Category Archives: national news

national news

Trump = extreme danger

3 Comments

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

What in the name of political insanity is Donald J. Trump trying to do?

He has been asked many times about whether he would commit to a “peaceful transition” of power in the event he loses the election in November.

Trump won’t commit. He won’t say he’ll hand the reins of power to Joseph Biden. He won’t follow the example set by every single one of his presidential predecessors.

Oh, no! This president is saying we need to “get rid of the ballots” he insists are being sent out illegally to millions of Americans. He doesn’t offer a shred of proof for anything he alleges.

Folks, we have a dangerous man on our hands. We have a man who is fomenting fear of our cherished electoral system. He is seeking to undermine the process we have used since the beginning of the republic to elect our presidents.

“We’ll have to see what happens.”

That is Donald Trump’s statement regarding the election. See what happens?

What quite possibly will “happen” will be that Joe Biden gets more votes than Trump. He will acquire more than enough Electoral College votes than Trump. Biden will be duly elected as the 46th president of the United States.

Trump, though, is going to cast doubt on the outcome. Indeed, he is setting that table already. He is ignoring what the FBI says is occurring, that Russia is working to interfere in the election just as it did in 2016.

He won’t commit to a peaceful transition in the event of a Joe Biden victory?

This is a dangerous man.

national news

Mr. POTUS, you have failed this test

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

The juxtaposition of two events is startling to behold.

Donald Trump told Fox News that he gives himself an A+ grade in his handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

He said that on the day the U.S. death count from the virus surpassed 200,000 people. Their lives have ended and the lives of their loved ones have been changed forever.

Outside the White House, a reporter asked Trump how he responds to the death count. His answer? He turned to another reporter and asked, “Next question?”

The commander in chief cannot speak to the death count, he won’t answer for it, he won’t hold himself accountable at any level for the misery that has occurred on his watch.

Yet he grades himself with an A+?

Is this guy serious? Of course he thinks of himself in the most glowing, glorious and gleeful terms.

The rest of us know better.

legal news, national news

‘Not written in the stars’

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I kinda think U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah has missed a key point in the fight over whether Donald Trump should proceed quickly with nominating someone to the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

Romney said he would support moving forward quickly, endorsing the idea of a rapid-fire confirmation process, despite assurances from many key GOP senators in 2016 that they would oppose such a thing, even with a Republican president awaiting the chance to nominate someone in a presidential election year.

Sen. Romney declared Tuesday that there nothing “in the stars” that requires the SCOTUS to be a “liberal” court. That was his public declaration in stating his support for moving ahead. I am scratching my head over that one, Mitt.

We all get that elections have consequences. Trump promised to select conservative judges. He is delivering on the pledge. It’s the timing of it, the idea that an election now no longer stands as an impediment to the president being able to select someone. The GOP sang an entirely different tune in 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia died and President Obama sought to name Merrick Garland to the high court. GOP Senate leaders — namely Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — slammed the brakes on that, declaring that the “people deserve a voice” in determining who sits on the Supreme Court.

Well, they deserve as much of a voice today as they did then.

That’s the beef. It has little to do with whether a president can select who he wants.

I was hoping Mitt Romney would put principle above party — just as he did when he was the lone GOP senator to vote to convict Trump of abuse of power in his Senate impeachment trial.

Silly me. Mitt let us all down.

national news

McCain endorses Biden

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I guess you could say that politics at times can travel full circle.

Consider this: The wife of the man against whom Joe Biden ran in 2008 has endorsed the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nominee’s bid for the presidency of the United States.

Cindy McCain, wife of the late senator and Vietnam War hero John McCain, says Biden is the “only man” who speaks for the nation’s values.

At one level this endorsement isn’t surprising. Biden and McCain were the best of friends. They came from different parties; they differed politically and philosophically. They also shared a love of country and a commitment to serving the public. Biden’s path took him to the Senate by the time he turned 30 while McCain’s journey took him to the Navy and then to the Vietnam War, where he was shot down and imprisoned (and tortured repeatedly) for more than five years; he came home in 1973 and became a successful politician.

Biden ran as vice president on a ticket led by Barack Obama in 2008. They defeated the GOP ticket led by U.S. Sen. McCain, who ran with Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Biden and McCain never let their political differences interfere with the deep affection and respect they had for each other.

