Category Archives: political news

Bill Clinton chats up AG Loretta Lynch … oops

email-marketing

Many of us always have thought that former President Bill Clinton’s political instincts were second to none.

He knows the importance of “optics,” and of timing, and ofĀ  perception. Isn’t that right?

Apparently not.

President Clinton and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch happened to be at an airport in Phoenix. What, then, did the former president do? He boarded the AG’s airplane to just, oh, chat her up.

They reportedly exchanged small talk. Clinton wanted to talk about his grandchildren. Lynch and her husband just talked about small stuff.

What’s wrong with that?

Everything!

You see, the FBI — which is an arm of the Attorney General’s Office — is investigating whether Hillary Clinton violated federal law when she used her private e-mail account while she was serving as secretary of state.

Why is it so wrong for Bill Clinton to meet privately with Loretta Lynch? Because it sends out a message that Bill and Hillary Clinton don’t play by the same rules as everyone else. It feeds a longtime narrative that the Clintons’ critics have been saying since Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992.

Lynch said she and Clinton did not discuss the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail matter. She said the former president never brought it up and neither did she.

Hillary Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign, though, has yet to speak about the meeting.

There had better be some explanation offered … and soon.

Incoherence on trade policy …

Free-Trade

Donald J. Trump’s campaign rally today in Bangor, Maine featured a remarkably incoherent riff on trade policy.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was ranting about trade agreements. He opposes free trade. Or does he?

He launched into a strange and utterly nonsensical series of descriptions of what constitutes a “good” trade agreement.

He began his trade tirade by saying he was “all for free trade.” Then he said he was opposed to it. Huh? What … ?

He didn’t care if it was “horrible.” He didn’t care if it was “fair.” He didn’t care if it was “great.”

Trump then said something about negotiating trade agreements differently than the way they’ve been negotiated previously.

Horrible, fair, great, bad? Donald Trump doesn’t care about any of those aspects of a trade agreement.

I need help understanding how any of that makes sense.

And this guy wants to be president of the United States of America?

This is how you ‘unify’ the GOP? Hardly

don trump

I just heard Donald J. Trump say two things during his rambling stream-of-consciousness rant in Bangor, Maine that tell me he’s declaring war on his political party.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said (a) that he’s going to tear up the Trans-Pacific Partnership and will renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement and (b) that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a gang of goons run by special interests.

Wow!

Standard GOP orthodoxy endorses free trade. Trump does not.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been a traditional, deep-pocketed ally of Republican presidential candidates. Trump has no use for the Chamber.

So, what does this mean?

To me it means that Trump is kicking dirt in the face of the very political infrastructure he will need if he is going to have a prayer of defeating Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What about this am I missing?

If the GOP’s presidential nominee is going to adhere to party philosophy, isn’t it time for him to at least give some lip service that endorses the views of theĀ architects of that philosophy?

Well, hey, he said he could “go it alone” if he needed to.

It looks to meĀ  as though the nominee is going to have a lonely march toward political oblivion.

 

An actual rapist asked to speak at GOP gathering?

tyson

This one is too good to let pass without comment.

Donald J. Trump threw out the term “rape” this week while commenting on the trade agreements he vows to toss aside if he’s elected president of the United States later this year.

The United States, he said, has been “raped” by nations with which we’ve have dealt through NAFTA, CAFTA and whatever other international trade agreements we’ve signed.

So, whoĀ did the presumptive Republican presidential nominee reportedly invite to speak at the GOP convention this summer in Cleveland?

Mike Tyson, an actual convicted rapist felon. That’s who.

Trump has denied formally inviting Tyson, but said the former boxer would do a “good job” if he gets to speak at the convention. Really? We’ll see.

Tyson is the former heavyweight boxing champion who got thrown into prison after a jury convicted him of raping a beauty pageant contestant.

On one level, I’m glad that Tyson seems to be turning his life around.

However, his prison record will be there for the ages. Indeed, his obituary likely will mention itĀ somewhere near the very top of the text.

These reports about Tyson do seem to have this air of believability to them, no matter what Trump says to the contrary. Given the reportedly sparse list of GOP dignitaries willing to speak at the Republican nominating convention, Trump well might need to dig deeply to find enough celebrities to fill all that valuable prime broadcast time.

Irony, though,Ā can be a real booger… you know?

No ‘new evidence’ found to implicate Clinton …

benghazi

So, do you think the battle has ended in the fight to use “Benghazi” as a tool to derail Hillary Rodham Clinton’s march to the White House?

