Declaring war on the democratic process

democracy

It’s rare in the extreme to see and hear a candidate for high public office do what Donald J. Trump has done.

The Republican nominee for president of the United States not only is campaigning against his Democratic foe, Hillary Rodham Clinton, he’s also declaring war against the political system that is likely to elect her to the highest office in the land.

As many of us have noted so often during this election year, in any other election cycle, such a preposterous campaign tactic would be an immediate disqualifier.

Not with Trump, the huckster extraordinaire.

This clown in chief has managed to cast aspersions on the very system of electing people to high public office. I do not believe he’ll be able to win the election. However, he has fired up the base of his once-great party to the point that nearly half of his fellow Republicans believe that a Clinton victory will be the result of a “rigged” election.

This is scary stuff, folks.

Some of them are talking about open rebellion if/when Clinton wins. What’s worse is that Trump is fueling that hideous narrative by suggesting he won’t honor the results if/when Clinton gets elected.

The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank writes that Clinton’s strategy now is to not only defeat Trump, but to “humiliate” him by pressing hard in normally GOP states such as Utah, Arizona and, yes, Texas.

Historians are going to think long and hard when they write about the implications of this election. Clinton and Trump both describe it as the most  consequential election in generations. I agree with that, but perhaps not for the stated reasons they believe.

The consequence quite likely may lie in what it means moving past Election Day — and whether Donald Trump’s declaration of war against democracy itself will result in a further undermining of our electoral system.

Cadillac Ranch: May it stand for a very long time

caddies

I’ve just made my second trip to Cadillac Ranch in the past three days, taking members of my family out there — on the south side of Interstate 40 just west of Amarillo — to see this unique roadside attraction for the first time.

My cousin asked me today as we drove out of Palo Duro Canyon, “What is Cadillac Ranch, precisely?”

My answer: “It’s art.”

Those of you who’ve seen it know of what I speak. For those who don’t: It is 10 Cadillacs stuck nose-first into a pasture. They’re lined up perfectly and they purportedly are angled to face the Great Pyramids of Giza, Egypt … or so legend has it.

The trip today was fascinating for another reason: the number of motorists who had pulled off the highway to take a gander at this place.

The site was strewn with spray-paint cans on this glorious, sunny day on the High Plains. And many visitors were partaking of the chance to leave their mark on the Caddies.

Whenever I bring visitors to the place, I am compelled to tell them of the ranch’s origin. I tell them it was the creation of the late Stanley Marsh 3, the eccentric/weird Amarillo “art patron” who thought it would be cool, I guess, to stick the Caddies in the ground.

Marsh’s died not long ago. His legacy is — to say it charitably — a mixed bag. His eccentricity is legendary in West Texas. So is his philanthropy, as he and his wife have given a lot of money to fund higher education, as well as the arts, in Amarillo and elsewhere.

But there’s a darker side to Marsh’s history: the allegations of sexual misconduct. Given that such acts are in the news these days as they involve a certain Republican Party presidential nominee, I find it timely to mention here today.

Marsh had been charged with crimes involving young males. Even as he battled the cancer that eventually would take his life, Marsh was forced to defend himself against some serious allegations of misconduct. He ended up paying a lot of settlement money to those who had filed criminal complaints against him.

Then he died.

In the period immediately after his death, some of Marsh’s more strident critics called for the demolition of Cadillac Ranch. They want it removed from alongside the highway, believing the Cadillacs remind the community of the illegal acts for which Marsh had been accused.

My own thought is that the Cadillacs ought to remain for as long as they can withstand the sometimes-harsh High Plains elements.

The many motorists who pull of the highway to gawk at the cars, take “selfies” with them in the background or engage in some spray-painting fun likely don’t know — nor perhaps care about — the complete history of the Man Behind the Cadillacs.

Let’s keep them there. Cadillac Ranch remains to this very day a major attraction for those who choose to learn just a little about the quirky nature of this part of Texas.

The large number of cars and people I saw today illustrates the interest the Cadillacs create in those who are passing through.

Charity event proves candidates’ mutual loathing

You need not look any further to determine  whether the two major-party candidates for president of the United States — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump — truly detest each other.

They showed it Thursday night at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York City.

