Category Archives: political news

ISIS set to take over U.S.?

aais07c

Donald J. Trump is sounding like a desperate man.

The Republican presidential nominee, apparently recognizing the lengthening odds of him winning the election next month, now says that the Islamic State could “take over” the United States if Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected president.

Seriously? Well, that’s what he said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-islamic-state-may-take-over-us-if-clinton-wins/ar-AAiS2AB?li=BBnb7Kz

According to USA Today: “They are hoping and praying that Hillary Clinton becomes president of the United States, because they’ll take over not only that part of the world, they’ll take over this country,” Trump told backers in Ocala, Fla.

So. There you have it.

The candidate on whose watch as secretary of state U.S. commandos killed Osama bin Laden is going to run up the white flag as ISIS steamrolls into this country. That’s the Trump view.

Allow me to make this brief observation.

Donald Trump may think he knows “more about the terrorists than the generals,” but Hillary Clinton actually does know more about every aspect of government — and that includes national security — than her political opponent for the presidency.

Trump’s rants are sounding more desperate by the day — if not the hour — as he looks for ways to torpedo his foe.

As for Trump’s assertion that the country has “never been so low,” then perhaps he can explain why we remain the preferred destination for immigrants seeking a better life for themselves and their families.

Trump is committing political suicide

694940094001_5164431143001_examining-speaker-ryan-s-history-of-support-for-donald-trump

I have reached the incontrovertible conclusion that Donald J. Trump has just taken flight on a political kamikaze mission.

The Republican presidential nominee has determined two things:

* He cannot defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton in the race for president.

* He is going to take as many of the Republican establishment hierarchy with him as he goes down in flames.

That can be the only conclusion to draw from his declaration of war against House Speaker Paul Ryan, arguably the nation’s most powerful Republican, the second in line in presidential succession, the guy who runs the legislative chamber where all fiscal matters are given birth.

I don’t have personal knowledge, of course, that Trump has surrendered the contest to Clinton. I merely am able to see and hear with my own eyes and ears what is happening.

He has been heard saying some hideous things about women. His poll numbers are plummeting. He didn’t deliver the goods in that second debate with Clinton. The polls are accelerating in Clinton’s favor.

Trump cannot win.

Moreover, I read today an item that suggests that independent candidate Evan McMullen, the Republican/Mormon challenger to both Clinton and Trump, has pulled even with them both, putting reliably Republican Utah of all places — where McMullen lives — into play.

They’re calling it a “scorched Earth” retreat. Trump says he is “unshackled” now by Ryan’s declaration that he won’t defend Trump or campaign on his behalf. Trump’s going to take the gloves off — not just with Clinton but with Republicans.

His tweet machine is being revved up for the final month of this miserable campaign. Trump is indicating a desire to let ‘er rip with snark-filled comments about Ryan, Clinton, Sen. John McCain — and anyone else who speaks critically of the nominee’s lack of credentials, qualifications, temperament or moral fitness to hold the job he is seeking.

It’s just amazing in the extreme that Trump would seek to take on the speaker of the House in this manner. All it tells me at this point is that he knows he hasn’t a chance of winning. So, he’s locked and loaded and is going out with guns blazing.

 

Two essays illustrate GOP civil war

aptopix-gop-2016-deba_horo

A once-great political party is at war with itself.

It is engaging in rhetorical combat over the fate of its presidential  nominee, Donald J. Trump.

I found two essays that illustrate the point. They come from longtime Republican-friendly columnists.

One of them is Michael Gerson, a former George W. Bush speechwriter who now writes essays for the Washington Post.

Gerson calls Trump a contemptible politician who is leading a party toward destruction.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/10/a_politician_–_and_a_party_–_deserving_of_contempt_132023.html

The other of them is Byron York, who writes for the Washington Examiner, one of two conservative alternative newspapers serving the nation’s capital.

York takes a far different view of Trump and his possible future as a political candidate.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2604117

The party is tearing itself into tiny pieces over Trump’s candidacy. It’s been a long time coming, starting about the time Trump began winning primary contests at the start of the year.

The Republican establishment — to which Gerson once belonged — began wringing its hands over the prospect of a Trump nomination. Trump began targeting another Bush, the former president’s brother, Jeb, who once ran for president in the GOP primary.

York sees it differently. He said Trump “weathered the sex portion” of the second debate with Hillary Clinton and may have righted his listing campaign ship.

I happen to agree with Gerson. Trump’s contemptible campaign reflects directly on a contemptible candidate.

I’m seeing the polling data that’s come out since the release of that nasty video recording of Trump talking about how he treats women and since the second debate with the Democratic nominee. It looks bad for Trump.

What’s more, with the speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, saying he no longer can “defend” Trump or campaign with him — and dozens of other GOP lawmakers deserting him — the party finally has turned its back on its presidential nominee. It has surrendered the election to the Democrats, to Hillary Clinton and, yes, to President Barack Obama.

The polls? Trump bellowed loudly about them when they were trending toward him. He’s now dissing them. He’s dredging up the nutty idea that he’s going to lose a “rigged” election.

The civil war within this once-great political party rages on.

