Category Archives: political news

Bushes 41 and 43 to remain silent

4143bush-2016_jpg_800x1000_q100

At one level this bit of news isn’t much of a surprise.

At another level, though, it’s still a big deal.

Two former Republican presidents — George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — are going to keep their thoughts to themselves regarding the upcoming presidential campaign.

They have no plans to endorse the presumptive GOP nominee Donald J. Trump.

This is more or less in line with what these two men have pledged to do since leaving office. Bush 41 left the White House in 1993 and took, in effect, a vow of political silence. Bush 43 made his exit in 2009 and more or less did the same thing. Neither of them has spoken much about public policy issues or engaged fully in discussions about them.

Both men stepped back into the arena briefly this election cycle to campaign for Jeb Bush. It didn’t work for the younger Bush, who dropped out several months ago.

Why is this a big deal? Why does it matter?

To my mind, it matters because the name “Bush” exemplifies traditional Republican politics. For both men now to say they won’t publicly state their support for — or endorse — Trump speaks volumes.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/04/bush-41-43-have-no-plans-endorse-trump/

Their silence deprives Trump of a statement of support from two former presidents who between them served 12 years in the nation’s highest office.

The elder Bush, as I’ve said before, entered the White House as arguably the single most qualified man ever to assume the presidency. The younger Bush took office in 2001 and just nine months later was thrust into the role of wartime president when the terrorists flew those planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

What these men think about the state of the current campaign matters.

Indeed, the elder Bush in the past has thrown his support publicly behind GOP nominees. That includes one-time rival Bob Dole in 1996. He, of course, backed George W. in 2000 and 2004, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

This year? He’s going to remain mum.

The Bush men’s silence in 2016 perhaps means more than either of them is going to acknowledge.

R.I.P., Republican Party

gop-death1

Now that millions of voters have dug the grave, it’s now time to start tossing dirt on what once was a great political party.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich is going to announce soon that he’s suspending his campaign for the presidency. It’s over for him. The field now belongs exclusively to Donald J. Trump, the real estate mogul/reality TV celebrity/carnival barker/fear monger.

The Republican Party presidential nomination will go to Trump this summer and he’s going to lead the party to a disastrous defeat against — more than likely — Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Kasich was the party’s last hope of retaining some sanity in what has been the most raucous and rancorous primary campaign in most folks’ memory.

Kasich has realized he can’t win. Sen. Ted Cruz bowed out Tuesday night after it became clear that Trump would win the Indiana GOP primary.

The Republican Party once comprised politicians able and willing to compromise on occasion. It once had individuals who knew how to legislate. The conservative wing of the GOP once believed that government should stay out of people’s lives and it once believed in the principle of less government across the board.

Then came this guy, Trump.

What on Earth does he believe?

He panders and pillories the same demographic groups at the same time. He insults anyone who disagrees with him. He also throws out innuendo aimed at destroying opponents, such as the one about Ted Cruz’s father being complicit in President Kennedy’s murder.

Good bleeping grief!

Oh, yes. He also continues to spout the fecal fallacy about President Obama’s birthplace and questions whether the president — who’s nearing the end of his second and final term in office — has been constitutionally qualified to serve as our head of state.

It was a great run, Republican Party.

Now we’ll all see what rises from the ash heap that will remain once the votes are counted this November.

Rest in peace …

 

Now, Sen. Cruz, get to work on behalf of Texas

04bruniWeb-1462323117067-master768

I’m not sad to see U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz bow out of the Republican Party presidential primary contest.

He got shellacked Tuesday in Indiana, which would have been his last chance at derailing Donald J. Trump’s march to the GOP nomination.

As New York Times columnist Frank Bruni notes, the Cruz Missile likely will make another run for the presidency down the road. He’ll now “rest in peevishness,” Bruni writes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/04/opinion/ted-cruzs-bitter-end.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

Here’s a thought for Cruz to consider, though, as he licks his wounds and ponders the future.

He ought to simply go back to work in the U.S. Senate and start governing on behalf of those who sent him to Washington in the first place.

Cruz might not be wired to actually legislate. He ran against the institution in which he has served since January 2013. He has burned a bridge or three among his colleagues. He called himself an “outsider” despite working from the “inside” the legislative branch of government.

The state has some issues that need federal attention. Cruz pulls down 175 grand annually to represent the state. Taxpayers aren’t paying his salary to grandstand and promote his next search for higher political office.

The coastline needs protection against hurricanes. We need to invest in alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar; surely, Sen. Cruz is aware of the abundant quantities of both of those commodities out here on the High Plains of his state. Our highway infrastructure needs attention. Oh, yes, we need to shore up our border against illegal immigrants.

