Category Archives: political news

Sessions invokes Reagan … while crowing about Trump

doanld

Jeff Sessions is arguably Donald J. Trump’s best friend in the U.S. Senate.

The Alabama Republican was on board early in Trump’s campaign for the presidency. Now he is upset that members of a big-time GOP family have turned their backs on Trump, the party’s presidential nominee.

Here’s the best part, though, of Sessions’ rant against former Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

He said, according to columnist Byron York: ” … millions of Americans, including this one, worked their hearts out for the Bushes in 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2004. And it wasn’t Bill Clinton that helped the Bushes get elected. It was the same voters, in large part, that elected Ronald Reagan and stand to elect Donald Trump.”

I am amused that Sessions would invoke Reagan’s name, suggesting that today’s Trumpkins mirror those who backed the Gipper all those years ago.

There’s another part of that calculation that needs a bit of scrutiny.

I cannot prove this, but my strong belief is that President Reagan would be aghast at Donald Trump’s ascent to the pinnacle of GOP power.

If only the president were alive today to weigh in.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-sessions-on-bushes-trump-snub-theyve-forgotten-who-elected-them/article/2602526

The former presidents Bush and Jeb Bush haven’t forgotten a thing. They are dedicated Republicans who have seen their party hijacked by a con man/entertainer/hustler/narcissist.

They, too, were loyal Reaganites. Indeed, George H.W. Bush was so loyal to the president that he tossed aside his long-standing pro-choice view on abortion to become a pro-life vice president during the Reagan administration.

Is Trump the true-blue conservative who would have earned the Gipper’s endorsement? Hardly.

He is an ignorant imposter seeking high public office for reasons that remain a mystery. He wants to “make America great again”? He has insulted the very people who continue to maintain America’s greatness in the world.

I refer, of course, to the men and women in uniform who fight every day to protect us.

Ronald Reagan would have nothing to do with this charlatan.

Don’t give in to endorsement pressure, Sen. Cruz

trump_cruz_jpg_800x1000_q100

It pains me to say something positive about U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

I don’t like the guy. He appears in my view to be far more interested in self-aggrandizement than service to Texans. He’s a loudmouth, a showboating self-promoter.

But shoot, man, I have been happy to see him stand by his principles — even if I disagree with them — in his dispute with GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Cruz hasn’t endorsed Trump’s bid for the presidency. Why? Because he believes — as I do — that Trump is a fraud, a charlatan, a con man, an unprincipled opportunist, a phony.

Now, though, I hear reports of Cruz reportedly warming up to Trump. He said some nice things about Trump recently.

Dammit, Ted! Don’t go there, young man!

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/22/the-brief/

Trump inserted some amazingly harsh innuendo into the GOP primary campaign as he sought to vanquish Cruz’s challenge. He actually implied that Cruz’s father, a Cuban immigrant, had been seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald, the guy who murdered President Kennedy. The suggestion was that the elder Cruz was somehow, in some way, complicit in that act.

Plus, let’s not forget how Trump insulted Heidi Cruz, the senator’s wife, with that unflattering Twitter photo. Sen. Cruz was rightfully outraged by that tactic and called Trump a coward.

Against that backdrop, are we now going to believe that Cruz is going to make nice with this guy? That he’s going to say “Hey, let bygones be bygones” and endorse Trump’s bid for the presidency?

I happen to share Cruz’s previously stated outrage at Trump’s behavior, which I believe firmly would carry over into a Trump presidency.

Let’s not forget, either, that Cruz urged his fellow Republicans at the party’s nominating convention to “vote your conscience” this fall.

Stay true to your own conscience, Sen. Cruz.

Trump makes weird pitch to black voters

trump

So much about Donald J. Trump’s bizarre presidential candidacy confounds me.

Let’s start with the fact that he’s making a race of it against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Republican nominee has insulted his way to this competitive situation. In other election cycles, it would be a deal-breaker.

Now comes his bizarre “outreach” to African-American voters.

He tells white audiences that black voters are living in the worst neighborhoods imaginable; he tells them blacks attend inferior schools and are getting an inferior education; he says African-American neighborhoods are more dangerous than cities and towns in Afghanistan.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/is-trump-racist-228472

But here’s the best part.

He says — again to white audiences — that President Barack Obama is the worst president in history and that race relations are at their lowest ebb “ever, ever” under the president’s leadership.

Yep, he tells a key American demographic group that holds Obama in high esteem that the man they adore is leading the nation straight to hell in a handbag.

This is how Trump seeks to win the hearts and minds of voters who — according to those pesky polls — cannot stomach the notion of this guy becoming president of the United States?

