Tag Archives: 2020 election

Yes, Sen. Cornyn, we need a law

I believe I will disagree with John Cornyn, the senior Republican U.S. senator from Texas.

He said the nation doesn’t need a law that requires political candidates to report foreign interference in our elections to the FBI. Cornyn said it should be understood that politicians should report foreign interference to authorities. Cornyn said he would do so if such an attack occurred in an election in which he would be involved. Good for him. I’m glad he would do the right thing.

However, we have a president of the United States who now admits to flouting normal procedure at every turn. Donald Trump told ABC News that if a foreign country — such as “Norway,” as Trump said — had information a political opponent, he would “look at it.”

The Senate sought to enact legislation that would have required candidates to report such interference to authorities, but it was blocked by freshman Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.

Cornyn doesn’t see a problem with Blackburn blocking the bill. According to the Texas Tribune: “The simple answer is call the FBI and let them investigate it,” Cornyn said. “We don’t need to pass a law to do that.”

In a perfect political world, by all means you don’t need such a law. However, this old world of ours is far from perfect, as the election of Donald Trump has demonstrated with remarkable clarity. Trump has denied any Russian interference in the 2016 election. Now he says he would allow it in future elections and he “might” notify the FBI.

Cornyn says we don’t need a law to prevent such a thing?

I believe we do need a law, Sen. Cornyn.

No, Mr. POTUS, economy doesn’t hinge on your re-election

Mr. President, you need to stop the braggadocio. As in right now!

I know you don’t heed this advice, but I have to get it off my chest.

You have declared that the fate and future of our nation’s economic well-being depends on your re-election. I read where you tweeted some nonsense about how the market will crash in unprecedented ways if you lose the election next year.

C’mon! Knock it off! If the economy craters it will do so on the basis of a lot of factors that have nothing to do with your re-election. It might have everything to do with the idiotic policies you seek to enact. Starting with those tariffs on imported goods from Mexico.

Your delusion is sounding more like desperation, if you want my humble view of it.

You’ve boasted about having that “big brain,” about how you know the “best words,” how you cut the “best deals,” how you surround yourself with the “best people” and how you are a “stable genius” who attended the “best schools” in human history.

If you were as great and glorious as you say you are, why do so many of us out here — even in Flyover Country — want to see you walk out of the Oval Office for the final time?

Yeah, I know. You have your supporters. God bless ’em. They see things differently than I do, or the way most Americans apparently do.

Just cool it with the bragging and self-aggrandizement. You work for us, Mr. President. Let us decide how you are doing. I am one of your bosses who wants you replaced.

FEC boss says, ‘Wait, Mr. POTUS; that’s illegal!’

Donald Trump has said openly and in front of the whole world that he would “look at” negative information about a political opponent that came to him from a foreign nation, even a foreign government.

Except …

The head of the U.S. Federal Election Commission, Ellen Weintraub, has declared with equal vigor that accepting such assistance is illegal … and unconstitutional.

As The Hill reported: Doubling down on why that’s unconstitutional, Weintraub said “this is not a novel concept,” adding that “our Founding Fathers sounded the alarm about ‘foreign Interference, Intrigue and Influence.'”

Great mother of God in heaven. What in the world is careening around in the vacuous skull of the president of the United States?

He has signaled to the entire world that he would possibly accept such foreign assistance, that he wouldn’t necessarily inform the FBI, despite what the FBI director, Christopher Wray, has said what the president should do, which is tell the FBI.

Weintraub said via Twitter: “Let me make something 100 percent clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

I shall add that Weintraub isn’t some shmuck political hack. She holds degrees from Yale and Harvard Law School. Let me be clear: She knows of which she speaks.

Donald Trump is posing, as former VP Joe Biden said, “an existential threat” to our system of government, our values, our way of life, our political norms.

Astonishingly, the president’s own reckless and feckless mouth has delivered that danger to our doorstep.

Is this the ‘impeachable’ moment?

Can it be that Donald Trump has just scripted his own impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives?

I am wondering if his declaration today to ABC News that he would be willing to break the law if a foreign power produced negative information about a political opponent while he is running for re-election as president of the United States. Trump said he would “look at” the information and wouldn’t feel the need to report it to the FBI.

