Category Archives: political news

Gingrich, Guiliani: spokesmen for marital fidelity?

how_common_is_infidelity_anyway

Donald J. Trump has enlisted two of the more ironic choices to stand up for him as he ponders whether to raise the issue of former President Bill Clinton’s marital difficulties during the presidential campaign.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are two of the GOP nominee’s main men on the subject of marital fidelity.

The irony is rich!

For starters, Trump is now on his third marriage. He has bragged about cheating on wives No. 1 and 2.

Gingrich? Well, let’s see. He, too, is on his third marriage. Calista Gingrich once worked for Newtie when the speaker was railing against Bill Clinton’s affair with the White House intern. It turns out Newtie was fooling around with Calista while he was married to wife No. 2 — and while he was telling Americans that the president had the morals of an alley cat.

Guiliani? OK, there’s this. He’s on his third marriage as well. The first marriage ended in divorce. But then Rudy decided later to seek and annulment from his first wife. Why annul the marriage? Because he’s a practicing Catholic and church doctrine doesn’t allow divorce. So, an annulment wipes a marriage off the books as if it never happened. I guess I should mention that Guiliani also engaged in extramarital activity.

Three politicians. Nine marriages among them. Several extramarital affairs, too.

I truly dislike talking about this stuff in the context of a presidential campaign. Trump, though, brought it up.

He might bring the issue of Bill Clinton’s transgressions to the forefront at the next joint appearance scheduled with the former president’s wife, Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Someone as well will have to explain to me as if I’m a third-grader how Bill Clinton’s behavior really matters in the current campaign for the presidency.

Well … ? How is any of this relevant?

Marital history now an issue?

President Clinton, his daughter Chelsea, center, and wife Hillary walk with Buddy Tuesday, Aug. 18, 1998, from the White House toward a helicopter as they depart for vacation enroute to Martha's Vineyard, Mass. (AP Photo/Roberto Borea)

I cannot believe I am hearing this.

Donald J. Trump is actually considering a new line of attack against Hillary Rodham Clinton that discusses former President Bill Clinton’s extramarital behavior.

Moreover, Trump says he is “comfortable” with his own marital history and believes there’s nothing with which his foes can use against him if he decides to steer this campaign straight into the gutter.

Am I hearing this correctly?

Trump said Bill Clinton’s presidency was a “disaster” and he was impeached for “lying” about an affair he had with the young White House intern.

Disaster? Are you kidding me? Yes, the impeachment soiled the president’s otherwise sparkling record as the head of state. The Senate eventually acquitted President Clinton of the charges brought against him.

So now the discussion is turning in this direction.

And the man who well might take us down the lowest of roads is not worried about his three marriages, his boasting of cheating on at his first two wives, his treatment of women, his hideous statements about them.

This is the criterion we’re using to select the Leader of the Free World? Heaven help us.

Here’s a profound non-endorsement

636107742502713528-gty-538708234

USA Today has done something I didn’t think I’d ever see in a major newspaper editorial page.

It published an editorial non-endorsement of one candidate for president while at the same time saying it could not endorse that candidate’s opponent.

I’ve read the editorial twice. I might read it again and again, looking for some nugget of justification for the USA Today editorial board’s rationale. Wish me luck.

Here is the editorial in question:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/

In its 34-year existence, USA Today never had opined on a presidential campaign. Until now.

It has declared Republican nominee Donald J. Trump to be patently, profoundly unfit for the office of president of the United States. It lists its reasons for reaching that consensus among its editorial board members.

The paper is categorical in its declaration. It also is correct.

Then, near the end of it, the paper says it cannot endorse Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, who the paper states has too many flaws of her own. Still, the paper states:

“Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president,”

OK, what now?

USA Today says it cannot recommend a vote for Clinton. It urges voters only to withhold their vote for Trump … for the myriad reasons it declares forcefully in its editorial.

No vote for Clinton? A “hell no” vote against Trump?

Does that mean Hillary Clinton can boast of an editorial endorsement from USA Today after all?

My head is spinning.

Gary, we hardly knew ye

johnson

Pity poor Gary Johnson.

He (almost) had me, then he lost me.

The former New Mexico governor is running for president as a Libertarian. His running mate is former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld. They’re both Republicans, actually.

Johnson’s main claim to notoriety has been his long-standing belief that we should legalize marijuana.

He’s now known as a presidential candidate who, in short order, froze up when asked about Aleppo. “What’s Aleppo?” he asked when quizzed about the largest city in Syria, the epicenter of the refugee crisis that has erupted in the Middle East and Europe.

