Category Archives: political news

E-mail story is getting more convoluted

email-marketing

I am willing to admit the obvious, which is that sometimes I am a bit slow on the uptake.

Things can and do get past me. The swirl of news events at times overwhelms me to the point that I cannot keep straight the particulars of this or that controversy/scandal.

The Hillary Rodham Clinton e-mail matter provides a case in point.

She used her personal server while leading the State Department. The question then became whether she distributed classified or “highly classified” information on this server.

The FBI investigated it. So did the U.S. House Government Oversight Committee.

The FBI concluded that it couldn’t find a reason to prosecute Clinton for any illegal activity. FBI Director James Comey, though, did provide a pile of critical analysis of Clinton’s handling of the e-mails, calling it “reckless,” and “careless.”

Now, though, Donald J. Trump is accusing Clinton of “illegal” use of her personal e-mail server.

Didn’t the feds determine already that she didn’t break the law, or that they couldn’t find reasonable grounds to recommend an indictment?

Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has goaded Russia into looking for 30,000-something missing e-mails. The House Oversight and Judiciary committees are looking for proof that Clinton committed perjury when she testified before Congress.

Then we hear about 15,000 more e-mails that have surfaced. What does that mean? Anything?

The Democratic presidential nominee has endured a serious media and political scrubbing over all of this.

She hasn’t been accused formally of a single criminal act.

And yet …

Republicans keep calling her a criminal. They want to “lock her up!”

My head is spinning.

I need help.

‘Undercover voter’ equals ‘shamed voter’

Kellyanne Conway, new campaign manager for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, speaks to reporters in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York, Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2016. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Kellyanne Conway earned her chops as a pollster and spinmeister.

Consider, then, what Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump’s new campaign manager has said.

It is that polls would show Trump doing better if “undercover voters” would reveal to pollsters that they are voting for her guy.

I’m trying to understand what she’s saying here.

I think that she’s suggesting that Trump’s millions of voters are too ashamed to admit out loud to strangers that they’re planning to vote this fellow.

Am I mistaken? Is that what “undercover voter” means?

If you’re committed to a candidate for high public office and someone calls you to conduct a public opinion survey, it would follow — normally, I guess — that you would be unafraid to tell the pollster how you think about an upcoming election.

Trump’s supporters, according to Conway, are keeping their thoughts to themselves.

Someone explain that one to me.

Please?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kellyanne-conway-polls-undercover-trump-voter

 

‘Outreach’ to African-Americans lies beyond Trump’s grasp

Donald J. Trump is trying to pander, er, reach out to African-American voters.

The Republican Party’s presidential nominee is plotting a curious course in that direction.

He’s held a couple of rallies in recent days. One was in suburban Milwaukee, Wisc., the other was in suburban Detroit, Mich.

I emphasize the “suburban” aspect for a specific reason.

He was standing in front of virtually all-white audiences telling them, apparently, about how terrible life has become for black residents of inner-city neighborhoods. “What the hell do you have to lose?” Trump asked, supposedly speaking over the heads of those who were standing in front of him. He was asking the larger audience that wasn’t there, the African-American voting bloc that — as of this moment — is giving the GOP nominee about 1 percent of its support.

It’s been reported that an avowed segregationist — the late Alabama Gov. George Corley Wallace — polled 3 percent of the black vote when he ran as an independent candidate for president in 1968.

A better, more sincere way to reach out to Americans is to speak to them directly. Venture into their neighborhoods. Look them in the eye, tell them you care about them and offer them demonstrative evidence that you have cared for them before.

Other politicians have employed that strategy while campaigning for African-American votes. I think specifically of the late Robert F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

Sure, President Clinton has had his hiccups regarding race relations, such as his occasionally frosty relationship with the Rev. Jesse Jackson and with Barack Obama and the time he scolded the rap singer Sister Souljah for spouting lyrics that promoted violence.

As for RFK, well, those of who are around at that time remember vividly his venturing into an Indianapolis neighborhood the night of April 4, 1968 to tell the black audience before him that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr had just been assassinated in Memphis, Tenn. Many of America’s cities erupted in violence that night. Indy, though, remained calm.

These days, such “outreach” by a leading politician consists of screeds shouted from podiums in affluent neighborhoods.

I’m trying to imagine Donald Trump following RFK’s example.

Nope. I can’t picture it.

‘Espirit’ is missing on Capitol Hill

la-1471894528-snap-photo

U.S. Marines talk with pride about the espirit de corps that exists within their ranks.

Roughly translated, it means “spirit of the group.”

The U.S. Congress used to operate under that mantra when natural disaster struck. If one part of the country falls victim to Mother Nature’s wrath, the entire legislative body rallies to the aid of their fellow Americans.

Those days are gone. I hope not forever, though.

