Category Archives: national news

national news

North Carolinians take political defeat quite seriously

aalejhe

There are sore losers.

And then there is North Carolina, where Republicans apparently are so upset at losing the governor’s office to a Democrat that they’re punishing the winner — by stripping him of much of his gubernatorial power.

Get a load of this: Gov.-elect Roy Cooper is taking office without much of the appointment power that the man he defeated, Gov. Pat McCrory had.

Moreover, the Republican-controlled North Carolina Legislature — meeting in special session — enacted a law that reduces drastically the number of appointments the governor can make. McCrory, also a Republican, signed the bill into law this week. Another bill requires the governor to gain Senate approval of appointments made to the University of North Carolina System.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/amid-outcry-nc-gop-passes-law-to-curb-democratic-governor%e2%80%99s-power/ar-AAlEekE?li=BBnbcA1

McCrory only recently conceded defeat to Cooper. It was an intensely fought campaign. Cooper won by a whisker. McCrory conceded and did not seek a recount of the ballots cast in the contest. I was proud of McCrory for conceding the contest.

Then he signs these ridiculous, petulant pieces of crap into law.

The reaction to these bills, quite naturally, have broken along partisan lines. Democrats are incensed. Republicans are not. But then a neutral group weighed in. According to the Washington Post: “Nonpartisan watchdogs, like Bob Hall with Democracy North Carolina, said the changes go ‘far beyond the normal partisan wrangling and change of power.'”

So much for a collegial transition in North Carolina.

national news, political news

This isn’t sounding ‘presidential,’ Donald

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFaH9Y2Mtmo

Donald J. Trump made a lot of promises along the campaign trail, which is no surprise, given that politicians do that sort of thing while they campaign for public office.

One of them was that he would be more “presidential” if voters elected him to the highest office in America.

This video is of the president-elect’s latest “thank you” rally. It took place in Orlando, Fla.

I’m waiting for him to start sounding “presidential.” He didn’t do so at this rally. He hasn’t done so at any of these events he’s held after winning the presidency.

Trump hasn’t changed his tone one tiny bit. He’s still spouting the buffoonery that won him so many fans all along the campaign trail.

The tenor of these rallies is filling me with interest in precisely how the next president is going to address the nation after he takes the oath of office.

Donald Trump well might deliver one of the more, um, memorable inaugural speeches in the history of the Republic.

entertainment news, national news, political news

Is this one of those ‘brilliant people’?

aalcfup

Donald J. Trump promised Americans that he would surround himself with “brilliant people” as he formed his government, not to mention when he actually began governing as president of the United States.

His latest high-profile hire for his transition team, though, is a head-scratcher.

Omarosa Manigault has joined the Trump transition team. The president-elect made a bit of a show of the hire. Manigault was a contestant on “Celebrity Apprentice,” the show that Trump ran before he became a politician.

I’ll stipulate that I never watched the show. I don’t know much about this young woman, other than what I’ve read — which isn’t much.

She worked for Trump’s campaign as an African-American outreach advocate. She sought to boost the Republican nominee’s standing with black voters.

She reportedly then let slip that Trump was keeping an enemies list. We older folks remember an earlier enemies list, which President Nixon formed to keep track of those who opposed him.

“Let me just tell you, Mr. Trump has a long memory, and we’re keeping a list,” she said.

Well. There you have it.

Back to my original point. Omarosa’s role with the Trump transition has me wondering: What in the world does she bring to the forming of the next government?

Is she one of the brilliant people? Just askin’, man.

national news, political news

FBI joins CIA in fingering Russian hackers

bbh9xcg

What do you know about that?

FBI Director James Comey has concluded that the CIA analysis is correct, that the Russians hacked into our nation’s electoral process and might have helped Donald J. Trump win the election over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Oh, the irony is amazing.

Just to be clear, I am not going to suggest that Comey’s conduct near the end of the presidential campaign cost Clinton the victory most of us thought she would win. The letter to Congress about those e-mails may have contributed some to Hillary’s defeat. Was it decisive? Did it doom her campaign by itself? I don’t believe so.

But now we have the FBI climbing aboard the CIA hay wagon, endorsing the spook agency’s findings that the Russians sought to do the very thing Comey has been accused of doing.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/ar-AAlEvfm?li=BBnb7Kz

I don’t know all the facts about how the FBI works. I damn sure know even less about the CIA and the work its agents and analysts do to compile intelligence information. I probably don’t want to know.

When two pre-eminent intelligence and law enforcement agencies draw the same conclusion, though, that’s a huge deal.

If only the president-elect would exhibit some respect for the work these professionals do every day, rather than dissing them while denigrating their findings.

Indeed, the candidate who himself questioned the integrity of the electoral process — remember how the president-elect proclaimed the system to be “rigged” against him? — ought to be among the loudest voices demanding a full accounting of what the Russians have done … allegedly.

