Category Archives: political news

Mr. President, it’s ‘radical Islamic terrorism’

obama

The debate has flared anew.

Why doesn’t President Obama use terminology that many Americans — most notably his critics — wish he’d use to describe the evil acts of a certain brand of terrorists?

I’ve been thinking about this over the course of the past good bit of time and have concluded that the president is making a mistake by refusing to refer to these acts — committed by those who pervert a great religion — as “radical Islamic terrorists.”

I say this as a supporter of the president, as one who voted twice for his election and as someone who bristles outwardly at the criticism of those who allege that Barack Obama harbors some sick “sympathy” toward those who commit these evil deeds.

Omar Mateen decided over the weekend to open fire at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla. He was as American as you and me, man. His parents came here from Afghanistan. Then he decided to call the 9-1-1 dispatch center in Orlando and proclaimed that he had pledged fealty to the Islamic State.

Mateen went about his dastardly deed before being killed by police. Before the cops killed him, Mateen managed to commit the worst massacre in U.S. history.

I understand that the president doesn’t want to use language that suggests we are “at war with Islam.” President Bush made that very same case in the days immediately after 9/11 and he was faithful to that notion during the two terms he served in the White House.

Indeed, President Obama’s refusal to recognize openly what the rest of the country already realizes suggests, as conservative thinker John Podhoretz has written, a certain disconnect from reality.

As Podhoretz writes in the New York Post: “He called it ‘terror,’ which it is. But using the word “terror” without a limiting and defining adjective is like a doctor calling a disease ‘cancer’ without making note of the affected area of the body — because if he doesn’t know where the cancer is and what form it takes, he cannot attack it effectively and seek to extirpate it.”

Here’s the entire essay:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-says-we-are-to-blame-not-islamic-terrorism-for-orlando-massacre/

I do not intend to belabor the point. I do want to suggest that the definition of “radical Islam” immediately exempts Muslims who do not commit these acts, who live their lives just like every other decent human being, who are peaceful and only want the best for their families and their communities.

There. I’ve made my case the best way I know how.

I continue to support Barack Obama’s efforts to fight these perverted villains.

However, Mr. President, call them what they are: radical Islamic terrorists.

Aussies aren’t laughing at Trump

donald-trump-angry-caricature-flickr-cc

I posted a blog recently about how the world is “laughing at us.”

My thesis is that the world is laughing at the man — Republican Donald J. Trump — who keeps saying it as he runs for president of the United States.

I received this response from an Australian friend of mine. His name his Peter. Here is part of what he wrote:

We stopped laughing a few weeks back, when it became clear Trump was going to roll his way through the primaries with little serious opposition.

He had what? More than a dozen opponents? And no-one laid a glove on him!

Aside from the mantras, a side of Trump emerged this past week which has sent shudders through us over here.

The revelations about Trump University were bad enough. Trump’s attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel was beyond reprehensible.

To come from Donald Trump, hard-done-by-businessman-multiple-bankrupt-reality-TV-show-star, would quite frankly be… expected.

To come as it did from the Republican nominee for President of the United States gave it far more gravitas.

If he had a shred of integrity he would have and should have resigned. He doesn’t so he didn’t. 

It was a personal attack on the judge; it was an attack on the court; and an attack on an institution that defines a civilised society.

He tore the court’s standing up like confetti. You would be threatened with jail for contempt of court in Australia, Britain or Canada for that sort of thing… and rightly so, unless you apologised. Trump probably wouldn’t know how… unless he saw some political advantage in it. And then he’d probably deny apologising the next day anyway.

I’ve got some friends out there in Blogger Land who will ask: Who cares what foreigners think? They’re entitled to think it, even to ask it out loud.

I care what foreigners think about our major-party presidential candidates because — presuming the candidates intend to win the election — they will be required to work closely with nations all around the planet.

Thus, it matters.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/06/yes-the-world-is-laughing-at-us-mr-trump/

 

Good luck, editorialists, in making your decision

newspaper

Newspaper endorsements don’t matter as much as they have historically.

People get their news and commentary from myriad sources. They turn less and less to newspaper editorial pages for guidance, counsel, wisdom and thoughtful commentary.

This election year is going to give those who write editorial commentary for a living a special challenge.

Who of the two major-party presidential candidates will get their endorsement? Will either of them get an endorsement? Will newspaper editorial boards throw up their collective hands and ask, “What in the hell is the point?”

I did that kind of work for most of my 37 years in daily print journalism.