Gore re-enters the political arena

al-gore-1024

Former Vice President Al Gore has returned to the partisan battles, making a campaign appearance today alongside fellow Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

His message to the crowd in Miami, Fla.? Every vote counts, he said.

He called himself “Exhibit A” in promoting “that truth.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/11/al_gore_every_vote_counts_consider_me_exhibit_a.html

Yes, the vice president collected more popular votes nationally than Texas Gov. George W. Bush in the 2000 election. Yes, the recount in Florida ended with Bush tallying 537 more votes than Gore out of more than 5.8 million ballots cast in that state; then the U.S. Supreme Court — in a 5-4 decision — ordered the recount stopped. And yes, that meant Bush would be elected with 271 electoral votes, one more than he needed to become the 43rd president of the United States.

OK, but before we cheer the return of the Man Who Was Almost President, allow me to toss a bit of a wet blanket over the cheering section.

All the vice president had to do to win the election outright was to win more votes in his home state of Tennessee than Bush.

He didn’t. Gov. Bush collected more Volunteer State votes than its home boy. In fact, it wasn’t that close, as Gore lost Tennessee by about 80,000 votes.

I sympathize with Gore’s predicament, having been denied the presidency by a single vote on the highest court in America. If only he had won his home state, though.

If only …

Trump has tossed the shackles … just now?

trump-ryan

Wait a second!

All this time I thought we were seeing the crude, rude and crass Donald J. Trump campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Now he tells us he’s been unshackled by the niceties of having to adhere to the good manners demanded of him by the Republican Party establishment. He’s going to war with the likes of House Speaker Paul Ryan, who this week has declared he no longer can “defend” Trump and that he’s going to spend all his energy trying to retain the GOP majority in Congress.

Does this mean he’s going to go even lower than he’s gone to date? Are the future insults against his foes going to make all the previous ones seem like fairy tales in comparison?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-declares-war-on-establishment-republicans/ar-BBxihyE?li=BBnb7Kz

Yes, I do believe the GOP nominee is going to take this campaign straight into the gutter as it heads down the stretch with Trump trying to overtake Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Good luck with that, Mr. Trump.

Clinton said she doesn’t intend to take the bait. “When they go low, we go high,” Clinton said the other night, quoting first lady Michelle Obama, who — along with her husband — knows a thing or three about how low political enemies can go.

So, here we are. Less than a month to go and we’re being threatened yet again by the GOP nominee’s pledge to go filthy against Clinton.

As if the video recording of his boasting about sexual assault against women isn’t enough.

Surely he’ll fire up the base of his party, which will stay with him to the end. As for the rest of the country, let’s just wait for everyone else’s reaction.

My sense is that the rest of us won’t like what Trump is threatening to do. Not one damn bit.

‘Trickery’ didn’t bring city these ballot measures

13861145

I cannot get past a word I saw on a website formed to oppose a set of ballot measures set for Amarillo’s municipal election next month.

The word is “trickery.”

The website titled saveamarillo.org has accused Amarillo City Hall of duping voters into deciding on seven-part package of propositions aimed at making some improvements throughout the city.

The website, apparently created by local lawyer Len Walker, seems to imply some star chamber activities. Thus, the word “trickery” sticks in my craw. He recently added this “letter” to the site. Here it is:

http://saveamarillo.org/a-letter-from-len-walker/

When you click on the link, you’ll be able to see the rest of the website. It’s interesting and because I’m a fair-minded fellow, I encourage you to take a peek at all of it.

At issue is a package of proposals totaling $340 million. They’re broken out separately. Voters can approve all of them; they can OK some of them; or they can reject them all. The election occurs on Nov. 8.

If memory serves, the city sought public comment on these proposals. The City Council met in public to discuss them. The original package totaled nearly $1 billion. The council then winnowed them down to a more manageable collection of projects.

All of this was done, again if memory serves, in full public view.

As for Walker’s letter, he seems to suggest that the city — along with Potter County — are going to saddle taxpayers with a mountain of debt to pay for these projects. Perhaps we ought to consider that the city has virtually no debt at the moment and whatever debt taxpayers would assume by approving the projects would be manageable and serviceable.

I’ve noted already that I intend to support all seven of the projects listed on the ballot.

Even if I were to oppose them, it wouldn’t be because of any “trickery” perpetrated on residents.

I believe the city has been up front and transparent on what it needs and is merely doing the responsible thing by asking the taxpayers — those who would foot the bill — for permission to deliver these improvements.

Trump keeps reaching way, way back

th

It wasn’t enough, I guess, for Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump to dredge up a two-decade-old case involving a former president to link him to his wife, who happens to be Trump’s current opponent for the presidency.

Oh, no. Today, he went back even farther, July 1969, to allege that the media covered up a “crime” committed by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy after he drove off a bridge in Massachusetts, which resulted in the drowning death of a young woman who was riding in his car.

Trump again blamed the media for covering up Hillary and Bill Clinton’s “crimes,” just as it did for Kennedy.

I keep hearing about this alleged “cover-up” and keep wondering: What the hell is this clown talking about? What cover-up?

