Category Archives: political news

So much to challenge in Trump’s message

90

Whatever rhetorical concoction Donald J. Trump is peddling to those who’ve swilled it has been lost on me.

I’m trying to sort through the myriad reasons I detest the Republicans’ presumptive presidential nominee.

I’ve come up with a clear “winner.” It’s that ball cap he wears that bears the message “Make America Great Again.”

You’ve heard the mantra. The United States of America is a loser. Other countries are beating us up on trade. The people who run our government are incompetent. The nation is no longer great. Foreign leaders laugh at us. Our enemies no longer fear us.

Let’s process that for a moment.

Of all the interest groups that Trump has offended with his insults — Hispanics, African-Americans, women, veterans, disabled people — can there be a larger group than, say, the entire nation of 300-plus million citizens?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-donald-rolling-thunder-veterans-223701

Just think about this. What the Republicans’ next presidential nominee is saying is that we no longer are a great nation. Haven’t the president’s foes — chiefly Republicans — chided him because he allegedly believes we aren’t an “exceptional nation”? Now their next nominee for president is saying essentially that that — and more. He’s proclaiming that we no longer are a great nation.

My wife, brother-in-law and I attended an air show this weekend at Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis, N.M. I realize a single public address announcer doesn’t speak for a nation, but the young man trumpeting the Air Force Thunderbirds aerial team kept referring to the Air Force as the world’s world greatest military force … and that it is part of a larger establishment that contributes to our national greatness.

At every level I can imagine, I consider the United States to be a great nation. As a patriot and a loyal American, I consider my country to be the greatest nation on Earth.

Trump’s ball cap says precisely the opposite.

Tell me again: Why isn’t every American offended by the message this guy is peddling?

 

Really … a Sanders-Trump debate a bad idea

Negative

I feel compelled to make an admission.

I was kidding when I sent out tweets that cheered the thought of a potential debate between Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and presumptive Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Yeah, I know. I shouldn’t kid about such serious matters.

One of these guys will be nominated by his party to run for president. It won’t be Sen. Sanders. It’s going to be the showman/carnival barker/rumor monger Trump.

The very idea of one guy who won’t be nominated debating the other guy who will is frankly preposterous — were you to ask me for my opinion.

Trump backed out, if you believe one version of how it came unraveled. He supposedly wanted Sanders to pay several million bucks up front. I’m not sure who would have gotten the dough.

But these debates ought to be reserved now — at this point in the campaign — for the individuals who’ll be nominated by the major parties. And, yes, if a third-party candidate gets enough public support, then invite that individual to take part, too.

So many conventional rules have been broken during this primary campaign. They start with the fact that Trump has survived this far into the GOP primary, given his unending string of insults, innuendo, lies and hourly flip-flops on controversial public policy statements.

The Republican and Democratic debates have been watched by the public not so much for the information one can glean from them, but for the entertainment value they bring to the serious process of nominating a presidential candidate.

Trump now has enough delegates in his pocket to be nominated in Cleveland. Clinton will have enough in her pocket very soon to get her party’s nomination in Philly.

Let’s focus now on how these two individuals are going to prep for what promises to be a series of barn burner debates.

 

Irony in all these lawsuits

Abbott-Obama-Paxton_jpg_800x1000_q100

There’s a certain sort of irony one can find in this story from the Texas Tribune.

Texas’s Republican political leaders have made it a point of pride that they have sued the federal government 40 times since 2009, the year President Barack Obama took office.

The state’s two most recent attorneys general — Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton — have had mixed results from all those suits.

Hey, man, they’re still glad to sue the daylights out of the president and the government over which he presides.

Their cause? The government is overreaching, seeking to usurp authority set aside for the states — allegedly.

The irony? Well, I recall many Republican candidates for public office contending that they wanted to stem the flood of lawsuits. They would argue that many of them are frivolous and that the courts couldn’t afford the escalating costs of litigation. I won’t argue that the suits are “frivolous,” as I am not a legal scholar.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/26/texas-vs-federal-government/

The link attached to this post itemizes the costs of the suits. Add  them up. They have cost the state — that’s you and me, folks — a good chunk of money over the past eight years.

This is a point of pride with these fellows?

Obama might be HRC’s secret weapon

obama_hillary_getty

There’s a hilarious moment during the 2008 presidential campaign featuring U.S. Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee for president.

Sen. McCain joined then-Sen. Barack Obama at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York City. McCain had joked about a “pet name” he had used to describe Obama; it was the moment during a televised debate when he referred to the Democratic presidential nominee as “that one.”

“He even has a pet name for me,” McCain said. “George Bush.”

He brought down the  house with that crack. It also illustrated how the Obama team used President Bush’s low standing in the polls at the time to tar McCain’s chances at becoming elected president that year.

Don’t expect Republicans to employ that tactic against Hillary Rodham Clinton this year … if recent presidential approval ratings are an indicator.