This is going to require Sen. Cruz to try a new tactic. He’s going to have to learn how to legislate and actually govern.

Cruz has had his shot at stardom. He fell short.

However, he’s got a pretty good, well-paying day job awaiting him on Capitol Hill.

Get back to work, Sen. Cruz.

***

PS: Here’s an interesting Texas Tribune analysis on how Cruz might seek to resume his actual job.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/03/how-does-ted-cruz-return-senate/

 

Why not Kasich, indeed?

cruz and kasich

No one is talking about him this morning.

The political story line of the day — and perhaps for the rest of the week — will be the epic crash of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s Republican Party primary presidential campaign and the pending nomination of one Donald J. Trump as the party’s next standard-bearer.

But there is Ohio Gov. John Kasich, all alone in the corner, wondering what in the name of political punditry he’s got to do to get anyone’s attention.

As the co-founder of RealClearPolitics, Tom Bevan, has noted: Kasich is the one Republican candidate who polls ahead of Hillary Clinton — but the GOP voter base is rejecting him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/03/tom_bevan_will_bernie_voters_shift_to_trump.html

From my vantage point out here in Middle America, it appears Kasich’s dilemma serves as a fitting metaphor for the demise of what we used to know as the Republican Party.

Kasich is a traditional Republican. He’s been a player in the “establishment” for more than two decades. He served in Congress and became a party leader. He chaired the House Budget Committee and worked with Democrats and fellow Republicans to balance the federal budget.

That’s a big deal, dude.

However, he’s getting zero traction — none! — on that record.

The GOP voting base is now turning its attention and showering its love on a guy who’s got zero government experience, no philosophy and seemingly not a scintilla of grace.

Those voters are angry. So they’re going with the guy who shares their anger.

Can this guy govern? No.

What the hell. That doesn’t matter.

The Grand Old Party as we used to know it appears to have died. Its demise wasn’t entirely peaceful. It’s being replaced by something that is still taking form.

One of those formerly important Republicans — Gov. Kasich — is now among its casualties.

 

Trump dispatches main rival … who knew?

03-080745-donald_trump_wins_indiana_primary_bernie_sanders_shocks_hillary_clinton

I’m going to need some more time to ponder what has just happened.

Donald J. Trump has won the Indiana Republican presidential primary. That wasn’t the big surprise of the night. Pre-primary polls pointed toward a big Trump win.

Oh, no. The surprise came from U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who cried “Uncle!” He ended his campaign.

Technically, the GOP campaign continues to be a two-man race. The other contestant is Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who continues to adhere to the myth that he’s going to the GOP convention in Cleveland with hopes of peeling off delegates who cannot support Trump.

A part of me wishes that would happen. The bigger part of me says it won’t. I happen to think highly of Gov. Kasich, who actually has a record of accomplishment that in any other election cycle would have been enough to win. Not this time.

Trump will be nominated by the Republican Party to run for the presidency of the United States.

Which makes me wonder: What in the world has happened to this once-great political party?

They are about to nominate a glitzy reality TV star who made a fortune building shiny hotels and who has demonstrated more times than I can remember the astonishing ability to win on the basis of insult and innuendo. His insult targets have included women, illegal immigrants, Muslims, veterans, physically disabled individuals … who have I left out?

He hasn’t formulated any form of philosophical foundation. Trump hasn’t laid out a formula for anything other than he’s going to “build a beautiful wall” along our southern border and will cut the “best deals you’ve ever seen” to get other world leaders to do business on his terms.

This, folks, is the basis for running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016.

Holy smokes, man!

JFK becomes part of this campaign?

ted-cruz-father-jfk-assassination-f

Chris Matthews is a well-known liberal commentator with a reputation of talking over anyone he’s interviewing.

When the MSNBC pundit gets his dander up, he’s quite capable of delivering profound analysis of all things political.

Consider this: Matthews is incensed at Donald J. Trump’s assertion that Ted Cruz’s father somehow was complicit in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Matthews’ point? It is that Trump has crossed yet another boundary of good taste as he campaigns for the Republican Party presidential nomination. This time he has invoked a tragic memory that has burned itself indelibly into the minds of Americans old enough to remember the Nov. 22, 1963 murder of a president.

And for what purpose? Matthews called it cheap politics. Trump has cheapened Americans’ heartbreak by using the JFK murder as a political cudgel with which he seeks to beat a political opponent.

Trump remembers that day, just like the rest of us who were old enough to recall it.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Matthews’ belief that Trump once again has displayed an utter and absolute lack of respect for historical context.

Matthews also believes Trump’s preposterous assertion about Cruz’s father’s relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald is going to “matter.”

I’m not sure about that.

