Category Archives: political news

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.

A rigged election? Yes, but not the way Trump calls it

Texas house of reps

Donald J. Trump likes issuing dire warnings about a “rigged election” on the horizon.

He means, of course, that the presidential election will be rigged and that the Republican nominee will lose only because of “crooked” politicians seeking to grease it for Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton’s election to the presidency.

Trump is mistaken, but only partially so.

Yes, the election at another level will be “rigged.” The rigging occurs in the election of members of Congress.

The culprit is the tried-and-tested method of gerrymandering, which the Republicans in charge of Congress and in many state legislatures around the country have fine-tuned to an art form.

David Daley writes in a blog for BillMoyers.com that the rigging will allow the GOP to maintain control of the House of Representatives, even as the Senate could flip to Democratic control — and as Clinton is swept into the White House in a landslide.

http://billmoyers.com/story/real-way-2016-election-rigged/

Yep. The GOP has done well with this totally legal process of apportioning House congressional districts. It’s done every 10 years after the census is taken and ratified.

They have gerrymandered the dickens out of the House districts, drawing lines in cockamamie fashion to include Republican-leaning neighborhoods and to shut out Democrats.

Now, to be totally fair and above-board, this isn’t a uniquely Republican idea. Democrats sought to do it, for example, in Texas when they ran the Legislature. As recently as 1991, the Democratic-controlled Texas Legislature monkeyed around with congressional districts, seeking to protect Democratic incumbents in the U.S. House.

Amarillo became something of a testing ground for that experiment. The Legislature divided the city into halves, with the Potter County portion of the city included in the 13th Congressional District, while the Randall County portion was peeled off into the 19th District. Potter County contained more Democratic voters and the idea was to protect then-U.S. Rep. Bill Sarpalius of Amarillo, a true-blue Democrat, from any GOP challenge.

Randall County, meanwhile, is arguably ground zero of the West Texas Republican movement and its residents ain’t voting for a Democrat to any public office.

The tactic worked through the 1992 election, when Sarpalius was re-elected. Then came the 1994 Republican wipeout, led by that firebrand Rep. Newt Gingrich of Georgia. Sarpalius got swept out by the GOP tsunami that elected a young Clarendon rancher and self-proclaimed “recovering lawyer” named Mac Thornberry.

The Republicans would wrest control of the Legislature from the Democrats after that and they have perfected the art of gerrymandering. Sure, the Democrats tried to gerrymander themselves into permanent power.

Republicans, however, have proved to be better at it.

You want a “rigged” election? There it is.

The GOP presidential nominee, quite naturally, isn’t about to call attention to the real rigging of the U.S. electoral system. Instead, he’s going to fabricate suspicion in a scenario that will not occur.

Michele Bachmann: She’s b-a-a-a-c-k!

bachmanntrump

It’s hard to believe that for a time during the 2012 Republican Party presidential primary — brief as it was — this individual was a leading contender for the party’s presidential nomination.

I refer, of course, to Michele Bachmann, a former member of Congress from Minnesota.

Here is what she told Minnesota Public Radio: “He also recognizes there is a threat around the world, not just here in Minnesota, of radical Islam. I wish our President Obama also understood the threat of radical Islam and took it seriously.”

Bachmann is referring to her new pupil, Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, who she is now advising on foreign policy.

For the umpteenth time, I feel the need to remind the president’s critics — even a particular congressional has-been — of something regarding the nation’s fight against international terrorists.

Barack Obama is as dedicated as any of those critics are in seeking out and killing terrorists, and, yes, that includes the radical Islamists.

While I, too, wish that the president would refer to the Islamists by name as he talks to the nation about the threat, I do not for a single, solitary instant believe he is doesn’t take them “seriously.”

I feel the need to restate something I’ve declared already: We’re killing terrorists daily in the field. Our air strikes are decimating them in Syria, Iraq and in other Middle East hideouts; our special operations forces are hunting them down on the ground and are coordinating with local armed forces and militia in killing them. Our intelligence apparatus is working with international allies every hour of every day to stop terrorist conspiracies.

These ill-informed critics keep harping on the attacks that do occur. They never acknowledge — not surprisingly — that we’re stopping many more attacks from occurring because of our highly capable intelligence operatives.

Still, none of this stops demagogues such as Michele Bachmann from repeating the tired canard about Barack Obama’s alleged lack of commitment to fighting the terrorists.

Earth to Bachmann: The president is fighting them and killing them.

