Tag Archives: Trump inaugural

‘American carnage’ continues

This must be said: The most memorable line from Donald John Trump’s inaugural address didn’t appeal to our highest ideals, but instead it spoke to one of the scourges that plagues our society.

The president said on Jan. 20, 2017: “This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.”

Now, to be fair, he was referring to the scourge of drugs and gang violence. The law-and-order candidate who became president vowed to end the violence associated with that activity.

However, the “American carnage” that continues to plague us has spilled more blood, caused more heartache, shed more tears, delivered more grief to the nation.

Eleven worshipers at a Pittsburgh, Pa., synagogue were gunned down early Saturday. Four police officers were injured. The cops arrested a man in connection with the slaughter at the Tree of Life temple.

He reportedly is a virulent anti-Semite. He has committed the worst attack on the Jewish American community in U.S. history. The suspect faces charges associated with hate crimes.

The American carnage is continuing. There appears to be no sign of an end to it. The president is demonstrating — to the absolute non-surprise to millions of Americans — a jaw-dropping inability to comfort a nation in mourning.

Admittedly, this latest spasm of bloodletting isn’t “this American carnage” to which the new president referred in his inaugural speech. Nevertheless, it is an American carnage that needs the nation’s undivided attention.

Pittsburgh now joins the roster of communities stricken by mass murder: Littleton, Aurora, Orlando, Springfield, Charleston, Parkland, Orlando, Newtown, Blacksburg, Killeen, Santa Fe, Sutherland Springs … my goodness, I simply cannot remember all of them.

They all have been victimized by the “American carnage.”

Mr. President, you have work to do. Get busy.

Can the president set a different tone for discussion?

I am now going to wonder out loud: Is the president of the United States wired in a way that enables him to shift the tone of the public discussion?

Donald Trump has been ranting and railing seemingly since the beginning of his presidency. Every major speech he has delivered — beginning with the Inaugural — has been laced with gloom, doom, anger and rage. He took office proclaiming the nation to be in a disastrous state. He pledged to fix what ails the nation.

But along the way he has continually and incessantly blamed, in no particular order, his immediate predecessor, Democrats in Congress, the media, illegal immigrants and individuals and groups that are too numerous to single out in this blog.

Republicans have largely given the president a pass. Not all of them, though, have remained quiet. Some lame-duck congressional Republicans have pointedly called Trump out over some of his various idiotic statements.

All of that has prompted Trump to respond with vigor and extreme prejudice against those who oppose him.

Thus, the gloom, doom, anger and rage has only accelerated.

We’re not even two years into the president’s term in office and it already feels as though he’s been in front of us forever.

He launched his re-election campaign less than six months after taking office in January 2017. He’s already in full re-election campaign mode, traveling to various communities in states he won in 2016. He is firing off lie after lie while hurling insults at his political foes.

My question about the president’s emotional wiring stems from my belief that were he able to do so, he could change the tone and tenor of the national discussion all by himself. Yes, the president who said that “I, alone” can fix what troubles the nation could “alone” change the tone of the discussion.

He chooses not to do that. He calls himself a fighter, someone who hits back at those who throw the first punch, toss the first stone, hurl the first insult.

The result has been an increase in the national anger. The American political divide has turned into a political chasm.

A president who vowed to “unify” the nation has it within his power to make good on his pledge. He has decided instead to keep us divided.

That’s how he rolls.

This is how you ‘unify’ the country? No way!

Democrats can fix their forced family breakup at the Border by working with Republicans on new legislation, for a change! This is why we need more Republicans elected in November. Democrats are good at only three things, High Taxes, High Crime and Obstruction. Sad!

There you have it. One more tweet from the president of the United States of America, the fellow who promised to “unify” the country after his election in 2016.

Donald J. Trump is failing miserably in keeping that particular promise.

Trump’s election came after one of the bitterest and most bizarre political campaigns in U.S. history. He entered the presidential race after ignoring any aspect of public service for his entire working life. He insulted and denigrated a competent and qualified field of GOP candidates en route to capturing the party’s presidential nomination.

Then he insulted and denigrated his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, on his way to the stunning Electoral College victory he scored.

Trump’s inaugural address was nothing short of grim and ghastly. The only line anyone seems to remember is the one about “the American carnage” stopping “right here and right now.”

Democrats now have taken on the role of high tax, high crime obstructionists in Trump’s view of the world.

Presidents assume power presumably understanding that they make decisions on everyone’s behalf, even those who voted against them. Trump has decided instead to talk directly — and exclusively — to the bloc of voters who have hung with him.

To suggest that those of the other party are interested only in promoting high crime, high taxes and obstructionism is a direct slap in the face of tens of millions of Americans, many of whom actually want the president to succeed.

I happen to be one of those Americans. I didn’t vote for Trump. I won’t vote for him in 2020, presuming he’s still in office and gets nominated again by his party. I align myself more with Democrats than with Republicans.

That all said, I do not consider high taxes, high crime and obstructionism to be the prescription for American greatness.

Unity, Mr. President? When are you going to deliver on that pledge?

