Category Archives: national news

When do the results undermine the winner?

clintonhillary_110716getty

Believe me, I’m not going to belabor this point.

The thought just popped into my noggin, though, about the popular vote lead that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running up on the next president, Donald J. Trump.

It has passed 2 million votes. They’re still counting ’em. The lead might grow even more.

The thought is this: At what point does this circumstance begin to undermine the effectiveness of the “winner” of a presidential election?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307326-cook-clinton-passes-2m-in-popular-vote-lead

Trump won the votes that matter, in the Electoral College. Clinton won the actual balloting. Two million votes comprises a substantial margin … even for the “loser.”

I don’t necessarily want to see a change in the way we elect presidents. Nor do I think Clinton should challenge formally the results in three key swing states.

The issue, though, of this widening popular vote margin between the president-elect and the candidate he defeated seems to be inching closer to some critical mass that could undermine seriously the next president’s legislative agenda.

JFK murder recalls a curious interview

brooks-at-lbj-swearing-in

Take a good look at this picture. You know the moment it has recorded.

Standing behind the grieving Jacqueline Kennedy, just over her right shoulder is a fellow I used to know pretty well. He is U.S. Rep. Jack Brooks, a Democrat from Beaumont, Texas, and arguably the crustiest, most partisan member of the Texas congressional delegation at that time … or perhaps any time.

Brooks died just a few years ago. He was one of the Democrats who lost his re-election bid in that historic Republican “Contract With America” tide that swept over Congress in 1994.

The previous year, I sat down with Brooks to interview him about the events that occurred in Dallas 30 years earlier. I sought to get into the man’s soul, into his heart. I wanted him to share with his constituents — through this interview to be published in the Beaumont Enterprise — what he felt that day.

Jack was riding in the motorcade that beautiful day in Dallas. It was Nov. 22, 1963. He was riding several vehicles behind the presidential limo that was carrying the Kennedys and Texas Gov. John Connally and his wife, Nellie.

Rifle shots exploded from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, hitting the president and Gov. Connally. Their car took off at full speed for Parkland Hospital. The world held its breath when news broke that “shots were fired” at the motorcade.

Then the terrible result flashed around the globe: The president was dead.

I sought to plumb deep into Rep. Brooks’ heart and soul that day.

But I learned something that day about Brooks that I knew intuitively all along. He wasn’t prone to thinking like that. I recall being disappointed at the seeming lack of pathos this man.

Brooks wasn’t the most gracious fellow I’ve ever met. He could be as mean as they come. Perhaps he wasn’t comfortable talking to a media representative about that terrible day.

Surely he knew, I speculated to him out loud, about the immense burden that his mentor and friend — President Lyndon Johnson — was carrying at that moment. Did he sense it? Did he grasp in the moment that the world was watching everyone’s move that day? Brooks didn’t confide much to me during our visit that day.

That interview stands perhaps as the most glaring missed opportunity I experienced during nearly four decades in daily journalism.

Oh, how I sought far more than I got from a veteran Texas politician.

Hillary need not heed activists’ plea to challenge election

aakd1s4

Activists, by definition, I suppose are those who cannot let certain things go.

Their belief in their correctness makes them a bit frenzied in their desire to achieve a desired result.

Thus, we hear that some political activists are encouraging defeated presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton to challenge the election results in three key battleground states in an effort to overturn Donald J. Trump’s Electoral College victory.

Don’t do it, Mme. Secretary.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/activists-urge-clinton-campaign-to-challenge-election-results-in-3-swing-states/ar-AAkD4w7?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

The three states in question are Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clinton lost all three of them to Trump — although Michigan hasn’t yet been called officially for the president-elect, as it’s still determined to be too close to call.

According to the Daily Intelligencer: “Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.”

This would be a futile exercise. It also would be virtually unprecedented. Moreover, how long would it take to prove such an event occurred and how much damage could such a probe do our political system if the plaintiffs fail to make the case?

