Category Archives: political news

Evangelicals are splitting along gender lines

beth-moore

A friend made me aware of what looks like a significant development in a key part of Donald J. Trump’s coalition of political supporters.

It reveals a split among evangelical Christians. The men among them are sticking with the Republican presidential nominee. The women, however, are splitting away.

Listen to the women, fellas.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/10/beth-moore-the-christian-women-speaking-out-about-trump-s-bad-news.html

The evangelical women are aghast, appalled and repulsed by the revelations disclosed in that hideous recording of Trump boasting about his sexual proclivities.

According to an article published in The Daily Beast, one well-known evangelical preacher, Beth Moore, once was in Trump’s camp. Now she’s out, shocked and horrified at what she heard on that recording.

As The Daily Beast reported: “But something changed for Moore after Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president of the United States, was caught on tape bragging about his ability to sexual assault women. When Trump said, ‘When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything,’ Moore had had enough.”

She’s apparently not alone among women who call themselves evangelical Christians.

Also, from The Beast: “Beth Moore wasn’t alone in her condemnation of Trump. Her comments sent ripples around the evangelical world and were seconded by Christian mega-speaker and author Christine Caine. Sara Groves, the Dove Award-nominated Christian artist, told me, ‘Someone like Beth can go a long way in helping Evangelicals recognize these major blind spots.’”

We hear a lot about hypocrisy during every election cycle. This one is no different. Conservatives accuse liberals of being hypocritical by criticizing Trump’s behavior while being silent about, say, Bill Clinton’s own transgressions.

To my way of thinking, though, the greater hypocrisy occurs among conservatives — notably evangelicals — who continue to support Trump despite the candidate’s known history of behaving in ways and doing things that evangelicals say they detest.

The revelations out of Trump’s own mouth have delivered what ought to be a disqualifier among those who adhere to spiritual values. Beth Moore and other evangelical women are stepping up and declaring that, indeed, they are as disgusted as the rest of us.

Battle of political groups shaping up in Amarillo

grassroots

I love seeing grass-roots politics take shape in communities.

It’s where one can see activism at work. It involves people who have things in common as well as things that keep them apart. They may be neighbors, friends, they might attend the same church, their kids might attend the same schools.

But they argue over local politics.

I’m seeing a smattering of lawn signs around my neighborhood and around Amarillo. Unite For Amarillo is pitching its support for the seven municipal propositions on the ballot this November. SaveAmarillo is pitching its opposition to them.

Unite For Amarillo wants all of them to pass. I’m on their side, but you knew that already.

SaveAmarillo wants all of them defeated.

There’s an interesting element to this intra-city squabble. Neither side is willing to split the difference. It’s all or nothing for both sides. Does it remind you of anything? It reminds me of the fight for single-member districts that pops up on occasion in Amarillo. Some folks want the city to divide all four City Council member seats into wards, with only the mayor running at-large. The current system elects everyone at-large. No one in that fight seems willing to discuss a hybrid version: increase the council from five to seven seats, elect the mayor and two council members at large while electing the other four from wards.

Look, the city broke up the $340 million spending package into seven separate categories, enabling us to choose which of them to support. I think that’s a wise way to proceed. I plan to vote for all of them, because they all represent progress for the city, allowing City Hall to make important infrastructure improvements.

I am having trouble understanding why SaveAmarillo wants to toss them all aside. Street repair is not important? More funds for police and firefighters won’t improve public safety? Improving parks doesn’t boost our quality of life?

Why not look at them individually, line by line … and then decide which of them to support and which of them to reject?

But, hey, it’s grass-roots politics. I still like the idea of waging these skirmishes at the local level.

May the better side win. I have made my decision already.

What’s with the first-name usage for Hillary?

hillaryclinton-101-1451652269

I’ve wondered about this for nearly as long as Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in public life — which seems like forever.

Why do the media, the political class, historians and Mr. and Mrs. J.Q. Public refer to the Democratic nominee for president as “Hillary”?

I’ll admit to doing it in casual conversation. My wife and I talk about this election all the time. We’re caught up by it. We’re enthralled — if that’s the right word — by all of its patently bizarre twists and turns.