The media were all over the Kennedy story when it happened. They covered every single element of the tragedy. They reported on the delay in reporting the accident. They reported on the suspected favors done to protect Kennedy.

As for Clinton, the media have been covering her lengthy public career like a blanket. Every single aspect of Clinton’s life — public and private — has been examined more closely than a lab rat under a microscope.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/300286-trump-raises-chappaquiddick-in-anti-clinton-tirade

This kind of tactic simply is laughable on its face.

I always am tempted to ask when I hear of these so-called media conspiracies: How in the world do you know of the events the media are covering up … if you haven’t heard it or read it — in the media?

This ‘debate’ didn’t elevate the discussion

jfk-nixon

Of all the analyses I’ve heard and read about the second presidential debate between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, one of them stands out.

It came from a talking head who referred to the initial 1960 debate between then-Vice President Richard Nixon and then-U.S. Sen. John F. Kennedy.

It was a serious affair. No audience in the room. Just the candidates and the questioners.

The analyst suggested that there was great hope in 1960 that these events might elevate the quality of the discourse. That it would force the candidates to be civil, collegial and serious. After all, the theory went, they were being beamed into voters’ living rooms. Who wants to hear such trash talk from candidates seeking to become the head of state?

Well, so much for high expectations.

Clinton-Trump II didn’t sink to the level that many prognosticators thought it might. But it damn sure didn’t rise to anything approaching a high-minded discussion about issues.

The overarching issue, of course, was that infamous video recording of Trump talking in 2005 about how he sought to do certain disgraceful things with and to women.

All of that context managed to lower the bar to a horrible level. It made the debate seem small.

As Chuck Todd, the NBC newsman and “Meet the Press” moderator, noted: The debate didn’t do much to enhance the principle of democracy.

‘Because you’d be in jail’

trump-vs-clinton

Donald J. Trump scored perhaps the biggest knee-slapper of the evening at his debate Sunday night with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He said she’d “be in jail” if he were president.

Why? Well, I’d like to visit that notion for a moment.

Trump has been accusing Clinton of breaking the law while she was secretary of state. He and other Clinton critics have presumed her guilt for unspecified “crimes.” Trump also has tried and convicted Clinton’s husband, the former president of the United States, of various crimes against women. He called President Clinton the “worst abuser” of women in the history of the American politics.

To punctuate whatever point he sought to make Sunday night, Trump brought four women with him to St. Louis, all of whom have accused the Clintons of various crimes against them.

That’s it, then! They’re guilty because these women said so.

How about holding on for a second.

The FBI examined whether Hillary Clinton broke any laws by using her private e-mail account while serving as secretary of state. She testified before Congress for 11 hours over that very issue. FBI Director James Comey — the Republican career prosecutor who runs the agency — determined that there was nothing on which he could prosecute Clinton. In other words, she didn’t break any laws.

It doesn’t stop there.

Congressional critics now have accused Clinton of perjuring herself in her testimony. That’s it. They have leveled the accusation. Have they brought formal charges? No. Have they produced proof of her committing a crime? No again.

They’ve just leveled the accusation.

As for her husband … and the women whom Trump flew to St. Louis to create a spectacle in the debate hall, they, too, have leveled accusations.

Has anyone brought formal charges against the former president? No. Has any of them testified — under oath — in a courtroom to accuse the president of raping, groping or otherwise abusing them? No.

He, too, is presumed guilty of these accusations. I hesitate to call them “charges” because, I must stipulate again, he’s never been charged with a crime.

What we are witnessing is a perversion of the legal system that is supposed to presume someone is innocent until prosecuting authorities can prove guilt.

Both of these individuals — Bill and Hillary Clinton — have their flaws. I don’t for a second deny that. Their flaws are personal and political.

However, in all the accusations brought before both of them, only Bill Clinton has been charged formally with a “high crime and misdemeanor.” It involved lying to a federal grand jury about his relationship with a young White House intern. The House of Representatives impeached him for it.

Then he was acquitted of the charges by the Senate. He was allowed to finish his second term as president.

Are these two individuals guilty of any of the crimes others have accused them of committing? No.

They deserve the same presumption of innocence to which all American citizens are entitled.

Moreover, the know-nothings who keep saying otherwise ought to adhere to the laws they allegedly cherish.

Clinton-Trump II: bloodletting doesn’t occur

split2-clinton-trump-somber

What just happened in St. Louis?

The pre-debate analysis predicted a disaster. The pundits said Donald J. Trump was going to steer the debate into the gutter in response to that hideous video recording in which he bragged about being able to commit sexual assault on women.

That discussion occurred only briefly.

Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed a bit on edge tonight.

Two big takeaways …

First, Trump, the Republican nominee for president, disagrees with his running mate Mike Pence that the United States needs to punish Russia for its continued bombing of rebels seeking to topple the Syrian government of Bashar al Assad.

Second, Trump vowed to put Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in jail over the e-mail controversy if he gets elected president. I do not believe that’s ever been stated quite like that in a debate between two major-party nominees for the presidency.

OK, maybe a third takeaway.

The sex-related rhetorical bloodbath that all those pundits said would occur … didn’t happen.