Then, when he was asked this week by MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews to name his “favorite world leader,” he couldn’t come up with a single world leader who he admires. Oh, he finally blurted out “Shimon Peres,” the former Israeli prime minister and president — who died this week of a stroke.

I had considered backing this guy for president, hoping he might exhibit some semblance of knowledge of issues other than legalizing grass. Alas, it’s not to be.

Do endorsements matter? Yes, if you disagree with them

th

A curious dichotomy appears to be unfolding way out yonder in the Valley of the Sun.

The Arizona Republic — for the first time in the newspaper’s history — has endorsed a Democrat for president. Hillary Rodham Clinton got the nod from Arizona’s largest newspaper over Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

The reaction from around the country has been stunning, to say the least. But get this: The endorsement has ignited a firestorm in the Phoenix community, with subscription cancellations out the wazoo — and even reportedly a death threat against someone high-up in the paper’s management chain of command.

Here’s the dichotomy.

Critics of the so-called “mainstream media” keep saying that newspaper endorsements don’t matter, that they no longer carry the weight they once did in an earlier era when papers were run by media titans named Hearst, Chandler, Graham and Pulliam.

Why, then, has there been such a reaction to the Arizona Republic’s recommendation? Is it that average rank-and-file Americans really do care after all?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-paper-faces-death-threats-cancellations-after-clinton-endorsement/ar-BBwKJck?li=BBnb7Kz

I kind of feel the pain their experiencing in Phoenix. In 2010, the paper where I was working at the time, the Amarillo Globe-News, decided to endorse a Democrat for Texas governor over the Republican incumbent. We backed former Houston Mayor Bill White over Gov. Rick Perry. We might as well have endorsed Satan himself. The reaction from our readership was ferocious.

The good news, though, is that I don’t believe we received any death threats.

Part of the criticism we heard, of course, was that our voice “didn’t matter.” If so, then why firestorm of anger over what we said?

The same question perhaps needs to be asked now as we digest the reaction to a major newspaper deciding to go against tradition by — for shame! — backing a Democrat for the presidency of the United States.

‘Smart’ to avoid paying taxes? OK, how do we fix what’s wrong?

tax-return-form

Thomas Friedman asks “How could we?” elect someone who says things he says.

The New York Times columnist, naturally, is referring to Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee who keeps spouting rhetoric that’s either ridiculous, false, ludicrous … or all of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/opinion/trump-how-could-we.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Let me focus on one of the statements Trump has uttered that makes no sense at all.

Friedman writes: “How do we put in the Oval Office a man who boasts that he tries to pay zero federal taxes but then complains that our airports and roads are falling apart and there is not enough money for our veterans?”

Yes, Trump has bragged about how he uses tax laws to his benefit … even though he denies saying it. He denied saying it Monday night — when the entire nation heard him say it into a microphone that was working quite nicely.

So, does he suggest that while he works to avoid paying taxes that others are to foot the bill to fix all those infrastructure things he says are falling apart?

Veterans’ care? Who pays for that if Trump seeks to avoid shouldering the tax bill required to give veterans the health care they need?

Hmmm. Well, as a veteran myself, I believe I now shall express my personal disgust and revulsion at what Trump has said about whether he’s going to pay his fair share of taxes.

Is it smart? Well, I guess so if you’re just a rich guy. It’s pretty damn stupid, though, for someone who is running for president of the United States of America.

Trump on fatness: Kettle, meet pot

trumpweight2

Donald J. Trump keeps talking about  other people’s weight.

The Republican presidential nominee is quick to criticize women particularly. Fat pigs, large posteriors, those kinds of things.

OK, I am very leery of mentioning this here, given that I do not possess a GQ model’s physique.

Then again, neither does Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump%e2%80%99s-weight-problem-he-can%e2%80%99t-stop-talking-about-%e2%80%98fat%e2%80%99-people/ar-BBwKT8z?li=BBnb7Kz

It’s this kind of insensitivity and utter lack of self-awareness that drives me crazy about this guy, Trump.

How on God’s Earth does this clown get away with obsessing over others’ physical appearance? How does he get away with ridiculing others’ appearance? How can his supporters continue to give him a pass for this kind of ghastly personal behavior?