Then I’ll toss out something like this: “Did you hear what Hillary and Trump said today?” My wife identifies the two major-party candidates the same way.

The Republican nominee doesn’t get the same air of familiarity, if that’s what it is. We refer to Donald J. Trump as “Trump.” I’m inclined to use more, um, descriptive terminology at times. And yes, I’m quite sure those on the other side attach the same pejorative qualifiers to Hillary.

See, there I go again … falling into that first-name trap.

I mean no disrespect. I take her as seriously as I do any other politician, male or female.

I’ll admit to using first names on other pols. Newt, Mitt and Jeb are my favorites. Their names are unusual enough that you don’t need to last names to know about whom one is referring. It’s kind of like Wilt, Arnie, Tiger and Kareem … you know?

There’s got to be a psychologist out there who can explain it to me.

Hey, do you think Dr. Phil might be looking for a topic to cover on his TV show.

Lighten up, Trump; ‘SNL’ goes after Hillary, too

video-alec-baldwin-donald-trump_lncima20161002_0162_3

Donald J. Trump’s feelings are hurt.

He doesn’t like the impressions that Alec Baldwin does of him. He’s told Baldwin and “Saturday Night Live” to knock it off. Why? It’s gotten “personal,” says the Republican nominee for president.

Really. Well, how do you suppose Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton likes being portrayed by Kate McKinnon? Publicly, she’s laughing it off, which is how grown-ups are supposed to react to political satire.

Indeed, “SNL” has proven over many years to be an equal-opportunity jester. It has parodied Al Gore and George W. Bush, Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole and H. Ross Perot.

Oh, and then there’s Sarah Palin.

Let’s go back a ways and recall “SNL’s” treatment of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford — and of Ronald Reagan.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/snl-takes-jab-at-donald-trump/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=29995717

I’m reminded of a politician I once knew when I worked as editorial page editor of the Beaumont Enterprise. Our paper circulated throughout two congressional districts, the 2nd and the 9th. The 2nd District congressman was the late Charlie Wilson, a conservative, free-spirited Democrat.

We had a cartoonist on our staff, Jerry Byrd, who used to poke fun of politicians of all stripes. Yes, we needled Rep. Wilson on occasion for this or that policy statement.

How do you suppose Wilson responded when we published an editorial cartoon that was critical of him? He wanted the original drawing. He loved it. He took it in good humor and never bitched about it.

Trump’s baptism as a politician has occurred at the highest level possible. He gets poked and prodded by some of the best political satirists in the business.

Dude, it goes with the territory.

First-class passengers above ‘groping’?

rudy

Rudolph Giuliani needs to, um, no longer speak on behalf of Donald J. Trump.

Then again, turn him loose! You go, Rudy!

The former New York mayor said the following about allegations that Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, groped a woman aboard a jetliner:

“Some of these things appear to me appear to me on their face to be kind of untrue,” Giuliani said. “Fifteen minutes of groping in a first-class cabin of an airplane? It doesn’t make sense. I’ve been in first class a lot, fortunately. Since I stopped being mayor, I can afford first class. You know, you see everything that goes on in first class.”

He wasn’t there. He has no idea about the circumstances. He is passing judgment — with no knowledge of the facts — on a woman whose accusation of groping fits the M.O. of other alleged incidents involving Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/giuliani-alleged-trump-groping-%e2%80%98couldn%e2%80%99t-possibly-have-happened%e2%80%99-because-it-was-first-class/ar-AAj1cVi?li=BBnb7Kz

It’s fair to point out that Trump opened up this line of so-called political discourse himself by saying what he said to Billy Bush on that “Access Hollywood” tape. The Washington Post obtained it, put it out there for all the world to see.

Now … we’ve got this. A former political hero-turned-attack dog mounting a bizarre defense on behalf of someone who has admitted that he tried to seduce a married woman and has bragged about what his “star” status allows him to do to women.

Hypocrisy? There it is.

