Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John McCain. Show all posts

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Common Ground - Raj Verma

The Race Behind the Race



There can only be one winner. Well, usually. On its face, the debates showcase competing egos and differing ideologies all with the aim of securing the most powerful position in American government. A subtle look at the presidential debates reveals a different race for other coveted posts, and is something to debate about. As you watch the Presidential debates and discuss the various differences on foreign policy, domestic issues, and character traits, be aware that some of those on stage are vying for desirable and high-impact positions in the winner’s administration. If the polls, at this point, suggest that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and gain the Presidential nomination, does candidate Bill Richardson return as Secretary of Energy? Will Edwards be appointed to a post in the administration? Perhaps Clinton will nominate Obama for a position on the Supreme Court. Similarly, if Giuliani grabs the nomination on the Republican side, do we see Mike Huckabee appointed as Secretary of the Interior? Perhaps John McCain is interested in a post in the State Department. Is he preparing himself for such a position?

One has to remember that although the candidates present themselves in the most ‘presidential’ manner as possible, there can only be one president, and all the candidates bring various strengths to the table that better equips them for a position they currently hold (senator, governor) or a position they may seek (Secretary of State, Vice President). All the candidates brandish strong credentials. But take a closer look at the debates and identify who is vying for an alternative position. One clear example of this appears to be the well-orchestrated positioning of Joseph Biden and Bill Richardson, two darkhorse candidates who have virtually little to no shot at winning the presidency. In a recent debate, Biden and Richardson both admonished Obama and Edwards indirectly for attacking Clinton’s integrity and character. Was this a noble gesture? Or a subtle hint to Clinton—‘I’ll protect you now, you find a position for me later’? The next time you watch the Presidential candidates during the debate, be aware of the jockeying, the kind of positioning that will help each candidate win, in ways that you may not expect.





Raj Verma, JD/MPA
Blog Contributor

Raj Verma is the President of the Future Leaders Council for USINPAC. He currently resides in Washington DC.



Thursday, October 18, 2007

Common Ground - By Raj Verma

Back to Fundamentals


In response to last week’s USINPAC Quick Vote on whether the U.S. Constitution and American form of government was founded on Christian principles, the answer must be undeniably in the affirmative. What is remarkable to observe in our society is the degree of outrage and animosity displayed by some individuals and groups when a public official makes a statement affirming the idea that this country was founded on Christian principles. These groups find this assertion offensive and an affront to their own religious expression. More and more, we see an exaggerated sensitivity among various groups who deny the historical facts of this nation’s heritage. To say that this country was not founded on Christian principles and/or beliefs is tantamount to saying that the Apollo space mission to the moon was actually a bogus plot that was captured on film in the desert of Arizona. While the Constitution and American form of government was forged primarily out of a compromise among competing articulations of an effectively governed society and political expediency, nevertheless it is absolutely true that the Constitution rests on Christian principles. In turn, this is not to state that non-Christians in a democratic society cannot be leaders or stewards of democratic principles, nor does it imply that we are strictly a ‘Christian-nation’. It appears that we all too often are over-sensitive to public statements that simply iterate the historical truth about the nation’s heritage and foundation, which by all measures, has been eminently successful. Many times, we attempt to replace statements about faith, principles and values grounded in Christianity as remarks that condemn and submerge other religious groups. This should not and is not the case. Rather, by affirming the intellectual honest answer that the Constitution and American form of government possesses clear Christian principles, we can still have an ideologically diverse society, reconciled by the fact that universally-acknowledged values, albeit Christian values, drive our nation’s glory and not to the exclusion of other religious or non-religious groups.

The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution fully recognized, not by their own personal desire, but out of necessity, that a peaceful, organized, and enriched democratic society could not withstand the forces of divisiveness and depravity that exists as part of human nature unless a higher authority was invoked. In devising the Constitution, these ‘wise men’ did not simply grasp principles out of thin air. Rather, the Founding Fathers were entrenched in Christian intellectual thought (even though some of the Founding Fathers claimed to be Deists) and others were Christians themselves. The enormous pitfalls and political devastation in Europe prior to 1776 illustrates the perspective and context by which the American form of government and Constitution was crafted. Although the Founding Fathers were fully aware of the harm placed on a society that constructed government as a purely religious institution, unduly indoctrinating their constituents, the key issue that was to be addressed in crafting the document was recognizing the nature of humanity and what kinds of principles and beliefs accurately reflected human behavior. The Christian principles of human depravity and dignity were extracted from the Bible to influence the Constitution and American form of separate but equal government, precisely because these principles accurately reflected what was observed in the human condition. Furthermore, the written statements of James Madison, John Adams, and Daniel Webster, among others, evidence the principles of Christianity in the Constitution (although the term ‘God’ is not displayed in the Constitution itself, rather, the principles of Christianity are firmly exhibited). James Madison, considered the ‘architect of the Constitution,’ noted, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions on the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves, according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

Whether it be religiously inspired or culturally inscribed, the average and common citizen can agree on universally acknowledged values that the Constitution rests upon. The principles of human depravity and dignity, respect for authority and rule of law, among others, are favorably recognized among many other religious and non-religious citizens. As a result, citizens from any religious or non-religious faith can emerge as leaders of this country, whether it be as board member of the local school district, to President of the United States, as long as that person can be held responsible for safeguarding the democratic and Christian principles and values enshrined in the Constitution.

It is important, as a nation, not to become overly-sensitive to comments made by public officials or private citizens who remark about the foundation of this country’s heritage as ‘Christian-based’. Hindus, Mormons, Muslims, Sikhs, and atheists should not feel alarmed or threatened when a statement is made that ‘this country is founded on Christian principles’. The statement is a recognition of what is (a fact)-good or bad- and in that sense can only be good, because this country has progressed over the course of 200 years to fully accommodate the different views, perspectives, and beliefs of a variety of people, without compromising its foundational elements. Of course, it is entirely appropriate to condemn and exercise outrage when public statements about a particular people and their beliefs are made in condescending fashion, such as the case with political candidate George Allen’s reference to Indian-Americans as ‘Maccaccas’. But to smuggle in the course of discussion legitimate statements made about this country’s Christian heritage into the category of Allen’s reprehensible remarks is misguided and unworthy, because it debases the truth and historical facts to that of lies and half-truths. The interpretation of many non-Christian groups about public statements made about the country’s heritage as an assault on their own beliefs is quite odd, and sadly, unnecessary. In the final analysis, we need only agree that the principles of this country, whether or not one believes are derived from Christianity, are effective and have successfully produced excellent citizens, and that to continue on this positive trend, we need moral and virtuous leaders (Christian or non-Christian) to safeguard these principles and values- the very principles that make this country unique and enriched.






Raj Verma, JD/MPA
Blog Contributor

Raj Verma is the President of the Future Leaders Council for USINPAC. He currently resides in Washington DC.

Friday, October 5, 2007

3rd Quarter Fundraising Amounts – Dems Win, Again


The 3rd quarter fundraising results are out with a huge disparity again favoring the Democrats. The WSJ reports that for the year, the top Democrats have raised $239.7 million to the $160.5 million raised by the top Republicans.

On the Democratic side, the race is on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Obama surprised many by raising $20 million in a typically slow quarter. The next day, Clinton topped that by raising $27 million.

Republicans Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani sharpened their rivalry with both reporting similar fundraising amounts of $10.5 million and $11 million. Newcomer Fred Thompson came in third with $9.3 million. Ron Paul shocked many by raising $5 million in the last 3 months. This was $4 million more than rival Mike Huckabee and a million less than John McCain, who has recently had a comeback in the polls.

Why is there such a disparity between the two parties? Well looking at recent polls, Hillary continues to dominate her party’s nomination race, but the Republican race is still in the air with some candidates the winning in the national polls, others winning in the primary states, and key groups like evangelicals unsure of who to support.



Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Only Christians Can Be Presidents?



It seems as though John McCain has slipped up to say that he thinks essentially only Christians Can be President. This occured in an interview with a website known as BeliefNet which actually has Presidential Candidates "God-O-Meter" where John McCain ranks the MOST GOD FRIENDLY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE after his video interview stating he would be uncomfortable with a Muslim president.

CNN reports that Muslims and Christians alike are disappointed with these comments where McCain has come out to apologize. I think this shows how out of touch John McCain and the Republican Party is with the American people. A few days back Sanjay Puri had a great piece (Someone Hire the Republicans a Demographic Statistician) which shows how influential the groups the Republicans seem to be ignoring really are.

