Category Archives: political news

Should ‘short-circuited’ remain a talking point?

Clinton-and-Trump

A former colleague of mine scolded me once a few weeks ago over my criticism of Donald J. Trump’s gaffe when he referred the Apostle Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians as “2 Corinthians.”

My critic reminded me that people who speak for a living could be excused for saying things improperly on occasion. He made an interesting and thought-provoking point.

So, I’m left to wonder about Trump’s opponent in the presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said she “short-circuited” when answering questions about the e-mail controversy that continues to dog her.

She’s been pilloried for the statement by her foes, led by Trump, who’s now questioning whether Clinton’s got the intellectual snap she needs to be president of the United States.

Trump and Clinton will square off soon in the first of three joint appearances. It’s seems a good bet that Trump will bring up the “short-circuited” comment. He’s hired a new campaign CEO and manager, both of whom vow to “let Trump be Trump.”

Is the criticism of Clinton fair? Or did she — as a politician who makes her living these days talking constantly — merely say something in a less-than-artful manner?

As my ex-colleague/critic reminded me: He knows “how easy it is to say something wrong and even incredibly stupid despite knowing better.”

Politicians, though, usually aren’t allowed — for better or for worse — the luxury of a simple misspeak.

By all means, release the documents

BBvKoqL

There appears to be a capital idea in the making.

The unclassified material related to the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state might be released for public review.

Yes, release them. Let the public see the documents. Let the public review them and let the public decide whether the Democratic candidate for president has earned the right to occupy the office she seeks.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/documents-from-the-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-might-be-made-public/ar-BBvKqCm?li=BBnb7Kz

Republicans all across the country have been making a great deal of those e-mails and Clinton’s use of the private server. They are mighty unhappy that FBI Director James Comey decided against recommending prosecuting Clinton, that she didn’t commit a crime.

Well, now some GOP members of Congress want to pursue perjury charges against the Democratic presidential candidate.

Let’s take a look at the documents.

Hasn’t Clinton actually expressed support for public release of them?

I don’t think Clinton committed a crime and I support the FBI’s conclusion on that matter.

I also believe in full transparency. So, let’s separate the classified documents from the unclassified papers. Release them to the public and let the public decide the fate of this investigation — for which the public paid a lot of money.

Will it open up a whole array of political discussion and debate? Sure it will. That’s what happens in the middle of a presidential election.

This campaign is running on all cylinders?

A woman holds signs depicting the head of Republican presidential candidate businessman Donald Trump as she waits to enter the auditorium to hear him speak, Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2015, at Pinkerton Academy in Derry, N.H.  (AP Photo/Mary Schwalm)

Someone will have to help me out, make me understand something that’s gone over my head.

Donald J. Trump has just brought in his third campaign chairman in the past eight weeks. He’s demoted the guy who had the job the day before yesterday. The new man in charge, a fellow named Steve Bannon, comes from a rightwing website, Breitbart.com.

The Republican presidential nominee also hired longtime GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway as his new campaign manager.

The Trumpkins say “not to worry. The campaign is going great! We’re going to finish so, so strong. Donald Trump is going to win!”

Really?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump%e2%80%99s-new-campaign-manager-kellyanne-conway-doesn%e2%80%99t-like-his-name-calling/ar-BBvJvgH?li=BBnb7Kz

Well, Trump doesn’t have any organizations established in the key battleground states. There appears to be no one handling what’s known commonly as the “ground game,” which involves recruiting volunteers for get-out-voter drives and targeting key precincts.

He’s trailing Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton in every one of those key states. In some of them the deficit is in double digits.

What am I missing?

How does a candidate go from Corey Lewandowski to Paul Manafort to Steve Bannon as campaign chairs in eight weeks and still pretend to have all his oars in the water?

Moreover, reports are surfacing about growing panic within top Republican circles. Does this assuage that panic?

I do not believe it does.

Can the candidates keep a secret?

nsa-logo1

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump — the Democratic and Republican candidates for president, respectively — are set to receive briefings from President Obama’s national security team.

The question keeps bugging me: Will they both receive identical briefings and will they get information that is at matching levels of security clearance?

Trump’s penchant for shooting off his mouth has become somewhat legendary as he campaigns for president. Clinton, too, has problems — allegedly — with protecting national security information.

Of the two, my sense is that Clinton — given her troubles over her use of personal e-mail servers while she was secretary of state — is going to be extra careful with any information she gets from Obama’s national security team.

Trump? I’m not so sure.

This has been a custom dating back to the 1952 when President Truman’s team decided to share this information with Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, the candidates who sought to succeed Give ‘Em Hell Harry.

The intent is to avoid the new president from getting too much of a surprise when he or she takes office. Harry Truman took office in April 1945 and wasn’t told until 12 days after being sworn in after President Roosevelt’s death that, um, we had been doing research on a secret weapon in New Mexico that might end World War II in a hurry.

It was the atomic bomb!

I’m going to assume — yes, I know that’s a dangerous thing to do — that the information given to Clinton and Trump will be given in the strictest confidence. That means the people giving it will be sworn to secrecy, as well as the people receiving it.

Are they bound by any rule that requires them to give Trump the same intelligence briefing they give to Clinton?

More to the point, can the intelligence briefers and the candidates keep it all of it a secret?

Hillary’s health becomes Trump’s trap

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s physical and emotional health has now become a talking point for her opponent in this race for the presidency of the United States.

Republican nominee Donald J. Trump is alleging that the Democratic candidate lacks the stamina to deal with the Islamic State and the myriad world problems that will confront the next president.

Hmmm.

Of course, it’s a phony issue. Then again, Trump’s campaign to date has been based largely on phony issues from top to bottom.

* Crime is rampant? No. The crime rate is at a historic low.

* Our military force is a loser? Hardly. We’re still the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

* The economy is a disaster? Uh, we’ve added 14 million jobs in the past eight years.

Now it’s Hillary Clinton’s health.

I am quite certain Trump’s team will keep talking this up to divert attention away from some other issues with which Trump has to deal.

Perhaps he ought to keep his trap shut on this one. You might remember — I sure do — when President Reagan stumbled badly in that first joint appearance in 1984 with Democratic nominee Walter Mondale. The question came up in the next event about the president’s health. The president was asked if he was up to the job.

“I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” the president said.

Beware, Donald Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-makes-claims-on-clintons-health/ar-BBvIEOW?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Gov. Perry now deserves ‘shame’

7C2A9793_jpg_800x1000_q100

Rick Perry has told the father of a slain U.S. Army soldier “shame on you” for speaking out against Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Actually, governor, the shame belongs on you.

Khzir Khan offered a blistering critique of Trump at the Democratic National Convention. His son, Capt. Humayun Khan, was killed in 2004 while serving in Iraq. Khzir Khan said Trump didn’t understand the sacrifice that Gold Star parents have endured.

So, now we hear from the former Texas governor, an Air Force veteran, who said that Khzir Khan started the rhubarb with Trump and is not immune from criticism.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/16/perry-defends-trump-over-feud-gold-star-family/

How can I say this delicately? I can’t.

That’s pure baloney, Gov. Perry.

Trump’s response to Mr. Khan was utterly classless. That is in large part what has prompted the bipartisan criticism of Trump and his handling of that issue. Now, for Gov. Perry — who once called Trump a “cancer on conservatism” — has jumped into the fray by focusing on Khzir Khan’s remarks.

Did he miss the part when Trump said the Khans had “no right” to criticize him? Or did he ignore the crack that Trump muttered about Mrs. Khan’s silence at the DNC, suggesting she was not allowed to speak because of her — oh, yes! — Muslim faith?

He said the Khans have become “fair game” by entering the “political arena.”

Actually, Gov. Perry, political custom has elevated Gold Star parents above the kind of criticism they received from the Republican presidential nominee.

E-mail story will never die … never!

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at Syracuse Universitys S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications presentation of the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2015. AFP PHOTO/NICHOLAS KAMM (Photo credit should read NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

I’ve concluded that the Hillary Rodham Clinton e-mail controversy has as many lives as, say, the JFK assassination conspiracy theories and the notion that men didn’t really walk on the moon.

Congressional Republicans now are examining whether Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton committed perjury during her testimonial marathon in 2015.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-panels-lay-out-case-for-clinton-perjury-accusations/ar-BBvF9tj?li=BBnb7Kz

They have put forward a case that Clinton lied while testifying when questioned by lawmakers about whether she sent out classified material using her personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state.

The hearing ended. The FBI then concluded that it had no credible evidence to prosecute Clinton over her use of the e-mail server. Sure, FBI Director James Comey had some harsh words for Clinton, saying she was “extremely careless” in handling those e-mails.

Was there criminality involved? None, said Comey.

That should end it, right?

Oh, no.

Now, the chairmen of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees are wanting to prove that Clinton committed perjury while testifying about her e-mail use.

Clinton said she didn’t send classified information on her e-mails; Comey said that is an untrue statement. Clinton said her staff reviewed all e-mails to identify work-related messages; Comey said the staffers didn’t read them entirely. Clinton said she used on e-mail server; Comey said she used several.

Does this constitute perjury? Did she deliberately deceive congressional interrogators?

I keep returning to Comey’s final report. He said “no reasonable prosecutor” would find reasons to indict Clinton over the e-mail matter. Did he say during his lengthy dissertation that she committed perjury? No.

The FBI director himself is a former federal prosecutor. He’s a thorough lawyer steeped in these the nuts and bolts of intense federal investigations.

Oh, but there’s this other matter.

Hillary Clinton is running for president of the United States and at this moment is the odds-on favorite to be elected to the highest office in the land.

Might there be a political motive in bringing this perjury investigation forward?

Hmmm. Maybe?

New poll makes Democrats’ hearts flutter

ClintonTrump-Split_jpg_800x1000_q100

If you listen carefully, you just might be able to hear the sound of Texas Democrats’ hearts beating rapidly.

A new public opinion poll puts Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton a mere 6 percentage points behind Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/16/poll-trump-leads-clinton-only-6-texas/

It’s Trump at 44 percent, Clinton at 38.

Game on in Texas?

Hmmm. Maybe … but probably not.

The poll was done by PPP, a reputable polling firm. The survey, though, suggests that while the state may be starting to develop a two-party “trend,” it doesn’t necessarily augur for a victory for Clinton this time around.

According to the Texas Tribune: “Polling on the presidential race in Texas has been scant, but the margin found by PPP is the narrowest yet. Previous surveys, including one commissioned by Democrats, have found Trump’s lead ranging from seven to 11 points.”

I’m one of those who would like to see the presidential candidates engage in what’s called “retail politics” here. In battleground states, the candidates show up for public events, shake hands with voters, engage real people in real conversations about politics and policy.

We don’t get that kind of activity here, given the state’s strong GOP leaning. Democrats usually give up on us, while Republicans take us for granted.

Might there be some continued narrowing of the Clinton-Trump gap? If so, I’ll be among the first to welcome the major-party presidential candidates to Texas.

Until then, though, Texas Democrats probably will need to calm their beating hearts.

Rubio to Trump: I detest you, but not as much as I do Hillary

MarcoRubio1

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio finds himself defending an unusual political position.

The Florida Republican stands by his comment that GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump is a “con man” who shouldn’t be president of the United States.

But he’s going to vote for him anyway.

Some observers in Florida and elsewhere are quizzing the one-time GOP presidential primary candidate who, during the campaign, said some amazingly harsh things about the man who defeated him — and 15 other contenders — for the party nomination.

Rubio isn’t back away from any of them.

But he’s voting for Trump … he says.

This well might summarize the state of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Many rank-and-file “establishment” Republicans can’t stomach the candidacy of Trump, but they truly detest — even hate — the Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Lesser of two evils? This is it, according to Sen. Rubio.

Trump must be taking a dive

donald-trump

It’s fair to wonder out loud — as some have done already — whether Donald J. Trump is deliberately trying to lose this election.

Is he throwing the election? Is he deliberately setting himself up to lose the 2016 presidential election?

I’m not ready to swallow that bait. However, some things he said today at his foreign policy speech have me wondering.

For example, and I’ll offer just this one for now …

What in the world is he thinking when he criticizes the most recent Republican president and his administration for going to war in Iraq in 2003?

Trump didn’t mention President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney by name, but he ventured into a scathing condemnation of their decision to start the Iraq War.

I can recall when Democrats did that in 2004. When Democratic presidential nominee U.S. Sen. John Kerry criticized the administration’s decision to go to war, he was vilified by Republicans. He was condemned by those who proceeded to fabricate phony criticism of Sen. Kerry’s gallant service during the Vietnam War.

Now, a dozen years later, the Republican presidential nominee says the very same thing that Democrats said about the Bush administration and the silence from the GOP base has been, well, deafening.

Still, it has me wondering whether those Republicans are going to sit this election out, denying Trump of the base of voters he’ll need to make this election competitive.

I don’t believe Trump is a stupid man. He’s smart enough — maybe, perhaps — to understand that he isn’t up to the job he is seeking. Or, just maybe he’s campaigning for president as some sort of unprecedented publicity stunt.

I can’t figure this out.

Yes, I’ve been wrong all along about the shelf life of a Trump presidential candidacy. In a normal election year, he would have been laughed off the stage and booted out of the race over any one of the many things he’s said along the way. Not this year.

I don’t feel too badly, though. Others have been just as wrong.

As long as many of us are speculating about what in the world is guiding the Trump campaign into the ditch, it’s fair to ask: Is this guy taking a dive?