I feel the need to remind these activists of other close elections in which the loser chose to let the results stand. The most fascinating example occurred in 1960. Vice President Richard Nixon lost the presidential election to Sen. John F. Kennedy by fewer than 150,000 votes nationally, out of more than 60 million ballots cast. Questions arose about the vote totals in Cook County, Ill., which Kennedy won handily and which helped tip Illinois into the Democrat’s column.

Nixon didn’t challenge the result. He chose instead to let it stand. Kennedy went on to take the oath of office, over the expressed anger of the GOP activists who wanted Nixon to make an issue of an outcome that didn’t square with their desire.

Hillary lost the election under the rules set forth by the Founding Fathers. Even those of us who dislike the outcome ought to be able to accept it.

Just as many of us said in dismissing Trump’s assertion of a “rigged” election, I don’t believe that is what produced the stunning result.

Trump ‘mandate’ keeps slipping away

ballot-box

I don’t intend to beat this issue to death, but I do intend to drive home what I believe is an important point about the 2016 presidential election.

It’s this issue of Donald J. Trump’s supposed “mandate” from the election result.

You see, the president-elect is trailing Hillary Rodham Clinton in the popular vote total by an increasing margin.

As of this very moment — at 8:32 p.m. CST on Nov. 22 — Clinton’s vote lead over Trump totals 1,737,744 ballots. They’re still counting ballots in Clinton-friendly states out west. Hillary’s vote lead will approach, perhaps even exceed, 2 million ballots when they’re all done with the counting.

I am not challenging that Trump won the election. He has 306 electoral votes; Clinton’s electoral vote totals 232. Trump needed just 270 of those votes to be elected. He’s going to become our 45th president in January.

He won it under the rules.

Nor am I advocating an end to the Electoral College.

However, Trump needs to be careful when he talks about “mandate,” and whether his victory awards him sufficient political capital to do all the things he vowed to do.

Build a wall? Ban Muslims from entering the country? Revoke trade deals? Appoint arch-conservative ideologues to the federal bench?

Yes, the president-elect won the Electoral College by a comfortable margin, but he’s falling farther and farther behind in the actual votes for president. More than half of those who voted for president cast their ballots for someone other than the guy who won. Hillary won’t achieve a majority of all the votes, but her plurality is looking healthier every day.

That vote deficit must give even a brash braggart like Donald J. Trump pause … or one might think.

Then again, we’re dealing with someone who broke virtually every conventional rule in the book while winning the presidency. Still, he ought to take great care when declaring a “mandate” to do anything once he takes his oath of office.

‘Tough guy’ bristles at this? C’mon, man!

snltrumpalecbaldwin

Donald J. Trump is showing himself to be the master of mixed messages.

Consider some of the proclamations that have come from the president-elect’s mouth.

He vowed during the campaign to “bomb the s*** out of ISIS” while saying out loud that he knows “more about ISIS than the generals, believe me”; he said he’d look Vladmir Putin in the eye and tell him to behave himself in Eastern Europe; he promised to negotiate the greatest trade deals in the nation’s history; he said that “I, alone” can fix all the terrible things he contended are afflicting the nation.

Tough talk, right? Sure.

Then the president-elect gets his skivvies in a knot over media coverage here at home. He invites TV news anchors to his office and blisters them with a scathing critique of the way they cover him.

There’s more.

He blasts out Twitter messages demanding that the cast of a Broadway play “Hamilton” apologize to the vice president-elect over boos that came from the audience.

He tweets out another message criticizing “Saturday Night Live” for its portrayal of Trump by actor/comedian Alec Baldwin; this guy Trump can dish out the insults, but he cannot take ’em in any form. Has this clown never seen the “SNL” parodies of, oh, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter?

Oh, and then he canceled a meeting he had planned with the New York Times, citing its “nasty tone” in covering his transition.

Which of these men is going to take the presidential oath of office on Jan. 20?

