Category Archives: national news

GOP cannibalism now under way

trump

Somehow, you just knew this would happen.

Back when there were many more Republican Party candidates for president, they all signed a “pledge” to back whoever the party nominates.

That was then. Now that we’re down to just three men standing, they all now are going back on their pledge. As noted Republican analyst Matthew Dowd said this morning on “Good Morning America,” he never considered the pledge to be “the Magna Carta,” meaning he’s not surprised that the candidates are walking back their pledge of support for the other guy.

Well, this is a byproduct of what has been the least dignified presidential campaign in memory — if not in history.

Donald J. Trump said the Republican Party has “treated me very unfairly.” The frontrunner is mad because the GOP brass doesn’t want him to be the nominee and is staying up into the wee hours concocting a scenario that would deny him the nomination at the party convention this summer in Cleveland.

Rafael Edward Cruz has said he is “not in the habit” of supporting candidates who attack his family, which the frontrunner — Trump — has done.

John Kasich is no fan of either of the other guys. He especially appears to detest Trump and has said — almost categorically — that the frontrunner won’t get his support if he’s the nominee. As for Cruz, should he be the nominee, a Kasich endorsement also sounds a bit iffy.

Trump, to no one’s surprise, said he never “pledged” anything. I guess that picture of him holding up that document in which he signed his name was a mirage.

A friend of mine reminded me this morning of something a prominent Texas Panhandle politician used to say about how Republicans treat each other. They resort to a form of cannibalism.

The comment came from the late state Sen. Teel Bivins of Amarillo, who used to joke that redistricting, which the Texas Legislature performs every decade after the census is taken, is when “Republicans eat their young.”

He said he hated the redistricting process. “Sure you do, Teel,” I would tell him. He just couldn’t stop doing it.

Are we seeing the three remaining GOP presidential candidates “eat” each other? They just might take this intense dislike with them to that convention in Ohio late this year.

Bon apetit, gentlemen.

Speaking of polls, take a look at this

PollingFundamentals

Now that public opinion polls have become a staple of American political coverage, it’s good to look at the latest survey of Americans’ views of the job the president is doing.

RealClearPolitics posts a national average of polls daily.

The numbers are instructive.

President Obama now stands at 2.7 percent approval-over-disapproval in the average of polls that RCP posts.

Why is this important? It’s important because most of the remaining candidates for president — Republican and Democrat — keep talking about polls and their relative standing among them.

Donald J. Trump bellows constantly when the polls show him beating fellow Republicans Ted Cruz or John Kasich. Cruz counters with favorable poll reports when they suit his cause. Kasich keeps saying the polls show him as the only GOP candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton.

Oh yes. Bernie Sanders keeps talking about the polls that show him “closing the gap” for the Democratic nomination with Clinton.

Polls, polls, polls …

Remember when pols said “the only poll that counts is on Election Day”? Not only longer. They keep yapping about the polls and the media keep reporting it.

Thus, they have become important.

Back to the RCP poll average.

President Obama’s poll ratings had been in the tank for most of his second term. They weren’t necessarily horrible; just flat, lingering in the mid-40 percent range. What’s most interesting is that his favorable ratings were usually significantly less than his unfavorable ratings.

Today, though, it’s different. His favorability rating, according to the RCP average, stands at 49 percent, nearly 3 percent greater than his unfavorable rating.

Two more quick points.

One is that the RCP average takes into account all the major polling results done. Conservative polling outfits are measured, along with liberal polling companies. They’re tossed in altogether and you get the average of all the polls.

The second point is that RCP’s average of polls about the job Congress is doing shows a 14 percent job approval rating.

 

 

Media should challenge pols? Sure, except for one thing …

BBr384Y

President Obama has thrown down on the national media, which he said aren’t doing their job properly.

The current political climate, the president said, is due partly because the media haven’t challenged presidential candidates’ falsehoods, outrageousness and manipulation.