The Louisiana floods show us this latest phenomenon at work.

The Los Angeles Times reports that three Louisiana congressmen, all Republicans, now are pleading for federal assistance to help their fellow Louisianans. What makes the story interesting is that they opposed similar requests for New Jersey after that state was clobbered in the fall of 2012 by Superstorm Sandy.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-louisiana-floods-20160822-snap-story.html

Do you remember when Joplin, Mo., got flattened by the tornado in 2011? Calls went out to help that city, too. Then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, though, dug in his heels and insisted that Congress find a way to offset the expense by cutting money in other areas.

There once was a time in this country when Americans pulled together. We rooted for each other, prayed for each other — all while supporting efforts to lend tangible assistance. We didn’t put provisos on these requests. We just stepped up and offered a hand up to those in dire distress.

I know money is tight. I also know that the political climate in Washington has become toxic in the extreme.

That toxicity too often reveals itself when politicians argue over which congressional district deserves money in times of tragedy — and which of them do not.

It makes me ask: Are we truly an exceptional nation that rises to the needs of all its citizens, or are we governed by a group of petty politicians who look out only for those who elect them to public office?

I feel the need to remind the politicians who work on Capitol Hill: You signed on to serve the federal government and that means you serve all Americans.

Trump likely to lose … but might not accept it

OB-VG717_Romney_G_20121107020041

I’m glad to be not alone in fearing what might happen on Election Day, which occurs on Nov. 8.

Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump could lose the election to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton in a big way.

He might get buried in an Electoral College landslide. For that matter, it could even be a popular vote landslide.

But just a little while ago, Trump laid down a frightening notion.

He might not accept defeat the way losing candidates traditionally have done. Remember when he said the “only way I am going to lose” is if the election is “rigged.” He said the only way for “Crooked Hillary” to win is to fix it so she gets more votes than he does.

What’s going to happen, then, if — after the news organizations declare Clinton the winner — and Trump fails to make the phone call to the president-elect, offering his congratulations and then stands before his supporters to concede defeat?

Eli Stokols, writing for Politico, thinks it’s entirely possible that Trump won’t concede. He won’t acknowledge what the rest of the world would have just witnessed.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-concede-succession-227252

Stokols writes: “Among the values most necessary for a functioning democracy is the peaceful transition of power that’s gone on uninterrupted since 1797. What enables that is the acceptance of the election’s outcome by the losers,” said Steve Schmidt, the GOP operative who was McCain’s campaign strategist in 2008.

Trump’s insistence that a “rigged” election would result in his defeat seems to put that tradition into imminent danger.

As an American who rather likes political tradition, I see this as a potentially terrible development.

Again, as Stokols writes: “The damage this is going to do to various institutions is going to be long term,” said Charlie Sykes, a prominent conservative radio host in Milwaukee who has been one of the country’s most outspoken and consistent anti-Trump voices. “How do you restore civil discourse after all of this? He is a postmodern authoritarian who’s in the process of delegitimizing every institution — the media, the ballot box — that can be a check on him.”

Are you scared yet? I am.

Trump ‘doubles down’ on deporting illegal immigrants, or does he?

immigrant trump

Donald J. Trump’s immigration policy appears to be getting suddenly quite muddled.

Reports came out over the weekend that the Republican presidential nominee was backing off his plan to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Then he said he intends to deport ’em as fast as he can round ’em up.

He’s going to “build that wall and we’re going to make Mexico pay for it,” he said to cheering rally crowds.

So, which is it? Is he softening his view? Is he doubling down and getting even harsher?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-doubles-down-on-deportations-denies-backtracking-227293

There’s  a thing or two for Trump to consider.

If he backs off his deportation initiative, he risks losing the GOP base of voters that propelled him to the party’s presidential nomination.

Moreover, his alleged softening looks for all the world like an admission that his top-priority issue has angered a vast array of Americans who are offended by his characterization of illegal immigrants as “rapists, murderers, drug dealers,” while adding he’s sure “there are some good ones, too.”

However, if Trump holds firm to his initial hardline view, well, he’s got the base but he’s surrendering the rest of the American voting public.

This man doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Clinton faces defamatory attacks about her health

BROOKLYN, NY - JUNE 7: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attends a primary night rally in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, June 7, 2016 in Brooklyn, New York. Clinton will become the first woman in U.S. history to secure the presidential nomination of one of the country's two major political parties. (Photo by Brooks Kraft/ Getty Images)

 

Rudy Guiliani used to be known as “America’s mayor,” a title he earned by his stellar performance as mayor of New York City as it coped with the hideous 9/11 terror attacks.

He’s now in danger of being considered “America’s goofball.”

His (former) honor is peddling pure crap as it regards Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. He has said she is ill. He doesn’t have an iota of hard evidence. He just says it.