It’s an event aimed at raising money for work done by the Catholic Church. The headliners are the two candidates for president. History holds that they poke good-natured fun at each other and at themselves.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-clinton-trade-biting-jokes-at-al-smith-dinner-after-fiery-debate/ar-AAjcEG4?li=BBnb7Kz

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney did it beautifully four years ago, as did Obama and John McCain four years before that. YouTube is full of hilarious comedic riffs from both events.

Last night was a different story — entirely.

For the first time in anyone’s memory, Trump actually got booed for some of the things he said about Clinton. Did anyone actually think he would exhibit a hint of self-deprecation, that he would turn the tables on himself? You know the answer to that one.

Clinton was little better during her time at the mic. She did manage to jab at herself … but seriously?

There was true loathing on display.

What I believe we have witnessed in this campaign has been a ratcheting up of what’s been called the “politics of personal destruction.”

It’s gotten so bitter, so angry, so vindictive that the major-party nominees for the presidency cannot set aside — even for a couple of hours — their seeming hatred for each other.

The Smith dinner is supposed to demonstrate one of the rare qualities of American political life, about how politicians can set aside their differences if only for an evening. Instead, it showed us just how angry we have become.

It saddens me.

 

 

 

‘Such a nasty woman’

aajcgbc

I guess that’s how you summarize Donald J. Trump’s view of the candidate who’s about to defeat him in one of the most miserable presidential campaigns in most folks’ memory.

“Such a nasty woman,” he said while Hillary Rodham Clinton was explaining her proposed tax policy.

It was a revealing moment in a debate full of them.

Trump had just said that “no one has more respect for women” than he does, eliciting laughter from some in the audience attending the third presidential debate.

Then came the “nasty woman” rejoinder.

Sigh …

Trump said he’ll accept the results of the election “if I win.” Then he took some of that back, saying he would accept the result — no matter who wins — barring any questionable returns.

My strong hunch, though, is that a lot of women heard what he said out loud to the first female major-party presidential nominee and will not like it.

I sense that a landslide may be in the making.

Abortion enters the presidential debate

Chalkboard - Abortion

Of all the ridiculous assertions Donald J. Trump has made during his time as the Republican presidential nominee, perhaps the most ghoulish came out of his mouth during his final debate with Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He asserted that Clinton would favor allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy literally on the eve of giving birth to her child.

Trump sought to label Clinton some who could support a doctor “ripping the baby out” of the womb two or three days before birth.

Clinton’s response was to challenge the manner in which Trump described what occurs when a woman decides to end a pregnancy, referring to it as a scare tactic.

Frankly, I also was horrified at how Trump described it.

I get that abortion is one of those topics no one likes talking about. It lies at the heart of the “most painful decision” a woman has to make, as Clinton answered.

She continued to hold to her view that government should not force a woman to do something that could jeopardize her own health, such as deliver a child.

However, I do not ever recall Clinton asserting anything of the sort that Trump described during his anti-abortion rant.

A discussion on this subject does require, it seems to me, an element of civility. Yes, I know that many people consider abortion to be among the most uncivilized acts that human beings commit.

For the purposes of a political discussion? Let’s dispense with the demagoguery.

There’s class … and then there’s Trump

Donald J. Trump keeps exhibiting a profound lack of class and grace as he stumbles his way toward a losing bid to become president of the United States.

bush-and-clinton

He needs to take a lesson from the gentleman on the right in this picture. That would be President George H. W. Bush. The other fellow in this photo is the man who defeated him in 1992, President Bill Clinton.

It’s a tradition for presidents to leave notes for their successor in the Oval Office. President Bush did so when he vacated the presidency on Jan. 20, 1993.

letter

It’s attached in the link I’ve added to this blog. Take a look at it.

It overflows with the kind of class one should expect in a losing candidate for the presidency. This note also is quite riveting, given that George H.W. Bush wrote it to the man who defeated him in a tough, aggressive and often negative presidential campaign.

What are we getting from the current Republican nominee as this campaign staggers toward the finish line? Bluster and threats.

 

Trump tears at the American democratic fabric

alice_gore

Donald J. Trump’s refusal to agree to accept the results of the election in the event he loses — which now seems more probable than ever — raises historic concerns about where we might be headed once all the ballots are counted.

The Republican presidential nominee would not commit to accepting the outcome while responding to a question from debate moderator Chris Wallace. He’ll “look at it” when the moment comes, Trump said.

