Category Archives: political news

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.

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.

Trump running headlong into D.C. reality

donald

Donald J. Trump is facing the worst of two worlds as he prepares to become president of the United States.

He wants to spend a trillion bucks on infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports. He once compared American airports to “third world” terminals; the bridges and roads are a “disgrace.”

So he has pitched an expensive program to fix it all.

Here’s this little problem. There’s no money to pay for it. Why? He also wants to cut taxes.

Let’s see: Introducing a big spending program while cutting tax revenue seems to be counterintuitive in the extreme. Don’t you think?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-infrastructure-plan-washington-reality-231649

On whom does the president-elect depend to help him enact this idea?

Republicans who control both congressional chambers? Forget about it. They’re skinflints who aren’t about to borrow more money and, therefore, increase the national debt. Do you remember when Joplin, Mo., was leveled by that tornado in 2011 and then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia demanded cuts elsewhere to offset the expense of making one of our communities whole?

What about Democrats who otherwise might be likely to support a big infrastructure “investment”? They detest Trump even more than Republicans do.

Can Trump declare a “mandate” to do what he wants? Um, no, not with a 1.7 million (and growing) popular-vote deficit stemming from the Nov. 8 presidential election.

So, here we are. A political novice set to become president of the United States is getting an on-the-job-training lesson on just how little power he really possesses.

This ain’t a corporate board room, Mr. President-elect.

Trump to ‘batch it’ at the White House

49321869-cached

Note: This blog post has been updated.

Melania Trump has declared that she and her son, Barron, will move into the White House after the youngster finishes his school year at his private school in New York City.

***

An interesting and somewhat puzzling development has cropped up in this transition from one president to another.

Melania Trump won’t be moving to the White House when her husband, Donald J. Trump, is inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States.

She and the couple’s son, Barron, will remain in New York while husband/dad tends to governing the country. Why won’t she move to the White House? Mrs. Trump said she wants her son to continue attending the private school he attends near their home.

OK, I won’t challenge her parenting skills. Mrs. Trump reportedly wants to shield 10-year-old Barron from the pressures of living in the People’s House.

I do have some advice for the new first lady. She ought to get on the phone and talk once again to Michelle Obama, Laura Bush and — oh, yeah! — Hillary Rodham Clinton. What do these women have in common? They all raised young children under the glare of the White House lights.

* The Obama girls haven’t quite left the nest, but they appeared to adjust well as Mom and Dad went about the business of being the First Couple; it helped, too, that Mrs. Obama’s mother also lives in the White House. Grandma no doubt was a steadying hand for Malia and Sasha.

* The Bush girls — twins Barbara and Jenna — also have grown into successful adults after spending most of two full terms in the White House.

* Chelsea Clinton was famously protected by her parents during her father’s two terms as president. She turned out just fine, too.

If she wants to go way back, Mrs. Trump could visit with Caroline Kennedy, who lived for a time in the White House as the daughter of a president before tragedy struck on Nov. 22, 1963.

I’ll have to think more about this news for it to sink in. My reaction to learning about Melania Trump’s decision to stay in New York City, though, is that it seems to be yet another curious turn in what’s becoming a most unusual presidential transition.

And don’t you know: The Secret Service is gnashing its teeth over the measures it will take to protect Melania and Barron Trump while they’re away from the White House.

Obama might speak out as a former POTUS? Bad idea

barack_obama_laughing_hd_wallpaper_-1024x680

Barack Obama is sending some signals that he might not leave the public arena once his successor takes office.

The 44th president of the United States might keep speaking out even as the 45th president, Donald J. Trump, begins his term.

Let’s think for a moment about that.

OK. I’ve thought about it. It’s a bad notion. I hope the president rethinks his temptation to keep speaking out.

I have applauded two former presidents — George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — for their decisions to stay away from the rough-and-tumble. Both men have declared their intention to stay out of the limelight. They both have said essentially the same thing: They had their time in the arena; it’s time to cede the spotlight to someone else.

I was particularly pleased that George W. Bush remained faithful to that pledge, particularly while former Vice President Dick Cheney kept popping off about President Obama’s foreign policy decisions. I urged Cheney to follow his former boss’s lead: Keep your trap shut, Mr. Vice President.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2009/03/follow-your-boss-lead-mr-vice-president/

Barack Obama’s time is coming to an end. He will have plenty of work to occupy his time while he returns to some semblance of a private life. He’s got a presidential library to plan and develop. He can set up a foundation that continues to speak to the issues near to his heart; the state of race relations comes to mind.

