Trump finds an old nemesis: the media

doanld

Donald J. Trump is not known for his self-awareness or for an ability to look inward.

He likes to assess blame everywhere else, even where no reason exists to assess such blame.

The Republican presidential nominee has launched another tweet storm in which he blames — get ready for it — the media for his collapsing poll numbers.

There you go. Blame the media.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-on-nyt-their-reporting-is-fiction-226988

It’s a time-honored dodge that politicians use on occasion whenever they seek to divert attention from the real problem at hand — which usually happens to be the message they’re peddling.

He said the media are giving Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton political cover. Trump said the media don’t cover his rallies in an appropriate fashion. He said the media are distorting his message.

It’s the alleged Clinton-Mainstream Media alliance that I find most interesting.

I guess Trump hasn’t read much about the coverage the media have been giving to — in no particular order:

Benghazi, the e-mail controversy, the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative, her husband’s dalliance when he was president, the Whitewater real estate probe, her reluctance to meet with the press regularly, her own negative poll numbers, the public perception that Clinton isn’t “trustworthy.”

So now he’s suggesting the media are to blame because his own poll numbers are plummeting and that he cannot seem find a message — let alone stay on one?

The word “delusional” comes to mind.

Counting down the days …

clinton-trump

A strange habit has grabbed hold of me.

I am finding myself counting down the days to Election Day. All that’s left is for me to put a short-timer’s calendar on the cabinet next to the desk in my home office.

We’ve got 86 days to go.

The last time I watched the calendar with such intensity, I believe, was when I was in the U.S. Army. The first calendar went up when I arrived in Vietnam in March 1969. Then I got home and I put another one up in Fort Lewis, Wash.

I haven’t been so anxious for the end of something as I was then.

This time, I am awaiting the end of this presidential election.

I am particularly tired of listening to Republican nominee Donald J. Trump say things that have nothing to do with public policy. His latest riff now is that the “only way I’ll lose” the election is if it’s “rigged.”

The culprit? Why, it’s “Crooked Hillary” Rodham Clinton, of course!

As for Clinton, I am weary of listening her try to avoid explaining why so many voters dislike her, why they distrust her.

My dear late mother used to warn me about “wishing your life away.” I would tell her, “Gee, Mom, I can’t wait for the weekend. I wish it would hurry up and get here.” That’s when she would issue the wise admonition.

Well, Mom? I’m at it again.

I cannot wait for this campaign to end.

Moreover, I just might put up that short-timer’s calendar.

City takes an astonishing turn

downtown

Maybe I’m easily amazed.

Whatever.

My amazement is focused on what I have perceived to be a remarkable about-face at Amarillo City Hall. It involves the city’s focus on its downtown business and entertainment district. It has gone from a hands-off public policy to a definite hands-on approach.

I am utterly convinced the entire city will reap the benefit.

My wife and I arrived in Amarillo in early 1995 to start a new life — and to continue a life we started when we arrived in Texas 11 years earlier.

We saw a downtown district that was, to put it charitably, in a state of suspended animation. Downtown was in shabby condition. In addition to the Barfield Building and Herring Hotel — two significant structures that have been rotting ever since — the city had the vacant Santa Fe Building with which to contend.

Then the light bulb flickered on at the Potter County Courthouse. County Judge Arthur Ware finagled a deal to purchase the Santa Fe Building for $400,000. He then secured a state historic preservation grant to pay for a renovation of the magnificent 12-story structure. The project was completed — and the county moved some of its offices into the Santa Fe Building.

That might be considered the start of downtown Amarillo’s revival.

City Hall’s outlook, though, remained standoffish. Mayors Kel Seliger and Trent Sisemore seemed uninterested in getting involved directly with downtown revival. They preferred to let private business take the lead. The city might lend support — if it felt a project merited it.

Little happened over nearly a decade.

The pace has accelerated tremendously in the past decade. How did it come about? I believe it has been the result of a more activist City Hall approach.

The city launched a Strategic Action Plan, which produced a vision for the downtown district. It created Downtown Amarillo Inc. Center City became even more of a player. The city created the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone. The Amarillo Economic Development Corp. invested sale tax funds to help some of these projects along.

Meanwhile, private businesses — apparently sensing the energy coming from City Hall — began a series of tangible improvement projects. New bank branches went up. A convenience store was built. The old Fisk Building was turned into a business hotel.

The momentum was building.

Then came the Embassy Suites hotel project. Plans took root to build a parking garage. And, oh yes, we have that multipurpose event venue/ballpark.

Along the way, some folks started expressing anger. They didn’t like the way the city was proceeding with some of these projects. They alleged “secrecy,” which I believe was a dubious accusation.

Sure, we had some serious misfires. Wallace Bajjali — the master development firm hired to oversee downtown’s resurrection — went kaput overnight. That, too, fueled the anger. Well, WB is long gone.

But the movement is continuing.

The City Council has gone through a serious makeover. There have been some more hiccups, mostly created by tensions among some of the council members.

Is all this amazing? Yes it is.

I do not want the city to turn away from its new course.

The city is going to ask voters to approve more than $300 million in infrastructure improvements, just as it asked voters to approve a referendum to build that MPEV downtown.

