Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

‘Impeach This’ projects false narrative

This emblem could be seen throughout the crowd of Donald Trump supporters milling about the American Airlines Center prior to the president’s “Keep America Great” rally inside the downtown Dallas arena.

Oh, it makes for a somewhat humorous response to efforts in the House of Representatives to impeach Trump on allegations that he has broken laws and violated his oath of office by soliciting foreign governments for political help.

The symbol it displays, though, misrepresents the 2016 presidential election result. I might not need to explain what it shows, but I’ll do so anyway.

The blue sections represent the counties that Hillary Rodham Clinton carried in 2016; the vast expanse of red on the map shows those counties that Donald Trump carried.

Impressive, yes? Well … not so fast!

You see, land mass doesn’t count in elections. What matters are the individuals who live on that land mass and how they cast their ballots.

My meaning is quite obvious. Clinton collected nearly 3 million more votes than Trump in 2016. Trump, though, was able to cobble together a narrow Electoral College victory — 304-227 — to win the presidency. He did so with a deft campaign strategy that focused on three Rust Belt states near the end of the campaign: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, all three of which voted twice for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Clinton squandered those states’ electoral votes by essentially taking them for granted. Trump’s victory margin in all three states totaled roughly 77,000 votes; thus, he won their electoral votes and got himself elected president.

Trump didn’t win by a “landslide,” which he keeps saying while campaigning for re-election. It’s just another presidential lie that his followers have accepted as some form of truth.

Waiting for Trumpsters to make positive case for POTUS’s re-election

The 2020 presidential election campaign is still in its formative stages. Democrats still are winnowing down a huge field of contenders/pretenders for their party’s nomination. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is gearing up as the Republicans’ nominee.

OK, so what might we expect to hear from the Trump Team as it seeks to get its man re-elected?

The economy will be front and center of Trump’s theme. Fine. The numbers have been good. Unemployment is low. Job growth has been brisk. However, there are danger signs lurking. Economists suggest a recession might be in the country’s near future.

However, even though he denigrates his immediate predecessor’s record over two terms as president, Trump did inherit an economy that was in far better shape than the one that dropped onto President Barack Obama’s lap in January 2009.

Beyond that, I want to hear from Trump’s allies why this man who has masqueraded as president deserves to be re-elected. I want them to make a positive case for him.

I’ll be clear that there’s nothing they can tell me that will change my mind. In my view, Trump is unfit for office. Name any category you wish — previous experience, business acumen, morality, ideology, presidential behavior — in my view he fails every test you can imagine.

I am willing to listen to those who are willing to make the case.

Who will stand up, grab a microphone and tell us that Donald Trump possesses all the essential qualities we expect in a president. Who will say he is compassionate? Or that he listens to Americans? Or that he studies the issues before acting on them? Or that he grasps the complexities of his office, or the massive federal government?

Trump’s own strategy likely will be steeped in innuendo, just as it was in 2016 when he surprised the political world by defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton. He won’t proclaim his own virtues, other than those he fabricates: his intelligence and his memory.

Trump’s campaign team will have to craft a message that echoes the boss’s own penchant for tearing down the opposition, just as it did when he won the previous presidential election.

Is that enough to send this guy back to the Oval Office for another four years? No. It damn sure isn’t.

However, I am awaiting something that resembles a positive message. To be candid, I likely won’t know how to react if I hear one.

Maybe I will just laugh out loud.

Just who can slug it out with Donald Trump?

It is now a given. Donald J. Trump will conduct a mean, unorthodox and vile campaign for re-election as president of the United States.

The question facing Democrats as they look over their still quite large field of presidential candidates is: Who among them is willing and able to stand up to the onslaught that Trump will hurl at them?

I have my doubts about all of ’em.

I believe it is becoming clearer by the week, if not daily, that this campaign is going to rest between Trump and one of four, maybe five, Democratic contenders.

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie (gulp!) Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and (maybe) Beto O’Rourke stand at the top of candidates who I think will stay the course beyond the first caucuses and primaries. If only Kamala Harris could shake the race up just a bit more.

It might be that someone will emerge as the gut fighter the Democrats will need if they have a chance of defeating the carnival barker in chief. Remember when former first lady Michelle Obama implored Democrats to “go high” when Republicans “go low”? We can kiss that mantra good bye, or so it appears to me at this moment.

Trump is a street fighter. The hideousness he displayed while beating Hillary Clinton in 2016 might resemble a hen party by the time he gets ramped up against whomever the Democratic Party nominates next summer to run against him.