Tax returns, Trump, tax returns … release them!

21wed1web-master768

I am taking a bit of a leap here in challenging the New York Times on an editorial … with which I happen to agree.

The Times says Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump needs to release his tax returns. He needs to do what candidates of both parties have done since 1976. There’s no law requiring him to release the returns; it’s merely been customary for candidates to do so to reveal to the public just how they conduct their personal financial business.

Here’s the editorial. Take a look. The Times raises excellent points.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/21/opinion/mr-trumps-stupid-excuses-on-taxes.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

What the Times missed, though, is a simple point: It didn’t challenge Trump’s assertion that he’s being audited by the Internal Revenue Service.

The audit is the lame excuse he and his campaign team — mainly his sons — have used to keep the information from public information. The IRS, though, says an audit doesn’t preclude releasing the tax returns.

More to the point, though, is that Trump hasn’t even provided evidence that the IRS even is conducting an audit. He hasn’t given us any indication of a letter, or a notice, or a note tossed in over the transom alerting him of the audit.

He is asking us to take his word for it that the IRS is conducting an audit.

All of this is a shameful, disgraceful display of hypocrisy and duplicity from someone who for years demanded proof of President Obama’s place of birth and his academic records … not that any of it matters to those who have backed his candidacy.

OK, Donald Trump. The time has long passed for you to come clean and do what you have demanded of Barack Obama.

Wealth an issue in this run for the White House

ar-140629403

One candidate for the U.S. presidency, the Republican, keeps harping on his “fabulous” wealth.

Donald J. Trump likes to boast about all the dough he has made in business, erecting tall buildings and getting his name slapped on the sides of them. It’s that boasting and braggadocio that make the release of his income tax returns a campaign issue … that and the questions about whether he’s paying his fair share of taxes and with which foreign governments he’s been doing business.

Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, on the other hand, has said a number of other things about her wealth. She has claimed to have been “dead broke” when she and her husband exited the White House in January 2001.Then she said she isn’t “truly well off.”

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/06/not-truly-well-off-mme-secretary/

She’s pretty damn “well off” now. Collecting six-figure speaking fees every time she or her husband, the former president, stands before a microphone adds up quickly.

Now, am I as concerned about her wealth as I am about Trump’s stubborn refusal to release his tax returns? Not at all.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have released their returns. The public has seen where and how they have acquired their wealth. They haven’t enriched themselves through the Clinton Foundation or the Clinton Global Initiative.

Yes, the “dead broke” statement was troubling. You know and I know she and her husband weren’t “dead broke” in the way many Americans understand the meaning of the term. Heck, they were able to secure financing to purchase a high-end home after they left the White House; lenders don’t dole out money to those who are “dead broke,” if you know what I mean.

However, her financial portfolio is an open book. Hillary Clinton’s role in the various works of the foundation and the CGI have been scrutinized to the nth degree.

Trump, on the other hand, remains a man of mystery regarding his supposedly vast holdings.

He keeps bragging about them. In public. For all to hear.

Inquiring minds want to know the truth behind the bluster.

Trump’s wealth called into question once more

gop-2016-trump

Wait a second!

How can a presidential candidate who keeps crowing about his fabulous wealth spend a six-figure amount of dough to pay off legal debts from a charity he founded.

That’s what the Washington Post has reported in connection with Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee.

The Post reports that Trump dipped into his charity foundation’s pool. He snatched $258,000 out of it to pay off some legal bills he had accrued.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html

Doesn’t that betray a trust he made to the donors of his charity? Is this the way to spend money dedicated to do “good work”?

And how does someone with the kind of wealth he keeps telling he has need to use charitable foundation money in the first place?

The Post has compiled a thorough investigation of the story. Trump’s campaign, of course, declared it was full of errors. No one has specified the errors, or even said the story is false.

We all know, of course, that Trump can prove his wealth simply by releasing his tax returns to the public as other presidential candidates have been doing for the past 40 years.

Oh … wait.

Panhandle Day: Does it produce tangible benefit?

texas-state-capitol-austin-usa-17

I’ve long wondered about a Texas Legislature tradition.

It involves various regions of our state sending “delegations” to Austin during the Legislature’s regular session. They pack themselves into various modes of transportation and go to the state capital. They schmooze with their legislators. They slap themselves on the back. They enjoy meals and an adult beverage or three with each other.

They lobby their legislators about their regions’ needs.

The Texas Panhandle does it every other year. The Amarillo Chamber of Commerce is a key partner in this venture. Chamber bosses proclaim it a “success.” They have their voices heard.