There are times when local government can step in — and step up — when it perceives a need.

Amarillo saw the need to boost its downtown district. Believe this: When this project is done — as every U.S. community that has taken this kind of proactive approach has learned — the entire city will reap the reward.

Trump still not listening to advice

GettyImages-583518404

Eighty-seven days to go before Election Day.

Public opinion surveys are showing a clear trend: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is opening up a significant lead over Republican candidate Donald J. Trump.

The so-called “battleground states” are leaning increasingly toward Clinton.

So, where is Trump campaigning today? Is he in one of those battleground states battling Clinton tooth-and-nail?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-connecticut-why-is-he-campaigning-there-226959

No. He’s in Connecticut. The Nutmeg State hasn’t voted GOP since 1988. It won’t vote for Trump this time, either.

And this, I believe, sums up just why Trump is losing this campaign.

He’s got a campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who supposedly is an experienced hand. Is Manafort sending Trump into the belly of the beast? Does he actually believe Trump has a shot of winning Connecticut?

My guess: Probably not. Trump is continuing to march to his own cadence.

For someone who knows nothing about politics and even less about government, this is the “strategy” of a loser.

Let’s get busy, Amarillo City Council

MPEV

The author of a letter to the Amarillo Globe-News has sounded an alarm for Amarillo.

He suggests that Lubbock is up to no good in its effort to lure a Double A baseball franchise that is planning to vacate San Antonio. He likens the move to someone who is stealing a kiss.

You see, Amarillo is also trying to bring that same franchise, which is currently called the San Antonio Missions, to the Panhandle. Lubbock has just now joined in the hunt for the same prize.

The headline on the letter to the editor calls Lubbock a “wicked stepsister.”

Interesting description, although it does seem a bit harsh.

But make no mistake, there exists a civic rivalry between the communities.

Lubbock is home to more residents; it has Texas Tech University; it has a first-cabin sports and entertainment venue at the Tech campus. There is this perception that Lubbock is able to land the first-line entertainment acts while Amarillo — as often as not — gets stuck with knock-off “tribute” bands and truck pulls.

Lubbock now it seeks to land a baseball franchise that first came into Amarillo’s sights several months ago.

Amarillo wants the Missions to move here and to take up residence in that downtown ballpark that is set to be built — eventually! — on property across the street from City Hall. The multipurpose event venue is part of the city’s downtown revival effort. The key to the MPEV’s success, though, seems to lie in whether the city can persuade the Missions to come here.

Will the Lubbock initiative get in the way?

I do believe that the time has officially arrived for Amarillo’s City Council to pull together, in unison, for the same goal.

There’s been some signs of fracture among council members since the latest municipal election, which occurred in May 2015. It’s more imperative than before, though, for the governing board to set aside personal differences.

A new MPEV tenant does not want to wade into an environment that — in the words of interim City Manager Terry Childers — has produced a “caustic political environment.”

I don’t yet know what Lubbock has up its municipal sleeve.

However, I do believe it is time for Amarillo to show its chops and ensure this potential suitor that it intends to do all it can to make the MPEV/ballpark a success and that whoever takes up residence in the new venue will enjoy the fruits that success will bring.

Some unity of purpose is in order.

Big crowds don’t necessarily equal big votes

Unfiltered-Voices-From-Donald-Trumps-Crowds

I’m enjoying listening to and reading comments from Donald J. Trump’s fans — some of whom are friends of mine — boast about the size of the rallies he is attracting.

The Republican candidate for president’s rallies, they keep saying, are far bigger than those who listen to Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That’s proof, they say, that Trump is making a comeback. That he’ll win in the end and be elected the 45th president of the United States.

I feel the need to remind them all of this indisputable fact … which is that big crowds don’t necessarily translate into big vote totals.

* George McGovern drew big crowds in 1972. They were loud, boisterous, enthusiastic and dedicated to their man. I know. I was among them. He lost the election that year by 23 percentage points to President Nixon.

* Gary Hart drew big crowds, too, in 1984 as he campaigned for the Democratic nomination. His fans were zealous. He didn’t even get nominated. The Democrat who did, Walter Mondale, lost “bigly” to President Reagan.

* Twenty years earlier, Barry Goldwater had the fervent support of the GOP’s conservative movement. They packed auditoriums and stadiums to hear their guy. Goldwater lost the 1964 election to President Johnson; yep, that was a landslide, too.

* Bernie Sanders just this year was drawing huge crowds. The crowds loved him. Did he win the nomination? No. Clinton did.

This election will decided by which candidate has the better “ground game.” Who between them has an organization ready to mobilize voters? Who is better equipped to target voting blocs? Which of them is going to develop the better ad campaign?

Crowd size? Sure, it’s nice to speak to more than just family and friends. The size of the crowds or the decibel level of their cheers, though, do not guarantee a thing on Election Day.

It may be too late for Trump to ‘turn it around’

donald-trump

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead over Donald J. Trump is large — and it’s getting larger.

The pundit class, though, seems somewhat fixated on how the Republican Party’s presidential nominee can “turn it around” if he has a chance of defeating his Democratic Party opponent.