FBI director Christopher Wray just a month ago told Congress that anyone who got such info must report it to his agency.

Trump told George Stephanopoulos that “the FBI director is wrong.”

Who do you trust? The lying, amoral, unethical head of state or the career professional prosecutor and law enforcement official?

I’m going to stand with Christopher Wray.

As for the House of Representatives and, yes, the Republican-controlled Senate, they should, too.

The question of the moment is this: Will they?

Stand firm, FBI director Wray

I want to declare right here and right now my strong desire for FBI director Christopher Wray to stay where he is, in charge of the world’s premier law enforcement/investigative agency.

You see, Wray has just been undermined by the man who appointed him to his office, the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

Trump told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos that he would accept information about a political foe presented to him by a foreign power, even a hostile foreign power, such as, oh, Russia.

Director Wray, though, has said specifically and categorically that any political candidate whose campaign receives such information must turn it over the FBI.

Trump said when reminded of Wray’s view by Stephanopoulos that “The FBI director is wrong.”

There you have it. The president once again is refusing directly to back the wisdom cited by the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Do not go anywhere, Christopher Wray.

Yes, it likely will be a trying time for Wray as the 2020 presidential election gets into full swing. The Russians attacked our electoral system in 2016. Wray’s predecessor as FBI director, James Comey, began looking deeply into “The Russia Thing” and got fired by the president.

The FBI needs a strong leader. Christopher Wray appears to be a grownup and a law enforcement and legal pro. I realize that an ethical professional would find it trying, indeed, to work in a government administration led by someone without an scintilla of ethical understanding.

I just want to beseech Christopher Wray. The nation needs this man. Badly.

Trump would do what? He’d take info on foe from foreign power?

Donald Trump has spoken words I never thought I ever would hear come out of the mouth of a president of the United States of America.

He has told a U.S. TV news anchor that if a foreign power brought information to him or his campaign about a political opponent that he would “take it.” Yes, he would accept that information.

Oh, and he also might notify the FBI that someone had delivered him “opposition research” on a political opponent.

Trump sat in the Oval Office and took questions from George Stephanopoulos, who asked him what he would do if a foreign power sought to interfere with a U.S. election the way the Russians did in 2016. Trump didn’t call it “interference.” He compared it to what members of Congress get all the time from groups doing “oppo research” on political foes.

No. It isn’t the same.

This revelation came from the president of the United States. He already has been investigated at great length over whether his 2016 campaign accepted dirt on Hillary Rodham Clinton. Trump to this very day apparently sees nothing wrong with a foreign power — in the case of Russia, a hostile foreign power — interfering in our electoral system.

FBI director Christopher Wray said any candidate should report such action immediately to the FBI, Stephanopoulos told Trump. “The FBI director is wrong,” Trump responded.

This is unbelievable! It’s incredible! It’s, um, unpatriotic!

There might be anything illegal about accepting such information from a foreign power. However, isn’t there any sense of whether it is right?

Where is the president’s sense of ethics? No need to answer that. I know where it is. It doesn’t exist anywhere inside the man who occupies the Oval Office.

I guess we might be able to presume that if the Russians are going to repeat their 2016 dirty work in the 2020 election that the president would be just fine with it.

Astonishing!

Polls are useless this far out from Election Day

I am going to breathe a heavy sigh as I write these next few sentences.

I heard today that Joseph R. Biden Jr. leads Donald J. Trump Sr. by 13 percentage points, according to a Quinnipiac University public opinion poll. The media have exploded over those findings. They say the poll results point to potentially serious trouble for the president if former Vice President Biden emerges as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2020.

Allow me to state the obvious: Any poll this far away from Election Day does not mean a single thing. Nothing, man! Zero.

Must we be reminded that Donald Trump was seen as a novelty candidate when he declared his presidential candidacy in the summer of 2015? No one took this TV celebrity/real estate mogul seriously.

We take him seriously now, at least in terms of his standing as the president of the United States of America.

Do I want him to lose the 2020 election? Well, yeah! I do! I intend to use this blog as a forum to seek his ouster as president no later than Election Day 2020.

However, the polling that’s being kicked around a year and a half from the next election shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Talk to me, pollsters and pundits, next spring. Or maybe next summer. Then I’ll pay attention to the polls.

