Category Archives: political news

Top Clinton aide separates from ‘Carlos Danger’

NEW YORK, NY - JULY 23: Huma Abedin, wife of Anthony Weiner, a leading candidate for New York City mayor, speaks during a press conference on July 23, 2013 in New York City. Weiner addressed news of new allegations that he engaged in lewd online conversations with a woman after he resigned from Congress for similar previous incidents. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

A high-profile political marriage now appears to have ended, thanks — allegedly — to some continued scurrilous behavior by a former Democratic New York congressman.

Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner apparently has been sending lewd text messages again to women other than his wife, Huma Abedin, a top aide to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Abedin today announced she is leaving her husband. The marriage seems to have ended.

We’ve been down this road to nowhere before. Danger admitted to “sexting” in an earlier round of messages. Abedin decided to hold on to her marriage.

She fought hard to stay married to this nimrod, who used the moniker “Carlos Danger” while he was sending pictures of his manhood to women.

So, what’s been the reaction of Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump? He said the end of this marriage proves that Clinton lacks proper judgment to become president.

Huh? Yeah. That’s it. The end of a marriage become grist for political trash-talk.

I am not yet clear as to what Abedin’s marriage to an apparent dirt bag has to do with her work with the former secretary of state and current candidate for president.

Danger, er, Weiner needs to vanish. Abedin needs to collect herself and resume her work.

Abedin is a highly accomplished individual who I believe deserves a bit of space as she seeks to rebuild her personal life.

I do not believe, though, that Donald Trump is going to give it to her.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/abedin-announces-separation-from-weiner-227503

 

Race mattered in ’64, but LBJ and Goldwater kept it on ice

lbj and goldwater

Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton are engaging in a most extraordinary political fire fight.

Republican presidential nominee Trump and Democratic nominee Clinton are accusing each other of racial bigotry.

Race is an issue in this campaign? It must be so.

It also was an issue back in 1964. The major-party candidates then, though, took a different course.

President Lyndon Johnson and his Republican Party challenger, Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona, decided to keep race out of the campaign.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/goldwater-lbj-racism-campaign-trump-bigotry-214191

The two men met at the White House in July 1964 and agreed that they wouldn’t interject the highly charged issue of race relations into their quest for the White House.

Sen. Goldwater was never known to curb his own tongue. He was a fiery conservative who was prone to making provocative statements. He opposed the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.

President Johnson, the Texan known for his excesses and his occasional crudeness, had taken office amid profound national tragedy the previous November. He decided it was time to move his party away from its segregationist past, a decision that would cost the party dearly throughout the South.

As Politico reports:

“In 2016, many observers have suggested similarities between Trump and Senator Goldwater. In some ways, they are analogous: Both were outsiders who won the nomination of a deeply divided Republican Party after defeating the preferred, more moderate candidates of the GOP establishment. And Goldwater, like Trump, had a habit of impolitic comments, as in his clarion call that ‘extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.’ It was a central part of Goldwater’s appeal: He tells it like it is, political correctness be damned—’In your heart, you know he’s right,’ just like his campaign slogan said.

“But there’s a big difference between the quixotic campaign of Goldwater and the spectacularly flawed campaign of Trump: Goldwater abhorred racist rhetoric, whereas Trump may have sealed his fate with it in two major turning points. First came Trump’s assertion that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not fairly rule in the Trump University case because the Indiana-born Curiel is of Mexican ancestry while Trump has pledged to build a wall on the Mexican border. Then, Trump’s attack on Ghazala and Khizr Khan, the Muslim-American Gold Star parents who appeared at the Democratic National Convention. Trump insinuated that Ghazala Khan, who stood silently by as her husband spoke, was ‘not allowed’ to speak due to their Islamic religion.”

It’s not that we should sweep the race issue away, pretend it doesn’t exist. My concern in 2016 is that the invective has poisoned reasonable, rational and responsible discussion.

President Johnson and Sen. Goldwater perhaps had the same fear 52 years ago when they decided to keep their hands off a live political grenade.

Final statement on illegal immigration is due

donaldtrumpgetty

Donald J. Trump promises to make a “major speech” dealing with illegal immigration.

It’ll occur on Wednesday. It will be in Arizona. The Republican presidential nominee is looking for a “larger venue.”

Is this it? Is this going to be Trump’s final, definitive, cast-in-stone statement on illegal immigration? No more waffling? No more flip-flopping?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293619-trump-promises-immigration-speech-wednesday

I am one voter who isn’t sure we’ve heard the last change in Trump’s evolving view on the subject.

And even if this is going to be the final installment, how is Trump going to take back all those things he has said before?