My own view is that Trump likely is well past the point of no return.

Will a speech do it? Does he need to embarrass Clinton at any of the three joint appearances scheduled? Forget about the VP encounter between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence; that won’t change a thing.

It looks for all the world as though Trump’s interminably long record of insults and his astonishing demonstration of ignorance about anything involving public policy has done him in.

How in the world does this buffoon/clown/carnival barker/con man/narcissist persuade voters now — at this point — that all that prior stuff was just a joke?

He cannot help himself. He cannot resist the urge to veer off into some nonsensical rant whenever he delivers what passes for a “campaign stump speech.”

He vows to “unify” the Republican Party, then he trashes the GOP leadership. Party hot shots are deserting him in droves. I heard last night that Trump was coming to Texas for a fundraiser, but the biggest donors in the state aren’t going to show up.

The only possible way for Clinton to lose this election would be for something truly terrible to come out about her. Or … she would have to drool all over herself or somehow revert to some form of Trump-like campaign stump-speech riff that makes as little sense as the stuff that’s been pouring out of Trump’s mouth for the past year.

Sure, the first thing is entirely possible. We might learn something egregious about Clinton. Then again, the most scrutinized and examined political candidate of the past quarter century has weathered lots of storms already.

I once wrote on this blog that the election figured to be a blowout. Then I thought Trump might make a race of it. I’m back to believing a rout is in the making.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/05/time-to-handicap-the-fall-election/

 

‘Patriot’ tosses out the ‘t-word’ to media

Original caption: Benedict Arnold.  Treason of Arnold.  He persuaded Andre to conceal the papers in his boot. --- Image by © Bettmann/CORBIS

I can think of few things worse to call someone than a “traitor.”

“Child molester” comes to mind. So does “murderer.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/12/trump_rally-goer_to_cnn_reporter_i_am_a_patriot_and_you_are_a_traitor.html

But the guy noted in this video link has decided that he is an “American patriot” and that a CNN news crew comprises “traitors.”

He uttered that epithet at the end of a Donald J. Trump campaign rally where, I am guessing, the Republican Party presidential nominee had some unkind things to say about the media.

The barbs Trump likely slung at the media got the requisite cheers from the crowd.

And then it produced this response from the self-described “American patriot,” who also felt the need to offer the middle-finger salute to the camera crew.

Nice …

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion.

TV news ‘contributors’ need to come clean

hillary

Even as a longtime print guy — someone who earned his living writing for newspapers for more than three decades — I remain quite respectful of broadcast journalists and their craft.

I say that even as broadcast journalism is morphing into something few of us barely recognize from the days when we broke into journalism three, four, five decades ago.

The cable and broadcast news networks now are full of “contributors,” pundits who often come to their new calling from the partisan political world.

An online report brings to light a fascinating and troubling trend in the TV coverage of the presidential campaign. It is the absence of full disclosure by political pundits to the campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign/

Viewers are listening to “contributors” such as, Stephanie Cutter, say that Hillary Clinton has done “nothing wrong” in her presidential campaign. They do not hear Cutter — or her employers at CNN — reveal that she has financial ties to the Clinton campaign.

CNN recently hired former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski as a “contributor.” It didn’t reveal that Lewandowski was still getting paid by the Trump campaign even after he was let go as its campaign manager.

The broadcast and cable news outlets are full of these contributors, though, who have some form of financial connection to Clinton.

Honestly, I am troubled in the first place by all these political hacks who find themselves offering analysis on the state of the campaign. My own preference would be for the networks to rely more on think tank types, journalists who make their living offering such analysis and perhaps academics.

Sure, they need to be “telegenic” and be able to present themselves and their views in a cogent and understandable manner.

Does any of this pro-Clinton slant — and the financial connections to the candidate herself — doom or candidacy? Should it? No to questions.

Consumers of news and analysis, though, would be served far better if the contributors revealed their own financial interest in the candidate they are praising.

Tax returns, Mr. Trump … tax returns

hillary

Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Democratic running mate, Tim Kaine, have released their tax returns.

Now it’s time for Donald Trump and his running Republican running mate, MIke Pence, to do the same.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-releases-2015-tax-return-prods-trump-to-do-the-same/ar-BBvyxbS?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

This issue will not go away. Nor should it as long as Trump continues to hide behind some kind of phony excuse about the Internal Revenue Service audit.

IRS officials say an audit doesn’t prevent someone from releasing returns to the public.

Here’s an interesting twist to the Trump refusal to do what other presidential candidates have been doing since 1976: it’s that he has been insisting that President Obama release his academic records at Harvard; he bitched about the president’s birth, insisting that he release his birth certificate to prove he actually was born in the United States.

Now, with the focus on his own tax returns — and his continuing boasts about how rich and successful he has been — Trump refuses to let us all in on what should be public knowledge.

How much is he really worth? How much has he given to charity? How much does he pay in taxes? What is the nature of his foreign investments?

We’ve seen Hillary Clinton’s returns. She and her husband made a lot of money this past year. They also paid a significant portion in taxes. They gave to charity, although most of that charitable giving went to their foundation.

It’s your turn, Donald Trump.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience