Category Archives: political news

International news, national news, political news

Daunting task: explaining U.S. politics to Europeans

GTY_hillary_clinton_donald_trump_split_jt_150912_16x9_992

Later this year — in late summer — my wife and I are going to face a daunting task.

We’re going to fly to Germany, where we’ll spend time visiting friends and touring the beautiful region of Bavaria. We plan as well to visit other friends in The Netherlands while we’re across The Pond.

OK, that’s not the daunting part. The challenge will occur in explaining the American political system to sophisticated western Europeans.

It’s not that I haven’t had similar challenges before.

In November 2000, we traveled to Greece. Voting in the U.S. presidential election had just concluded — but we didn’t yet have a new president. Vice President Al Gore had collected more votes than Texas Gov. George W. Bush, but the outcome had been thrown into a tizzy over those “hanging chads” in Florida.

Our Greek hosts — who also are quite sophisticated — kept peppering me with questions that centered on this idea: How is that one candidate can get more votes than the other guy but still not win?

That’s when I sought to explain the Electoral College system and how electoral votes are allocated based on which candidate wins a particular state. The bigger the state, the more electors they get. I tried to explain that the system has worked generally pretty well.

The Bush-Gore election and its immediate aftermath shot that idea all to hell.

This year, the presidential election is heading into a climactic phase as my wife and I are vacationing in Western Europe. I’m expecting our friends to introduce us to their friends as “visitors from America.”

I can see the eyebrows raising as they ask us about  “you know who.”

I also can anticipate the question: How in the world can a major American political party nominate someone like Donald J. Trump?

To be honest, I haven’t yet formulated my answer. Neither has my wife. We’re throwing up our hands in dismay at the prospect of this know-nothing narcissist accepting the Republican Party presidential nomination — against the expressed wishes of the GOP’s wise men — and then taking his campaign of innuendo and insults against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Both of us mounted valiant efforts in 2000 to explain our political system to the inquisitive Greeks.

This year, according to my wife, it’s hopeless.

“I think this time,” she said, “I’m going to say, ‘Yep, you’re right. We’ve messed up.'”

I’m thinking of following her lead.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Garland the perfect choice for SCOTUS … normally

Caplan-Merrick-Garland2-1200

Under normal circumstances — without such historic potential consequences on the line — President Obama’s choice for the U.S. Supreme Court would be considered damn near perfect.

Merrick Garland fits the bill — to the letter.

Brilliant legal scholar; strict adherent to the Constitution; moderate judicial philosophy; meticulous writer; tremendous personal story; varied legal career in private practice and as a federal prosecutor; many years of experience on the federal bench; virtually unanimous admiration among his peers.

Then again, he’s got this particular problem that is not of his making.

He’s been chosen to the highest court in the land during an election year. That, by itself, isn’t a deal breaker. Except that Republicans who control the U.S. Senate, which must confirm the appointment, have made it one.

They’ve declared that Obama shouldn’t get to pick someone to replace the late conservative ideologue Antonin Scalia during the heat of a presidential election campaign. They want to hand that duty over to the next president who, they hope, will be a Republican.

They’ve declared that the current president doesn’t get to his job, which the U.S. Constitution says includes making appointments to the federal bench. He’s made a big choice. Garland is been named to fill some huge shoes on the Supreme Court.

His only drawback, if you want to call it that, is that he isn’t the rock-ribbed, ironclad conservative in the mold of Scalia. Oh, no. Garland is a moderate. He’s a mainstream, thoughtful jurist with a gleaming reputation for careful legal scholarship.

What, do you suppose, will be the American Bar Association’s rating of this guy, when the ABA decides to make that declaration? I’ll predict he’ll get the highest recommendation possible from the bar.

So what in the world is holding up his confirmation? It’s the obstruction of the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, who vows to block any attempt even to conduct a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And to think that McConnell had the brass to say that the president is “politicizing” this pick by criticizing Republicans’ effort to block it.

The stunning lack of self-awareness here is beyond belief. It’s McConnell and his Senate lieutenants who have politicized this process by stating that the 44th president of the United States shall not have his judicial appointment even considered for confirmation.

Why? Because they hope to get one of their fellow Republicans elected president this November.

Something tells me McConnell and his gang of Senate GOP obstructionists are flirting with political disaster if they insist on continuing to play this foolish game.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Let’s talk, Mr. Senate Majority Leader

48604710.cached

Every effective American politician has a consigliere — a wise man, or perhaps a wise woman — who’ll tell them the unvarnished truth.

JFK had Bobby; George H.W. Bush had Jim Baker; Ronald Reagan had Nancy.

I’m wondering this morning who in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s inner circle fills that role. Hmm. It might be his wife, Elaine Chao, a former labor secretary during W’s administration.

Whoever it is, are they having a serious, candid and frank discussion with the boss? Are they hunkered down in some ante room in his spacious office in the Senate wing of the U.S. Capitol Building?

Here’s a thought, offered from the Flyover Country Peanut Gallery, on how that talk might proceed:

McConnell: OK, I sense we have a problem with this Supreme Court pick. I’ve declared my intention to block whoever Barack Obama nominates. I’m trying to stand on some sort of principle but my knees are buckling just a little.

Wise Man: And they should, Mitch. You’ve boxed yourself into a corner. Did you think Obama was going to pick some flaming, judicial activist liberal? He didn’t. He went with this Merrick Garland fellow. Everyone loves the guy. You love the guy. Hell, Mitch, you voted to confirm him to the D.C. court nearly 20 years ago.

McC: True. But that was then. The stakes this time are gigantic. They’re y-u-u-u-u-ge! (Laughter). I hope you don’t mind my saying it that way. Antonin Scalia’s death upset everything. He was one of our guys. Now Obama has picked one of their guys to replace Scalia. The balance of the court will change.

WM: So, what’s your point? Did you think Obama was going to select an archconservative like Scalia? We all knew this would happen if one of our guys died. But hey, he didn’t pick a flamer, Mitch. He picked a mainstream moderate judge. Hasn’t he done well on the D.C. court?

McC: Yeah, he has. He’s been the kind of judge I said he was when I spoke in his favor in 1997. I get that he’ll be that kind of justice on the Supreme Court, too. But it’s different now. I’ve got those TEA Party yahoos who want me to dig in. They insist — in that way of theirs — that Barack Obama’s re-election doesn’t really count. And you don’t need to remind me of what I said early in Obama’s presidency about making him a “one-term president” being my top priority. I get that it didn’t work out.

WM: So, consider this, too. We’re about to nominate Donald Trump as our candidate for president. The Democrats are going to nominate Hillary as their candidate. Trump vs. Clinton. One of them will get to pick the next Supreme Court justice if we continue to obstruct this selection. Who between them do you want? Trump, who you’ve criticized before for the outrageous accusations he has made along the campaign trail? Or Clinton, who the TEA Party wing hates nearly as much as it hates Obama? Don’t you think maybe that Merrick Garland is going to be the best choice we’re going to get?

McC: I get your point. But what about the principle we’re standing on here? What about giving in to the Democrats? I’m going to get fried if I cave in.

WM: Well, Mitch, a lot worse is going to happen to you if we obstruct this nomination, Hillary makes a huge campaign issue of it, wins in a landslide and the Democrats retake the Senate.

McC: How do you propose I back off? How do I justify this to my base — our base?

WM: Look, Mitch. I might be a wise man. But I’m not a magician. You figure it out.

 

legal news, national news, political news

‘American people’ have spoken, Mr. Leader

mitch

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is really starting to tick me off.

He keeps harping on this idiotic notion that “the American people” deserve to have a voice in determining who the president should nominate to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Their voice has been heard, Sen. McConnell. It was heard four years ago when the country re-elected President Obama.

Thus, he greeted today’s nomination of an eminently qualified jurist — Merrick Garland — with his vow to block it out of hand. Judge Garland will get no hearing; Republican senators won’t meet with him; there will be no vote.