POTUS is an ‘existential threat’ to the country he governs?

Just wondering: When have you ever heard someone describe the president of the United States as an “existential threat” to the very nation he was elected govern?

Never? Maybe once in an epochal age? Yeah, maybe.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, one of many Democrats seeking to succeed Donald Trump as president, has called Trump such a threat to the nation.

He is touring Iowa, that key caucus state that kicks off the presidential campaign. He is talking about Trump’s politics of fear and division; he is warning us about Trump’s attacks on American institutions, such as the media.

He is going straight after Donald Trump’s character, or lack of character. He is calling the president a criminal and someone who cannot be trusted to represent this nation firmly on the world stage.

Yes, that is how I would describe the president as well.

Those elements comprise an existential threat to the very nation that somehow, against all reason and odds, elected him to the most noble office in the land.

Still, the hear such a description coming from a major candidate for that office call the incumbent an “existential threat” takes this discussion to a level I do not recognize.

It’s only going to get stranger.

Civility likely to require long-term rehab

If we look ahead for a moment to the November 2020 presidential election, then we need to ponder what I consider to be the worst possible outcome: the re-election of Donald John Trump.

The president might win a second term. What in the world is going to occur then? How will the next Congress deal with a president who labels Democrats to be everything short of spawns of Satan? He won’t work with Democrats because they are continuing to insist on searching for answers to that still-nagging Russia electoral interference issue.

For their part, Democrats won’t be pleased, either, with the prospect of working while Trump is still in office. How in the world will they react? Will they keep saying and doing things that sets Trump off on endless Twitter tirades?

Imagine the president traveling overseas after the 2020 election and behaving as he did at Normandy during the commemoration of the D-Day landings of June 1944. He sat in front of those 9,000 headstones where U.S. servicemen are buried and called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a “disaster.”

Just suppose, too, that Pelosi keeps her speakership after the 2020 election. How is she going to react to more verbal trashing from the president?

Oh, and then there’s the Senate, which might flip from Republican control to Democratic control.

Imagine that scenario, with Democrats possibly controlling both legislative chambers while Republicans keep possession of the keys to the White House.

Civility? It’s a goner. I continue to hope we can find it. Somewhere. Somehow.

It’s gone for as long as Donald Trump remains in an office for which he is totally unqualified … and I’ll say it again: for which he is unfit.

Large field broadens the scope of quality candidates

I said during the 2016 Republican Party presidential primary campaign that the GOP field was deep and full of highly qualified individuals.

My favorite in the field of 17 became then-Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a man of considerable legislative accomplishment during his years in Congress, particularly as chairman of the House Budget Committee when he worked with Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Clinton to produce a balanced federal budget.

He didn’t make the grade, of course. GOP voters settled on the carnival barker/reality TV celebrity/phony self-made real estate mogul Donald Trump.

The GOP winner is now running for re-election as president of the United States.

He faces an even larger field of Democratic challengers, not to mention at least one challenger from within his own Republican Party.

The big Democratic primary field is full of talent, too.

I am officially undecided on who I prefer to see nominated to run against the “stable genius” who masquerades as POTUS.

None of the heretofore unknowns has yet to bust through the glass, surprising the nation with his or her political strength. Yes, we have a former vice president in the field; he is holding on to a large lead among the candidates seeking to run against Trump.

We also have a 2016 primary also-ran in the Democratic field.

There’s the small-town mayor, a few U.S. senators, a couple of governors, some (current and former) House members and a smattering of candidates who, to be candid, I don’t know what they do during the day.

But . . . they all have assorted skills and experience that I am quite sure commend them for the toughest job in the world.

I won’t go so far out on that ol’ limb to suggest that any of dozens of Democrats would be preferable to the incumbent.

However, a lot of them fit the bill. I want to hear more from them this time, just as I wanted to hear more from the GOP field in 2016.

My hope is that the consequence of this large field of Democrats only shortens the odds of a quality challenger emerging to defeat Donald Trump a year from November and send him out of the White House as quickly as humanly possible.

Please, let there be no repeat of the hideous mistake that Republican Party primary voters made when they nominated the huckster in chief.