I’ve been watching this spectacle from a distance for the past two-plus decades here in the Panhandle; I watched it — also from a distance — during the nearly 11 years I lived in the Golden Triangle.

Panhandle Day occurs every legislative session, along with Golden Triangle Day. Austin sends a delegation; so does San Antonio; same for the Metroplex; Houston-Galveston sends one.

My wonder involves how we measure the success of these schmooze-fests.

In my nearly 33 years living in Texas, I have yet to see an accounting of how these events actually benefit the region that sends these delegations.

Sometime next year, the Panhandle is going to gather up several dozen business, civic and local political leaders. They’ll go to Austin and talk about regional issues with state Reps. John Smithee and Four Price, both of Amarillo, and with state Sen. Kel Seliger, also of Amarillo.

Is it me or does anyone else wonder if we’re getting the bang for the buck we’re spending with the public money that’s spent sending these folks to Austin?

Is there tangible legislation being enacted? Are these groups able to persuade legislators to send money our way? Do certain regions of the state have more pull than others?

Are these “days” that the Legislature sets aside for various regions worth the effort?

Hey, man. I’m just wondering. I also am hoping to get a conversation started well in advance of the next Panhandle Day back-slap session.

‘Room service’ in hospital? Really?

trump-campaign-signals-possible-shift-on-immigration-stance-1471865686-3208

Donald J. Trump needs to get out more.

A man is arrested for setting off bombs in New York City and in New Jersey. The police inflict non-life threatening injuries on the guy in a shootout.

The suspect is taken to a local hospital.

The response from the Republican Party’s candidate for president of the United States?

The suspect is going to get “room service” at the hospital.

Room service. At a hospital.

In Trump’s world, hospital “room service” is a perk.

Good … grief.

Bush 41 voting for Hillary

bush

This probably isn’t nearly as spectacular a political story as some are making it out to be.

Still, it’s an important development in the presidential campaign of 2016.

Former President George H.W. Bush — aka Poppy Bush, Bush 41 and Bush the Elder — has told a member of a leading Democratic family that he’s going to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton over Republican Donald J. Trump.

The person who “outed” Bush 41 happens to be Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a former Democratic lieutenant governor of Maryland — and the eldest child of the late Robert F. Kennedy.

Sure, it’s an important story. President Bush is as “establishment Republican” as you can get. He served in many high-profile government capacities before being elected president in 1988. Now he’s going to vote for the wife of the man who defeated him for re-election in 1992. Bush’s forsaking of Trump’s candidacy speaks to the reluctance among many Republicans to back their party’s nominee.

But hold on. Is this a jaw-dropper? Hardly.

President Bush is a dedicated family man who loves his children more than life itself. When a politician attacks the kids, as Trump did this year en route to the GOP nomination, it’s only natural for Dad to take it personally.

Trump called former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush “Low Energy Jeb” and chided him repeatedly for his failure to do better against Trump in the GOP primary campaign.

Then there is this: Trump said the younger President Bush — George W. — “lied” the country into going to war in Iraq. He accused W. of fabricating the pretext for taking out Saddam Hussein by saying he had “weapons of mass destruction” and that he was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Setting aside whether one believes Trump’s assertions about W.’s veracity — and they do ring true to me — it’s totally understandable that the first President Bush would hold those utterances against the man who made them.

With 49 days to go before the election, it remains to be seen whether Poppy’s plan to vote for Hillary will bring other disaffected establishment Republicans along.

As for George H.W. Bush’s apparent defection … I do get it.

RNC boss seeks dictator status

1474224625553

I feel the need to revisit briefly an idiotic notion by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus.

He’s issued a warning to former GOP presidential candidates that they might “face consequences” if they seek the presidency in the future if they continue to refuse to back this year’s nominee, Donald J. Trump.

My question simply is this: Who in the hell does Priebus think he is?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/18/candidates-who-dont-back-trump-may-not-be-allowed-to-run-again-rnc-chairman-says.html

Priebus said potential future candidates such as, say, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz might find some insurmountable obstacles if they seek the party nomination in 2020.

Wait a second! Didn’t former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz face the scorn of her partisans for allegedly rigging the party nomination to favor Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Priebus now insists that the former GOP presidential candidates line up behind Trump … or else face the consequences.

That is a ridiculous and gratuitously ham-handed approach to pre-determining who the party’s next nominee ought to be.

The GOP presidential field signed a pledge to support whoever the party nominated for president. The pledge, though, isn’t legally binding. It’s not even politically binding, given that neither major party has a rule requiring blind loyalty.

Chairman Priebus is exhibiting delusions of grandeur if he thinks he can hand out “consequences” for future candidates who don’t abide by his wishes.