I wrote editorials for a small daily suburban newspaper in Oregon City, Ore., from 1979 until 1984; I did the same thing as editorial writer and later editor of the editorial page for the Beaumont (Texas) Enterprise; then I became editorial page editor of the Amarillo (Texas) Globe-News in 1995, a job I held until August 2012.

The choices this year appear — in the minds of many journalists — to be pretty grim. Dismal. Miserable. Who gets the paper’s nod — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton or Republican Donald J. Trump?

Now it’s time for an admission: On several occasions during my three-plus decades in daily journalism, I wrote editorial endorsements with which I disagreed. I don’t have that burden to bear these days.

In 1980, knowing my publisher could not endorse President Carter for re-election, I drafted an editorial endorsing independent candidate John B. Anderson. The publisher, in Oregon City, looked at it, brought the draft out to me and said, “No can do.” We endorsed Ronald Reagan for president; yes, I swallowed hard and wrote it.

I worked for Republican-leaning newspaper publishers throughout my career. Every four years I would huddle with the publisher and go through the motions of arguing my case for the candidate of my choosing … only to be told that “we” are going to endorse the other guy.

My final stop, of course, was in Amarillo, where I worked for a corporate ownership that is fervently Republican. Yes, through several presidential election cycles, the discussion of presidential endorsements was brief and quite, shall we say, “frank.”

Bob Dole got our nod in 1996, George W. Bush got it in 2000 and 2004, John McCain earned it in 2008. I was tasked with overseeing the publication of all of them. I cannot remember which of those I actually wrote.

The task facing editorialists this year will be daunting. I’m glad it’s their call and no longer mine.

I’ll be waiting with bated breath to see how my former employer comes down in this year’s race. Clinton has zero chance of being endorsed by a newspaper owned by Morris Communications Corp. I also doubt they’ll go with the Libertarian ticket led by former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.

Trump is the last man standing. If the Globe-News takes the plunge, I’ll await with interest how it will set aside all the ridiculous assertions, lies, the candidate’s utter lack of knowledge of anything and the absence of any grounding principles.

Take my word for it, the corporate bosses are a conservative bunch and I will be interested to see how — or if — they set aside those principles just to recommend someone simply because he pledges to “build a wall” and “make America great again.”

Could I write that one? A friend and former colleague of mine was fond of saying, “If you take The Man’s money, you play by The Man’s rules.” Thus, I was able to justify setting aside my own personal taste and philosophy to do The Man’s bidding.

This time? I couldn’t.

I’d walk out before having to write anything that recommends Trump’s election as president.

Good luck, my former colleagues, as you deliberate over this one.

Gipper’s son is right: Trump is no Reagan

reagantrump

It probably is no surprise to those of you who read this blog regularly to know that of Ronald Reagan’s two sons, my favorite is Ron, the left-leaning radio talk show host.

The Gipper’s other son, Michael — who also is a talk show host — tilts too far to the right for my taste. I once listened to him speak on a panel at the  1994 National Conference of Editorial Writers annual meeting in Phoenix. Oh brother, he was a serious loudmouth.

These days, Michael Reagan is making some sense as it regards whether the latest pending Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, deserves to be lumped with President Reagan.

In the view of the son: No way, man.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/283165-reagans-son-nothing-reaganesque-about-trump

Trump shares none of the late president’s commitment to conservative principles, according to Michael Reagan, who told Smerconish that his dad wouldn’t vote for Trump if he were around today. Michael Reagan said he has no intention, either, of voting for Trump. And, no, he’s not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Moreover, Trump embodies none of Daddy Reagan’s good humor, his grace, class and dignity.

“There’s nothing really Reaganesque” about him, Reagan told CNN’s Michael Smerconish. “I mean, my father was humble. That’s not what you find in a Donald Trump, I might say.

“He wasn’t demeaning. He didn’t talk down to people. He talked with people, which is the complete opposite of what Donald Trump, in fact, does,” he said.

Reagan went on to mention the second debate in 1984 between his dad and Democratic nominee, former Vice President Walter Mondale. The president had done poorly in the first debate, causing some pundits to wonder out loud if he was suffering some mental slippage. The question came to him in the second encounter: Mr. President, are you up to the job? He answered, “I will not for political purposes exploit my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

He brought the house down. The person who laughed the hardest was, that’s right, Vice President Mondale.

Michael Reagan sees none of that in Donald Trump.

Neither do I. Or a lot of others.

Stand tall, Rep. Ted Poe!

Poe_jpg_800x1000_q100

I’ve been critical of some members of the Texas congressional delegation of late.

They haven’t distinguished themselves at times while standing under the national spotlight.

U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, a Republican from Humble — near Houston — however, has made me proud.