Will it be the tough guy who’ll assert American resolve across the world stage? Or will it be the petulant punk who cannot stand up under the criticism that has been leveled at every person who’s preceded him in the nation’s highest office?

Ethics need extra careful scrutiny

donald

Donald J. Trump’s staff denies it.

Others are saying it happened. What was that? The president-elect took a congratulatory phone call from Argentine President Mauricio Macri and while getting the congrats, Trump reportedly pressed Macri for news about a commercial development Trump has under way in Argentina.

To borrow a word made famous by former Texas Gov. Rick Perry: Oops.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/307050-report-trump-pressed-foreign-building-project-in-congratulatory-phone-call

The Wall Street Journal has called for Trump to divest himself of his vast business interests. Others have said the same thing. There appears to be no end to the potential conflicts of interest that lurk everywhere in Trump World.

These questions are going to dog the new president at every turn as he transitions into the presidency … and later.

A local journalist, Jorge Lanata, noted this about the conversation: “Macri called him. This still hasn’t emerged but Trump asked for them to authorize a building he’s constructing in Buenos Aires, it wasn’t just a geopolitical chat.”

Did he or didn’t he make that request of another head of state?

Heads of state shouldn’t mix their personal business interests while dealing with other heads of state. What part of this isn’t clear to anyone with half a brain?

As for whether Trump asked the question, we need to hear from the principals — the U.S. president-elect and the current president of Argentina — about whether such an exchange ever took place.

Pols say mean things, then they change their tune

romneyandtrumpmeet

My friends and acquaintances on the right are fond these days of reminding me of something I knew already.

It is that U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said angry things to and about each other when they ran for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008.

Then Sen. Obama was nominated. He went on to be elected president. Then he hired Sen. Clinton to be secretary of state in the first Obama administration.

All was “forgiven,” more or less. The rivals became allies. Then they became friends … or so they said.

The pushback on this issue comes from those on my right and far right who keep yapping at my continuing observation about Donald J. Trump’s former foes/enemies are now lining up for spots in the president-elect’s Cabinet.

Mitt Romney is being considered for secretary of state; Mitt called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud.”

Rick Perry is being considered either for secretary of defense or energy; the former Texas governor called Trump a “cancer on conservatism.”

Chris Christie once led the Trump transition, then he got pushed aside and now he’s back in Trump’s semi-good graces; Christie once said Trump was “unfit” to be president.

The list of “establishment Republicans” who have condemned Trump is long and distinguished. Here they are, though, lining up behind the new president.

Sure thing. Democrats do the very same thing. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson weren’t exactly BFFs when they ran against each other in 1960; then JFK picked LBJ to run with him on the winning ticket.

I guess one’s reaction to this kind of political mood swing depends on your own point of view.

Therefore, I won’t apologize for overlooking how Democrats have played this very same game … at least not until my Republican friends acknowledge publicly what’s occurring at this moment in history with their guy and his former foes.

Now it’s ‘Goodhair’s’ turn to cozy up to Trump

perry

Oh, how I wish Molly Ivins were around today.

The late, great Texas political columnist coined the term “Gov. Goodhair” to describe her longtime foil, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

What would Ivins think of the notion that Perry is heading off to New York today to visit with the man he once called a “cancer on conservatism,” possibly to interview for a job in his former foe’s Cabinet?

Perry went after Donald J. Trump hard during the Republican Party primary this year. The ex-governor was one of a large field of GOP candidates whom Trump defeated while winning his party’s nomination.

All is forgiven? That “cancer” has been excised from the GOP? Or was Perry just blustering to make some kind of political point in the moment?

Perry reportedly is being considered either for secretary jobs at Defense or Energy.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/21/perry-meet-trump-new-york-city/

Perry did end up endorsing Trump, getting on the president-elect’s good side.

All this maneuvering, though, does illustrate what many of us believe about politicians, which is that you can’t ever take what they say at face value.

Molly Ivins certainly knew it, and she knew what drove Rick Perry better than most. My own sense is that ambition takes precedence over all else.

