Category Archives: political news

Trump needs to start acting like a ‘unifier’

A supporter of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump scuffles with a protestor during a rally in Richmond, Va., Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2015.  (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Donald J. Trump today postponed a campaign rally because of the threat of violence.

Hmm. Where do I begin?

The Republican presidential campaign frontrunner has been the focus of some unseemly and potentially dangerous confrontations of late. Protestors have shown up at his campaign events; they’ve been shouted down by Trumpsters seeking to silence the anti-Trump voices; fights have broken out; one man has been arrested for assault after he sucker-punched a protestor being escorted out of a rally location in North Carolina.

Trump’s reaction to all of this? Well, it’s been — shall we say — a bit muted. Except, of course, when he’s exhorted his supporters to punch protestors in the face or exhibit some other form of forceful retaliation.

I listened to some commentary this evening after the postponement of a Trump rally in Chicago. An interesting thought came from David Gergen, a CNN political analyst and a former official in several presidential administrations: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton.

Gergen’s advice to Trump: If you’re going to proclaim yourself to be a unifier, then you need to do a lot more to tamp down the anger upon which you’ve built your (so far) successful campaign for president.

Gergen said tonight previous campaigns have drawn hu-u-u-u-u-ge crowds.

He mentioned Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign and John F. Kennedy’s 1960 campaign.

None of them fostered the violence we’ve seen at these Trump rallies, Gergen noted. Why? “They were positive,” he said. All three men promoted positive agendas for change and they all sought to appeal to the voters’ better angels.

Gergen noted he disliked including Trump with Reagan because, he said, “It does a disservice to President Reagan.” Indeed, it does. Trump, though, needs to heed the words of this bipartisan wise man.

The violence has to stop. One individual has it within his power to restore order, civility and decorum to the important task of delivering a campaign message.

That would be the candidate who is seeking the votes of Americans across the land.

Tone down the angry talk, Donald Trump.

Why not endorse in this GOP contest?

untitled

Rosemary Goudreau O’Hara is a first-class journalist working for a first-class newspaper, the Sun-Sentinel in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

She and I also are acquainted. I got to know Rosemary while traveling with her and several other journalists in 2004 through Thailand, Cambodia and India on a trip that explored the impact of HIV/AIDS in Asia.

So, I say this with great trepidation: O’Hara and the paper where she works erred in declining to make an endorsement in the Republican Party presidential primary election coming up next week in Florida.

The Sun-Sentinel has backed Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. It has declined to make a call in the GOP primary — even though O’Hara has said that one of the Republicans, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, is actually qualified to be the next president of the United States.

The other three aren’t, O’Hara — the Sun-Sentinel’s editorial page editor — has said in numerous interviews with TV cable news networks. She’s made the rounds on CNN, Fox and MSNBC. I’ve listened to what she’s said. Frankly, I’m baffled.

O’Hara says quite emphatically that Donald J. Trump, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio all lack the temperament, judgment, record and the experience to become president. I happen to agree with her wholeheartedly … and then some!

Why not back Kasich? O’Hara says the Ohio governor — and a former member of Congress — is the longest of the long shots; he hasn’t built a significant campaign presence in Florida; he is not going to be the nominee. If I heard her correctly, she’s saying, in effect, that Floridians shouldn’t waste their vote on someone who’s not going to win.

Man, I disagree with that outlook.

The way I see it, if you have a field of candidates and one of them is at least marginally qualified — and Kasich is more than marginal — then you go with the individual who is the best of the bunch.

I suppose you could couch an endorsement with some language that acknowledges the individual’s slim chance of winning. But then you offer your reason for why the individual has earned your nod and why you think your constituents — your readers — should heed your recommendation.

I hope if Rosemary sees this post she won’t think ill of me. I hope we’ll still be friends. I make this comment with great respect for her.

It’s just that a major Florida newspaper has seen all four of these fellows up close. The editors there know them well. They’ve determined one of them — John Kasich — is qualified to be president.