Trump is now on the cusp of losing the presidency to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. We’ve had a long and well-established — and wisely admired — tradition in this country of losing presidential candidates accepting these results with grace and class.

Peaceful transition of presidential power begins right there.

Trump won’t promise to do that.

Oh, I can hear my friends on the right now griping about the “precedent” set in 2000 when Democratic nominee Al Gore refused to concede the election to Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

The immediate aftermath of that vote count was swathed in tension and controversy. The results from Florida weren’t yet known. That state’s electoral votes would be decisive in determining the next president. Gore conceded, then took it back once it became evident that another authority needed to step in; that would be the U.S. Supreme Court.

Well, the court ruled 5-4 that the Florida ballot recount should stop and that Bush would finish with 537 more votes in that state than Gore. Bush won the state — and was elected president.

What did Gore do? He conceded again — for the final time — and in the process brought some humor into the event by agreeing that “this time” he wouldn’t take it back.

He offered his full support to the new president.

So, let’s get off this idiotic notion that Al Gore did what Trump might do on Election Night.

Donald Trump is hinting that he might not accept the results no matter how wide the margin. In the process, Trump is feeding a dangerous — and demonstrably false — narrative about “rigged” and “phony” election results.

Trump feeds conspiracy narrative

donald-trump-flickr-cc

Donald J. Trump more than likely elicited cheers across the nation in the living rooms of those who believe as he does about the integrity of the national electoral process.

He did so by feeding into that hideous narrative — which he has initiated — that the presidential election is rigged against him.

Fox News’s Chris Wallace, the moderator of tonight’s third and final debate between Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton, asked him straight away: Will you accept the results of the election if voters choose Hillary Clinton?

His answer was just short of a direct “no!” He said he’ll look at it at the time. Trump, the Republican nominee, effectively admitted on national television that he doesn’t trust the system and he won’t commit to honoring the results and continuing this nation’s long tradition of promoting peaceful transition of power from one president to the next one.

My major takeaway from the debate tonight was that the GOP nominee demonstrated — yet again! — just how unfit he is for the office he is seeking.

Donald Trump is pandering to the ill-founded fears of those who have swallowed the bait he has tossed them that the system, the media, the powers that be all are conspiring to defeat him and to elect Hillary Clinton.

As the legendary TV character Army Col. Sherman T. Potter would say: mule muffins!

Finally … the end of this campaign is near

presidential-debate

We have family members visiting us and I’m giving some semi-serious thought to having something of a tailgate party Wednesday in advance of the third — and thankfully, final — face-off between Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Donald J. Trump.

Political junkies have heard it already: The campaign is essentially over. Trump scuttled his presidential bid with that hideous recording of him talking about how he feels about women.

It’s now Clinton’s election to lose. You know, as an aside, I’ve never been comfortable with that phrase, given that I don’t really know what it means.

But the two of ’em are going to square off in the final debate. Fox News’s Chris Wallace will moderate this event. I have complete confidence in his ability to grill them with equal ferocity.

Having said something about a tailgate party, I’ll now stipulate that the end of this campaign cannot arrive soon enough.

It’s been a miserable affair.

About the only thing I’ve learned is that a once-towering American political party has nominated someone — Trump — who has proven to be totally, categorically and unequivocally unqualified to become president of the United States.

So … let’s finish it off.

Ponder when elections are ‘rigged’

donald-trump4

Donald J. Trump is playing the “rigged election”  card as if it’s a new gambit.

The Republican presidential nominee says the electoral system is “rigged.” He says voter fraud is rampant at polling places. He blames the media for “rigging” its coverage of his battle with Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I must add, too, that he says all this without providing a scintilla of credible evidence.

Well, way back in the early days of the GOP primary, Trump lost the Iowa caucus to Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. His excuse then? It was “rigged,” he said. Cruz’s team stole that one from Trump, said the eventual party nominee.

The rigged election stuff is the mantra of someone who’s going to lose. That’s all it is.

As for the media bias he keeps harping on, I feel a need to mention only this: The media gave Trump invaluable free advertising and publicity throughout his march to the GOP nomination. He called a press event? The media were there. He made a statement of any kind, carrying any kind of weight? The media covered it like a blanket. Trump would fire off an accusation or call an opponent a schoolyard-style name? Why, the media were on that, too.

Trump is about to lose his first and likely final campaign for public office. He is sounding like someone who doesn’t know how to lose with grace and class.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience