Category Archives: national news

This inquiring mind wants to know: What did Russians do?

I don’t doubt that Russian geeks hacked into our nation’s computer grid somehow and did something to influence the U.S. presidential election.

Unlike the president-elect, I am inclined to believe the analyses put forth by some of the best intelligence minds on the planet.

What I remain unclear about, though, is the nature of what the geeks did. What did they do — and I need a precise, detailed  explanation — to possibly tilt the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor.

* Did they put out fake messages that threatened voters in heavily Democratic precincts, decreasing voter turnout?

* Or, did they somehow make ballots cast for Hillary Clinton be logged as votes for Trump?

* Did the Russians float fake news stories about Hillary, telling voters that she is the child of Satan and that a vote for her would be a vote to send the nation straight on the express track to hell?

President Obama vows retaliation against the Russians. It could come as early as Thursday, according to some actual news reports.

But this inquiring mind — the one in my noggin — is anxious to the max to know what precisely the Russians might have done to influence our vote. Was it decisive?

Did we actually elect the wrong person as our next president?

Oh … wait!

We still have only one POTUS at a time

Decorum matters. So does protocol. Say whatever you wish about a politician’s flouting of them both — whether you agree or disagree with him — they matter greatly in the conduct of foreign policy.

It is that backdrop, then, that compels me to say that Donald J. Trump is acting disgracefully during this transition period as he prepares to become the U.S. head of state and head of government.

The president-elect’s continual carping while President Obama conducts the affairs of state serves only to undermine the one president we have in power.

The recent decision by the United States to decline to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel over its building of settlements in the West Bank is the No. 1 example of how Trump doesn’t come close to understanding the meaning of protocol and decorum.

He launches routinely into his Twitter tirades, blasting the president’s decision, saying that Israel will have a true friend when the Trump administration takes over.

Consider, too, that another president-elect, Barack H. Obama, called a press conference shortly after being elected in 2008 to declare his intention to let President Bush conduct his policies the way he saw fit. President-elect Obama said he would wait until Jan. 20, 2009, the day he would take office, before weighing in with his own policy pronouncements. Indeed, presidents-elect going back many decades have honored that tradition.

What about that kind of behavior is lost on Trump? Why doesn’t this guy get it? Why can’t he resist the temptation to meddle in foreign policy before it’s his turn?

Trump has less than a month to go before he takes his oath of office, bids goodbye to his predecessor and then settles into the big chair in the Oval Office. This tweet storm he keeps launching is unbecoming of the office he is about to assume — and it damn sure is disrespectful of the man he is about to succeed.

Decorum and protocol, Mr. President-elect? You’ll learn soon enough how much it really matters.

That’s some non-apology, Carl

I’ve read phony apologies many times over the years.

They usually include the phrase “If I offended anyone ,,.”

Carl Palodino, the New York Republican operative/activist and former GOP candidate for governor, has taken the non-apology to a new level.

He said he wished President Obama would die in the coming year of mad cow disease and said Michelle Obama is really a dude who should live with gorillas in Africa.

Palodino’s explanation? What he said to an alternative newspaper in Buffalo, N.Y., was meant only for his “friends.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carl-paladino-email-apology_us_58629a35e4b0d9a5945920ff?section=politics

What? Huh? Are you kidding me?

This guy has said these kinds of things before. If this latest diatribe isn’t drenched in racist intent, then I have been living in some parallel universe for the past 67 years.

Palodino is a strong ally of Donald J. Trump. To its credit, the president-elect’s transition team has issued a strong statement of condemnation of Palodino’s hate-filled comment, calling it “reprehensible.”

As for this notion that he intended these hideous remarks only for his “friends,” how in the name of all that is holy does this guy’s non-apology make anything right?

What about a ‘consensus candidate’ for high court, GOP?

Americans are going to get a good look — probably fairly soon — at just how duplicitous many of our politicians can be.

Let’s consider the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly early this year while vacationing in Texas. President Obama then had to find someone to nominate to replace the longtime conservative icon. He found a centrist in Federal Judge Merrick Garland.

Republicans said before Garland got the nod that they would block anyone the president nominated. No hearing. No testimony. No vote. Nothing, man.

Throughout the president’s two terms in office, GOP senators had insisted that the Democratic president nominate “consensus” jurists to the nation’s highest court. He managed to get two justices confirmed: Sonja Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Garland was confirmable — had he been given the chance to make his case. Except for one thing: Confirming a centrist such as Garland would change the political balance of power on the Supreme Court, which held a slim conservative majority with Scalia.

A Republican now has been elected president. Will the new man, Donald J. Trump, nominate a “consensus” jurist for the high court? Will he find someone who splits the difference between liberals and conservatives?

Something tells me he’s going to tack to the far right as a sop to those who stood by him on the campaign trail.

Consensus? Who needs consensus when you and your political party control the White House and the Senate.

The upcoming Supreme Court appointment process is going to get ugly. Real ugly.

Waiting now for Trump jobs reports

We know this much about Donald J. Trump’s presidency: the wall won’t be built any time soon, if at all; the Muslim registry won’t be enacted right away; all those jobs that have poured out of the country — supposedly — won’t be coming back right away.

However, we’re going to get a good feel for how Trump responds to a certain economic barometer. The U.S. Department of Labor issues its monthly jobs report right around the first Friday of every month.

For the past, oh, seven years or so, the Labor Department jobs figures have been ticking upward; roughly 150,000 each month, give or take.

Democrats have crowed about the figures. Republicans have been, well, more or less silent. If GOP leaders have had anything to say about these jobs figures, it would be to say that wages still stink.

The unemployment rate? Democrats have cheered the rate that now stands at 4.6, which is roughly half of the rate it was when President Obama took office eight years ago. Republicans pooh-pooh the numbers, saying that they reflect a diminishing number of Americans who are looking for work.

The first Friday in February will be just a few days after Trump takes office; nothing much to look for then. The March jobs figures, though, might give us a feel for how the Trumpkins respond to the Labor Department numbers. The feds will announce the jobs report on March 3, telling us how employers fared during February, which will be Trump’s first full month as president.

If they’re good, look for the Trumpkins to shout for joy. If they’re bad, look them to dismiss the numbers. Heck, they might suggest the numbers are “rigged” to make the new administration look bad. Oh, wait! He’s going to have his own labor secretary on the job by then.

Whatever news we get, we’re going to see a dramatic role reversal among partisans on both sides of the great — and growing — political divide.

Give the smaller states a louder voice

This graphic showed up on my Facebook news feed as a statement against the Electoral College.

I looked at it and then thought: Wait a minute! What’s so terribly wrong with giving smaller states, such as Wyoming, a greater voice in the election of the president of the United States?

California has those 55 electoral votes; Texas has 38 of them; Florida has 29.

I remain officially undecided about whether to toss the Electoral College aside. It would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to support such a drastic measure.

The 2016 election ended with the “loser” winning nearly 3 million more popular votes than the “winner.” But the guy who won carried the Electoral College, which is what the founders intended.

I happen to be one who doesn’t begrudge little ol’ Wyoming the extra stroke it gets from the Electoral College.

When did power sharing become a bad thing?

Fights break out … thanks for making me look stupid

I spoke too soon.

Just the other day I mentioned to my wife about how little I had heard about unruly Christmas shoppers this holiday season. I didn’t hear about near-riots — or actual riots — at shopping malls across the country.

Then it happened.

On the day called Boxing Day in British Commonwealth countries, Americans flocked to malls to return gifts and to do some post-Christmas shopping for their loved ones.

Fights broke out. They all were apparently unconnected. The cops in Aurora, Colo., ordered a big regional mall shut down after “multiple skirmishes” occurred in the Denver suburb. The picture attached to this post is of a Memphis, Tenn., mall that was locked down also by the police after fights broke out.

A police officer was assaulted in one of the melees that erupted.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fights-disturbances-and-chaos-breaks-out-malls-across-the-united-states/ar-BBxB0jP?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Right there, dear reader, is where we’re seeing this so-called “war on Christmas.” You can forget all that ridiculousness about whether to wish someone “Happy Holidays” or “Merry Christmas.” The front line of this war is being fought in your local shopping malls by idiot shoppers who cannot control themselves.