So it was today that Cindy McCain endorsed Joe Biden’s bid to become president. Sen. McCain would be quite pleased.

national news

McConnell: hypocrite in chief

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I will spare you the various and assorted nicknames that have been plastered onto U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

He stands before me now as the government’s premier hypocrite. The hypocrite to end all hypocrites. The man who gives hypocrisy a bad name.

I know that he’s far from alone in the hypocrite cabal. Government is full of them. And yes, both parties have their share of hypocrites.

However, the Kentucky Republican is relishing in his hypocrisy. The man who stiffed President Obama from filling a Supreme Court seat because he didn’t want to do in an election year is ramrodding a Donald Trump pending selection to probable confirmation … in an election year!

The difference? Obama is a Democrat; Trump is a Republican.

And yet the hypocrite in chief blames Democrats for “playing politics” with the federal judiciary. Excuse me while I puke!

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had the bad form to die less than 50 days prior to the next presidential election. That hasn’t stopped McConnell from unleashing his partisan hounds.  He vows to get a nominee confirmed before the election.

Oh, what about that presidential election year taboo? Well, that was then. Principle doesn’t apply when there is a partisan political advantage to be explored.

Dang, I almost wish I could move to Kentucky to campaign actively against this clown’s re-election. That won’t happen. I will have to rely on this blog to vent my rage at the way this guy manipulates the levers of power to his maximum political advantage.

Maybe I should admire how this guy can do this. I would, except that his ends all work at cross purposes with my own world view. I do not want Donald Trump to nominate a third justice to the Supreme Court. He is going to select some far right-wing ideologue … while pretending to agree with whatever judicial philosophy guides her.

And this is being brought to bear by the hypocrite in chief.

This, I suggest, gives us all the reason in the world to vote Donald Trump out of office.

national news

Will POTUS pay respects to RBG?

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

It’s fair to ask: Is Donald Trump going to venture to the Capitol Building to pay his respects to the first woman ever to lie in repose in that structure?

Yes, that would be the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Trump has said that Justice Ginsburg led an “amazing life.”  So far, that’s the extent of his public comments on the passing of the judicial icon.

Make no mistake that politics plays a role here. Does Trump possibly anger the wacky MAGA base of supporters who fervently oppose virtually all the opinions that Ginsburg rendered during her 27 years on the high court simply by appearing next to RBG’s casket?

national news

Hypocrisy rules!

2 Comments

 

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

The hypocrisy ringing throughout the halls of the nation’s Capitol Building is becoming the stuff of legend.

Four years ago, Republican U.S. senators said time and time again that no president should be allowed to fill a Supreme Court seat during an election year. They didn’t qualify the assertion. They didn’t stipulate presidents of any particular party.

They said no president, none, should move forward with selecting a justice when we have a presidential election on tap.

You will recall in early 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly. President Barack Obama wanted to name a successor. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said “not so fast.” He slammed the brakes on a nomination.

GOP senators stepped up and said the same thing. No president should select someone for a lifetime during an election year.

Recall that Scalia died nearly 10 months before the 2016 presidential election. Now we have Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died just 48 days prior to the next election.

Republican senators are ignoring their own assertion. They now want to rush a nomination forward before the Nov. 3 election.

What happened to the 2016 mantra of “giving the people a voice” in who should sit on the Supreme Court? Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida even went so far as to say he would make that demand when we have a Republican president. Hey, Marco, we have one now … bub! What say you these days about seating someone to succeed Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I know. It’s full steam ahead!

The people still deserve a voice before the Senate acts on Donald Trump’s expected nomination of someone to succeed the great Justice Ginsburg. If the Senate GOP thought it was true in 2016 when Barack Obama sought to fill a post vacated by Justice Scalia’s death, then it should hold to that philosophy now.

Right? Oh wait! The Party of Trump doesn’t believe in ethics, fairness, truth-telling and honor.

national news

It’s visceral, man

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I have been voting for president in every election since 1972.

Not once have I felt such intense personal loathing for the man who sits in the president’s office … until right now.

Actually, my visceral animosity dates back to the evening when I heard Donald Trump had won enough Electoral College votes to become the nation’s 45th president.

Then it started. The intensely personal and persistent rage at the thought that Americans had sent this carnival barker into the Oval Office, given him access to the most dangerous weapon system ever created and handed him the keys to governing a nation that in a fit of anger forgot about the standards is used to set for the individual who they choose to lead us.