‘Rigged election’ talk creates serious concern

trump

It’s been said many times by historians that the United States is the world’s model for peaceful transition of power from president to president, particularly in times of crisis and tragedy.

* 1963: John F. Kennedy was gunned down and Lyndon Johnson took the oath of office shortly after doctors announced the death of the president. We didn’t skip a beat.

* 1974: Richard Nixon resigned from office in the midst of a profound constitutional crisis and Gerald Ford became president, declaring “Our long national nightmare is over.” The beat went on.

* 2000: George W. Bush won election by the narrowest margin imaginable over Al Gore. The Supreme Court settled it in accordance with constitutional law. The government continued to function.

Three earlier presidents — Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and William McKinley — were murdered while they were in office; their vice presidents took power, also without incident.

That history of relative tranquility is being threatened in 2016 by an ominous drumbeat from Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, who keeps harping on a “rigged election” determining who will become the next president. He continues to foment anger among his supporters who talk openly about “revolt” against the system if — and/or when — their guy loses to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-rigged-elections-republicans-229846

This is nasty stuff, man.

According to Politico: “Donald Trump is laying the groundwork to lose on Nov. 8, refuse to concede the election, and teeter the country into an unprecedented crisis of faith in government. Republicans and Democrats, in Washington and beyond, fear that the aftermath of the 2016 election will create a festering infection in the already deep and lasting wound that the campaign is leaving on America.”

On top of what he’s been saying about “rigging” the election, he asserts that Clinton should be thrown in jail. Due process? Presumption of innocence? Forget about it!

There’s this, also, from Politico: “And, they say, only Republican leaders who speak up will have any chance of stopping it.”

They’re quiet — so far.

There needs to be a dialing back of this crackpot rhetoric. Trump likely will ignore all pleas to restore some semblance of reason. After all, he said recently he’s been “unshackled” by House Speaker Paul Ryan’s declaration that he no longer can “defend” Trump over the accusations that he assaulted women sexually.

Trump’s foes have declared him to be a demagogue who presents a serious “danger” to the United States of America.

Trump is proving them to be absolutely correct.

Hillary remains mum on Trump’s latest trouble

hillary

Hillary Rodham Clinton likely has a lot to say about Donald J. Trump’s sexual behavior.

Her problem? She cannot say it out loud. The Democratic nominee for president of the United States must rely on surrogates to express their outrage on her behalf.

She happens to have a couple of powerful surrogates: President Barack H. Obama and his wife, Michelle, who have done a masterful job of peeling the bark off the Republican presidential nominee.

Hillary Clinton’s own history — as well as the history of her husband — compel her to remain mum on the subject of those ghastly Trump comments we all heard the other day aboard that “Access Hollywood” bus in 2005.

As the New York Times has reported: “Though Hillary Clinton has stood at the center of feminist debates for more than two decades, she has also been an imperfect messenger for the feminist cause. That has never been more true than now, as her old missteps and her husband’s history have effectively paralyzed her during a moment of widespread outrage.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/missteps-in-hillary-clinton%e2%80%99s-past-leave-her-muted-in-furor-over-donald-trump/ar-AAj00Y1?li=BBnb7Kz

And the outrage hasn’t let up since the video and audio recordings were released to the public.

As for whether any of this damages Hillary Clinton’s political standing, I happen to believe it will not.

Her tactic so far has been to change the subject when the talk turns to Trump’s statements about attempting to seduce a married woman, or how his “star” status allows him to grab women in their private areas, or allows him to kiss them aggressively without their consent.

The two of them have one more joint appearance to endure before voters have their final say. It will occur, interestingly, in Las Vegas, Nev., where Trump has some significant business dealing and where — one might presume — he has engaged in some of his untoward behavior with women.

Will any of this come up when the event opens? Uhhh, let me think for a second … yes, it will.

Do not look for Clinton to go there. She’ll likely just let Trump rant like a madman over the former president’s misbehavior.

From where I will be sitting while this event occurs, that will look like a good call.

Then she’ll likely sic Barack and Michelle Obama on him.

Trump’s record ‘too controversial’? Hmmm …

trump-bill-clinton-2-580x344

This is too good to keep to myself.