Poe took to the floor of the House of Representatives to demand that the judge in a notorious rape case at Stanford University recuse himself.

You no doubt have heard of this case. Judge Aaron Persky sentenced a young Stanford athlete, swimmer Brock Turner, to six months in prison and three years probation for raping a young woman.

The light sentence outraged Poe –who was a former prosecutor and trial judge before being elected to Congress. He said: “The judge should be removed and the rapist should do more time for the dastardly deed. I hope the appeals court … overturns the pathetic sentence and gives him the punishment he deserves.”

Here’s the story as it was reported by the Texas Tribune:

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/09/texas-congressman-demands-removal-judge-stanford-s/

You might ask: What business is it of a Texas congressman to order a California judge to remove himself from a case being adjudicated under another state’s laws?

I don’t care if he has no business.

Rep. Poe has spoken for a lot of Americans who are outraged over the shamefully light sentence given to a young man who sexually assaulted another human being. He committed an act of extreme violence.

The Tribune reported:

“Persky said he chose not to impose a harsher punishment because ‘a prison sentence would have a severe impact on [Turner].’

“’Well isn’t that the point?’ Poe said in his speech to the House. ‘The punishment for rape should be longer than a semester in college.’”

Severe impact? On a criminal? What about the impact that the crime Turner committed had on his victim?

Ted Poe had a reputation in the Houston area of being a no-nonsense judge, perhaps owing to his prior work as a prosecutor.

I’m glad to know he has used his federal office as a bully pulpit to take up for the victim of a violent crime.

Yes, the world is laughing at us, Mr. Trump

donald-trump-30

Donald J. Trump keeps repeating a number of mantras as he campaigns for president of the United States.

“I’ll build a wall.”

“I will make America great again.”

“I love Hispanics.”

“I cherish women.”

“The world is laughing at us.”

There’s more of ’em, certainly. But of the five listed here, only one of them has a grain of truth to it. It’s the last one, about how the world is “laughing at us.”

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee is right. The world is laughing at us. They’re in stitches over in the Kremlin, at 10 Downing Street, at Los Pinos in Mexico City. In Ottawa, New Delhi, Beijing, Tokyo, Ankara, Berlin, Rome, Paris, Jerusalem, Canberra and Brasilia, they’re all howling, man.

However, the object of their derision — I would venture to speculate — isn’t the current government of the United States. They are laughing at the idea that a once-great American political party would be on the verge of nominating someone as reckless, ill-informed, bombastic and narcissistic as Donald J. Trump.

I am not going to walk you through the interminably long list of absolute foolishness that has poured out of this guy’s mouth. You need to see them all to understand what I’m talking about.

Those other world powers are laughing at us because somehow this clown has persuaded a strong plurality of Republican primary voters to back his candidacy. He’s gathered enough delegates to win the GOP nomination this summer. Then he’s going to campaign against a former secretary of state, a former U.S. senator and a former first lady for the presidency.

And all along the way, he’s going to continue hurling insults and will continue to hang childish labels on his political opponents — many of them from within his own political party.

President Barack Obama has joined the battle against Trump. The president said the other evening that “this isn’t a reality TV show. This is serious business.” He’s talking, of course, about the job of statecraft, of running the massive federal government, of being commander in chief of the most powerful military force in world history.

Is the world laughing at us? You bet it is.

That laughter would stop immediately, though, if hell were to freeze over and Donald J. Trump becomes the next president of the United States.

Aww, what the heck. I found this link:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/Donald-Trump/a/Donald-Trump-Quotes.htm

Take a look for yourself. Then we can all join the rest of the world in the laughter.

Teleprompters and tweets will be the ‘highlight’

Teleprompter_Lectern

I guess we’ll have to call the 2016 presidential campaign a battle of Teleprompters and tweets.

It all kind makes me wish for more “horse-race” coverage with media pundits fixated on who’s up and who’s down as the race for the White House unfolds.

Not this time … maybe.

Much of the coverage over the past few hours of Republican nominee-to-be Donald J. Trump’s Richmond, Va., rally speech dealt with how he ditched the Teleprompter and veered wildly “off script.”

Trump used the device in a previous speech after he won all those primary battles the same night that Democratic presumptive nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton clinched her party’s nomination.

The punditry critiqued Trump’s Teleprompter performance as “staid,” “uninspired” and a few other not-too-flattering terms.

So, he went on the attack again — free-wheeling it without the device. It wasn’t “staid.” It was typical Trump, full of stream-consciousness riffs about the success of his businesses and his various name-calling, referring to Sen. Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas,” and of course to “Crooked Hillary.”