Yet another, um, ‘exaggeration’ from Trump

Is it an exaggeration or is it an outright lie?

Donald John Trump has declared, apparently without any proof, that his State of the Union speech was watched by the largest TV audience in the history of the broadcast medium.

The president’s declaration has been challenged, of course, by those who reminded him that other recent presidents spoke to larger audiences than he did. Some have reminded the president than an earlier speech he delivered, in 2017, to a joint congressional sessions was larger than the audience he drew for this week’s State of the Union.

It’s shades of the argument over the size of the Trump inaugural crowd all over again.

I guess we can expect this kind of foolishness from the president. The issue boils down to whether we believe it is (a) a mere exaggeration, (b) a misspoken statement or (c) an outright lie.

I am inclined to believe the third option. Why? Because the president knows — or he should know — the truth, but refuses deliberately to speak it.

Keep it civil at SOTU

I have been preaching and screeching seemingly since The Flood about the need for greater civility and collegiality in the halls of political power.

Here comes my pitch for more of the same this week. The president of the United States is going to deliver his first State of the Union speech before a joint session of Congress.

Donald J. Trump will stand at the podium and will seek to tell the nation about how he sees the condition of things in the country and lay out his agenda for the future.

Yes, I’ll be watching along with the rest of the nation’s political junkies to see how his message will be received by Democrats. You know Republicans will cheer, whoop and holler at everything that comes from the president’s mouth. The Democrats? Let’s just say they’ll be more, um, circumspect.

There’s talk of congressional Democrats boycotting the event.

President Barack Obama wasn’t always treated with utmost respect by members of the opposing party when he delivered State of the Union speeches. There was the infamous “You lie!” epithet that came from U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson. I’ve commented, too, about how congressmen and women would operate their “devices” while sitting on the floor while ostensibly “listening” to the president.

The most recent time a president received universal applause from a joint congressional session clearly was when President Bush spoke to the nation immediately after 9/11. We were united in our sorrow and rage and Congress reflected that sense of national resolve.

My hope for Donald Trump is that he is treated with courtesy.

Many of us don’t like the idea of this man sitting in this office. However, he is the duly elected president of the United States. The office deserves loads of respect. It’s my belief that members of Congress assembled in front of the president should treat the office with reverence — and should act accordingly.

As for the president’s pledge that he will seek to unify the nation when he delivers his State of the Union speech, I’ll only add that he had that chance at his inaugural. It didn’t work out that way.

I am hoping for — if not necessarily expecting — a better outcome.

Politics can be so very poetic

I know I am not the only American who believes this, but the possible partial government shutdown seems to sum up quite nicely the first year of Donald Trump’s chaotic presidency.

Politics can be, oh, so poetic at times.

Such as right now.

It is quite possible that we’re going to wake up Saturday with the government shuttering some of its doors and windows. And think of it: This event might occur on the exact date one year after Donald Trump took the presidential oath of office.

No Drama Obama handed the White House keys over to All Chaos All the Time Trump.

Ain’t it cool? Well, no. It’s not.

The government shutdown, if it comes, will signify to me that Donald Trump’s time as president has come to a form of full circle.

He stood on the Capitol podium one year ago and delivered that dark, forbidding inaugural speech. Then right out of the chute, brand new press secretary Sean Spicer scolded the White House press corps with a scathing rebuke of its reporting of the size of the president’s inaugural crowd.

That, dear reader, set the tone for how this administration was going to conduct business.

So, here we are. One year later, we’re about the close many government offices, denying services to Americans who are entitled to partake of services they pay for with their tax money.

Trump, meanwhile, is chiding Democrats because they insist on a funding bill that takes care of so-called “Dreamers,” those U.S. residents brought here illegally when they were children. Democrats are chiding Republicans over their insistence that a funding bill include money to build a “big, beautiful wall” along our southern border.

The president’s “leadership” on this government funding madness has been missing in action.

I’ll just remind you all that of all the principals involved in this fight, only one of them represents the entire country: the president of the United States.

To borrow a phrase, Donald Trump “is leading from behind.”

Ah, yes. The political poetry of this chaos is so very telling.

As is its irony.

Still waiting for unification

Has it only been less than a year since Donald J. Trump took the presidential oath of office?

Gosh, it seems like so-o-o-o much longer. Does it to you? No need to answer.

I recall so vividly one of the many promises the then-president elect made during the transition into power. He pledged to “unify” the country ripped apart by one of the most divisive, hateful, spiteful and insult-driven presidential campaigns in history.

How’s he done so far as his first year in office approaches?

Umm, not too well.

His fellow congressional Republicans have sought to govern without any help from congressional Democrats. The president has cheered them on.

The only phrase from the new president’s dark, dismal and desultory inaugural speech mentioned “the American carnage,” and how he intended to stop it “right here and right now.” Has it stopped?

Nope. We’ve seen massacres in Orlando, Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs. How has the president responded to them? By blaming Democrats.