Obama spoke to a media gathering and said the rest of the world is dumbfounded at what’s happening to the “crazy politics” that has infected the United States.

Hold ’em accountable

Here’s part of what the president said: “A job well done is about more than just handing someone a microphone. It’s to probe and to question and to dig deeper and to demand more.Ā The electorate would be better served if that happened. It would be better served if billions of dollars in free media came with serious accountability, especially when politicians issue unworkable plans or make promises they cannot keep.”

Got it, Mr. President.

But here’s the catch. The media are considered part of what’s ticking off much of the electorate.

The media have sought to hold the candidates “accountable,” as you suggest. They have challenge absurd assertions by a number of the candidates, only to be outshouted by the angry legions of voters who continue to stand by their candidates’ original absurd assertion.

As someone who’s still associated with the media, I happen to believe the president is correct to assert that the media need to do better. We always can do more to provide context and to check all the facts before running with them.

It’s the suggestion, though, that greater media scrutiny — in this particular climate — is going to flip the switch on in voters’ minds and make them see the light, the truth and the way.

Instead, they’re increasingly likely these days to “double down” on what the candidate says and then blast the media for “lying” about their guy’s message.

I believe we are in a classic “Catch-22” situation.

Thanks anyway for the advice, Mr. President.

Al Franken for VP? Let’s think about this

franken

Al Franken for vice president?

Oh boy. It’s almost too hilarious to consider. Then again, so was Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy once thought of as a side-splitting joke.

Bill Scher, writing for Politico, thinks the political dynamics have been thrown into the drink with Trump’s frontrunning GOP presidential campaign.

So, according to Scher, Hillary Clinton needs to think seriously about appointing the man who gained fame as Stuart Smalley, the “Saturday Night Live” character who turned melodramatic modesty into an art form.

Franken now has a serious job, as a U.S. senator from Minnesota.

His committee hearing questioning of witnesses can be hilarious. He also makes serious points.

Franken is an unapologetic populist. He’s also backing Clinton, rather than Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Scher’s point in pushing Franken out front as a potential VP nominee is that Trump has changed the political calculus at every level. Franken would be seen as every bit as serious as Trump … which isn’t saying much, given that Trump’s circus act has turned the GOP campaign into a markedly unserious endeavor.

I am not in favor of promoting candidates for high public office for the sake of doing something brash and unthinkable. I like Sen. Franken. He’s a solid family man and a damn funny comedian. He writes great jokes, which he did for many years before becoming an on-camera sensation with “SNL.”

The question keeps popping into my head: Is Al “Stuart Smalley” Franken ready to become president if he is forced to assume that office?

My heart wants to say “yes.” My head says “no.”

As for Donald J. Trump, every fiber of my being tells me he is unsuited at every level imaginable for the office he is seeking.

 

Ga. governor vetoes anti-LGBT law … yes!

religious-exemptions-georgia

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal has done the right thing by vetoingĀ House Bill 757, which sought to give faith-based business owners the option of denying jobs and services to gays, bisexuals andĀ transgendered individuals.

Those who supported the bill said it protects religious liberty. Those who oppose it said it discriminates needlessly against Americans who shouldn’t be denied their rights as citizens.

There had been reports of pressure being applied by HB 757 foes who said the bill could result in the loss of business and jobs in Georgia.

I’m glad the anti-bill folks won this argument.

Gov. Deal, a Republican, denied he was reacting to pressure from either or both sides of the divide. According to CNN: His decision, he said, was “about the character of our state and the character of our people. Georgia is a welcoming state. It is full of loving, kind and generous people. … I intend to do my part to keep it that way. For that reason I will veto House Bill 757.”

I accept that rationale for doing the right thing by the residents of his state who comprise the whole range of humanity — and all sexual orientations.

One of the more fascinating responses to this doing-business-with-gay-people came not long ago from Ohio Gov. John Kasich, one of three men running for the Republican presidential nomination.

During a debate with the other candidates, the question came to Kasich about legislation allowing business owners to deny serving gay individuals or gay couples. Kasich’s response was about as compassionate as it gets.