I wish. It will continue full throttle.

The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi has concluded its expensive and highly partisan probe of the former secretary of state’s role in that terrible tragedy that erupted on Sept. 11, 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Four Americans died in a chaotic firefight that night. One of them was Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Then-House Speaker John Boehner convened this committee to get to the truth behind what happened. The panel, led by Republican U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, called dozens of witnesses, plowed over the same ground repeatedly and then finally concluded that they cannot find any “new evidence” that Clinton did anything wrong.

Sure, they found plenty with which to criticize the administration. The military was ill-prepared to deal with the terrorist attack on the compound, the panel said. The administration didn’t do enough to protect the staffers who got caught up in the frenzy, it concluded.

In the end, though, it has determined that Clinton wasn’t culpable, that she didn’t engage in a cover-up.

Oh, but now she’s running for president of the United States. Rest assured that her foes are going to continue to question the manner in which she responded to the emergency.

And, oh yes, we have those e-mails and Clinton’s of a private personal account to distribute State Department messages. The FBI is investigating that matter.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/house-benghazi-panel-finds-no-new-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-hillary-clinton/ar-AAhINBW?ocid=spartandhp

This has been an expensive endeavor, costing an estimated $7 million. Many of us — me included — are quite convinced that Speaker Boehner wanted to find something that would implicate Clinton as she sought the presidency. The panel came up short.

But for those who are looking and lusting for more dirt to fling at the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, theyĀ likely willĀ take some “comfort” in the knowledge that questions will linger as long as there are enemies of the former secretary of state around to raise them.

Still, I’m glad this select committee’s work is finished.

Finally.

GOP comes down with ‘buyer’s remorse’

donald

Buyer’s remorse must be spreading.

British voters agree to pull Great Britain out of the European Union and now might be regretting that decision.

Now we hear that most Republicans in this country want someone other than Donald J. Trump to be their party’s presidential nominee.

In both cases, I fear that voters will have to live with the consequences of their decision.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-republicans-polls-224853

A poll published by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal say that 45 percent of Republicans want Trump to be their nominee. They want someone else to carry the banner into the fight this fall against Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Democrats.

Sorry, folks. Here’s the thing: Trump has won more primary contests by far than anyone else. He’s collected enough convention delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. He’s going to be the GOP nominee this summer when delegates gather in Cleveland.

We haveĀ a saying in Texas that goes something like this:

“You dance with them that brung ya.”

Sure, Trump has a seemingly endless list of failings as a national political leader. No need to detail them here. You know what they are.

But he’s won a fair-and-square primary fight against a large field of opponents, most of whom were much more qualified than he is to become commander in chief.

He’s your guy, GOP.

Good luck at the dance.

Sen. Warren becomes newest Trump target

warren-trump-1024x682

How does this go?

The man who is set to become a major-party presidential nominee is now going after a woman who is campaigning as a surrogate for the other party’s presumed nominee.

And what is his line of attack? He is calling her “Pocahontas” as an epithet.

Let’s back up for a moment.

The presumed GOP nominee Donald J. Trump is now going after Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who today campaigned alongside presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Why? Well, Warren has declared that she has some Native AmericanĀ heritage in her background. Trump doesn’t believe it. Thus, he has hung the “Pocahontas” label on her.

What’s more, Republicans are now bringing out the man Warren defeated to become the U.S. senator from Massachusetts — former Sen. Scott Brown — to refute Warren’s claims of Native American heritage.

I don’t get this.

Why is that even an issue? Why is Trump obsessing over whether Warren actually has a tiny bit of Native American heritage in her background.

Warren is now being vetted as a potential running mate with Clinton. Rather than challenging her record as a U.S. senator, Trump has chosen to attack her ethnicity.

He calls her a “fraud” because she hasn’t proved that she actually has some Cherokee Indian ancestry in her background.

Let’s be clear here: Elizabeth Warren isn’t running for anything. She’s a surrogate for another accomplished woman, Hillary Clinton.

Shouldn’t the presumptive GOP nominee concentrate on policy differences he has with the presumptive Democratic nominee?

Oh, wait! First, he needs to reveal that he has any policy views in the first place.

Clinton within shouting distance of Trump in Texas

ClintonTrump-Split_jpg_800x1000_q100

Take heart, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A University of Texas poll says you’re trailing Donald J. Trump. But, hey, it’s only by 8 points. The previous Democratic presidential candidate — Barack Obama — lost the Texas vote to John McCain and Mitt Romney by double digits in 2008 and 2012, respectively.