Should he provide post-presidential critiques of decisions that come from the man who’ll succeed him? I hope he keeps his thoughts to himself.

As many of his predecessors have noted, we have only one president at a time. The guy who’ll sit in the Oval Office will get plenty of hits from the rest of us out here in the peanut gallery.

Surely, Mitt doesn’t need a paycheck

Mitt Romney once called it exactly right about Donald Trump.

He called the next president of the United States a “phony,” a “fraud.” Romney questioned whether Trump was hiding some potentially criminal activity by refusing to release his tax returns.

The 2012 Republican presidential nominee said some amazingly harsh things about the 45th president. Romney endeared himself so much to many Americans — me included — that we actually begin thinking kindly of him, wishing he were the GOP candidate instead of Trump.

Why, I even began referring to him by his first name, which actually is his middle name. Mitt this, Mitt that.

So, what in the world is Mitt doing by making himself available to be considered for secretary of state in the Trump administration?

Hey, Mitt’s a rich guy, too. He doesn’t need the money. Nor does he need to the embarrassment of representing Donald Trump’s world view to a world still reeling by the very thought of Trump becoming president of the greatest nation on Earth.

Doesn’t the next president recall what Mitt said in 2012 about Russia? I’ll remind him here. Mitt declared that Russia presented the “greatest global geopolitical threat” to the United States. Trump, meanwhile, is accepting high praise from Russian strongman/dictator/former spook Vladimir Putin. Which is it? Greatest threat or potential ally?

Frankly, Mitt’s assessment looks more accurate and prescient than anything Trump has said about Russia.

Then we have the nature of the criticism. The video I’ve attached to this blog post is quite revealing. It’s only 17 minutes long. But it’s a doozy.

Oh, and Trump’s response to it? He called Mitt a “loser” who “begged” Trump for his endorsement four years ago.

Say it won’t happen, Mitt. Tell us that you’re just stringing Trump along. While you’re at it, when you get him in that room in private at Trump Tower, please reiterate what you said about him on the campaign trail. It was all true then … and it’s true to this very day.

You’re better than this, Mitt.

Trump picks demonstrate anti-unity theme

sessions

Donald Trump has vowed to “unify” the nation after a bitter campaign that elected him the next president of the United States.

Who, then, does he pick for his national security team?

Let’s see: retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who will lead the National Security Agency, says that fear of Muslims is “rational”; Kansas U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, who will lead the CIA, believes Muslims contribute to the terror threat by refusing to repudiate terrorism; U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, whom Trump has nominated to be attorney general, was denied a federal judgeship in the 1980s because of allegedly racist comments he made as a U.S. attorney in Alabama.

Trump is making no apologies for targeting people of certain faiths and he is making no amends toward the African-American community by nominating someone with, um, a checkered civil-rights past to lead the Justice Department.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump%e2%80%99s-national-security-choices-reinforce-his-unapologetic-views-on-terrorism/ar-AAktCJm?li=BBnb7Kz

None of this should surprise anyone, I suppose. The president-elect is precisely who he says he is: a tough guy who vows to roll back many of the policies of the administration he will succeed.

According to the New York Times: “The reaction from Democrats was immediate and angry. ‘The president-elect has created a White House leadership that embodies the most divisive rhetoric of his campaign,’ Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said on Friday. ‘To the extent that these become policies or legislative proposals, I commit to stopping them.’”

Perhaps the most amazing view from this national security team came from Gen. Flynn, who supports a national registry of Muslims and compares such registration to the internment of Japanese-Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. President Roosevelt overreacted grossly to a perceived threat from loyal Americans as the nation entered World War II and that overreaction has been universally condemned in the years since as a tragic mistake.

Oh yes. A new day is about to dawn in Washington, D.C. Let’s all get ready for some storm clouds that are beginning to boil up on the political horizon.

Early vote record produces a mixed result

voting

Let’s crunch some numbers from the presidential election.

I want to examine briefly the record-setting early-vote totals in one Texas county — the one where I live — and try to determine if it meant a greater overall turnout.

Randall County voted 80 percent in favor of the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump. That’s the least surprising result, given the county’s strong GOP tradition. You can’t find a Democratic candidate running for anything in this county. Indeed, the loneliest job in America — next, perhaps, to the Maytag repairman — might be Randall County’s Democratic chair.

The county registered more than 43,000 early votes prior to the Nov. 8 election. In 2012, a total of about 49,600 voters cast ballots in the race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney; captured the Randall County vote by an even greater percentage than Trump did.