Toughest sell: athletic facilities

o-soccer-ball-facebook

“SHALL the City Council of the City of Amarillo, Texas, be authorized to issue general obligation bonds of the City in the principal amount of $65,550,000 for permanent public improvements and public purposes, to wit:  acquiring, constructing, improving, expanding, renovating and equipping municipal athletic facilities, including soccer, softball and baseball fields, gymnasium, basketball and aquatics facilities and the acquisition of land therefor; such bonds to mature serially or otherwise over a period not to exceed twenty-five (25) years from their date, to be issued and sold in one or more series at any price or prices and to bear interest at any rate or rates (fixed, floating, variable or otherwise) as shall be determined within the discretion of the City Council at the time of issuance or sale of the bonds; and whether ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon all taxable property in the City sufficient to pay the annual interest and provide a sinking fund to pay the bonds at maturity?”

Proposition 7 on the Amarillo municipal ballot

This might be the most difficult of the seven propositions heading for the Amarillo municipal ballot.

It’s worth supporting, as I intend to do.

http://amarillo.gov/pdf/CIP_list_for_ballot_resolution.pdf

But it might be a difficult project for residents to swallow.

It reminds me a bit of the Amarillo Recreation Center initiative that voters defeated a couple of years back. City Hall wanted to build a huge new athletic complex in the southeast corner of the city. The idea would be to attract organized athletic tournaments to the city. It was seen by proponents as an economic driver for the city.

Voters felt differently. The ARC went down to defeat.

So, the city is coming back with a $65 million spending project that seeks to do many things to athletic complexes throughout Amarillo.

The biggest line item is $14 million for the Rick Klein Soccer Complex; the city also wants to spend $12 million for a youth baseball/softball complex. There will be improvements to the Martin Road softball complex, to John Stiff Park and expansion of the tennis center.

I’m not sure how the city is going to present this as an essential element for voters who also will be asked to endorse six other propositions on the ballot that deal with non-frills such as, say, police and fire protection, streets and parks. They also will be asked to sign off on a significant expansion to the Civic Center.

I intend to endorse the athletic field proposition. It’s not that my wife and I have children or grandchildren who are involved in organized sports activity. These improvements are part of a larger mosaic that reveals a city that wants to enhance its entire infrastructure.

As I’ve noted already, the city has done a good of presenting this entire package of improvements, the sum of which totals about $340 million. Yes, it’s a lot of money and voters have the chance to endorse all, part of none of it.

Despite my concerns about the politics of this issue, I hope voters endorse Proposition 7.

Trump takes low road while seeking high road

ClintonTrump-Split_jpg_800x1000_q100

Donald J. Trump sought — in yet another awkward pronouncement — to make nice with Hillary Rodham Clinton by saying he could have said something “very negative” about his opponent. He chose not to that. I guess he wanted us to believe that he is such an oh, so decent human being.

The Republican presidential nominee’s comments came during the joint appearance at Hofstra University.

Afterward, he told reporters that he was referring to Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity. He said “Chelsea was in the room” and he didn’t want to make her feel uncomfortable.

So, there you have it.

Trump said during the event he showed restraint; then he told reporters later — on the record — precisely to what he was referring.

He chose not to say something, then he said it.

It reminds me of when then-Sen. Walter Mondale was asked during the 1976 presidential campaign whether Watergate would be an issue in the contest between Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican President Gerald R. Ford.

“No,” said the Democratic vice-presidential nominee with a huge smile, “I am not going to mention President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.”

That is the disgraceful non-denial route that Donald Trump is taking these days.

When in doubt, go with your gut

vote1

A young friend of mine is going to vote this year for the first time in her life.

She is 23 years of age. She is torn over this election. Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? After visiting with her for a few minutes Tuesday, I concluded she is likely to vote for Trump.

But she said something I want to share here.

My friend said she is reluctant to vote for anyone without knowing all there is to know about the candidates, their views on public policy, their philosophy or their world view.

“I just don’t know what to do,” she said.

Her biggest concern about Clinton? Benghazi. My friend believes Clinton was responsible for the deaths that occurred there during that fire fight on Sept. 11, 2012. We tussled a bit over what Hillary knew in the moment, what she should have known and what she could have done to prevent it.

I told her later I’ve been voting for president since 1972. I cast my first vote that year with great pride and anticipation. That vote — the first one — still means more to me than all the other ballots I’ve cast.

“I voted for the guy who lost … big time,” I told her, “but it meant a great deal to me.”

When in doubt, I ended up telling my friend, “go with your gut.”

It doesn’t really matter that voters get their arms around every detail of every issue. All that matters, in my view, is that they feel comfortable in their own gut and heart with the choice they make.