Category Archives: national news

Speaker Ryan’s endorsement seems a bit tenuous

ryan

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan has “endorsed” Donald J. Trump’s candidacy for president of the United States.

Will it put the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s bid over the top? Will it ensure victory in November?

Consider just how Ryan framed his endorsement.

Ryan acknowledged many differences with Trump on policy; he said he wants Trump to change his campaign tone; he didn’t vow to campaign with Trump; he acknowledged that friends encouraged him to withhold his support.

The speaker is going to vote for Trump. So, the combative GOP nominee-to-be will have Ryan’s ballot box endorsement.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/speaker-paul-ryans-trump-endorsement-comes-with-caveats/ar-BBtOuVh?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump and Ryan have said they barely know each other. They’ve met and had what was called a “cordial” discussion about policy and other political matters.

It’s interesting, though, that Trump’s bluster and bravado seems to at odds with the kind of policy discussion that Ryan seems to want from his party’s presumed presidential nominee.

Do you remember how Trump all but threatened the speaker if Ryan doesn’t treat Trump the right way? I guess no one had yet told Trump that the speaker of the House packs way more political punch than a presidential nominee.

But, hey, shouldn’t the Republicans’ leading candidate for president have known that already?

The Ryan endorsement wasn’t a surprise.

The biggest calculation, though, might be in whether the speaker now will be able to deliver his home state of Wisconsin to the Republican nominee this fall.

Hmmm. Well, Ryan himself — as the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2012 — couldn’t deliver Wisconsin to the GOP ticket led by Mitt Romney.

This much now appears certain: Ryan endorsement of the GOP nominee likely has sounded the death knell for the “never Trump” movement.

Oh, and what about Mitt Romney? He’s not supporting Trump.

Let’s get on with this campaign.

Hillary might not win the nomination … really?

hillary

Is it entirely possible that Hillary Rodham Clinton — the one-time candidate of destiny for the Democratic Party — could lose here party’s presidential nomination after all?

Douglas Schoen — a former pollster for President Bill Clinton — thinks it’s possible.

His thesis is simple.

If U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wins the California primary next Tuesday, the Democratic brass is going to come down with a case of terminal heebie-jeebies at the prospect of nominating a badly damaged candidate for the presidency.

Where would they turn? Who would redeem the party’s political fortunes?

That would be the vice president of the United States of America, Joseph Biden.

The vice president has said repeatedly two seemingly contradictory things about his decision to opt out of running for the presidency.

One is that he believes he made the right call. Two is that he regrets making that decision.

You might ask: Huh?

If you are, I get it. I’ve asked the same thing.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Doug-Schoen-Pollster-Democrat-Hillary/2016/06/01/id/731649/

Honestly, I don’t know what will happen after Tuesday. Everyone’s expectation is that Clinton will secure enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot when Democrats gather this summer in Philadelphia. In addition to California, voters in the Dakotas and New Jersey are going to the polls.

Clinton cancelled campaign events in Jersey to concentrate on California.

What does all this mean for Biden?

“Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible (Donald J.) Trump presidency,” the Democratic pollster said in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal.

I’ve stated already my admiration for the vice president. I wish he would have run. I understand why he stayed out. His son, Beau, had just died. The man is still mourning his son’s death.

In every other political year, though, it would appear that Biden’s decision to stay out of the race would be cast in stone.

As we’ve seen at almost every step along the way in this election season, this ain’t like anything we’ve ever seen.

 

Polling put to a new kind of test this election cycle

103477256-trumphillary2rr.530x298

The media obsession with polls, “horse races” and determining who’s up and/or down continues.

The Hill has given us the latest read on how this presidential campaign will turn out.

The conclusion? Polling data may be skewed beyond all recognition because of the high unfavorable ratings of both major-party nominees-to-be.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281910-doubts-creep-into-trump-clinton-polls

The pollsters are having difficulty taking their findings to the bank. Republican presumptive nominee Donald J. Trump’s favorable ratings are in the tank; Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton’s plus-side scores are right behind Trump’s.

Voters’ fickleness puts more guesswork into the polling, according to The Hill.

Will it be a high-turnout or low-turnout election? My own guess is that it’ll be the latter. Voters might decide the choices between the major-party picks are so dismal that they’ll just sit it out. They might not want to consider a third option because that ticket has no chance of winning.

Then again …

Some pollsters think the turnout will be high as voters are motivated to vote against the other candidate.

The anti-Clinton voter bloc will be set to vote for Trump. And vice versa.

All of this seems to be the ingredients tailor-made for a patently miserable campaign.

Hey, hasn’t Trump himself declared he has no intention to “change”?

My fellow Americans … we are in for a rough ride to the finish line.

 

Trump voter offers a reason

donald-trump-speech-promo-getty-491877616

I had a conversation this morning with a friend, who announced to me she’s going to vote for Donald J. Trump this fall for president of the United States.

She is likely among a majority of Texas Panhandle voters who’ll do so. That’s no surprise, given this region’s strong Republican ties and its apparent intense loathing of Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

OK, so the conversation progressed.