The Senate won’t do its job. It won’t follow through on President Obama’s nomination. Why? Because, according to McConnell, Barack Obama’s time as president is about up and the next president should make the appointment.

So, with that, the majority leader of the Senate has decided that Barack Obama’s second term will be cut short by nearly a year. No need to consider an appointment that the incumbent president sends to the Senate, because the legislative body’s upper chamber won’t do anything about it.

This is an outrage of the first order.

Merrick Garland is a first-class jurist. Senators thought so when they confirmed his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court in 1997. Republicans joined Democrats in praising Garland’s credentials.

Now, though, it’s different. McConnell said today it’s not “personal.” Of course it is! He and Senate Republicans don’t want Garland to fill a court vacancy created by the untimely death of the court’s leading conservative ideologue, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Garland is not a flaming liberal. His judicial record is the model of judicial moderation. Indeed, leftists today expressed disappointment with the president over his selection of someone who is not a favorite of the Democratic Party’s liberal base.

American citizens have spoken already, Mr. Leader, about who should sit on the Supreme Court. They spoke clearly in the November 2012 general election.

Five million more Americans voted for Barack Obama than voted for Mitt Romney. Case closed.

For the Republican leader of the Senate to suggest that the president’s pick should be stalled because GOP senators don’t want him to do his job is an outrage.

 

national news, political news

Who will join Cruz in stopping Trump?

cruz

Ted Cruz has a problem.

He wants to become the “anti-Trump” candidate for president of the United States. He’s seeking a way to get Ohio Gov. John Kasich to bow out. He believes he can coalesce enough “true conservatives” behind him to derail Donald J. Trump’s march to the Republican Party presidential nomination.

The junior U.S. senator from Texas, though, needs some help from his colleagues in the Senate. But as Politico reports, he is nearly universally detested by his fellow senators. And that’s just the Republicans with whom he serves.

Cruz needs to build some relationships. I don’t mean “rebuild.” He’s got to start from scratch.

He’s been in the Senate for slightly more than three years. He’s halfway through his very first term in the very first elected public office he’s ever held.

As Politico reports: “Cruz’s relationship with his colleagues is now a central paradox of his campaign: He’s openly arguing for the party to rally behind him, but Republican senators are plainly wary of going anywhere near him. Those who feel burned by Cruz in the past say he’ll come to them only if he decides it’s in his self-interest. ”

The man who leads the Senate — the body’s top Republican — once was on the receiving end of a barrage that Cruz leveled at him. Remember when the Cruz Missile called Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “liar” in a speech on the floor of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body?

How does McConnell put that epithet behind him? How does McConnell gather the forces to help one of their own take down this “interloper” named Trump.

Moreover, Sen. John McCain — the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee — has taken Cruz to task in public for his intemperate remarks about a couple of fellow Vietnam War combat veterans, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel.

Finally, he’s been campaigning against the very “Washington establishment” where he works these days. He’s an “outsider,” he says.

Something tells me Cruz’s efforts to put distance between himself and his Senate colleagues ain’t going well with the ladies and gents with whom he serves.

 

national news, political news, State news

‘Rampant’ voter fraud in Texas? Not even close

4 Comments

7C2A3553_jpg_800x1000_q100

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott describes the instances of voter fraud in this state as “rampant.”

The state, he said, has sought to curb the epidemic of voter fraud by requiring voters to produce photo ID — driver’s licenses, passports, etc. — when they go to the polling place.

The Texas Tribune’s Ross Ramsey, though, has shot down the governor’s assertion with an interesting analysis of Abbott’s challenge to a President Obama’s critique of Texas’ historically poor voter turnout.

The evidence of fraud is “scant,” according to Ramsey.

Here’s part of what Ramsey writes: “A study done by News21, an investigative journalism project at Arizona State University, looked at open records from Texas and other states for the years 2000-2011 and found 104 cases of voter fraud had been alleged in Texas over that decade.

“Chew on this: If you only count the Texans who voted in November general elections — skipping Democratic and Republican primaries and also special and constitutional elections — 35.8 million people voted during the period covered by the ASU study.

“They found 104 cases of voter fraud among 35.8 million votes cast. That’s fewer than three glitches per 1 million votes.”

Does that fit the description of “rampant” voter fraud?

Not exactly.

Obama made the point at a fundraiser the other evening that Texas remains one of the nation’s poorest-turnout states. I am not going to blame the voter ID push for driving down the turnout. Suffice to say, though, that Texas can — and should — do more to promote greater turnout.

I’ve lived in Texas for 32 years. I have been watching, reporting and commenting on the political process here for that entire time. I have no recollection ever of the state — from the governor’s office on down — launching a concerted effort to drive up voter participation.

There has seemed over all that time to be a sense of complacency, that the state puts little emphasis on greater turnout.

“The folks who are governing the good state of Texas aren’t interested in having more people participate,” the president told The Texas Tribune’s Evan Smith at South by Southwest Interactive.

Abbott’s response? He trotted out the allegation of “rampant” voter fraud. The numbers don’t add up.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Garland gets nod; let’s act on it, senators

2 Comments

BBqxe1o

I’ve written already about why I believe President Obama deserves to have his Supreme Court appointment considered by the U.S. Senate.

It’s his prerogative to appoint someone; it’s the Senate’s prerogative to approve or reject it. The Constitution lays it out there. I understand the idea of “advise and consent.”

If senators object, then they should say so on the record. The idea of obstructing a nomination by refusing to consider it is offensive on its face … at least in my view.

The president today nominated D.C. Circuit Court chief judge Merrick Garland to the high court, replacing the late Antonin Scalia.

The politics of this fight overshadows everything else. It overshadows Garland’s impeccable credentials, his immense standing among legal scholars, his compelling personal story.

Scalia was the court’s leading conservative voice. He was an ideologue. Garland is a moderate. He’s known to be a non-ideologue, but according to conservatives, well, that makes him a flaming liberal.

The court’s balance would shift with Garland joining the court.

And that’s why the Senate Republican leadership is vowing to block the nomination by refusing even to consider it. The GOP won’t even allow a hearing. Hell, GOP senators say they won’t even meet with Garland.

The Republican leadership that says it wants the next president to make the appointment.

What happens, though, if the next president happens to be, oh, Hillary Rodham Clinton? Are they then willing to put this selection in the hands of a president who could appoint a true-life flaming liberal? Or should they give Merrick Garland the hearing he deserves and cut their losses?

Garland’s intelligence and legal knowledge are beyond reproach. Even Republicans said as much when they approved his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court. If he’s as smart and scholarly now as he was then, it makes sense — or so it seems — that he’d be a fitting choice for the Supreme Court.

The fight has been joined.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the people should have a say in filling this court seat. Mr. Leader, the people have spoken on it — by re-electing Barack Obama as president of the United States.

 

national news, political news

Good news, bad news in GOP primary fight

untitled

The good news for me tonight occurred in Ohio, where my favorite Republican presidential candidate, Gov. John Kasich, scored a home-state victory in the GOP primary.

The bad news is that my second-favorite Republican candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, dropped out of the race because he couldn’t win his home state of Florida.

I’m sad to suggest that the bad news outweighs the good news.

Why? Because I don’t know where Kasich goes from here.

He doesn’t appear ready to win more state primaries as the field of three GOP contenders marches on down the primary trail. Sure, he’s going to proclaim a huge victory tonight.

Donald J. Trump, though, won most of the rest of the state battles. His delegate lead has grown a bit over the other scary GOP candidate, Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

At least, though, the remaining grown-up, the guy with an actual record of accomplishment in government, the fellow who speaks of compassion and constructive outlooks, the guy who said business owners should “pray” for customers with whom they might have spiritual difference is still in the race.

If only I could look a lot farther down the GOP campaign road to see him staying in the hunt for the presidency.

I can’t.