It’s not that I oppose Trump’s ideology. He doesn’t possess anything of the sort. He has no set of guiding principles. Trump does not adhere to a fundamental set of values. He views political relationships as transactional events; you do this for me and I’ll do that for you.

This individual had zero public service experience under his belt. He continues to exhibit zero interest in public service even now as he occupies the presidency.

The record of chock full of anecdotes and recollections of those with whom he has worked about how he talks about others, how he feels about Americans who idolize him. There is the prevailing sense that he detests the rank-and-file Trumpkins who flock to his rallies and cheer the lies that fly out of his mouth.

I have harbored these thoughts about Trump since before he became president. I didn’t want him to win the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2016. I damn sure didn’t want him to defeat Hillary Clinton who, despite her own flaws, was eminently more qualified to serve as our head of state and commander in chief than the individual who won the election.

So, here we are. Another election is on tap. Trump is in pandering mode to be sure. He will select someone to sit on the Supreme Court in the wake of the great Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death. My hunch is that he doesn’t know the first thing about any of the finalists he is considering, other than how they might appeal to elements of his political base.

He has failed the test of leadership at every level possible.

Yes, it’s personal with me. I want him gone.

national news

Impeach him … again?

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

I almost couldn’t believe what my own ears had heard come from the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Nancy Pelosi actually said she is keeping possible impeachment of Donald Trump in her “quiver” of weapons to use against the president as he seeks to name a successor to the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Wow, man! Let’s ponder that one.

The House already impeached Trump. The Senate led by Republicans acquitted him in trial. The House, though, made its point by impeaching Trump on charges that he abused the power of his office and obstructed Congress’s effort to learn the whole story behind alleged “collusion” with Russians who interfered in our 2016 presidential election.

Is the speaker serious? Is she really prepared to impeach Donald Trump again? 

Let me be clear on this point: I do not want the House to re-impeach Donald Trump. My reluctance has nothing to do with the merits of an impeachment. It has everything to do with the blowback I believe would occur if the House were to proceed with such a drastic move.

It might be merely that Pelosi, as tough a pol as there is in Washington, is firing a barrage across Trump’s bow. She wants him to hear from her that she is quite serious in preventing Trump from acting on his appointment prior to the presidential election.

Pelosi told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos this morning that she is not taking anything out of her arsenal of weapons to use against Trump.

It enrages me in the extreme to hear Mitch McConnell thump his chest anticipating a quickie hearing and vote on a lifetime judicial appointment that is likely to affect the balance of power for a generation.

I am hopeful there can be a way to forestall this pending appointment … without impeaching Donald Trump. I fear such a move would loose the hounds that well could propel the president to a second term.

I can barely type those words without breaking into a cold sweat.

national news

How to fill a SCOTUS post

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

OK, how might the unfolding drama surrounding the selection of a Supreme Court justice play out?

I want to offer something of a best-case scenario for you to ponder. Ready? Here goes …

Congress stymies Donald Trump’s nominee, which he is going to announce in the next day or two or three. Democrats could pull off some political hocus-pocus to prevent the Senate from voting on a nominee prior to the Nov. 3 presidential election.

Then we elect Joe Biden president of the United States. The president-elect demands that the nominee withdraw. We go back to Square One.

Meanwhile, Democrats take control of the next Senate, possibly ousting the leading obstructionist in that body, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Mitch is out. Still following me? Good!

Then we swear in President Biden, who then gets to make a selection to succeed the legendary Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the high court. Is he obligated to select a woman? No. He hasn’t committed to anything in that regard. I mean, he did select a woman as vice president.

So, why not roll the dice and ask a highly regarded federal judge who once got tapped by President Obama. Yep, I refer to Merrick Garland, whom the Senate GOP stiffed when they refused to grant Obama’s selection a hearing, let alone an up/down vote to join the court after Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016.

I might be willing to bet real American money that Judge Garland would be up for a hearing before a Senate controlled by Democrats.

Is any of this likely? I have no idea. First things first: Democrats need to find a way to prevent Trump and McConnell from shoving the pending nominee down our throats and pushing the court so far to the right that it is in danger of destroying health care legislation, women’s reproductive rights and a host of other protections that prior courts have ruled to be constitutional.

A new president deserves the opportunity to make this call. Not one who well might get defeated, and certainly not a Senate that well could see control shift from one party to the other.

I am hopeful.