I took a deep breath, looked over my friend’s shoulder at the TV screen in the lobby — which always is turned to the Fox News Channel — and said without offering specifics, “But Trump is not fit for the office.”

“Neither is Hillary,” my friend said.

I could feel my eyebrows lift.

“What has she done” to make her unfit for the presidency? I asked.

“I don’t know,” my friend said. “All I know is that I cannot vote for her.” She said she intends to vote for someone for president, it just won’t be Hillary Clinton.

I mentioned Gary Johnson, the recently nominated former New Mexico governor who’s going to run for the second election in a row as a Libertarian candidate for president.

She was unaware of Johnson’s candidacy. I encouraged her to take a look. She said she would.

We then agreed that we won’t talk politics from this day on … until after the election in November.

We’re still friends. I hope she still considers me a friend.

I took a profound feeling of non-acceptance away from that brief conversation this morning. I don’t get the sense that there’s anything in Trump’s alleged “platform” that appeals to my friend. She’s just not going to vote for Clinton because, I presume, she doesn’t trust her.

As for Trump, he’s tapped into some unknown reservoir of something among voters.

I know that he’s reeled in at least one Texas voter who’ll cast her vote for him.

My sense, though, is that the my friend has revealed more about the general electorate’s mood going into this presidential campaign than perhaps she realized.

There’s a lot negative karma in the air.

Media simply ‘afflicting the comfortable’

donald-trump

Journalism has its share of clichés that seek to define its mission.

One of them is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

It doesn’t betray a bias, per se. It simply defines one of the tenets that drives journalists to do their job with thoroughness, while being fair to those they are examining.

Thus, a group of journalists sat before Donald J. Trump on Tuesday and grilled the presumptive Republican presidential nomination on donations he said he made to veterans organizations.

Trump’s response was to throw a tantrum.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/donald-trump-tantrum-media-role-louis/index.html

The issue at hand dealt with whether Trump actually donated the amount of money he said he had donated to veterans organizations.

Washington Post reporters had detected a discrepancy in what Trump had said, that the money went to the organizations many months after he said he made the donation. So, media representatives questioned him about that discrepancy, only to have Trump respond with another round of name-calling and insults.

Trump seems to demonstrate a casual disregard for the facts. He said after the 9/11 attacks that he witnessed “thousands and thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

He didn’t witness anything of the sort.

Some pundits have accused Trump of being a “pathological liar,” defining it as a case in which the candidate tells a lie knowing it to be a lie and understanding full well that others who hear it also know it to be a lie.

It’s the media’s responsibility to ensure that candidates be held accountable for statements they make.

That’s what happened at the news conference Tuesday as the media grilled the candidate on what he said he’d done on behalf of veterans organizations.

Sure, they have “afflicted the comfortable.” It’s their job.

 

This man must think the media will go soft on him

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump reads from a list of donations to veteran's groups, during a news conference in New York, Tuesday, May 31, 2016. (AP Photo/Richard Drew) ORG XMIT: NYRD102

Donald J. Trump’s exhibition of petulance was a sight to behold.

Standing before reporters who had gathered to question him about whether he’d actually raised the money he said he had raised for veterans, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee sought to turn the tables on the questioners.

He called one of them a “sleaze.” He called another one a “loser.” He called the media “dishonest,” and the political media even more dishonest than that.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-veterans-donations-223730

He proclaimed that he didn’t want to make the veterans contributions a big public deal. Oh, but when he backed out of a Fox News debate, he said out loud and in public that he’d raised $6 million and given a million bucks himself.

Media representatives have questioned whether Trump actually raised the money for the veterans. They want Trump to account for the money.

And for that they get called “sleazy”?

Does this individual — the GOP nominee in waiting — expect the media to back off in the highly unlikely event he’s ever elected president?

Listen to the press conference in its entirety. It’s gone viral out there in Social Media Land.

Then get back to me and tell me this guy really is suited for the job he is seeking.

 

No need to prosecute parents

harambe

Harambe’s death in the Cincinnati Zoo has sparked outrage around the world.

Yes, it’s tragic. It shouldn’t have happened. It took no time at all for recriminations to start flying over the death of the rare gorilla that well could have killed a little boy who had fallen into the beast’s enclosure.

Zoo officials did what they had to do. They shot Harambe to death to save the boy from potentially serious injury or death.

Who’s to blame? Who’s at fault? Who should pay for this?

I will say here that the parents shouldn’t have to face criminal charges, nor civil penalty.

Yes, they erred in taking their eyes of the tot long enough for him to climb through the barrier and fall into Harambe’s enclosure. Let’s not “go after” them for a mistake.

Zoo officials say this is the first time in the venue’s history that this kind of event has occurred. It likely will be the last time — for a very long while.

Does the Cincy Zoo need to do a better job of securing these enclosures from incursions made by curious children? Obviously, the answer is a resounding “yes!”