I do believe, though, that Trump lacks a fundamental trait necessary to become the head of state of the world’s greatest nation.

It is decency.

 

‘Glass house’ suffers a lot of damage

Former US President Bill Clinton speaks during the 2011 Fiscal Summit by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation at the Mellon Auditorium in Washington, DC, May 25, 2011. AFP PHOTO / Saul LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

An item showed up on my Facebook feed that I must share here.

It points out that three men who were involved with the impeachment of President Clinton have been themselves caught up in sex scandals.

All three were — or presumed to be — speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Republicans Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston and Dennis Hastert? Stand up and take a bow.

Clinton got impeached because he lied to a federal grand jury about a dalliance he was having with a White House intern. Members of the House were so incensed that they just had to impeach the president for “breaking the law.” The impeachment in reality, though, also was about sex.

The Senate saw through it during the trial and acquitted the president of any “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Then the nation learned:

Speaker Newt Gingrich was fooling around with a congressional aide while he was married to another woman. He was doing this while excoriating the president for his own bad behavior.

Bob Livingston, who was supposed to become speaker after Gingrich quit, himself had to bow out because he, too, was having an extramarital affair.

Dennis Hastert, who became speaker after Livingston admitted to his own failings, paid hush money to keep quiet his own misdeeds involving teenage boys many years ago.

What’s that saying about those who reside in glass houses?

 

Don’t look for these rivals to make up

cruz-trump_jpg_800x1000_q100

Recent political history is full of examples of how rivals for the presidency have said means and occasionally disgusting things to and about each other … and then hooked up as allies.

In 1960, U.S. Sens. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson fought each other for the Democratic presidential nomination. JFK was nominated and then picked LBJ to run with him. They won the election and the rest is, well, history.

Twenty years later, former Gov. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush battled for the 1980 Republican nomination, with Bush labeling Reagan’s tax plan as “voodoo economics.” Reagan won the GOP nod and then picked Bush to run alongside him as vice president.

In 2008, the combatants were Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden fighting for the Democratic nomination. Biden dropped out, Obama won the nomination and picked Biden to run with him. President-elect Obama then turned to another campaign rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and selected her to be secretary of state.

In 2016, well, matters are quite a bit different.

The battlers this time are Donald J. Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz. They are fighting for the Republican nomination.

The gloves are off. The brass knuckles are on. The men loathe each other. Trump calls Cruz “Lyin’ Ted.” Cruz is now responding with attacks on Trump, referring to him as a “pathological liar” and a “serial philanderer.”

Trump now says that Cruz’s father might have been a principal — are you ready for this one? — in the assassination of President Kennedy. Cruz’s response was classic: “Let’s be clear: This is nuts. This is not a reasonable position. This is kooky,” Cruz said in Evansville, Ind. “While I’m at it, I should go ahead and admit yes, my dad killed JFK, he is secretly Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa is buried in his backyard.”

Cruz is likely to get battered badly in today’s Indiana GOP primary. He’s going all-out against Trump. The men seem to truly despise each other.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/03/bracing-indiana-loss-cruz-unloads-trump/

Trying to predict any outcome in this year’s wacky presidential contest is a dicey proposition at best.

I feel comfortable, though, in asserting that Trump and Cruz will not team up for the fall campaign.

Five years ago, the war on terror shifted

heres-the-story-behind-one-of-the-most-iconic-photos-from-the-bin-laden-raid.png

Five years ago, my wife and I were watching TV.

Then we noticed one of those crawls scrolling across the bottom of the screen. It announced that President Obama was going to make a special announcement about a national security issue.

It was a Sunday night. The president never goes on national TV to tell us something about national security unless it was something really, really huge.

I turned to my wife and said, “I think they got bin Laden.” Yes, I said that. You can ask her if you wish.

It was right around midnight when Barack Obama strode to a microphone in the White House to say that U.S. Special Forces had carried out a mission that killed Osama bin Laden.

The forces took bin Laden’s body to an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean, where sailors aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson “buried him at sea.” I prefer to think they just tossed his corpse into the drink.

Americans cheered. I cheered, too. We all were glad to see the 9/11 mastermind and head of al-Qaeda pay the price for his dastardly history.

Of course, in the days and weeks that followed, Obama’s critics all said much the same thing. The president was taking “too much credit” for issuing the order to take out bin Laden. Big deal, those critics said. He didn’t board the helicopters, fly into Pakistan with no lights at night. All he did was issue the order.

I felt compelled at the time — on May 2, 2011 — to remind those critics that another president once ordered a rescue mission into Iran. It was April 1980 when U.S. Army Special Forces ventured to Desert One and where several of them died in the futile attempt to extract those U.S. hostages from the clutches of the Iranian “students” who captured them at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

Did President Carter deserve the “blame” for the mission failure? Sure he did. He ordered it, apparently without agreeing to plans for how to deal with the mechanical failures that resulted in the desert tragedy.