The Charlottesville riot perhaps is the nadir of the president’s plan to “unify” the nation. He talked of “good people” among the white supremacist, Nazis and Klansmen who gathered to protest the taking down of a Confederate memorial.

How many “good people” have you ever met who belonged to the KKK, or offered that stiff-armed Nazi salute? I know the answer to that one.

The conservative media are now leading the chorus for the president to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, whose “Russia thing” investigation is proceeding with all deliberate speed. Is that a unifying component? Hardly.

Let’s sum it up.

The nation is as divided as ever. Maybe more so since, oh, the Civil War or the Vietnam War. The president who vowed to bring us together hasn’t made the grade.

The honeymoon he was supposed to get when he took office vanished the moment he began — on Inauguration Day — offering that dark view of the world’s greatest nation.

Unity? We’re far from it, Mr. President.

It’s only been a year since the ’16 election?

We’re about to commemorate the longest political year in many of our lives.

We’ll mark the event this coming Wednesday. One year ago, American voters — in my oh-so-humble view — made a monumental mistake. They elected Donald John Trump Sr. as president of the United States of America.

I might be inclined to wait until Jan. 20 — Inauguration Day — to call attention to this one-year-later moment. Except that the “fun” started almost immediately after the votes were counted.

Hillary Rodham Clinton ended up with nearly 3 million more votes cast for her than for Trump. However, Trump won where it counted, in the Electoral College.

My wife and I remember watching it unfold with some friends in Amarillo. We went to our friends’ home expecting to cheer Clinton’s election as the nation’s first female president. Then came words none of us wanted to hear. They came from longtime Democratic operative James Carville, who said on CNN that, “I don’t like what’s happening” with the vote count.

Trump was picking off states that Barack Obama won twice: Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin.

It was game over fairly early.

It’s been a rocky year since the election, don’t you think? Trump got inaugurated and managed to make a mess out of that event, quibbling with reporting that challenged the size of the crowd gathered in front of the Capitol Building.

The new president’s inaugural speech was dark, forbidding and grim. The one comment that sticks in our craw, ‘er, mind is when he said “The American carnage stops right here.” Uplifting, right?

It’s been one hissy fit after another ever since.

One would hope to mark the moment by calling it an “anniversary” of sorts. I won’t use that term to describe this upcoming event. Anniversaries are meant to celebrate things: weddings, moon landings, heroic events. You know. Positive occurrences.

I get that many readers of this blog will disagree with me on this. But  don’t consider Donald Trump’s election as president to be a happy event. It saddens, sickens and frightens me.

And to think it was just a year ago. It seems like an eternity.

(Crowd) size really must matter

You mean we’re still talking about the size of that inaugural crowd this past January? We’re still arguing over whether it measured up to what the brand new president of the United States called it — the largest gathering of human beings in world history … or something like that?

I guess in Donald J. Trump’s world, size matters.

The National Park Service’s inspector general now says the agency didn’t mess with the crowd size estimates of Trump’s inaugural nor did it leak any information to the media.

The Hill reports on the IG’s findings. Read the story here.

This malarkey about crowd size seemed to get under the president’s skin early this year. Various media published pictures showing the crowd gathered in front of Capitol Building at President Barack Obama’s first inaugural in 2009 and compared it to the crowd that heard Trump’s speech this past January. Obama’s crowd was, um, quite a bit larger.

Trump didn’t like hearing that. White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s initial press briefing included a serious scolding of the media for failing to report that the president’s inaugural crowd was the largest in history. The pictures, though, tell a different story.

Will this spell the end of this mini-tempest? Probably not, as long as Donald John Trump is president of the United States.

‘Alternative facts’ will become Trumpster’s new ID

Kellyanne Conway parlayed her experience as a public opinion pollster to a successful run as a presidential campaign manager.

She’s now a senior adviser to the new president of the United States.

Conway now has become the face and the voice of one of the more remarkable verbal miscues many of us have heard in some time.

She talked this morning about White House press secretary Sean Spicer’s version of a silly story dealing with the size of the crowd at Donald J. Trump’s inaugural. Then she referred to something called Spicer’s “alternative facts.”

“Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd then sought to clarify what he heard by responding that there are facts and there are falsehoods.

Thus, a punchline was born.

This business of electing a new president is quite serious, indeed. I don’t intend to beat this horse any deader than it is, but in its way, Conway’s “alternative facts” notion seems to be the perfect metaphor for the discussion that prompted it.

Spicer’s angry rejoinder to the media about their reporting of the crowd size was ridiculous on its face. Then came Conway’s “alternative facts” gaffe.

Conway’s role as senior adviser requires her to speak well of her boss. I get it. Honest, I do. I don’t know what she’s thinking privately, of course, but it seems quite reasonable to believe she might be kicking herself tonight for uttering that silly statement.

Maybe she ought to take a page from former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the president’s pick to become energy secretary. Perry said this past week he now regrets calling for the elimination of the Department of Energy when he, too, was running for president.

Conway might consider taking a couple of days away from media representatives and then tell them “I regret” providing so much grist for late-night comedians.

I am one American who would accept her contrition.