He said he believes in “traditional marriage,” but said that those who are in business of serving the public need to understand the differences among all people. Some of those differences involve sexual orientation.

He said that if he were put in that position as a business owner, he would serve a gay individual or a gay couple and then would “pray for them” — privately, seeking his own counsel with God.

I hope that’s part of the complexities of the issue thatĀ has driven Gov. Deal to veto this bill approved by his state’s legislature.

Let’s not seek to interpret what is inĀ one man’sĀ heart and soul.

Whatever the reasons, Deal knows what they are. His veto speaks volumes all by itself.

‘Shame,’ ’embarrassment’ become campaign themes

dontvotefortheotherguy

Oh, for shame!

The remaining men vying for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination appear to have become embarrassments to the very people whose support they will need this fall when one of them square off against the Democratic Party presidential nominee.

What in the world has become of the process that selects major-party nominees seeking to become the most powerful officeholder in the whole world?

It has become a sideshow, a circus act, a schoolyard fight, a proverbial food fight.

Voters should demand better of the candidates. Then again, perhaps they secretly like what they’re hearing and seeing.

The Republican side of this carnival act has been particularly disgraceful. And that is coming from Republicans who’ve watched it.

GOP pollster Frank Luntz asked viewers who watched one of the Republican debates, the one in Detroit, to summarize what they saw. The Washington Post reported: ā€œSophomoric,ā€ ā€œembarrassment,ā€ ā€œdisappointing,ā€ ā€œshameful,ā€ ā€œdespicable,ā€ ā€œangeringā€ and ā€œschoolyard brawlā€ were some of the responses he received during a broadcast on Fox News Channel.

As one Republican told the Post — and this guy is a Ted Cruz supporter — the candidates need to be talking about ISIS and the “loss of freedom.”

Instead, he noted, they were engaging in the kind of talk one hears on junior high school playgrounds.

Who and/or what is the culprit?

Have social media become the communications vehicle of choice for too many Americans? We appear to be relying on Twitter feeds and Facebook posts to learn things — most of it irrelevant to actual policy — about these candidates.

Have their been too many of these Republican and Democratic primary debates? It might be that the candidates have run out of creative ways to argue the fine points of policy and have been left to resort to the kind of shameful name-calling and ridicule we’ve been hearing.

Do the candidates themselves deserve blame? Pundits keep talking about Donald J. Trump’s lack of depth andĀ his mastery of media manipulation. Then there’s the beliefĀ among manyĀ that he is a barely closeted sexist, xenophobe and racist.Ā The response fromĀ Ted Cruz to Trump’s insults has been, well, less than stellar as well.

The campaign should have been dignified. It has been everything except that.

These individuals are seeking to become commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine. They want to become head of state of what many of us believe is the greatest nation ever created. They seek to lead a nation of 300-plus million citizens into a still-uncertain future.

And this is what we’re getting?

 

Cruz gets fascinating Texas endorsement

dewhurst

Say what you will about Chris Christie and Ben Carson endorsing Donald J. Trump after Trump trashed both of them during their joint Republican presidential primary run.

Ted Cruz of Texas has just scored a fascinating endorsement as well from a fellow former competitor. Only this guy didn’t run against him in this year’s GOP presidential primary. Oh, no! This fellow was the original foe to get “Cruzed,” as some of us in Texas have said about the treatment he got from the junior U.S. senator.

Former Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst is backing the Cruz Missile.

This endorsement might not have the legs it does in Texas. Take it from me: This is a big deal.

Cruz decided in 2011 to run for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Kay Bailey Hutchison. The prohibitive favorite to succeed her was Dewhurst. He had served well as lieutenant governor and as land commissioner before that. He had lots of money and lots of political connections, dating back to his pre-public service career as a mover and shaker in the Houston area.

Dewhurst backs former foe

Then he ran into the Ted Cruz buzz saw.