I will lay this out right now, as if it’s a big surprise … which it isn’t. Any of the Democrats now in the field — with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders — would have my vote against Trump in November 2020. Why not possibly Bernie? Because his mantra about wealth inequality is becoming like a one-note samba.

Donald Trump never should have gotten elected in 2016. The Democrats’ major error was in nominating someone who had at least as many negatives going for her as Trump. I know what you might be thinking: Sure, you can say that now, even though you were predicting a big win for Hillary the last time. Well, I wasn’t alone.

I guess the task now for the field of Democratic challengers is for someone among them to emerge as the toughest of the bunch to handle the nastiness that is sure to come from the president.

I just wish someone could stake that claim.

GOP ‘canceling’ elections in effort to ‘rig’ POTUS’s re-election?

I am sure you remember when Republican Party presidential nominee Donald J. Trump accused Democrats of trying to “rig” the 2016 party nomination process to favor of Hillary Clinton.

He never really offered any scenario on how that would be done, but he kept yammering and yapping about it.

Well, the GOP now has a strategy to “rig” its nominating process to favor Trump’s effort to be nominated by his party in 2020. They’re planning to cancel primary elections in various states in an effort to protect a weakened incumbent.

Trump faces possibly three party challengers, former U.S. Reps. Mark Sanford and Joe Walsh and former Gov. William Weld. States party organizations are seeking ways to cancel the primary elections because they fear a possible Trump loss in any upcoming GOP primary.

Is it “rigged”?

I know this isn’t exactly unprecedented. Democrats have done the same thing in recent election cycles, such as what happened in South Carolina in 2012 when President Obama sought re-election; the South Carolina Democratic Party canceled that state’s primary eight years ago. One thing, though: No Democrats rose to challenge the president.

This one seems a bit different, given the expressed interest among three Republican politicians in challenging an incumbent GOP president.

Yep. It looks like they’re “rigging” the outcome.

Innuendo hurler in chief is at it again

Donald J. Trump has hurled another innuendo at local election officials, alleging voter fraud without offering a scintilla of evidence to buttress his latest specious complaint.

He said he lost New Hampshire in the 2016 presidential election to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton because of “voter fraud” in the Granite State.

Does he have any proof? Is there any evidence to support the president? Of course not! It’s not how Donald Trump rolls.

He lost the popular vote nationally to Clinton by nearly 3 million ballots. Trump said the margin came from millions of illegal votes cast by undocumented immigrants in California. Did he ever produce any evidence of that? Nope. None, man! Zilch.

He formed a phony commission to root out voter fraud headed by Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, but then disbanded the commission suddenly. Hmm. Why do you suppose he did that? My guess is that there was nothing to back up the ridiculous notion that Trump has posited.

So now he’s going after New Hampshire officials. He alleges voter fraud. There likely isn’t any.

The Innuendo Hurler in Chief is disgracing his office yet again.

Was the 2016 election ‘rigged,’ Mr. POTUS?

Mr. President, I lost count of the number of times you said that the 2016 election would be “rigged” if Hillary Rodham Clinton were to win the presidency.

I remember how it became a sort of campaign stump speech mantra. You kept hammering away at what you said would be a “rigged” result stemming from what you said were “Crooked Hillary’s” instincts. I recall how you said the Democratic Party rigged its nomination outcome to ensure Clinton would carry the party banner against you over Bernie Sanders.

Well, your victory surprised a lot of us, Mr. President.

But then came the reports of Russian hackers interfering in our electoral system. I accept that Robert Mueller’s investigation said you and your campaign didn’t conspire to collude with the Russians.

However, his insistence that the Russian interfered on your behalf brings to mind the question: Was the 2016 election “rigged” to benefit you, Mr. President, over your opponent?

You have kept so very quiet about that aspect of the election. I know you have stood by your pal Vladimir Putin’s denial that he interfered in our electoral process. I also know how you’ve undercut the nation’s intelligence network that says categorically that the Russians interfered in our election.

I once thought out loud that the Russian attack didn’t have a discernible impact on the election result. I have changed my mind.

Trump takes despicable behavior even lower … honestly!

I thought maybe I was reading a joke. Or something from The Onion, the satirical “newspaper” that prints spoofs in such a believable fashion.

But no-o-o-o. It was real.

Jeffrey Epstein, the accused sex trafficker, died in a Manhattan jail. The former pal of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump supposedly hanged himself.

So, what does the president of the United States do? He retweets a bizarre notion that the former president and his wife, former U.S. senator and secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, are complicit in Epstein’s death.

I am going to presume a couple of things might be in play. One is that Trump actually believes it. Another is that he is so filled with hatred for Hillary and Bill Clinton that he would smear them in this manner. Still another is that POTUS might have some sort of political death wish. OK, the last thing is the least likely.