Harambe was a 400-pound beast capable of doing horrific harm to the little intruder. Frankly, I’m amazed that the boy wasn’t hurt, given the way Harambe was tossing him around and dragging him through the water.

Let us stop the recriminations and look now for solutions to prevent this from happening ever again.

 

‘Militia’ goons complain about … what? … no Internet

BBoKoWS

Ammon and Ryan Bundy are unhappy with their living conditions in jail.

You might remember these guys. They took over a national wildlife refuge headquarters for several weeks as part of an ongoing dispute with the federal government over some property issues.

They surrendered after a siege in Burns, Ore. They’re now awaiting trial. They want to prepare for their date in federal court and say they need Internet access in their jail cell. They don’t have it.

Cry … me … a … river — fellas.

They’re being held in Multnomah County, where Portland is located.

Jail officials say they can have IPads, but only if their lawyers preload information they can use.

There’s something strangely weird about these two clowns griping about lack of Internet access.

I surely don’t know this as fact, but something tells me that the Bundys — part of an extreme right-wing political movement — quite likely over the years have complained about prison becoming too much of a “country club” for bad guys. Don’t you think that sometime in their lives they griped about how “good” the criminals have it behind bars?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-militia-leader-complains-about-no-internet-in-jail-cell/ar-BBtF1ne?li=BBnbcA1

To hear these guys gripe about lack of Internet access in their jail cell just rings more than a tad bit hollow in my ears.

A lot of lockups these days have extensive libraries — with books in them — for inmates to use.  My strong preference would be for these two clowns to quit griping about Internet access and start cracking open some law texts.

Cincy zoo officials acted properly to save boy

Harambe-..Male-Gorilla-Killed

I have been trying to process the tragedy surrounding the death of a 17-year-old mountain gorilla.

Cincinnati Zoo officials shot Harambe to death after a 4-year-old boy fell into the beast’s enclosure. The video we’ve all watched is horrifying in the extreme as Harambe pulls and throws the tot around the pool.

I haven’t seen any video of Harambe being shot to death. To be honest, I don’t care to see it.

I do believe, though, that zoo officials followed the only reasonable course to achieve what it had to achieve — which was to save the boy’s life.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/us/cincinnati-zoo-gorilla-shot/index.html

Animal-rights activists — quite predictably — are saying the zoo should have spared Harambe’s life. But at what cost, for crying out loud?

The youngster was in imminent peril of losing his life in a most horrific manner. Other animal behaviorists have noted that Harambe well could have become agitated if he had been shot with a tranquilizer dart; it takes a while for the drug to take effect, these folks warn us, and the time until Harambe would be sedated could have placed the boy into even greater danger.

The strength of these beasts is not to be trifled with.

If there’s a scapegoat — I won’t use the term “villain” — here, it’s the boy’s parents who apparently turned their backs on the youngster long enough for him to fall into Harambe’s enclosure.

Zoo officials aren’t releasing the family’s name. That’s just as well. They know what happened and they have to live with the consequences of what became of a majestic beast.

Yes, it’s a tragedy that Harambe’s life had to be taken.

Imagine the outrage, though, had the zoo taken another course and the youngster’s life had been lost.

 

Let’s make it a three-way race for POTUS

johnson

It’s official.

Americans are going to have three — count ’em, three — legitimate candidates for president and vice president of the United States to consider.

You may now count me as among the millions of Americans who are going to ponder the third path to the White House.

The Libertarian Party has nominated two accomplished former governors as its ticket to ride: Republicans Gary Johnson of New Mexico for president and William Weld of Massachusetts for vice president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/libertarians-johnson-weld-trump-gary-william-223703

Here’s my dilemma.

I’ve told you already that I’ve voted exclusively for Democrats for president/VP since I started voting back in 1972. I’ve split my down-ballot ticket, though, over the years; I’ve voted for many Republicans for U.S. Senate and House, and for state and local offices in the two states where I’ve lived.

I do not yet know how I’m going to vote this year for president and vice president.

Under no circumstances would I vote for the likely GOP nominee Donald J. Trump and whoever he picks as his running mate. That’s a given.

The likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is presenting some potentially serious concerns for me. They center on that “trust” thing that’s dogging her. Am I ready to forsake her? No, but I am ready now to look carefully at what the third-party ticket of Johnson-Weld has to offer.

Both of these gentlemen were moderate Republicans when they governed their respective states. Today’s version of hard-core Republicanism would call them RINOs, Republicans In Name Only. Johnson is most well-known for advocating the legalization of marijuana. He also did a creditable job running New Mexico. I know a whole lot less about Weld.

Both are men of substantial financial means … although I don’t hear either of them brag about it the way Trump boasts of his y-u-u-u-g-e fortune.

Given that I understand that voting preference is a private matter, I’m not likely to reveal who will get my vote. That might become evident as I continue to comment on matters as the campaign progresses.

OK, you already know who won’t get it.

I suppose, then, that my choices now are just two — which is what they’ve always been in the past.

Whatever.

I now declare myself ready and willing to examine a ticket other than one from either of the two major political parties.

That’s a big step. At least it is for me.