Category Archives: political news

Lawless? Unconstitutional? Why no impeachment?

impeach

The Republican field of candidates — even when it comprised 17 members — has been using some highly charged language to describe the twice-elected administration of President Barack Obama.

They call his actions “lawless.” They say his executive orders are “unconstitutional.”

Thus, they are accusing the president of two things: of breaking the law and of failing to uphold the oath he took twice when he was sworn in by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

That makes me ask out loud, right here: Why haven’t the Republicans in the House of Representatives impeached the president?

If you really and truly think he’s broken the law or signed unconstitutional executive orders, then you have political recourse. Isn’t that correct?

It’s impeachment.

Two U.S. presidents have been impeached over the course of the nation’s history.

President Andrew Johnson fired his secretary of war without notifying the Senate and got impeached; he came within a single vote of conviction during a Senate trial. President Bill Clinton got impeached for lying to a grand jury about a tawdry relationship he had with a White House intern; the Senate acquitted him on three counts. A third president, Richard Nixon came within a whisker of being impeached because he blocked an investigation into the Watergate scandal; the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment, but the president quit his office.

These days, candidates for president keep tossing out verbiage that would suggest — if you are to believe it — that the current president has committed a whole array of impeachable offenses. Indeed, when you accuse a president of doing something “unconstitutional,” that by itself implies malfeasance.

Me? I don’t believe it.

I get that it’s campaign rhetoric. Therefore, perhaps they don’t really mean what they’re saying out there — on the stump or on those debate stages.

So, how about saying what you mean, fellas?

Christie’s 180 on Trump fascinates, confounds

chrischristie_0

Let’s see how this tracks.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, while campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, said that Donald J. Trump is “unfit” to become president.

“We aren’t electing an entertainer in chief,” Christie famously said of his rival. We are electing a commander in chief, he added, and Trump didn’t measure up to the standards required to hold that all-important job.

Then he got beat in New Hampshire. Christie suspended his campaign and this week he tossed all those vibes about Trump out and said he is the “one man” who can lead America.

Politics does have this way of changing one’s stated position. Whether it changes one’s heart and soul, though, cannot be determined.

Check out the endorsement.

He said an interesting thing that deserves just a bit of parsing.

Christie — while making his announcement as well as over the course of the next day and a half — said Trump is the one candidate who will guarantee that “Hillary and Bill Clinton will not get within 10 miles of the White House.”

Hmmm. Think about that for a minute.

Would a President Trump — my hands still tremble when I type those two words next to each other — impose some kind of travel restriction on the former secretary of state? Would he restrict her movement through, say, an executive order?

It’s also interesting that he would include the 42nd president of the United States in that restriction. For crying out loud, governor! The man was elected twice to the very office you once sought.

Oh well, back to reality.

I guess Gov. Christie — who used to impress me as a man of principle and his own brand of panache — has performed the Big Daddy of Flip Flops in endorsing the man he once called “unfit” for the presidency.

 

Pastor speaks out about Trump

Donald-Trump_3372655b

Max Lucado said the following when asked why he has chosen to speak ill of the leading Republican Party presidential candidate.

The pastor said: “In this case, it’s not so much a question about particular policies or strategies about government or even particular opinions. It’s a case of public derision of people. It’s belittling people publicly. It would be none of my business, I would have absolutely no right to speak up except that he repeatedly brandishes the Bible and calls himself a Christian.”

Bingo, preacher!

The San Antonio pastor has written a blistering critique of Donald J. Trump’s candidacy, telling folks that the leading GOP candidate lacks basic decency.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/february-web-only/why-max-lucado-broke-his-political-silence-for-trump.html?share=8Wdo/u7n2vsdeS8lu12vTFcmUyD6zK//

Trump’s  insults, name-calling, juvenile behavior and utter contempt for others’ sensitivity disqualifies him holding the highest office in the land, Lucado said.

Here is Lucado’s article.

Trump’s fans keep contending that their man “tells it like it is.” They admire his alleged contempt for “political correctness.” They say the political world needs to be shaken up and that, by golly, their guy is the one to do it.

Even if you take away Trump’s acknowledged extramarital affairs, the man is morally unfit for public office, let alone for the office he is seeking.

He denigrates others with cheap shots and snide remarks.

And all the while, he proclaims himself to be a “good Christian.”