A part of me, though, is a bit surprised that Trump has even an 8-point lead over Clinton in Texas.

I don’t know who University of Texas/Texas Political Projects Poll surveyed to come up with an 8-point gap. I wonder if it included the requisite number of Latino voters who comprise such a significant minority of Texans.

We all know how Trump — the presumptive Republican nominee for president — has gone out of his way to offend Latinos. He started with his plan to “build a beautiful wall” along our southern border; then he intimated that all Mexican illegal immigrants were “rapists, drug dealers and murderers”; then came the assertion thatĀ  an Indiana-born federal judge was biased against him because the judge’s parents were Mexican immigrants.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/27/poll-trump-leads-clinton-8-texas/

I’m well aware that public opinion surveys only serve as “snapshots.” They don’t predict the future.

However, some political thinkers believe Clinton has a legitimate chance of winning Texas this fall. Others, though, believe the state is too deeply Republican to change now and that Clinton isn’t the type of Democrat who can repaint the reliably red state into a blue one.

If the Democratic nominee is to have a chance of capturing Texas’s huge trove of electoral votes, she’ll need to get Latinos to the polls. History is not on her side.

Then again, we’ve all talked about how “conventional wisdom” has been tossed aside during this election season.

This can’t be ‘fun’ for Reince Priebus

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD - MARCH 04:  Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus participates in a discussion during CPAC 2016 March 4, 2016 in National Harbor, Maryland. The American Conservative Union hosted its annual Conservative Political Action Conference to discuss conservative issues.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Reince PriebusĀ very well might haveĀ the toughest, most demanding white-collar job in the United States.

He is the chairman of the Republican National Committee and he is facing the daunting task of electing someone who systematically is destroying the party’s brand.

I come to this conclusion after reading a lengthy article in The New York Times Magazine, which came to my house tucked inside my Sunday New York Times.

Here’s the article. It’s long, but it’s worth your time:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/magazine/will-trump-swallow-the-gop-whole.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fmagazine&action=click&contentCollection=magazine&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Donald J. Trump is about to be nominated by the Republicans as their next presidential candidate. How did he get to this point?

Priebus doesn’t answer the question directly, except to say repeatedly during the article that Trump has brought an entirely different dynamic to this year’s presidential contest. It’s almost immeasurable. Trump’s rise has thrust the GOP into an enormous identity crisis.

About the time Trump shows signs of wising up and “maturing” as a candidate, writes Mark Liebovich, he flies off the rails. His insults have prompted various pithy reactions from former GOP rivals. Bobby Jindal called him a “madman who must be stopped”; Marco Rubio labeled Trump a “con man,” a “fraud” and a “lunatic”; Lindsey Graham called Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot”; Rick Perry called him a “barking carnival act” and a “cancer on conservatism.”

This kinds of labels have this way of sticking to politicians’ backsides..

And to think that the chairman of the Republican Party must find a way — somehow! — to rally support for the party’s presidential nominee.

Whatever he earns as party chairman, Reince Priebus is going to have to work for it.

McConnell balks at Trump’s ‘qualifications’ to be POTUS

mitch

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sounds like someone with some serious political regret.

The regret concerns a fellow Republican, presumptive presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

The question came to McConnell today on ABC News’s “This Week.”

Is Donald Trump qualified to be president?

He said he would “leave that for the American people to decide.”

Huh? Simple question, Mr. Majority Leader. He didn’t answer it. He could have said “no,” and made a lot of news this morning by rescinding his endorsement of his party’s presidential nominee. Or, he could have said “yes” and then be forced to look himself in the mirror while his conscience struggles with whether Trump really is qualified.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/mitch-mcconnell-trump-224809

McConnell is not alone, of course, in facing this struggle. Other members of Congress and leading political operatives are having second and third thoughts about the man who’s about to lead his party in the fall campaign against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

McConnell keeps talking up the party’s conservative principles while agreeing that “our nominee” might not agree with them.

I keep thinking of previous party nominees who had sufficient intraparty opposition prior to launching their fall campaigns.

Republican Barry Goldwater had to vanquish moderates within his party before facing President Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Democrat George McGovern had the same struggle with moderates within his party as he faced off against President Richard Nixon in 1972.

They both lost … h-u-u-u-u-g-e!