This year, the unofficial vote total for Randall County sits at 54,185. That’s an increase of about 5,000 votes from four years ago.

The county had about 85,000 registered voters this year, which puts the percentage turnout at about 63 percent.

To that I would say, “Not bad at all.” Of course, the number goes down when you factor in the total number of eligible voters, which includes those who aren’t registered to vote.

What does all this mean?

http://uselectionatlas.org/2016.php

I guess it means that the record number of early voters did translate into a ginned-up interest in this election — much to my own surprise. I had thought the election would produce a dismally low turnout, even in this GOP-friendly region.

Still, the percentage of turnout across the state remains far short of anything to boast about. The national turnout appears headed for a 20-year low.

I am delighted that Texas makes it so easy for residents to vote early. I remain dedicated, though, to the idea of waiting until Election Day to cast my ballot.

For those who did vote early — and to those who perhaps voted for the first time — congratulations and well done.

 

Listen to this guy, Mr. President-elect

mccain

One might not expect Donald J. Trump to take much of what Sen. John McCain has to say all that seriously … even about things with which he is intimately familiar.

After all, Trump said McCain wasn’t “really a war hero” during the Vietnam War, adding that “I like people who weren’t captured, OK?”

McCain, though, offers a serious word of advice to the president-elect: Do not make nice with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/john-mccain-trump-no-putin-231423

According to Politico: “Vladimir Putin has rejoined Bashar Assad in his barbaric war against the Syrian people with the resumption of large-scale Russian air and missile strikes in Idlib and Homs,” the Arizona senator who was the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, said in a statement. “Another brutal assault on the city of Aleppo could soon follow.”

“With the U.S. presidential transition underway, Vladimir Putin has said in recent days that he wants to improve relations with the United States,” McCain added. “We should place as much faith in such statements as any other made by a former KGB agent who has plunged his country into tyranny, murdered his political opponents, invaded his neighbors, threatened America’s allies and attempted to undermine America’s elections.”

And Trump wants to try to get Putin on our side? He wants to link arms with the Russians in a fight to the death against the Islamic State?

McCain is correct to underscore Putin’s one-time role as the head of the Soviet spy agency, the KGB.

I’m no fan of McCain, although I certainly honor his service during the Vietnam War. He’s a war hero, no matter what Trump has said about him. McCain also understands the world stage in a way that Trump hasn’t even begun to grasp.

I almost can hear Trump now: “Who is this guy McCain telling me how to conduct foreign policy. I mean, I won a presidential election. He’s a loser.”

Sure, McCain lost the 2008 election. He knows his way around the world stage. The new president would do well to heed this man’s advice.

Trump ‘mandate’ getting smaller by the day

hillary

Donald J. Trump’s so-called presidential election “mandate” is disappearing right before his eyes.

The president-elect has captured the Electoral College vote by a healthy — if not overwhelming — margin. He’ll finish with 306 electoral votes to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 232 votes. Of course, that assumes that all the electors earmarked for both candidates actually vote that way when they take the tally in December.

I’ll be intrigued, though, to hear whether Trump declares his election is a “mandate” to do all the things he wants to do: build the wall, ban Muslims, toss out trade agreements, “bomb the s*** out of ISIS,” you know … stuff like that.

Clinton’s popular vote margin has surpassed 1 million ballots, with the “lead” sure to grow as vote-counters tally up ballots in Clinton-friendly states such as California.

I don’t for a second doubt the legitimacy of Trump’s victory. He won where it counted. To be sure, Clinton will draw small comfort in knowing she collected more ballots nationally than the man who “defeated” her.

However, I think it’s worth stating that the winner needs to take some care — if he’s capable of demonstrating that trait — in crowing about whatever “mandate” he thinks he got from an election that clearly is sending mixed messages throughout the nation and around the world.

The mandate is shrinking each day.

***

Indeed, I cannot help but think of a friend of mine, the late Buddy Seewald of Amarillo, who once talked describe the local effort in the Texas Panhandle to “re-defeat” President Bush in 2004. Bush, then the Texas governor, won the presidency in 2000 in a manner similar to the way Trump was elected: He got the requisite number of electoral votes — with a major boost from the U.S. Supreme Court — while losing the popular vote to Vice President Al Gore.

Might that be the rallying cry if Donald Trump runs for re-election in 2020? It works for me.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/clinton-popular-vote-trump-2016-election-231434