International news, national news, political news

Smooth transition running into serious bumps

russian-hacker

There goes my trick knee again. It’s throbbing. My gut is grumbling. My fingers are tingling.

Something is telling me that the “smooth and seamless transition” from the Obama administration to the Trump administration is going to become a lot less smooth and seamless.

Why? Gosh. Let me think. Oh! It’s that Russian hacking thing, I reckon.

Donald J. Trump is dismissing — and dissing — the intelligence community’s assessment that Russian spooks hacked into our cyber network and sought to affect the presidential election.

President Obama, meanwhile, is declaring his intention before he leaves office in a little more than month to strike back at the Russians.

Who’s reacting correctly here, the president or the president-elect?

I’m going to go with the man who’s still on the watch in the Oval Office.

Trump’s stated view that the CIA is all wet and his belief that the Russians didn’t do anything wrong is a profoundly dangerous posture to take, given what we know about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s world view and his demonstrated ability to commit atrocious mischief whenever the opportunity presents itself.

Barack Obama is planning to take action against the Russians, while hoping for an easy handoff to the man who’ll succeed him.

The transition could be made a lot smoother if the new guy, Trump, would accept what the intelligence community already knows. The Russians aren’t our friends and they aren’t likely to become friends if they detect they have a patsy sitting behind that big desk in the Oval Office.

My hope, of course, is that the president retains the dignity he has brought to the office and ensures as smooth a transition as possible. If only, though, this Russian hacking matter hadn’t gotten in the way.

national news

Hoping for Trump to earn praise

150806212843-07-fox-debate-trump-0806-super-169

Those of you who read this blog regularly might be thinking: What will it take for this guy — that would be yours truly — to say something truly positive about Donald J. Trump?

I’ve said I’m trying to keep an open mind about the next president of the United States. And, no, “trying to keep an open mind” isn’t code for “not a chance in hell” I’ll ever say anything good about the guy. I mean what I am saying here.

What will it take? What can this guy do to earn my unvarnished, unqualified praise?

Let me think:

* He can order a military strike that destroys the Islamic State, forcing the terrorists to give up the fight.

* Trump can enact policies that bring jobs back to the United States of America, which he contends are fleeing this country by the thousands for places like Mexico and China.

* He can implement border policies that effectively end illegal immigration into the U.S. of A.

* The president can persuade Congress to pass laws that incentivize private businesses to hire more people, thus reducing the jobless rate even more than the dramatic reduction we’ve seen already during the Obama administration.

* POTUS can get Congress to reduce taxes on all Americans while spending money on infrastructure improvements without piling up the national debt and increasing the annual federal budget deficit.

* He can order the next attorney general to go to war against hate groups that have risen to prominence since he announced his presidential candidacy.

* Trump can issue a heartfelt apology — the real thing, man, not just some phony “If I have offended anyone …” non-apology — to the many individuals and groups he denigrated while running for the presidency.

These are the issues that come to mind immediately. I’d settle for any one or two of these things to occur. I am on board if he is able to do any of it.

My confidence remains quite low, I am saddened to say, that he’ll do any of it.

However, there’s always tomorrow.

national news

‘Get over it’? Sure, when y’all get over your own selves

trump-wins

The “Get over it!” mantra is beginning to grate on my nerves.

It’s coming from those who are glad to see Donald J. Trump elected president of the United States. The mantra is aimed at the rest of the country — more than half of those who cast ballots, actually — who voted for someone else.

They can’t “get over it.”

I don’t quite consider myself in that category of disgruntled voter. Maybe others see me as one of the sore losers. I don’t like being perceived that way. I am doing my best to level my criticism of the president-elect in a way that focuses more on the issues as I see them.

I will admit to occasionally challenging the man’s temperamental fitness for the job, but then again, that’s an issue, too.

The annoyance over the calls to get over it stems from the eight-year bitch session that’s been under way since Barack Hussein Obama was elected president.

A lot of folks haven’t gotten over that seminal event. The election in 2008 of the first African-American as head of state and head of government of the greatest nation on Earth just hasn’t gone over with a certain segment of this nation.

Sure, they’ll respond with, “I am not a racist, but …” And, no, I am not hanging the “racist” label on all of the president’s critics.

I understand that the man’s policies themselves have angered a lot of Americans. We had that big economic stimulus package that rescued several segments of our then-failing economy; we got the Affordable Care Act, over the strenuous objections of Republicans; he granted a temporary reprieve for about 5 million illegal immigrants through the use of an executive order.

I happen to support all those aforementioned actions. That’s just me. I’m one of those Americans who voted twice for the president.

We are a sharply divided nation. The election of Donald J. Trump enhances and emphasizes that division in ways we haven’t seen in some time.

I am still struggling with the idea that Trump will become the next president. I’ll “get over it” … eventually. I promise.

Just don’t keep reminding me to “get over it.” The more you say it the more I am likely to resist.

national news, political news

Here’s a possible constitutional crisis of major proportion

electoral-college-banner

Those 538 men and women who are set to meet Monday to elect the next president of the United States are poised to make some serious history, one way or the other.