Hatred runs deep

I am inclined to think that Donald Trump hates the Clintons to a degree that he would do anything on Earth to defame them.

For the president to do what’s been reported is about as despicable an act I can imagine.

This man has no shame. Or decency.

USA Today had it so right in 2016

On Sept. 29, 2016, the Gannett-owned USA Today newspaper broke with tradition it had set for itself.

It had vowed to avoid endorsing presidential candidates. It has chosen over the decades to comment on issues, but has shied away from suggesting how voters should cast their ballots. “Until now,” USA Today wrote in 2016.

It turns out that all the matters that concerned USA Today’s editors during his presidential run have distressingly true during his time in office. His “erratic” behavior, his lies, his lack of interest, his “checkered” business career, his prejudicial rhetoric … it’s all there.

You can read the editorial here. I encourage you to read what USA Today said in 2016. I looked at it just today and am stunned at how prescient the paper’s editors have proven to have been.

To be clear, USA Today was not enamored of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Trump’s 2016 opponent. It merely stated that Trump was so clearly unfit and unqualified for the office he sought that Clinton, by comparison, was the better choice by default.

It’s good to look back as we prepare to look ahead to the next presidential election.

I want to commend USA Today’s editorial board for expressing the vision that it saw with the election of Donald Trump. It saw a massive train wreck and, by golly, the 45th president of the United States has delivered it.

Do we really want four more years of what this man has brought?

I pray not.

POTUS: Do as I say, not as I have done … for decades!

Oh, Mr. President, you just cannot stop tripping over yourself.

Your statement issued over the weekend that The Squad shouldn’t criticize the presidency, the nation, its policies flies directly in the face of your own personal history.

You tell the four Democratic congresswomen with whom you have been feuding that they need to quell their criticism. They shouldn’t speak ill of the government, you say. They shouldn’t speak out against our nation’s policies. You tell them, essentially, to keep their mouths shut.

Then you say they owe you, the nation and the rest of Americans and apology for all those criticisms they have leveled.

Are you serious, Mr. President?

What in the world did you do for decades? You did precisely the very thing you accuse Reps. Alyanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of doing?

Many of us remember the epithets you hurled at President Obama, at Hillary and Bill Clinton, various local officials at several levels of government. You have called previous presidents “stupid.” You have slung intensely personal insults at presidents and senior Cabinet officials.

Hey, Mr. President, I am just one of your constituents out here, but I think I speak for others who wonder the same thing. You, sir, lack the moral standing to instruct anyone else on how to conduct themselves as it regards those in power.

You have spent a lifetime leveling intense — and often deeply personal — criticism of others.

Now you expect four freshmen members of Congress to clam up just because you tell them to do so?

You cannot possibly be serious.

2020 election really might be the ‘most important in our lifetime’

Every presidential election cycle we hear the same thing: This is going to be the “most important election in our lifetime.”

The candidates say it. Their handlers say it. Many in the media say it.

The election — no matter the context, the backdrop or the candidates — is the “most important” election we’ll see for as long as we live.

You know what? The 2020 election really and truly might be that election. It truly might tell us plenty about ourselves, how much we can tolerate in our political leaders and whether the 2016’s result was much of a fluke as many of us — such as me — believe it was.

Donald Trump’s re-election campaign essentially began the day after he was inaugurated. If not on the day itself!

He has been campaigning basically since the moment he stepped off the podium in front of the Capitol Building.

Why do I attach such significance to this election coming up? Because in my estimation Donald John Trump had no business winning the Republican Party nomination in 2016, let alone winning the election over a supremely more qualified opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Yes, Hillary Clinton had plenty of negatives. She might not have been the best-suited candidate to oppose Trump, but she at least knows how government works; Trump knows not a damn thing.

He has been lying and misrepresenting almost every aspect of his presidency, starting with the way he has characterized his election. Trump got elected by one of the narrowest margins possible; he lost the actual vote by nearly 3 million ballots but squeaked by with enough Electoral College votes to win the White House. Yes, he won it legally, but it was far from the historic landslide he has portrayed it.

The 2020 election well could be a referendum on a return to what the late Sen. John McCain used to refer to as “regular order.” Trump has upset that order at almost every level imaginable. I am one American who prefers that our president knows government, understands the Constitution and is able to forge relationships — if not friendships — with politicians with whom he has disagreements.

I believe the country can withstand four more years of Trump, but the price would be enormous.

The 2020 election can stem that huge cost. Therefore, this upcoming election could actually be the most important in our lifetime.