President Obama’s standing has been climbing steadily for the past year. He’s now at roughly 50 percent approval among Americans. It’s not great — but it’s a heck of a lot better than it was shortly after he won re-election in 2012.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281575-hillary-clintons-ace-in-the-hole-obama

The “conventional wisdom” has been that if the president’s approval rating stands at 50 percent or greater, it helps the nominee of his party’s chance at the next election. I put the term “conventional wisdom” in quotes because this year’s campaign has relegated almost all such wisdom to be moot.

Witness the rise of Donald J. Trump as the GOP’s next presumptive nominee for president.

He has tossed decorum out the window; criticism doesn’t seem to stick to him; the absence of any public service record has given him license to say whatever the hell pops into his head … and his supporters don’t care that he either lies or doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Go figure.

However, with Obama scoring relatively well in public opinion surveys, it figures that Hillary Clinton is going to rely on him more as the campaign progresses.

Who could’ve seen that coming?

 

Yes, Donald, there’s a drought in California

460x

Donald J. Trump has declared there to be no drought in California.

It doesn’t exist, he said. There’s so much water way out west, he said, they’re sending it into the sea.

Let’s see.

That part of the country has seen record low snowpack. The rain has tailed off dramatically in many parts of the state. Residential, commercial and industrial development has continued at a frantic pace, forcing the consumption of water.

No drought?

Trump is mistaken. Again!

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fea527c86dfe42c78609619c5ce7fd59/trump-vows-solve-californias-water-crisis

Trump’s reference to sending water into the ocean appears to deal with a dispute inside the state. According to the Associated Press:

“Trump appeared to be referring to disputes over water that runs from the Sacramento River to the San Francisco Bay and then to the ocean. Some farmers want more of that flow captured and diverted to them.

“Politically influential rural water districts and well-off corporate farmers in and around California’s Central Valley have been pushing back against longstanding federal laws protecting endangered fish and other species, saying federal efforts to make sure endangered native fish have enough water is short-changing farmers of the water they want and need for crops.”

Sure, there’s always longstanding disputes in California between environmentalists and agricultural producers. That appears to be the norm there. I won’t argue the point.

However, there really and truly is a drought occurring in California. It’s just not that difficult to realize that diminishing moisture and continued consumption of water puts strains on that priceless resource.

Yes, we have a drought in California.

Trump’s new ‘friends’ signal hateful campaign

donald

No doubt about it: This year’s presidential campaign will be decided on negativity with extreme prejudice.

Consider what’s going on here with the Republican Party’s coalescing behind presumptive nominee Donald J. Trump, the guy the party establishment once loathed to the point of wanting to dump him at the GOP convention this summer.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie calls Trump “unfit” to be president; then he endorses him. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry describes Trump as a “cancer on conservatism”; then he endorses him. House Speaker Paul Ryan calls Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims as “not a conservative value” and “un-American”; now he’s considering an endorsement. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio labels Trump a “con man”; now he’s about to lend his endorsement to the guy who dubbed him Little Marco.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rubio-signals-support-for-trump/ar-BBtyUXN?li=BBnb7Kz

What do all these pols have in common? A loathing of Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ probable nominee.

Make no mistake on this: Clinton is going pretty damn negative on Trump already.

The GOP establishment, though, now appears set to back the guy they once detested because they it cannot stomach the idea of another Clinton taking office in the White House.

What does that portend for the quality of this campaign?

I’d wager some serious dough it’s going to be the Mother, Father, Aunt, Uncle and Second Cousin of Negative Campaigns.

Yeah, some of you are going to argue, “Hey, man, it’s just politics.”

Actually, it need not be “just politics.” This ought to be a campaign of ideas, pitting one candidate’s philosophy, ideology and grand world view against the other one.

There’s only element missing: All of the above as they pertain to Donald Trump.

Gohmert enters strange new world

immigration-reform

Louie Gohmert must have a lot of friends in his East Texas congressional district, which might explain how he keeps getting re-elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Gohmert, a six-term Republican from Tyler, took to the House floor this week to say that gay people would be unlikely to save humanity if they were to settle in space camps out there … somewhere in outer space.

I saw that earlier today and wondered, yet again, who in the world are we sending to write the laws that affect 300-plus million Americans?

The video of Gohmert’s speech is on the link attached.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/texas-rep-louie-gohmert-argues-gay-space-colonies-article-1.2652661?utm_content=bufferdc934&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Gohmert has a history of making bizarre statements.

One of the more ridiculous assertions he made occurred when he speculated that terrorists were infiltrating the United States using pregnant women who would come here, give birth to their children and raise them to become terrorists.

This guy is in his sixth term as a member of Congress. He votes on laws that affect all of us. Therefore, the strange rantings of one member of Congress becomes every American’s concern.

Before you get too worked up  here and accuse me of bashing only Republicans, I am happy to acknowledge that Democrats have their share of congresspeople capable making loony statements. Alan Grayson of Florida comes to mind immediately.