Having said that, President Obama deserved “credit” for ordering the hit job that brought down the world’s most notorious terrorist.

Did the death of one man spell the end of the fight? Not in the least.

It redefined the nature of the fight. It made it possible for the current president to rely on finely tuned intelligence gathering to help our forces bring justice to the monsters who seek to do us harm.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/02/politics/obama-terror-doctrine-bin-laden-raid/index.html

Was the bin Laden raid a lead-pipe cinch to succeed? No on that one, too. The president was concerned that the Navy SEAL team and the Army Special Forces pilots would come up empty when they landed in the compound where they believed bin Laden had been “hiding in plain sight.”

The mission proved to be a success.

The fight against international terrorism goes on. I, though, am willing to give the commander in chief for exhibiting a huge measure of courage in issuing the order that brought about a national cheer.

Believe this, too: Had it gone wrong, President Obama surely would have gotten the blame.

 

Time to handicap the fall election

103477256-trumphillary2rr.530x298

This isn’t the first comment written on the upcoming general election for president of the United States.

Having stipulated that I’m a little late stepping into this muck, I’ll now offer what I believe is shaping up for the fall campaign.

Hillary vs. Donald will be the most miserable campaign in most people’s memories.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is now almost assuredly going to face Donald J. Trump in the race for the White House.

As I look at the Electoral College map and read all that polling data, I am left with an inescapable conclusion. It is that unless Clinton gets indicted a month before the election on some made-up charge by a federal grand jury involving the use of her personal email account, she is going to become the second history-making president in a row.

Just as Barack Obama was the first African-American to become president, Hillary Clinton will become … oh, you know.

Not only that, in my humble view she very well could make history in another fashion. She could score the largest electoral landslide perhaps since Ronald Reagan’s re-election victory in 1984. President Reagan won 49 states and 525 electoral votes.

All that’s left, thus, for Clinton is to score a 50-state sweep. I believe it’s possible.

How do I know that? Well, I don’t know it.

Polling data, though, suggest that Trump’s huge gender gap is too big to overcome. Women have something like a 70-plus percent unfavorable view of Trump. Women also comprise about 53 percent of the population; the percentage is even greater among likely voters. Women tend to vote more than men.

That’s one key demographic working against Trump.

Let’s try another one: Latinos.

Trump’s opening gambit during the campaign was to label illegal Mexican immigrants as rapists, murderers and drug dealers, while adding he was “sure there are some good ones, too.”

Now, if you’re a Latino American, do you believe this individual really cares about you? Are you going to buy into his notion that he just “loves Hispanics” because “so many of them work for me”?

Therein lies another gold mine for Team Clinton.

I also will posit this notion: Trump’s hideous standing among Latinos is going to make states such as Texas and Arizona highly competitive for Clinton and the Democrats. New Mexico will vote for Clinton anyway, along with Colorado, Nevada and California.

You want another towering obstacle for Trump? How about those “traditional Republicans” who don’t trust Trump as far as they can throw him. The evangelical voters who comprise so much of the Deep South aren’t likely to stampede willingly to Clinton’s side. Instead, they just might sit this election out, denying Trump the cushion he would need to defeat Clinton throughout Dixie.

The Rust Belt is a goner for Trump. The Great Lakes, the Northeast and New England all are locked in for Clinton.

The Farm Belt? What in the world has Trump done to woo voters who live in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, except “tell it like it is”? These states also are full of those traditional Republicans who dislike Trump’s garish lifestyle and his less-than-stellar personal conduct over the years.

The Pacific Northwest will stand firm behind Clinton. Hawaii is for Hillary. Alaska, too.

OK, I’ve just spent a lot of energy in the past few minutes bashing Donald Trump.

What does Hillary Clinton bring to the table? What would commend her?

I get that she’s got a lot of negatives, too. She doesn’t appear to be the most trustworthy candidate in the history of the Republic.

However, she is tough. She is seasoned. She knows how government works. Say what you want about her playing the “woman card,” her gender will work in her favor.

This campaign will not be waged on the high ground. It will be fought in the trenches. Trump will take it there, just as he has done throughout the Republican Party primary. Those who have watched the Clinton organization up close, though, know that Hillary Clinton has surrounded herself with seasoned, battle-tested pros who know how to respond quickly and with maximum effectiveness.

Having said all this, I am the first to acknowledge that I am wrong more than I am right.

On this one,  though, my gut tells me I am more right than wrong.

One final caveat. This election campaign to date has turned every conventional political theory on its ear.

We shall see.