Ken Starr calls it quits at Baylor

starr

Oh, the irony of it all.

Kenneth Starr has quit his job as a law professor at Baylor University. You’ve heard of him, yes?

He once was a special counsel who was hired by Congress to investigate a real estate deal involving President Clinton and his wife, Hillary Clinton. Then the investigation turned into something quite different. He began sniffing around about allegations of an affair between the president and a young White House intern.

His investigation resulted in the impeachment of the president on grounds that he lied under oath about the affair to a federal grand jury. The Senate acquitted Clinton.

Starr moved on, first to Pepperdine University and then to Baylor.

But … while he served as president of Baylor, the university got caught up — wait for it! — in a sex scandal involving star football players. The school was accused of covering up some serious misbehavior.

It all happened on Starr’s watch.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/08/20/ken-starr-resigns-as-baylor-law-professor-cuts-ties-with-university.html

The head football coach was fired. The athletic director quit. Starr was demoted from president to chancellor. He kept his classroom job.

Now he’s quit the professor post, severing his ties with the university.

Do you get the irony? Sex propelled Ken Starr to a form of political stardom and sex has caused his fall from grace at a major Texas university.

As the saying goes: Karma’s a bitch, man.

She plays a doctor on TV news shows

Katrina Pierson blamed an earpiece for an earlier gaffe.

I don’t think she can rely on that dodge for this one.

Pierson is a Texan who serves as a spokeswoman for the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign. She told a TV interviewer recently that the Afghan War began on President Obama’s watch.

Oops! Uh, no, Ms. Pierson. It began on President Bush’s watch, right after 9/11. She said she misunderstood the question and couldn’t hear it properly because of chatter on her electronic earpiece.

OK, whatever you say.

Now, though, she has diagnosed a medical condition in her hero’s Democratic opponent for the presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Pierson said Clinton suffers from dysphasia, a rare brain disorder.

Double oops!

You see, Pierson isn’t a doctor. She is a failed congressional candidate. She is a flack for the Republican presidential nominee. She now has tossed a lead weight on the innuendo being tossed around about Clinton’s physical health and taken it to a new depth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/18/trump-spokeswoman-diagnoses-hillary-clinton-with-dysphasia-despite-not-being-doctor/

Of course, though, Trump won’t disavow her “diagnosis.” He won’t take her to the proverbial woodshed. He will allow such nonsense to bounce around throughout social media.

Sometimes politicians — and their spokespeople — tend to speak about matters of which they have no direct knowledge.

Do you remember when Terry Schiavo, the comatose patient whose family sought permission to let her “die with dignity,” was in the news? A senator, Bill Frist, offered a medical diagnosis that sought to support his contention that Schiavo should be kept alive.

Let’s understand that Frist, a Tennessee Republican who’s no longer in the Senate, is a noted transplant surgeon. However, he never examined Schiavo, so he was unable to offer anything close to a precise diagnosis of her medical condition.

Now we have someone else — with even less knowledge of medical matters — going on the air and saying some truly thoughtless, careless and ridiculous things about a major-party candidate for the presidency of the United States.

I have a simple request of Katrina Pierson: Don’t talk about things about which you know nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4mB714-8K0

 

Trump loses ‘brown-skinned’ supporter

trump_supporter_cnn

Another mystery has emerged along the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign trail.

It involves a young man who supported the Republican presidential nominee. The young man, Jake Anantha, attended his first-ever political rally in North Carolina the other day.

Then he got tossed out. Trump’s security boss booted out Anantha for — and this is Anantha’s version of it — no apparent reason.

Anantha, whose father is of Indian descent, says he got tossed because he has “brown skin.”

Anantha said he tried to explain to the Trump security goon that he was just there to listen to his guy, Trump, and that he is a supporter. The security guy didn’t believe him, Anantha said. So he kicked him out.

Why is this a bigger deal than usual? Well, Trump keeps saying he’s going to win 95 percent of the African-American vote, despite only polling about 1 percent among black voters at the moment. Anantha, though, contends he was thrown out of Trump’s rally only because of the color of his skin.

How is Trump’s outreach to people “of color” going to work in that context?

Granted, we’ve only heard Jake Anantha’s version of the story. Not a peep has come just yet from the Trump campaign. The security guy isn’t talking. Neither is the candidate. Same for Trump’s new campaign CEO, Steve Bannon, who came to the campaign after posting some seriously racist-sounding commentary while working for Breitbart.com. Is there a connection? Hmmm. I don’t know.

Some answers, please. Mr. Trump? Mr. Security Guy? Anyone?

Oh, there’s one more thing.

Jake Anantha no longer supports Trump.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/292069-trump-supporter-says-he-was-kicked-out-of-a-trump-rally

POTUS set to tour Louisiana flood zone

louisiana-floods

Well, here you go.

President Obama has said he’s going to Louisiana next week to see first hand the damage caused by the historic flood.

I’m glad to know he’s going to size it up in person.

Yes, I wrote that he should go. Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump and his running mate, Mike Pence, made a show of it today by venturing to the flood zone. They went despite being asked to stay away by Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards.

It’s interesting to me that candidates can do nothing to help. They do manage to score some political points, which Trump sought to do.

Presidents, though, do bring loads of gravitas to such visits.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/obama-louisiana-flooding-visit-227209

For that reason, I’m glad Barack Obama is going to fulfill an unwritten but always understood job requirement. It is to be the comforter in chief. Obama is good at it.

Lord knows he’s had enough experience embracing grieving Americans caught in the midst of crisis.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/08/president-ought-to-take-a-look-at-the-flood-damage/

 

 

A kinder, gentler Trump set to emerge … but wait!

manafort

Paul Manaford quit the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign three days after getting kicked out of his job as campaign CEO.

There appear to be some potentially difficult legal issues for Manaford to navigate. But I digress.

The issue today is how the Republican presidential nominee becomes a new man, a new candidate.

Honestly, this is all quite confusing.

Steve Bannon is the new CEO. Kellyanne Conway is the new campaign manager. Conway says she dislikes the personal insults that Trump has hurled throughout his campaign. Bannon, though, is a rough-and-tough character known for his take-no-prisoners style.

Trump has said publicly he plans “no pivot.” He’s not going to change his style.

OK, then.

How does his campaign get traction? How does he become a more “focused” and potentially gentler candidate for the U.S. presidency? His expression of “regret” over the “personal pain” he caused rings — to my ears — as hollow as his assertion that he’s going to “work for you.”

Moreover, how does he make these changes without pivoting … and without the public forgetting those astonishing utterances that have poured out of Trump’s mouth during the GOP primary campaign?

I won’t recite them here. You’ve heard ’em all. They fired up the GOP base. They’re still in Trump’s corner. What about the rest of the general election voters, though, who need convincing that Trump is their guy?

Trump’s campaign has gone through a remarkable set of changes in its high command quite late in the process of electing a president. They all seem to suggest a campaign in serious disarray.

And, oh yes, we have that organization issue to be resolved.

Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton has put — if you’ll excuse the ridiculous euphemism — “boots on the ground” in all 50 states. She’s got precinct chairs, workers, campaign staff, volunteers — and maybe even their pets, for all I know — lined up to work for her election. Trump? He’s got next to no one filling those essential line jobs in the field.

I’m waiting to see if Trump assumes Americans are as gullible and malleable as he hopes. My sense is that voters — those of us far beyond the GOP base — aren’t going to forget the lengthy string of insults and innuendo that propelled this guy to his party’s presidential nomination.

Innuendo machine getting cranked up again

trump and babies

Donald J. Trump has shaken up his Republican presidential campaign high command.

Many GOP experts are saying the same thing: Steve Bannon’s ascent to campaign CEO and Kellyanne Conway’s promotion to campaign manager means that they plan to “let Trump be Trump.”

Good. Bring it!

So what are we hearing now from the GOP nominee?

It’s that Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee, is too ill to be president. She doesn’t have the stamina. She doesn’t have the intellectual goods. Clinton takes too much “time off.” She “takes naps” after appearing at national campaign events.

The innuendo machine is being re-fired.

That develop, I suggest, is one of the results of Trump being Trump.

Will this campaign tactic stick? Will the GOP nominee be able to ride this fundamental lie to victory? Count me as one who doubts it seriously.

Many of those GOP “experts” also say Bannon’s promotion portends a disaster for Trump and the party he is leading. He’ll be able to solidify his GOP base, but will fail to expand that base to include independents, frustrated Democrats or even “establishment Republicans” who detest the idea that Trump is their party’s flag carrier.

The innuendo, though, about Clinton’s health will make headlines.

It also will give the Democratic nominee some ammo I’m quite certain she’s going to fire back at Trump when the two of them meet for their joint appearance.