This grandstander said he’d file a lawsuit if Ted Cruz were nominated for president by the Republicans; his basis was that Cruz isn’t constitutionally eligible to serve as president, as he was born in Canada. Never mind that he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth because Mama Cruz is an American.

So, life goes on inside the walls of the Capitol Building.

With serious issues to ponder — such as funding the government — a member of Congress now is wondering aloud about whether same-sex couples are capable of saving humanity.

As Ricky Ricardo once told Lucy: “I can answer that in five words: Aye, aye, aye … aye, aye!”

 

How do you campaign against a moving target?

donald-trump-gag-big

So much about this presidential campaign is a puzzle and I’m having trouble finding the pieces to complete it.

I’ll start and finish with Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee.

He has tossed every single bit of conventional wisdom into the Dumpster. Trump has no public service experience; he has demonstrated zero understanding of how government works; he has blustered, bullied and bloviated his way to this point in the campaign; his insults and innuendo should have doomed his candidacy months ago; his personal history is, well, checkered.

To my way of thinking, the most confusing element of this campaign is the absence of any philosophical grounding for this individual.

In normal election years, Democrats nominate a candidate who stands for a set of principles; Republicans do the same.

Hillary Clinton is about to become the Democratic nominee. She, too, has switched positions on occasion as she battles Sen. Bernie Sanders for her party’s nomination.

But one gets a general idea of Clinton’s world view: It seems to tilt left, with a more hawkish view of the use of military power than her more progressive political brethren.

Trump? Where does this guy stand? On anything?

He changes his positions almost hourly. Women should face punishment if they obtain an abortion; on second thought, he didn’t mean that. He would ban Muslims from entering the United States; oh, wait, that’s just a “suggestion.” He once was pro-choice on abortion; now he’s pro-life. He once called Hillary Clinton “great”; now he calls her “Crooked Hillary.” He said Mexico is sending drug dealers, rapists and killers into this country: but he says “I love Hispanics.” He has boasted about his philandering; now he seeks to woo the evangelical voters who comprise much of the GOP “base.”

How is Clinton going to campaign against any of that? How is she going to pit her ideas against his ideas, when he doesn’t seem to stand on a single principle — other than furthering his own ambition?

The late Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland, Calif., that “there is no ‘there’ there.”

I’m sensing that Trump lacks a “there.”

‘Enlightened self-interest’ alive and well

Oklahoma_State_Capitol

Oklahoma lawmakers seem to have little difficulty slashing  government spending for agencies that serve the public.

What about those that serve lawmakers?

It seems they have equally little difficulty in boosting money for a particular agency.

According to the Tulsa World, the Oklahoma legislature is considering a 184-percent increase for the Legislative Service Bureau, which provides computer service for the folks who write the laws — and who control state spending.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/capitol_report/most-oklahoma-agencies-see-cuts-but-there-s-a-big/article_b04a453e-9566-5548-a4c8-e8099185400c.html

The increase amounts to $9 million a year.

I understand the need to make sure the state makes legislators’ office payrolls.

But when the state is cutting public service spending while more than doubling spending on an in-house government agency …

I believe this defines “enlightened self-interest.

 

Tell us what you really think, Sen. Cotton

458415986-rep-tom-cotton-and-republican-u-s-senate-elect-in.jpg.CROP.cq5dam_web_1280_1280_jpeg

I will tell you up front I’m not fond of the tone of Sen. Tom Cotton’s critique of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s leadership.

But the freshman Arkansas Republican does make a tremendous point about the hypocrisy that abounds in the U.S. Senate in general and of the hypocrisy he said that Reid has demonstrated.

Cotton made a speech this week in which he condemned Reid’s “cancerous leadership” and wondered out loud how Reid could suggest that a defense bill was being shoved down the throats of senators after he had helped push through the Affordable Care Act — also in the middle of the night.

Check out the video of Cotton’s floor speech. It’s a stem winder.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/sen-tom-cotton-really-really-really-doesnt-like-harry-reid/

According to Cotton, Reid has said senators haven’t had time to read the bill. Cotton also noted that many senators didn’t read the ACA, either, before approving it on a “party-line vote.”

“I’m forced to listen to the bitter, vulgar, incoherent ramblings of the minority leader,” Cotton said. “Normally, like every other American, I ignore them. I can’t ignore them today. . . . When was the last time the minority leader read a bill? It was probably an electricity bill.”

I have to agree with Cotton’s assessment of Reid’s effort to resist the defense bill.

Reid, who’s retiring from the Senate at the end of the year, at times has not distinguished himself while leading the Senate’s Democratic caucus. Although the junior senator from Arkansas’s tone was overly harsh — in my humble view — he does hit the bulls-eye in calling out the hypocrisy he finds in the minority leader’s leadership.

Sen. Cotton surely won’t aim his fire with nearly the precision he needs at those within his own caucus. I’m also quite certain his opponents on the other side of the Senate chamber will provide adequate response.