When asked on Fox News about his contention, Guiliani then offered the most nonsensical rebuttal of all time. “Go online,” he said, referring to the Internet.

That’s it! If it’s on the Internet, he said, then it must be true.

My head nearly exploded when I heard that.

He’s parroting the line, the strategy being employed by Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

This campaign veered toward the gutter long ago. Trump has been at the wheel of the GOP clown car ever since he declared his candidacy for the presidential nomination. Now that he has been nominated, he keeps gripping the clown car wheel and keep riding it into the same ol’ gutter.

There are those of us out here who are struggling with these campaign choices. Clinton is far from an ideal candidate. She’s got some serious hurdles to clear herself. They deal with trust and whether she would be totally truthful when talking to Americans about serious policy matters.

None of the concerns about Clinton, to my mind, has a thing to do with her physical health.

She is sharp, engaged, well-informed, articulate.

Donald Trump is none of those things.

Rudy Guiliani knows it, too.

Temperament, man … it’s the temperament

ecf305473b9b613c82db81e4bfeba584

Hillary Rodham Clinton keeps harping on an aspect of Donald J. Trump’s emotional makeup.

She contends in her stump speeches that the Republican Party’s presidential nominee lacks the temperament to be president.

Others have joined the chorus. Republicans echo Democrats in saying that Trump’s emotional outbursts bode ill for someone who seeks to become the next head of state, head of government and commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine.

So … how’s Trump responding lately?

He’s launched into another Tweet-storm, this time hurling insults and invective at — are you ready? — two cable TV news talk show hosts! Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski — co-hosts of the MSBNC “Morning Joe” talk show — now are in Trump’s sights.

He calls them “unstable.” He hurls insults at them. Oh, and he’s also suggested out loud that the two of them are — gasp! – dating each other. Which makes me say: B … F … D, dude.

They’re both single.

Whatever.

The issue that Clinton keeps raising, though, seems to ring a bit truer today as Trump assails two TV talk show hosts.

Temperament? Sure, Trump’s got it.

Trump confounds them by holding rally … in Texas!

061616TTtrump000028_jpg_800x1000_q100

Donald J. Trump has said many times how he has surrounded himself with “the best people” to run his presidential campaign.

If they are “the best,” one can ask, why do they keep sending him (a) to states he has no chance of winning and (b) to states he has virtually no chance of losing in the upcoming election?

As Ross Ramsey of the Texas Tribune points out, Trump is coming to Austin — the one in Texas — for a political rally this week.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/22/analysis-texas-august-funny-place-trump-rally/

It’s an interesting call.

Trump, the Republican nominee, is losing all the battleground states to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, North Carolina … they all need to hear from the GOP candidate.

Texans appear to have their minds made up. They’re going with Trump — apparently — even though a recent PPP poll said Trump leads Clinton by just 6 percentage points. That marks a significant whittling of the margin that Mitt Romney won by in 2012 over Barack Obama.

Trump, though, is going to stage a rally in Texas.

Go figure.

Shoot, as long as he’s in Texas, he ought to fly Trump One — or whatever they’re calling that jet of his — to Amarillo, where I know he’d get a hero’s welcome.

‘Liberal media’ become target of the right

liberal_media_bumper_sticker

It’s always been this way.

The so-called “liberal media” do all they can to conspire to sway public decisions, policy and the actions of those in power … allegedly.

We’re hearing it again in social media circles: The “liberal media” want to elect Hillary Clinton!

I believe I shall call a time out for a moment or two.

The so-called “binary choice” features Clinton, the Democratic nominee, and Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee. One of them will be elected president of the United States on Nov. 8.

The “liberal media,” according to those on the right, are giving Clinton a pass on all those hideous scandals that have rocked her political history. Isn’t that interesting? How do those on the right even know about the scandals/controversies/dust-ups? They read about them in the media.

Clinton’s past has been covered over and over again. She’s been scrutinized, examined, vetted and interrogated by more reporters than anyone in public life in the past 20-plus years. Congress has investigated her to the hilt and those investigations have been covered — also to the hilt — by the media.

As for the liberal media conspiring to elect her, I want to offer this brief rejoinder. The print media in particular don’t have the time, let alone the inclination, to concoct such conspiracies. I used to adhere to the truism while working as a full-time journalist that producing a newspaper every day was little short of a miracle, given all the things that can go wrong during a given production cycle.

One final point …

If the media were truly conspiring to elect either Trump or Clinton, I would put my bet on the media wanting Trump to win. Think of it: Whenever he shoots off his mouth, he draws a crowd; he attracts viewers to TV news shows and readers to print publications.

Those readers and viewers all mean the same thing to media moguls: money, lots of money.

Liberal media conspiracy?

Give me a break. There. I’m out.