A little perspective seems to be in order

jfk

I’m still in a bit of shock over the election results. It’s going to take some time to get over the notion that a first-time candidate for any public office has just been elected president of the United States of America … for crying out loud!

But I’ll tell you this: There is something of a silver lining at the prospect of Donald J. Trump taking the oath of office and assuming the multiple roles of head of state/head of government/leader of the Free World/commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine.

It lies in what we’ve endured already as a nation. We have survived — in my view — worse crises than what many of us are feeling now.

Fifty-three years ago, TV news networks flashed bulletins on our screens to inform the nation that “shots were fired” at a presidential motorcade in downtown Dallas. The news trickled in at first. Was the president hurt? Did the gunman hit our nation’s leader?

Then we found out. Yes! The president was taken to a hospital. Doctors were treating him for gunshot wounds.

After that, the worst news possible was flashed around the world: President John F. Kennedy was dead.

I was 13 years old at the time. I have vivid memories of how I felt in that moment. I just knew in my gut that the Russians were responsible. They did it! They killed our president and were planning to invade us. The Soviet Union was going to take over the world, just as they threatened they would. Hey, we were locked in a Cold War with those guys, who had as many nukes as we did.

We would learn in short order — later that very day — that a non-Russian pulled the trigger … allegedly. Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with murdering our president. He, too, would be gunned down a couple of days later in the Dallas Police Department garage. All hell broke loose once again.

Crisis begat another crisis.

How did we do? We got through it.

A new president took the oath of office aboard a jetliner dubbed Air Force One. He flew back to the capital with the body of his slain predecessor. President Lyndon Johnson asked for his nation’s help and God’s strength to see him — and the rest of us — through this terrible moment.

Yes, we’ve exhibited tremendous resilience over many years. World wars, economic collapse, constitutional crises and all manner of conflicts large and small haven’t taken us down.

Donald Trump’s election, while still shocking to many of us, was conducted in accordance with the rules and laws prescribed by our founders. He won this contest fair and square. And, no, the results were not “rigged.”

Understand this: I am not equating a presidential election with a presidential assassination. I mention the JFK tragedy only to put matters into what I believe is their proper perspective.

Remember this, too: If the new president messes up — as many folks believe he will — we have a civilized method to embark on a course correction. We call them “elections.”

Obama takes measured tone regarding Trump

U.S. President Barack Obama holds a news conference at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, U.S. August 4, 2016.  REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst     TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

President Barack Obama quite possibly might have written the book on delivering “measured responses” to shocking developments.

He is finishing up his final world tour as president and he told our nation’s allies in Greece, then Germany and now in Peru to “wait and see” how the new president acts before passing judgment.

That is wise advice, indeed, from the man who is awaiting the day Donald J. Trump takes office as the next president of the United States. That the next president is Donald Trump and not Hillary Rodham Clinton lends the shock value to recent developments regarding the transfer of power in Washington, D.C.

As Obama noted in Europe, a political candidate says things that occasionally are vastly different than what he or she might say as an officeholder. Campaign rhetoric differs vastly from governing rhetoric, he said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306963-obama-take-a-wait-and-see-approach-to-trump

Many millions of Americans are hoping that’s the case with regard to Trump and his wild and fiery campaign rhetoric.

Trump’s transition from real estate mogul/TV personality to the highest profile public official imaginable is well under way. He’s made some missteps in this transition, but he’s also made some good choices.

As The Hill reports: “Obama emphasized that seeing the ‘complexities of the issues’ upon becoming the President-elect can shape and modify thinking.

“’Reality will force him to adjust how he approaches many of these issues,’ Obama added. ‘That’s just the way this office works.’”

I rank the selection of Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff as a sound decision. That’s about it, so far, at least in my world view.

President Obama’s advice to the world leaders about Trump would do us all well back home. I’ll be critical of decisions he makes, but I’m going to remain quiet about how I believe he’ll lead the country until he actually takes hold of the levers of power.