As for Rubio, well, he had emerged as my clear second pick among the Republicans. Yes, despite his childish counterattack against Trump in that debate, I believe young Marco — hey, he’s about the age of my older son, so I feel free to refer to him by his first name — came back strong in the Miami event with Trump, Cruz and Kasich.

It was for naught. He got smoked tonight in his home state by a charlatan masquerading as a serious candidate for the nation’s most glorious office.

So now we’re down to three candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. As I see it, we’ve got one adult left in the hunt competing against a know-nothing narcissist (Trump) and a fire-breathing demagogue (Cruz).

If only the adult had a chance to compete in this crazy, wacked-out GOP primary campaign season.

 

national news, political news

Trump saw it on Internet, which makes it true?

150711204653-donald-trump-phoenix-rally-exlarge-169

Ezra Klein has hit on a matter that ought to send chills up the spines of even the most ardent of Donald J. Trump’s supporters.

Writing on Vox.com, the bright young journalist/researcher writes about something Trump said this past Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

Trump said the guy who rushed the stage in Dayton, Ohio, where he was speaking was a follower of the Islamic State. How did he know that? He saw something on the Internet, Trump said, which meant it just had to be true.

Is Trump too gullible to be president? That’s the question Klein seeks to answer. He seems to believe Trump’s gullibility disqualifies him categorically for the presidency.

As if he hasn’t disqualified himself already with all the countless earlier idiotic pronouncements he’s made.

The Internet is a valuable source for information. It’s also a source for nonsense.

For more years than I care to remember — perhaps ever since the Internet came on the scene — I’ve adhered to a certain policy: It is to believe the tiniest fraction of 1 percent of anything I read on the Internet. You cannot take seemingly anything at face value if you read it “on the Internet.”

I actually have spoken with people who submitted letters and essays to the newspaper where I worked with information that looked patently absurd, but who swore to me that it was true “because I saw it on the Internet.”

Trump’s assertion on national television Sunday morning that the stage rusher was an ISIS supporter based on Internet chatter demonstrates way beyond the shadow of any doubt of Trump’s unfitness for the office he is seeking.

The guy who rushed the stage? He’s an Italian-American named Thomas DiMassimo, a Christian … who denied immediately any ISIS allegiance. He said he was was just trying to make a scene.

Mission accomplished, dude.

 

national news, political news

Please, no conspiracy theories about rally violence

Donald-Trump_3372655b

Donald J. Trump says Bernie Sanders has planted protesters at rallies to stir things up and provoke violence.

Sanders denies it categorically.

Now a Florida congressman — a Trump supporter — says Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign is guilty of prodding the Trumpsters into striking back at the protesters.

No word yet from the Clinton campaign; I’m quite sure there’ll be a categorical denial there, too.

Conspiracy theories have this way of never dying. JFK assassination? Area 51 cover-up? 9/11?

It might be that long after this campaign has ended, we’ll hear conspiracy theories kicked around about who started the violence at the Trump rallies as the candidate stumps for the Republican Party presidential nomination.

Here’s my theory.

Trump started it by inflaming his crowds from the podium.

Punch people in the face? Beat the “crap” out of someone? Offer to pay legal fees for those charged with crimes?

The candidate is inciting the violence and that — all by itself — is what gives this story its staying power.

I get that violence has occurred over many decades. The 1968 Democratic National Convention provoked a full-scale series of street riots in Chicago. Police vs. Protesters turned into the stuff of hideous, actual “reality TV” for those of us who watched it unfold.

It spilled onto the convention floor. Security personnel beat up delegates and media reporters.

Do you recall hearing pols exhorting protesters from the stage? Neither do I.

Yes, this campaign is vastly different.

It has brought the level of political campaigning to a level not seen by anyone, near as I can tell.

It’s also prompted the goofballs among us to suggest that it’s all being orchestrated by mysterious evil political opponents.

It’s not so complicated. The violence is a result of a candidate fomenting the anger expressed by those who support his bid for the presidency, which has dared those who oppose him to respond with protests.

Why in the name of sanity — and decency — can’t Donald J. Trump start delivering a positive message of change?

I hope it isn’t too late.