Malls across America need to be declared combat zones.

If I had a helmet and a flak jacket, I’d wear ’em both next time I venture to the mall.

Folks, this ain’t the reason for the season.

Will the next president replicate this show of unity, grace?

This is an amazing video I felt like sharing on this blog.

It shows how one president can honor a predecessor with class and grace and how that predecessor can speak with amazing self-deprecating humor.

At some point during his presidential term, Donald J. Trump will get to invite his predecessor, Barack Obama, back to the White House for the unveiling of two portraits: of the president and the first lady, Michelle Obama.

President Obama and the first lady did that very thing when the portraits of President Bush and first lady Laura Bush.

This video presents a wonderful study in collegiality and comity.

I do hope the next president and the current president can set aside their intense personal and political differences when the Obamas return to the White House to unveil their own portraits.

Trump stretches unconventional approach

Donald J. Trump’s campaign for the presidency was unconventional.

His transition into the office he has won is even more so.

We often hear it said that “We have only president at a time.” Trump, though, is using his Twitter account to suggest something that borders on the otherwise.

The United States this past week abstained on a United Nations Security Council vote that condemns Israel over its settlement building on the West Bank; U.S. policy for years has been to veto such a resolution. Thus, the Obama administration broke with longstanding U.S. policy.

Then in comes Trump to tweet that the United States was wrong to abstain; that the U.N. is a “sad” organization.

The point here is that presidents-elect traditionally have let the current president conduct foreign policy. They wait relatively quietly while they prepare to take office; then they are free to change whatever policy they wish.

Trump isn’t waiting for Inauguration Day. He’s blasting the daylights out of President Obama whenever he sees fit using his Twitter account.

My wish would be for the president-elect to hold his fire until he becomes the president. Americans actually do have just one president at a time.

Donald Trump’s time is coming on quickly. Until he takes the oath of office, he ought to keep his trap — and his Twitter account — quiet.

Here’s the most meaningless debate imaginable

Well now … let’s commence the most meaningless political discussion possible, shall we?

Who would have won if Barack H. Obama had been the candidate opposing Donald J. Trump in this year’s presidential election.

The president of the United States says he’d win. The president-elect — big surprise here — disagrees.

The meaninglessness lies in the indisputable fact that we’ll never know the answer. The U.S. Constitution bars the president from seeking a third term, thanks to its 22nd Amendment.

But as long as the president has introduced this silly argument, I’d like to carry it a bit further.

I believe he would have won. Why? He’s got a ton of political moxie. He would have surrounded himself with he best political strategists possible. He would not have taken anything or any voter group for granted. Obama would not have “played it safe,” as he said Hillary Clinton did. He would have made mincemeat of Trump in any number of televised joint appearances.

There. That’s my view.

However, it’s only my speculation, just as it is anyone’s speculation — including Barack Obama himself — about how an Obama-Trump contest would have ended.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-vs-trump-dispute-erupts-over-who-would-have-won/ar-BBxAD1A?li=BBnb7Kz

Here, though, is a bit of reality to toss into the mix.

Consider the context of the 2012 presidential election. Obama’s presidency was considered by many experts to be on the ropes as he prepared to run against the Republican nominee, who turned out to be Mitt Romney, another formidable and successful businessman — who also had political experience as a one-term governor of Massachusetts.

The economy wasn’t performing all that well. The Affordable Care Act was being vilified as a failure. The Republicans saw a huge opening for their nominee as the campaign commenced.

Oh, but what happened? Obama used his crack political team to target selected audiences in various regions of the country and hammered Romney relentlessly over comments the GOP rival had made. Recall the “47 percent” gaffe.

Obama ended up winning the election by a comfortable margin: 5 million ballots and 332-206 Electoral College votes.

Would he have defeated Trump? I believe so.

However, it’s a silly debate to have.

President Obama is leaving office in less than a month. Donald J. Trump is the man of the hour.