Category Archives: political news

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.

 

‘Low energy’ Jeb to back Trump

Jeb  Bush

This is hilarious.

Donald J. Trump eviscerated a field of 16 fellow Republican presidential contenders with insults and counterattacks.

Remember when he called Jeb Bush a “low energy” candidate? It was a devastating attack on the former Florida governor who once was considered to be the man to beat for he 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

Bush then dropped out of the race.

Now we have Trump saying that Jeb is going to find a burst of “energy” and will endorse the presumptive presidential nominee.

I need to sort this out.

Trump insults Bush with the “low energy” crack. Trump then says Bush will find some “energy” and endorse him?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-jeb-bush-223582

Jeb Bush will endorse the GOP candidate who levels yet another veiled insult?

I do not think that will happen.

 

‘Damn e-mails’ return to center stage

mails

Back in the old days, when Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Rodham Clinton actually were treating each other nicely, Sanders offered this often-quoted quip: “I am tired of hearing about your damn e-mails.”

I’ve got bad news for you, Sen. Sanders. We’re going to hear about those “damn e-mails” for a while longer.

The State Department’s inspector general has issued a report that says then-Secretary of State Clinton flouted department policy in her use of a personal e-mail server when communicating about State Department issues.

Does this doom Clinton’s assured nomination as the next Democratic Party presidential nominee? No. It’s going to damage her. Why? Republicans will make sure of it.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/281192-watchdog-agency-hits-clinton-top-aides-on-records-policy

I am not giving this report the short shrift. I get the concern about policy violations. What’s unclear to me, though, is whether any of the information Clinton passed on her personal server ever was captured by our nation’s enemies? Did any of them ever use that information to harm our national security?

What’s more, as Clinton has said in pushing back, other secretaries of state have used personal e-mail accounts. Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright? They did, too.

Did they ever compromise national security? I haven’t heard evidence of it regarding those officials, either.

http://thehill.com/regulation/national-security/281220-clinton-campaign-insists-email-setup-not-unique

I was troubled when word came out about the use of personal e-mail servers to convey public information. My major concern then was whether information actually compromised our national security. All the congressional inquiries and probes haven’t yet made that determination.

However, that won’t stop the chatter and the intense criticism. It goes with the political territory.

Bernie Sanders’ wish won’t come true any time soon.

 

Targeting a female, Hispanic governor?

Screen-Shot-2016-05-25-at-9.13.48-AM-620x456

You’ve got to hand it to Donald J. Trump.

The man has zero filter. His political antennae have been blown over.

Get a load of this.

He traveled to Albuquerque, the largest city — by far — in New Mexico and then for no obvious or apparent reason he launches into a rhetorical riff against Gov. Susana Martinez.

What makes this so, um, remarkable is that Trump’s comments seemed gratuitous. They had no foundation, nor did they contribute to whatever point he was trying to make.

He was talking about the increase in food stamps in New Mexico for the past dozen or so years. Then he dragged Martinez’s name into his remarks. The governor “has to do better,” he said.

OK, here’s another remarkable element.

New Mexico Governor Gov. Susana Martinez speaks to the delegation at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, Wednesday, August 29, 2012. (Harry E. Walker/MCT via Getty Images)

Trump is having trouble with two key voting blocs. He is looked at unfavorably among women and, uh, Hispanics. He’ll need both of those groups’ support if he has a prayer of being elected president of the United States.

Susana Martinez embodies both of them. All at once. At the same time.

She’s also a rising Republican Party star who, incidentally, had endorsed Marco Rubio in the GOP presidential primary campaign. She didn’t attend the rally at the Albuquerque assembly hall.

My hunch is that her star has risen a good bit higher in the wake of Trump’s ridiculous criticism.

Let ‘tradition’ stand regarding tax returns

trumpdonald_030116victoryspeech_getty

Call me a traditionalist.

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, wants Congress to enact legislation that requires presidential candidates to release their tax returns for public inspection.

With all due respect to my home boy, I think the bill is an overreach.

Wyden is responding to presumptive Republican presidential frontrunner Donald J. Trump’s refusal to release his returns. Trump contends his returns are under audit by the Internal Revenue Service, to which the IRS has responded “so what?”; an audit doesn’t preclude the release of the returns.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/281194-dem-senator-offers-bill-to-require-candidates-to-release-tax-returns

The tradition has been for presidential candidates to release their returns. They’ve been doing it since 1976, the first election after the Watergate constitutional crisis that forced President Nixon to resign.

My own sense is that tradition ought to stand.

I believe candidates’ refusal to release those returns give voters a key gauge of their character. It gives voters a chance to determine a candidate’s trustworthiness. It enables voters to use such refusal as a measuring stick as to whether the candidate deserves their ballot-box endorsement.

To be sure, Wyden has a dog in this fight. He has endorsed Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton, who in turn has been blasting Trump to smithereens over his refusal to release his tax returns.

I get Sen. Wyden’s bias.

I also believe “tradition” ought to stand as a de facto rule. Let the presidential candidates decide whether to comply … and then let voters decide on the correctness of their refusal.