Cruz campaigned against Dewhurst more or less the way he has campaigned for the presidency: He cast Dewhurst as part of the Texas political establishment and promised to change the climate if Texans elected him to the Senate.

He called Dewhurst a dreaded “moderate” because he managed to work pretty well with Texas Senate Democrats while presiding as lieutenant governor over the upper legislative chamber. To the ears of Texas Republican primary voters, he might as well haveĀ called Dewhurst a child molester.

Dewhurst responded by trying to outflank Cruz on the right, which is pretty damn hard to do, given Cruz’s reputation as a far-right TEA Party golden boy.

It didn’t work for Dewhurst. Cruz beat him in the primary.

Dewhurst, though, has forgiven Cruz for the roughĀ treatment he got.

Will any of that matter down the road? It’s interesting to me that Dewhurst decided to endorse Cruz now … nearly a month after the state held its primary elections.

Cruz already has won the Texas primary.

Don’t look for Dewhurst to campaign much for his new best friend Ted Cruz as the primary campaign continues its journey. For the rest of the country, the rangy former Texas lieutenant governor’s rhetoric endorsing Ted Cruz won’t mean much.

It does speak, though, to how political wounds manage to heal.

Dewhurst can boast, I suppose, of being the first of Ted Cruz’s political victims — which grants him a fascinating, if somewhat dubious honor.

Hey, the Taliban really are terrorists!

050712_an_taliban_640

Consider this an open letter to CIA director John Brennan.

Dear Mr. Brennan:

You need to rethink your cockamamie notion that the Taliban is not a terrorist organization. Now!

Have you heard the news? The Taliban exploded a bomb in a park in Lahore. It killed 65 Christians who were gathered there. Most of the victims were women and children.

Attack aimed at Christians

Let’s see. The attack occurred on Christianity’s holiest holiday. The Taliban actually stated it that it was targeting Christians. The victims were defenseless against the attack.

I do believe, Mr. Director, that the act committed today constitutes a bona fide act of terror. It was aimed precisely atĀ non-combatants and its aim now is to put other such individuals or groups of individuals on notice that they may be next.

This is worth bringing up because of the exchange negotiated with the Taliban that brought about the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who’d been held by the Taliban for five years after he walked off his post in Afghanistan.

I’m sure you recall that White House press flack Josh Earnest said the United States “negotiated” the release because it doesn’t consider the Taliban to be a terrorist organization. We don’t “negotiate with terrorists,” Earnest told us.

Fair enough.

Except that the Taliban for decades has terrorized women and children. Yes, it has resorted to violence against those who oppose its repression.

Now we have this incident of terror in the park in Lahore, Pakistan.

It was committed by the Taliban. The group sought to terrorize innocent people.

If this is not the action of a terrorist organization, then no such organization exists anywhere on the planet. We all know that’s not the case.

The Taliban needs to be treated as the terrorists they are — and always have been.

 

Hey, Hillary … take a look at what these guys are saying

BudgetDeficit

Hillary Rodham Clinton may be the inevitable Democratic Party presidential nominee.

It’s not a done deal just yet, given Sen. Bernie Sanders’s big wins this weekend in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. Clinton, though,Ā still has the big lead in delegates and the primary campaign is heading into more Clinton-friendly territory.

But here’s the thing, according to Bill Moyers (yes, that Bill Moyers) and Michael Winship: She remains captive to the big-money interests that are poisoning the political system. It’s time for Clinton to stand up, spit into her palms and then do what she needs to do, they say, which isĀ call for the immediate resignation of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

They ask a valid question: Is she the candidate of the past or of the future?

If it’s the latter, then she needs to demonstrate it. Forcefully.

These two figures — Emmanuel and Schultz — represent what’s wrong with the Democratic Party, say Moyers and Winship.

Emmanuel’s tenure as mayor has been rocked by controversy. The shooting death of an African-American teenager, Laquan McDonald, went unreported for months. Laquan was shot to death by Chicago police while he was strolling down the street. He presented no weapon; his hands were in the air. A cop shot him multiple times dead in the street.

