactions za wananchi dhidi ya jitihada za vigogo hao kuua hoja za wapinzani kuhusu ufisadi!!!?
Lakini kali zaidi ni pale Spika wa Bunge alipotoa maelekezo kwa Naibu wake kwamba "asikurupuke" kuendesha mijadala ya Richmond na BoT/EPA hadi yeye (Spika) ataporejea kutoka ziarani Marekani.Angalau sasa tunaelewa kwanini Spika alitaka kutumia mbinu za kupoteza muda katika mjadala wa Richmond,kwani RIPOTI YA KAMATI TEULE YA BUNGE KUHUSU MKATABA KATI YA SERIKALI NA KAMPUNI HIYO (BONYEZA HAPA KUISOMA)imemu-implicate Spika kwa namna flani (kwa vile Kituo cha Uwekezaji-IPC-kikiwa chini ya uongozi wa Sitta,kiliiruhusu Richmond iwekeze pasipo kuchunguza uwezo halisi au uwepo wa kampuni hiyo).

Pamoja na makala nyingine zilizokwenda shule ndani ya gazeti hilo,bingirika na makala yangu hiyo kwa KUBONYEZA HAPA.


Blog Archive

© Evarist Chahali 2006-2022

Search Engine Optimization SEO

Powered by Blogger.