OK, it’s already out there in the public domain, but I have to share a bit of it here. It involves something Donald J. Trump told columnist/TV commentator Chris Matthews in 1998.

It comes from the Guardian in Australia. A friend of mine sent it to me overnight in an e-mail. To wit:

“During a 1998 appearance on CNBC with host Chris Matthews, current Republican presidential nominee and then simple tycoon Donald Trump declared that if Bill Clinton’s personal peccadillos were enough to prompt impeachment proceedings, his own history with women was more than sufficient to keep him out of the White House.

“‘Can you imagine how controversial I’d be?’ Trump said at the time. ‘You think about him with women. How about me with women? Can you imagine?

“Trump was still confident that ‘his women’ would be better received by the American public. ‘Yeah. They might like my women better, too, you know?'”

Hmm. Well, time will tell — probably around, oh, Nov. 8 — whether Americans like Trump’s women better. My strong hunch tells me the decision voters make — once they get past his utter ignorance of the substance of anything at all — will also be based on Trump’s “own history with women.”

How will the loser concede this election?

republican-presidential-nominee-mitt-romney-embraces-his-wife-ann-as-his-family-look-on-during-his-election-night-rally-in-boston

Allow me to play out what looks like an increasing probable political outcome.

It is that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be elected the 45th president of the United States of America.

The trend is moving rapidly in her favor in the wake of (a) two debate performances against Donald J. Trump and (b) the continuing fallout from Trump’s hideous statements about women.

So, what might we expect when the loser of this miserable election decides to issue a concession statement?

It’s been said that the winner’s victory declaration will set the tone for the next four years. What’s being said with increasing frequency is that the loser’s concession will be equally important.

Trump has waged a campaign of anger, fear, suspicion, innuendo, invective and bigotry. Listen to his supporters yell “Lock her up!” at those rallies. Listen, too, to them complain about alleged conspiracies involving the “liberal mainstream media” and “politically correct special interests” who are teaming up to “rig” an election that produces a desired result.

They are echoing the statements of their guy, Trump.

The candidate has bitched about a “rigged election.”

Tradition holds that the loser concedes once the election is decided and then declares his intention to work with the winner to heal the wounds opened up by months of bitter campaigning. Recall, though, when Al Gore conceded defeat in 2000, only to take it back when the Florida ballot-counting threw the proverbial wrench into the entire election process.

It’s fair to wonder what kind of concession statement Donald Trump would deliver when the time comes for him to call it quits.

Will he lead his ardent Republican “base” voters into lingering bitterness? Will he make an accusation of election-rigging? If that happens, and no one should be surprised if does, then we’re headed for a very difficult transition as the new president prepares to assume the most cherished role in the nation — if not the world.

My hope is that if he loses — and one is compelled to offer that qualifier until one candidate gets the Electoral College majority required to win — that he does so with a modicum of grace, decorum and good will.

However, my fear is that Trump would hold true to the form that enabled him to secure a major-party presidential nomination. It was a butt-ugly process and my concern is that he very well could make it an equally unattractive concession.

Trump mounts disgusting ‘defense’

150401135040-donald-trump-gallery-8-super-169

Let’s see where this story is going.

Donald J. Trump has admitted to “Access Hollywood” that he has tried to sleep with a married woman and has boasted about how his “star” status allows him to grab women in their private areas.

Then came the accusations by several women who have said the Republican nominee for president of the United States has groped them and sexually assaulted them.

How does Trump respond to this?

In a most disgusting way.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301074-trump-defends-himself-against-accusers-by-attacking-their

He’s called the women “horrible, horrible people. Liars.”

But then he singled out one of them. Jessica Leeds told the New York Times that Trump had assaulted her 30 years ago.

His response? “Believe me, she would not be my first choice,” Trump said. “That I can tell you. You don’t know. That would not be my first choice.”

There you have it. The man who wants to be president of the United States belittled an accuser with a veiled implication about her physical appearance.

Can this get any lower? I would say “no.”

Then again, tomorrow is just around the corner.