Emmanuel then took responsibility for the shooting, given that he’s the mayor and the chief of police answers to him.

But before he became mayor he was a three-term Illinois congressman and White House chief of staff for President Obama. He is soaked in corporate money. Emmanuel, Moyers and Winship write, “chaired the fundraising Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (calling on his Wall Street sources to get in on the gravy by electing so-called New Democrats over New Deal Democrats), and soon was back in the White House asĀ Obama’s chief of staff. There, he infamously told a strategy meeting of liberal groups and administration types that the liberals were ‘retarded’ for planning to run attack ads against conservative Democrats resisting Obamacare.Ā Classy.”

He’s a longtime ally of Hillary and Bill Clinton, which is why he continues to loom so large on the Democratic Party landscape.

Schultz is just as tainted by money, say Moyers and Winship, who write that “she embodies the tactics that have eroded the ability of Democrats to once again be the party of the working class. As Democratic National Committee chair she has opened the floodgates for Big Money, brought lobbyists into the inner circle and oiled all the moving parts of the revolving door that twirls between government service and cushy jobs in the world of corporate influence.”

Of the two essayists, Moyers — of course — is the better known. He’s an East Texan who came to prominence during the Lyndon Johnson administration, where he served his fellow Texan as White House press secretary. He then went on to become a fixture on public television.

The Sanders campaign has lit a fire all by itself with the candidate’s call for reform of the political financing system. His sole aim is to finance presidential campaigns solely with public funds, while seeking to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that unleashes corporate donors.

Moyers and Winship make the case fairly persuasively that Hillary Clinton is too wedded to the deep-pocketed donor class that they say has corrupted the political system.

She well might want to consider seriously what these men are suggesting, which is to cut her ties to the past and demonstrate that she’s the Democratic Party’s best hope for the future.

 

‘Transformational’ takes on new meaning

Cruz_Trump_ap_img

There once was a time in politics when those who practice the craft sought to become “transformational” figures.

Barack Obama saw himself in that light in 2008. Ronald Reagan, too, was considered a “transformational” candidate. The Gipper reshaped the political landscape with his landslide victory in 1980. The jury is still out on Obama’s impact.

Thus, the term was thought to constitute high praise.

These days, “transformational” seems to have taken on a new meaning.

And it’s not flattering in the least.

Donald J. Trump and Rafael Edward Cruz have “transformed” the political craft into something cheap, tawdry, childish, petulant and utterly without substance.

They’ve been bickering over social media about their wives.

And as the accompanying New York Times essay seeks to explain, they seem to treat women — even the women in their lives — as objects.

They’ve lowered the bar to new depths.

Yes, the candidates have quarreled over the Internet about insults, innuendo, threats and retribution against their wives.

It has been a disgraceful exhibition that in normal election cycles would have no place anywhere near two leading major-party candidates for the presidency of the United States.

I am quite certain the rest of the world is laughing hysterically at what has become of the formerly great political party known as the Republican Party.

The Party of Lincoln has become the Party of Chuckleheads.

Please, spare me the bleating by “true Republicans” that Trump isn’t one of them. He’s chosen to line up on the Republican side of the gate in this race for the White House, so the GOP must accept that he’s now one of their own.

And Cruz? His response to the Brussels terrorist attack was the Mother of All Doozys. He wants to beef up policeĀ patrols in “Muslim neighborhoods.” Yeah, boy. That’ll show them Muslims what we’re all about here.

Is there a greater Islamic State recruitment tool — other than Trump’s stated desire to ban all non-American Muslims from entering the United States — than this?

But instead of debating the idiocy of such a policy pronouncement, we’re left to wonder what in the name of political sanity has become of a party that features two men quarreling out loud about the nasty things being said about their wives?

This is the new definition of “transformational” politics.

We’ve transformed what the late Robert F. Kennedy used to describe as a “noble profession” into something not worthy of a middle-school food fight.