From where I sit way out yonder, he’s earned the paper’s nod.

 

 

 

Hey, these guys got along, too!

newt

The politics of the moment has this way of inflicting a case of selective amnesia among politicians.

Take last night’s 12th — and possibly final — Republican Party presidential debate with Donald J. Trump, Rafael Edward Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich as providing an example of that peculiar malady.

One of them (I can’t remember who) brought up President Reagan’s famous buddy-buddy relationship with House Speaker Tip O’Neill. The two men — one Republican, one Democrat — worked well together.

Sure they did. I honor them for that cooperation.

So did a couple of other well-known pols. Democratic President Bill Clinton and Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich also managed to find common ground when the need arose. And it did, particularly as it regarded the need to balance the federal budget.

None of these current GOP candidates, though, mentions that political partnership.

We all know why that is the case, of course.

It’s because the president’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, wants to ascend to the office her husband once occupied.

Why, we just can’t give Bill Clinton any props for doing what the current president and the current congressional leadership seem unable — or perhaps unwilling — to do.

I’m the first to acknowledge that the Clinton-Gingrich relationship never evolved into the personal public friendship that Reagan and O’Neill developed.

The Gipper and the Tipper would share some spirits once they were off the clock, setting politics aside; it’s been reported widely how they would swap stories between them and laugh at the foolishness of the day.

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of similar moments of non-political fellowship involving Bill and Newtie.

However, they certainly did form a valuable political partnership during the time Gingrich was speaker. It’s understandable, I suppose, that the Republicans running for president would choose to ignore it.

I’ll just have to rely on Hillary Clinton to remind the rest of us how bipartisan cooperation can work.

She was there, too.

 

 

No, Mr. Trump, ‘Islam’ doesn’t hate us

islam-at-war

Islam hates America?

That’s what Republican Party presidential campaign frontrunner Donald J. Trump has asserted in his latest broadside against nearly 2 billion of the world’s residents.

No sir. You are wrong!

Trump’s assertion goes far afield from what we know.

It is that a radical portion of the Islamic religion has perverted the doctrine espoused by a great religion. They are not true Muslims. They are cultists. They are murderers. They are religious perverts.

The men who flew the airplanes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon on 9/11 were not God-fearing Muslims. They were murderers, pure and simple.

Sure, these individuals hate Americans. They also hate Europeans. Moreover, they also hate fellow Muslims.

Let us realize that the largest number of casualties who’ve been injured and killed by terror attacks around the world are Muslims.

Trump’s false assertion became a brief talking point tonight at the Republican debate in Miami. Sen. Marco Rubio challenged Trump by suggesting that the reality TV celebrity is wrong to suggest that hatred for America is somehow codified in the Quran.

It’s not.

Donald Trump cannot be allowed to get away with this continued fear- and hate-mongering along the presidential campaign trail.

 

Bring a woman back to City Council?

gender-via-cost-esf-org

I’ve been thinking for the last little while about the gender makeup of Amarillo’s municipal governing panel during the 21 years I’ve lived here.

We arrived in Amarillo in 1995 and the then-City Commission had a woman serving with four men, the late Dianne Bosch.

As I look back during the two decades here, I seem to recall that almost during that entire time the commission comprised at least one woman.

It had a co-ed composition until this past year, when two female incumbents — Lilia Escajeda and Ellen Green — lost their re-election bids.

Now the City Council comprises all men.

One of them, Dr. Brian Eades, is leaving the council in July.

Should the doctor’s colleagues on the council pick a woman to succeed him just for the sake of gender diversity? To be honest, I can’t really identify how a woman’s perspective would fundamentally change the enactment of municipal policy.

Still it’s worth considering this fact: Women comprise roughly half the city’s population. Why not recruit a qualified woman to serve on the City Council? Shouldn’t the council represent the interests of all its constituents?

It does have an African-American serving. But the rest of the men on the council are Anglos. Hey, aren’t Latinos the second-largest ethnic group living in the city?

Again, it’s not that I’m promoting necessarily a gender-based affirmative action policy for the selection process.

The city has run well with woman at the controls. Heck, we even elected a female mayor — Debra McCartt — who seemed to defy the laws of physics by appearing to be in multiple places at the same time.

The selection process will be an interesting exercise in the first place. The council well might face some competing political differences as it wrestles with finding the right person to succeed Dr. Eades.

Let’s toss around the thought of looking for a female to restore the recent tradition of gender diversity on the Amarillo City Council.

In other news, U.S. kills another ISIL leader

AAekCUC

Americans went to the polls today in a couple more states to vote on the next president of the United States.

Meanwhile, the guy who still holds the office — Barack H. Obama — can claim another victory in the nation’s fight against the Islamic State.

Another ISIL leader has been smoked.

Abu Omar al-Shishani, aka Omar the Chechen, reportedly has been killed in a U.S. air strike, giving the United States another notch in its belt as it seeks to seek out and destroy ISIL leaders.

The strike occurred in Syria, which is where Russian, Jordanian, French and British air forces have joined the Americans in the air campaigns against the monstrous terror organization.

Omar the Chechen was the minister of war for the Islamic State, which I guess means he helped plan the strategies that ISIL is carrying out against those who oppose the organization’s effort to bring misery to anyone on Earth.

According to reports, the strike involved waves of manned and unmanned aircraft targeting Shishani, who reportedly had been sent to Syria to shore up terrorist troops that had suffered setbacks on the battlefield.

Against the backdrop of the presidential campaign, it’s interesting to note what one of the Republican challengers has suggested. Donald J. Trump has actually proposed letting ISIL overthrow the Syrian regime. Yes, let the terrorists take over a sovereign nation. That’s what Trump has suggested.

That, I dare say, is an utterly insane idea.

I’d rather continue doing the course on which we’ve embarked, which is to keep bombing the daylights out of ISIL troops and their key leaders.

We possess the firepower to bring extreme misery to the enemy.

We’ve done so yet again. Would it be the final ISIL leader to be killed if Omar the Chechen’s death is confirmed? No.

Still, it still looks like a victory in our war against the Islamic State.

 

Government is not a vacuum-sealed profession

IMG_0631_JPG_312x1000_q100

Ted Cruz knows as well as any of the 100 men and women who work in the U.S. Senate that politicians don’t operate in a vacuum.

The freshman Republican from Texas wants to become president. Were he to stroll into the Oval Office next January, he’ll have a serious issue to resolve.

How is he going to work with the individuals who seem to despise him?

Cruz stands alone in the Senate among those who think highly of him. Or so it appears.

As they say: The president proposes but Congress disposes. The Senate comprises half of the Capitol Building. The overwhelming consensus so far in this presidential campaign has been that Cruz — elected to the Senate in 2012 — has precious few friends and political allies in that body.

So the question persists on my mind: How does this guy expect to get a single thing done while working with a legislative body comprising individuals who can’t stand him?

Presidents don’t work in a vacuum. The most successful of them know how to legislate, know that to get anything done requires them to compromise.

Cruz keeps yapping about never yielding to the other side, never cutting deals, never forsaking his strong conservative principles.

I take that to mean that it’s going to be his way or the highway.

Strange. Isn’t that what Republicans have been saying about President Barack Obama?

 

Bibi shows his petulant side

netanyahu.si_

Readers of this blog know — at least I hope they know — that I am a fervent advocate for the U.S.-Israel alliance.

I want it to be strong. I have long understood the Israeli point of view as it regards the war against international terror. I got to spend a month in Israel in May-June 2009 and saw up close the proximity with which the Israelis deal with nations that want to destroy their country.

I get that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to protect his country with all the might he can muster.

Why, though, did Bibi cancel his planned visit to the United States without telling the White House? Why does he keep wanting to stick it in President Obama’s eye?