Most of them come from states that voted for Donald J. Trump, the Republican, over Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrat. They comprise the Electoral College, which the nation’s founders established in the 18th century to choose the person who would govern the country.

Here’s the big-time catch: some of them are “faithless,” which means they aren’t necessarily bound by the dictates of their states’ majorities. Add to that some major-league questions about whether Russian intelligence agents and computer hackers influenced the outcome the election and you have a situation of monumental proportions brewing … possibly.

Enough of those electors might decide they can’t vote for Trump and, thus, deny the president-elect the 270 electoral votes he needs to take office in January.

What happens then if, say, not enough of them switch their votes to Clinton, making her the next president? The U.S. House of Representatives, controlled by the GOP, then gets to pick the next president.

I don’t believe this will happen. I believe Trump will collect enough votes from the Electoral College to take the oath on Jan. 20. He will become the 45th president of the United States; Mike Pence will become the vice president.

Trump likely will have the Cabinet chosen by then. The U.S. Senate committees charged with recommending whether these nominees should be confirmed will get to work and make those critical decisions.

But some of the electors have asked to be briefed fully by the U.S. intelligence apparatus on what the Russians did and whether they actually influenced the outcome of the election. Just suppose the spooks tell the electors that, yep, the Russkies succeeded in getting their man elected. What happens then if you’re an elector from a state that voted for Trump and you can’t in good conscience cast your vote for the winner?

Lots of answers yet to come forward before the big day next week.

This could be the most fascinating supposedly pro forma electoral procedure in the history of the Republic.

It could be …

International news, national news, political news

Anti-Iraq War president picks pro-war team

john-bolton-very-large

I am pretty sure I heard Donald J. Trump call the Iraq War a “disaster,” a “mistake,” a “terrible decision.”

It’s not clear to me, though, whether the president-elect actually opposed the war from its beginning, or during the period leading up to the first shots being fired in March 2003.

But during the 2016 presidential campaign Trump did criticize the Bush administration’s decision to go to war in Iraq.

Why, then, is he going to send a deputy secretary of state before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for confirmation?

John Bolton is a serious war hawk. He believes in regime change. He supported the Iraq War. He bought into the notion that the late Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He has called for going to war with Iran. At least one key Republican committee member, Rand Paul of Kentucky, says he’ll vote automatically against Bolton’s confirmation.

Bolton is hoping to join a State Department team headed by a designated secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, whose confirmation itself isn’t a sure thing. He’ll have to answer many questions about his friendship with Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, who Sen. John McCain has labeled a “butcher” and “murderer.”

But this Bolton character, a former U.N. ambassador, brings a serious dichotomy into play.

The president-elect opposed the Iraq War — he says — and yet he’s going to bring the hawkiest of hawks into his foreign-policy team?

I do not understand any of this.

My head is spinning.

International news, national news, political news

Here’s how you could have handled the Russia problem

President George W Bush visits CIA Headquarters, March 20, 2001.

Donald J. Trump didn’t ask me for my opinion on this, but I’ll give it to him anyway … not that it matters in Trump World.

CIA officials have concluded that Russian computer hackers had some impact on the 2016 presidential election. To what end, they haven’t disclosed; it’s highly classified at the moment.

They aren’t alone in that assessment. Other intelligence agencies and independent experts also have reached that conclusion.

So, what does the president-elect do? He dismisses the CIA’s findings. He says he doesn’t believe them. He says the Russians didn’t do what has been alleged. He blames Democrats for fomenting a false allegation. How does he know any of that? He doesn’t.

A better response would have been for Trump to do the following: Stand before the media and issue a statement.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the press. I want to issue a brief statement. There’ll be no questions.

The news from the CIA is troubling in the extreme. I hereby join President Obama in calling for a full review of the findings and a public disclosure — to the extent that it is possible — of what, if anything, transpired in the Kremlin that might have had an impact on the election.

I am acutely aware of my statements throughout the campaign that the election would be “rigged” in favor of my opponent, Hillary Clinton. As I’ve noted on other campaign-related matters, I said some things for “dramatic effect.” The “rigged election” allegation was one of them.

I did not envision the “rigged election” charge coming back on me and my campaign in this matter.

Do I believe the Russians tilted the election in my favor? No. But you shouldn’t just take my word for it.

I remain confident that a thorough review of the evidence and the facts will determine we would have won anyway.

But let’s find out the truth of what happened, starting with the review that the president has demanded from the intelligence community.

He didn’t say anything like that. Instead, he has denigrated the intelligence community, as he has done with many other facets of government.

Trump’s stubborn denial of any possible hanky-panky — and his stated disbelief in the work of the CIA’s professional intelligence officers — only darkens the clouds forming over his administration.

The questions only will deepen the distrust many Americans are expressing at this moment over what might have transpired on Election Day.