You see, the public record has this way of sticking with politicians who seek to present various forms of their ideological “evolution.” Every politician of every stripe has learned it the hard way.

Trump is learning it now as he campaigns for the first political office he’s ever sought.

Trump makes those records the issue

Health-Care-Records

Consider these four factors …

* Donald J. Trump boasts about his fabulous wealth.

* He questions whether his opponent for the presidency, Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, is fit enough for the job she seeks.

* Trump has questioned President Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the office he and Clinton want.

* Trump also has asked out loud about whether the president really was an academic star at Harvard University and at Columbia University.

Those four circumstances have created an issue where none should exist. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, won’t release his tax returns to show us that he is as rich as he says he is. Nor will he release his complete medical records to prove, as his doctor said, that he would be the healthiest man ever to serve as president.

Why are these things relevant? They are relevant because Trump made them so!

He’s the one who’s raised the issue. Trump seeks to be the first major-party candidate for president since 1976 to refuse to release his complete tax returns. And he does all this after making other people’s records an issue.

Trump’s supporters say the tax records are irrelevant. They don’t matter. So what if we learn he pays little in taxes? Other Americans do the very same thing, seeking to pay as little in tax as is legally permissible.

OK, fine. Then let’s see just what he pays. Let’s see if he’s as rich as he keeps telling us he is.

The medical records? Those, too, need to be made public. A goofy letter written in the span of five minutes by a physician isn’t enough.

All this stuff matters because Donald Trump has turned our attention to it.

Is it ‘Dr.’ David Plouffe these days?

plouffe

Now, now, now, David Plouffe.

Let’s not venture where we do not belong.

Not long ago, I — among others out here in the peanut gallery — got all over Katrina Pierson, a spokeswoman for Donald J. Trump, for issuing what amounted to a medical diagnosis of Hillary Clinton.

Pierson said the Democratic presidential nominee suffers from “dysphasia,” a neurological disorder.

“Ugghh!” we all thought. Knock it off, Ms. Pierson, we said.

Now it’s Plouffe weighing in, declaring that Trump — the Republican nominee — is a “psychopath” and that he “meets the clinical definition” of psychopathic behavior.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/28/david_plouffe_donald_trump_is_a_psychopath_–_he_meets_the_clinical_definition.html

To his credit, “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd called Plouffe down for issuing his own diagnosis, pointing out that he doesn’t have a medical degree or a degree “in psychology.”

Plouffe kind of shrugged and admitted he isn’t trained as a shrink.

David Plouffe is a brilliant political strategist, having engineered Barack Obama’s winning presidential campaign in 2008 and later serving as a senior political adviser in the White House.

He’s no doctor. So, let’s cease the medical diagnoses.

As Todd told Plouffe, “This is what gets voters so frustrated.”

Flash, GOP: Hillary didn’t commit any crimes

FILE-In this Jan. 24, 2014 file photo, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus is seen at the RNC winter meeting in Washington. Having fallen short twice recently, Ohio is making a big push to land the 2016 Republican National Convention with three cities bidding as finalists, eager to reassert its Midwestern political clout to a party that may be slowly moving away from it. In interviews, RNC chairman Reince Priebus and members of the selection committee including chairwoman Enid Mickelsen downplayed swing state status as a top factor in their decision, emphasizing that having at least $55 million in private fundraising, as well as hotel space and creating a good "delegate experience" were more important. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said it again this morning.

Hillary Rodham Clinton committed crimes while she was secretary of state, he told Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press.” The Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, he said, is a criminal over her use of a personal e-mail server. He said Clinton sent “highly classified” material out on that server, implying I guess that the material could have fallen into enemy hands.

I expressed long ago some concern over the use of the personal server. Secretaries of state or anyone charged with handling top-secret material need to ensure it’s distributed along highly encrypted channels.

Now, did she commit a crime?

Let’s see. The FBI investigated this matter thoroughly. The agency is run by a Republican, a guy named James Comey, who is as thorough an investigator as they come. He’s also a former federal prosecutor. The man knows the law.

Comey completed his probe and delivered a scathing rebuke of what Clinton did, how she handled the material through the personal server. Comey didn’t like what he found — and he said so! He described Clinton’s use of the personal server as “reckless.”

Then he also said that Clinton didn’t commit an offense for which she could be prosecuted.

End … of … story.

But wait!

Comey also gave the Republican Party a bottomless supply of ammo to fire at Clinton. He’s given the GOP plenty of grounds — or pretexts, if you will — to keep harping about the e-mail issue.

The GOP chairman this morning continued his party’s political attack.

Hillary Clinton, though, is not a criminal.

Here comes the Lower Expectation Game

hillary

Nice try, Brian Fallon.