The White House stands firm on its belief that Netanyahu showed bad manners when he canceled his trip, which was supposed to include a meeting with the president.

Yes, the two men have had a frosty relationship, although they’ve both spoken of their nations’ commitment to each other. President Obama has been clear: We’re going to stand with Israel always when violence erupts. How much clearer does he have to make it?

But the prime minister is still fuming over the Iranian nuclear deal that seeks to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Several nations worked diligently to craft an agreement that seeks to create a safer Middle East.

Bibi isn’t buying it. Oddly, though, I get his reluctance. Iran has stated it wants to destroy Israel and the Israelis aren’t willing for forget that blatant threat.

A meeting, though, between two heads of government need not have been canceled because of it. If anything, Netanyahu could have come here and voiced his displeasure to Barack Obama’s face, in private, with no one else in the room.

He didn’t do that. He chose instead to make a grandstand play.

Maybe it’s all part of the political climate these days. Those Republican presidential candidates have been a pretty petulant pack themselves these days. It must be rubbing off on Bibi.

 

Oh, for the old days of presidential debates

Nixon-Kennedy-debate_1960

CNN broadcast a special the other night on the landmark debate series between two men vying for the presidency of the United States of America.

Democratic U.S. Sen. John Kennedy faced Republican Vice President Richard Nixon.

The special talked at length about the men’s preparation for the encounters and the consequences that they delivered to the U.S. electoral system.

If only we could return to those days when the most trivial thing we talked about was whether one candidate looked more robust than the other one.

These days, we’re talking about a lot of things that have pulled these joint appearances into the gutter.

The leading Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump, is fond of tossing insults out at his opponents. Lately, some of those foes have responded. One of them, young Marco Rubio, has introduced — in a round-about way — the subject of Trump’s sexual endowments.

We’ve heard comments about perspiration, watched Trump make fun of Rubio’s physical appearance, listened at Trump has called Ted Cruz a lying son-of-a-gun.

And then — from the peanut gallery — former GOP nominee Mitt Romney has weighed in with comments and questions about why Trump doesn’t release his tax returns; he’s also called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud.” Trump’s response? Romney is a loser, a has-been.

We are witnessing an absurd demonstration of petulance on a level many of us have never before witnessed at this level of what is supposed to pass for political discourse.

Fifty-six years ago, two men faced off in a series of three joint appearances. We were enthralled then just at the notion of watching them on live television. Those grainy black-and-white pictures now seem quaint.

The high-minded debate they engaged in, though, now looks statesmanlike, dignified, the kind of encounter one should expect to see between two individuals seeking to become the next head of state of the world’s greatest nation.

These days? It’s a clown show.

 

Why the qualified tribute to Mrs. Reagan?

bal-nancyphoto0611

The nation has heard from many leading political figures commenting on the death of former first lady Nancy Reagan.

They’ve all been lovely and heartfelt.

Still, consider this statement from U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Democratic candidate for president:

“No matter your party or political ideology, this is a sad day for America. Nancy Reagan was an exemplary first lady. A devoted partner, she was her husband’s most trusted advisor and, as such, served our country well. Even after her time in the White House, she was an outspoken advocate for stem-cell research to find a cure for Alzheimer’s. Nancy Reagan had a good heart, and she will be dearly missed.”

Is it just me or did Sen. Sanders offer something of a qualifier with that first clause: “No matter your party or political affiliation …”?

I venture to guess that most adult Americans who are even remotely aware of the current presidential campaign know that Sanders leans sharply to the left and that the late President and Mrs. Reagan leaned sharply in the other direction.

I don’t mean to parse and nitpick Sen. Sanders’ statement to death, but it seems to me he could have just started with, “This is a sad day for America” and gone on from there. The rest of the statement came straight from his heart.

One sees this kind of qualification added to tributes to those who have passed on. Lefties do it when righties depart this world and righties do it as well to the lefties who leave us.

Hey, maybe I’ve got too much time on my hands to worry about such things.

Any thoughts here? Am I off base?