The question I want to ask is do Republicans ACTUALLY BELIEVE this garbage they spin or are they just trying to win an election from the typical "republican base". The Indian American community has seen little to no traction from the Republican Candidates in responding to community requests. The only candidate who has made an effort so far has been Mitt Romney and you can see his message to the community in the Candidates Message Section.


Jay Shah

Monday, October 1, 2007

SOMEONE HIRE THE REPUBLICANS A DEMOGRAPHIC STATISTICIAN: By Sanjay Puri


The leading Republican Presidential Candidates: Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and McCain were a no show at last Thursday night’s Republican debate at Morgan State University. It is shocking to see the lack of foresight about the changing electorate demographics in the Country by the Republican leadership. Being a party of Southern white voters is not going to win them too many Presidential elections in the future.

If the Republicans hired demographic statisticians they would have told them that currently African Americans and Hispanics comprise about 80 plus million out of 300 million Americans, add another 10 million Asians and they are basically over 30 percent of the population. Also future trends show that one out of two new born in this country is a Hispanic. So these statisticians would tell them that it is a demographic suicide to alienate these fast growing minority groups.

Being a no show at key minority events is a slap on the face of these communities since these events are symbolic to them of their growing maturity in the political process. The Presidential candidates are taking the approach that they are not going to get too many African American votes in the case of the Morgan State University so why bother. Well it could be a self fulfilling prophecy for the Republicans since their share of the African American vote could be lower than usual in 2008.

Their strident tone in the immigration debate in the Senate and the continued anti immigration positions by these Presidential candidates in the primaries will cost them dearly with the Hispanic vote and also campaign support from the affluent Asian community. They don’t get it that just like anti-immigration groups don’t like immigration and don’t make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration, pro immigration groups consider Presidential candidates who are against illegal immigration as being against immigration. The Republican leadership needs to be reminded of Pete Wilson in California and Proposition 187. Several key states besides the two coasts are impacted by the immigrant vote in places like South West and Mountain West USA.

The leadership of the Republican Party which is not running for the Presidential race or aligned with any of these candidates should step up and clearly speak about this issue and establish ground rules for the future. Mandating some presence and participation at key minority political events even if they are not in the friendliest atmosphere is a must if they want to be a party that can produce a presidential candidate that is going to look for support from the entire nation. Right now they way the political map is configured, between the African American, Hispanic and Asian communities the Republicans are getting positioned to write off over 30% of Americans and look to win a majority of 51% of support from 70% of the votes. Do the math, getting 51% from 100% is hard enough, 51% from 70% is impossible. They might wring out a bare victory in 2008 but the future looks very bleak.

The irony is that if you put aside the issue of Iraq which finds deep anguish in most Americans, there are minorities who are fiscally conservative and emphasize family values. But the Republicans have not really reached out to them and they feel that the reaching out has been mainly for campaign funds and not a systematic approach of nurturing them. Having Sen. Martinez and Lt. Gov. Steele in key positions at the Republican Party helps but Sen. Martinez could not get his own party lined up on the immigration debate.

The Republicans are at a key defining moment,, it is time for their sharpest minds like Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie, Haley Barbour and others to decide whether they want to be a party of the present or of the future since they are about to be wiped out by a demographic explosion which even a amateur demographer can advise them on!
________________________________________________________________________

Sanjay Puri
Chairman USINPAC

Friday, September 28, 2007

Top 4 GOP Candidates Criticized for not Attending Minority Debate


Last night historically black Morgan State University held a debate for the Republican candidates to speak on issues affecting minorities. Absent from the PBS aired debate were the top 4 leading GOP candidates: Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mitt Romney. All used the typical “scheduling conflict” excuse to skip the event. The event coordinators left the 4 empty podiums up (see picture above) for these candidates, which I think sent a powerful message.

Fortunately, the six other candidates, as well as past election candidate Alan Keyes attended. This gave a more exclusive opportunity to hear the “lower tier” candidates’ views on issues like illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, minority unemployment rates and their position on capital punishment.

All the participants expressed their embarrassment for the party and the candidates that did not show. Even soon to be decided presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich remarked that it was a mistake for them not to attend.

Why do you think the top tier GOP candidates did not attend? Was it intentional or do you really think all of them had better things to do than participate on a national forum? If so, maybe they should get their priorities straight.

Read the full article here.

Anay Shah

Blog Editor