Some of us — maybe many of us — can see right through Hillary Clinton’s press secretary.

Fallon is talking up Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump’s debating skills in advance of the joint appearance set between Trump and Democratic nominee Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/clinton-camp-tries-to-lower-trump-debate-expectations-227471

What’s the press flack up to?

I’m pretty sure Fallon is trying to lower expectations as Clinton and Trump prepare for their appearance.

The street talk has it that Trump will explode into a tantrum the minute Clinton goes negative. Fallon sees it differently … or so he says.

Trump, he reminded us in a written statement, “thrashed” his GOP rivals when they gathered on the same stage next to him. He notes that Trump is a former reality TV celebrity who’s comfortable in front of a TV camera.

I guess I need to remind readers of this blog that Hillary’s no slouch, either, when the TV lights go on. She testified for 11 hours before a congressional committee on the Benghazi matter and, to my way of thinking, showed herself to be a pretty cool customer.

The two of them are going to meet Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y.

Here, though, is what we ought to look for in the run-up to this event: Will the Trump campaign downplay their candidate’s debating skill the way this Clinton spokesman has done?

I do not believe for a second that the Trumpkins would dare say their guy isn’t up to the task at hand.

Minds can change in heated political climate

I’m hearing a lot of pundits saying things about how locked in Americans are on the presidential election.

Voters’ minds are made up.

They’re going to vote for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton or Republican Donald J. Trump. Perhaps they’ll vote for a minor-party candidate; we’ve got a few of them on the ballot this year.

Nothing either of the major-party nominees can say is going to sway voters on the other side.

I’m not so sure.

I witnessed the changing of a mind nearly a year ago. It involved an Amarillo municipal referendum. I wrote about it. Take a look.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/10/a-mind-has-changed-on-the-mpev/

The above blog post, published in October 2015, also notes how one former Texas legislator, the late Teel Bivins, told me how another legislator, Carl Parker, could change minds during Texas Senate floor debate.

Are our minds locked in on this election?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Compassion? Sympathy? Not when there’s politics in the air

twitter-mobile-iphone-app-ss-1920

Dwyane Wade’s family is grieving today.

A cousin of the pro basketball superstar was shot and killed in Chicago last night while she was walking her baby.

Now, how does an American politician respond to such news? Does he or she offer a word of condolence? A statement of horror at the event?

That depends. If that politician is Donald J. Trump, Republican nominee for president, he sends out a tweet that says in effect, “I told you so!”

That was how Trump reacted overnight to the death of Dwyane Wade’s cousin.

“Dwayne Wade’s cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago. Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!”

Trump’s been seeking to “appeal” to black voters by saying that they live in crime-ridden hell holes that aren’t as safe as some war zones where we’ve deployed troops to fight terrorists.

This tragedy, he said, proves the point he has sought to make.

Nothing at all, not even a family’s profound personal grief, can be off limits for this guy — Trump.

Many of the rest of us are left to shake our heads in utter disbelief.

Again!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/social-media-fires-back-at-trump-for-tweet-about-dwyane-wades-cousin/ar-AAi9QO1?li=BBnb7Kz

Voter ID law: an overreach … perhaps?

Ballot-Texas_jpg_800x1000_q100

Texas legislators were so convinced that voter fraud had reached epidemic proportions in the state that they enacted a law requiring everyone to show photo identification when they registered to vote … and then voted.

Is it the problem, the crisis, the scourge that lawmakers feared?

Apparently not.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/22/texas-prosecuted-15-illegal-voting-cases-none-invo/?mc_cid=97b9db7408&mc_eid=c01508274f

According to the Texas Tribune, the state prosecuted a total of 15 cases of voter fraud from 2012 until the 2016 state primary.

Fifteen! That’s it.

Most of the cases actually prosecuted involved something called “illegal assistance” of voters, which would be banned by the voter ID approved by the 2011 Texas Legislature.

It’s been said of some legislative remedies that they are “solutions in search of a problem.” This one seems to fit that description.

The Tribune reports: “Texas’ contested law, passed in 2011, requires voters to present one of seven approved forms of government-issued ID at the polls. In July, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled the law violates parts of the Voting Rights Act. For the November election, people without ID will be allowed to vote if they sign a sworn statement. A spokesman for the Texas attorney general said ‘this case is not over’ and the agency is considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

I am not vehemently opposed to requiring individuals to prove they are who they say they are. We ask people to produce ID when they cash a check, check in for flights at airports or make withdrawals from bank accounts.

Yes, voting is important. It’s crucial that we protect the integrity of this fundamental right.

But the study reported by the Tribune suggests to me that the rush to approve voter ID requirements was an overheated response to an equally overblown problem in Texas.