He’s becoming the Twitter champ as well.

The day that Clinton gave that blistering critique of Trump’s supposed “foreign policy,” she mentioned how he likes to send out tweets and said he probably was doing so as she spoke. Sure enough, that’s what he did.

Sen. Warren also is pretty swift with the Twitter method of communicating. Clinton’s probably going to get the hang of it, too.

The deal with the Teleprompter analysis, though, is that Trump brought it up. He’s the one who keeps chiding other candidates for relying on the device. Some are good at using it. Others are, well, not so good. Trump is one of the latter category of public speakers.

Then again, his aimless, scatter-shot extemporaneous delivery of his applause lines aren’t so hot, either.

Let the campaign continue.

Imagine this kind of letter today

letter

Try to imagine a letter of this quality being left by a president of one party to a successor from the other party.

This letter came from the 41st president, George H.W. Bush, who left it for the 42nd, Bill Clinton. It’s gone viral.

The letter is fascinating in the generous tone that President Bush took toward the man who beat him in that brutal 1992 election campaign. Bush told Clinton that the new president would be “our” president and told him that any personal success he enjoys will be the country’s success.

Presidents leave these notes to their successors as a matter of tradition. Rarely do they become public, as this one has become.

Incoming presidents usually don’t reveal the contents of the letter left by their immediate predecessor.

It just makes me wonder whether this kind of letter could be written by President Obama in the highly unlikely event his successor happens to be Donald J. Trump.

The political climate in Washington — and throughout much of the nation — has become so toxic it makes this kind of good will seem virtually impossible if the presidency changes partisan hands.

Something tells me, though, that Barack Obama will have no difficulty leaving this kind of message for the woman who will succeed him in the White House.

Yes, pray for the president

perdue

David Perdue is a U.S. senator from Georgia.

I don’t know much about him, other than he’s a Republican and — perhaps because he’s a Southern Republican — he’s probably quite conservative and devout in his faith.

He spoke today to the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in which he was talking about how we should pray for those in leadership. He mentioned the president, Barack Obama.

“We should pray for the president,” Sen. Perdue said.

Then he mentioned an Old Testament passage to illustrate his point.

“May his days be few,” Perdue said in quoting Psalms 109:8, drawing some cheers and applause from the GOP-friendly audience. It’s a nice passage and, taken by itself, has a light-hearted political twinge to it, which is one of the more fascinating elements of the Bible; one can put many passages into whatever secular context you want.

But wait! This particular Psalm says much more. Here’s what verses 9 through 12 tell us:

“May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.

“May his children wander about and beg, seeking food far from the ruins they inhabit!

“May the creditor seize all that he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his toil.

“Let there be none to extend kindness to him, nor any to pity his fatherless children.”

Hmmm. It kind of loses its light-heartedness. Yes?

But … senator, you cast your vote in secret

dole

Bob Dole says he just cannot support Hillary Rodham Clinton’s quest for the presidency.

The former Republican U.S. senator from Kansas said he’s been a Republican all his life. Donald J. Trump, his party’s presumed presidential nominee, is “flawed,” according to Dole, but he’s getting his vote anyway.

“I have an obligation to the party. I mean, what am I going to do? I can’t vote for George Washington. So I’m supporting Donald Trump,” Dole explained Friday on NPR’s “Morning Edition.”

I think I want to reset this for just a moment.

I have great respect and admiration for Sen. Dole. I admire him for his valiant service to the country in the Army during World War II, for his years in the Senate and for his ability to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats; he and fellow World War II hero Sen. George McGovern, for example, were great personal friends and occasional legislative partners, particularly on programs involving agriculture.

He said, though, that he has to put party first and he must support Trump in his upcoming fight against Clinton.

The reset is this: Sen. Dole can say it all he wants — until he runs out of breath — that he’s going to vote a certain way.

But one of the many beauties of our political system is that we get to vote in private. It’s a secret. We all can blab our brains out over who we intend to vote for, but when the time comes we can change our mind.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bob-dole-endorses-donald-trump-000000912.html

I think of Bob Dole as more of a patriot than a partisan.

He had been involved with government for many decades. He ran for president himself in 1996, losing in an Electoral College landslide to President Bill Clinton.

I don’t intend to sound cynical about what Bob Dole is going to do when the time comes to cast his vote. However, his party’s presidential nominee is like a volcano waiting to erupt.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Sen. Dole changes his mind over the course of the next few weeks and perhaps decide to keep that spot on his ballot unchecked.

A part of me would like to prove it.