Someone needs to guide Trump to the passage in Scripture that talks about the Golden Rule, the one that directs God’s children to treat others they way they would want to be treated.

He would find it in the Old Testament: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.” (Leviticus 19:18)

Basic decency, man.

 

Quandary awaits on Primary Election Day

1407859219000-Election-3-

I am confused about how I should vote on Texas Primary Election Day.

You know, of course, that I hate early voting. I prefer to wait until Election Day to cast my ballot. This year has proved that practice to be more essential than ever. The wackiness of the Republican primary contest has taken us to places never before seen.

But here’s my quandary.

Texas has an open primary system, meaning that voters aren’t “registered” with a political party. We go to the polling place and choose which primary we want to cast our vote. The polling judge will stamp our voting cards with “Republican” or “Democrat,” some of the time; occasionally they forget to do it.

Our polling place is at a local church. We’ll walk through the door and have to decide: Do I vote Democratic or do I vote Republican? (I won’t speak for my wife. She makes up her own mind on these things.)

My own presidential voting history is straightforward. I’ve voted in every election since 1972 and have voted Democratic every time. I flinched one year: 1976, in the race between President Ford and former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter; I ended up voting for Carter.

Primary elections in this part of Texas, though, limit one’s options. All the local activity is on the Republican side. We have some token Democrats running for statewide office, but in Randall County — the unofficial birthplace of modern Texas Republicanism — all the local offices are decided on the GOP side.

My problem is this: Do I want to vote in the Republican primary to cast a ballot for someone other than Donald J. Trump or Rafael Edward Cruz or do I lean toward my traditional roots and vote for either Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

I’ve declared already that my favorite presidential candidate — of the seven people running in either party — appears to be Ohio Gov. John Kasich. He’s a grownup, a mature public official with an actual record of accomplishment. He’s also got a beating heart that he reveals with great eloquence.

Hillary Clinton also is eminently qualified — on paper — to be the next commander in chief. She’s got a solid public service record. My problem with her? I just don’t trust her completely.

I’m torn. I’m literally undecided on which way to turn when my wife and I walk into the polling place on Tuesday.

My wife wishes we could vote in both primaries; just pick the best candidate either party has to offer — and then decide between whoever wins their parties’ nominations in the fall.

She’s just as torn as I am on what to do next week.

It’s decision time. I might just have to pray about it.

I’m unlikely, though, to say openly who gets my vote. It will become apparent as we move closer toward the general election. Of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

GOP frontrunner getting softened up for Democrats?

republican-elephant-668x501

Donald J. Trump is the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.

I’ll concede that much.

It’s interesting, though, to listen to other Republicans tear into him. It makes me wonder — not that I’m predicting it, given the wackiness of this campaign — whether the intraparty opponents will soften him up for the Democratic candidate who might face him this fall.

Marco Rubio blasts Trump for hiring illegal immigrants to build his hotels. He calls Trump a “con man.”

Ted Cruz accuses Trump of hiring foreign workers over American workers to work in his “world-class companies.”

Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney challenges Trump to release his tax returns.

Lindsey Graham says his party has gone “bats*** crazy” by backing Trump.

It reminds me a bit of the 1988 Democratic primary campaign when Sen. Al Gore of Tennessee introduced the “Willie Horton” issue to voters, reminding them of how Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis signed off on a furlough for a prison inmate who then went on a crime rampage. Republicans seized on that theme and beat Dukakis senseless with it during the fall campaign that year.

And so it goes.

Nothing about this campaign makes conventional sense.

It might be that all this piling on only will strengthen the Republican frontrunner.

It’s making me crazy, y’all.

 

Campaign hits fever pitch … so very early

aptopix-gop-2016-trump

As we political junkies seek to make sense of that Republican presidential debate bloodbath, I’m trying to grasp the feverishness with which the media are covering this event and its immediate aftermath.

All the mainstream cable news network political reporters are frothing at the mouth over New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s endorsement of Donald J. Trump.

They’re trying to determine how U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio can ride whatever momentum he gained from the Houston dog-and-pony show with his four GOP debate mates.

Some of them were actually aghast at how Trump and Christie “tag teamed” their attacks on Rubio. Indeed, I was utterly flabbergasted as I listened to Trump ridicule Rubio in such a juvenile manner. Listen to this Republican presidential campaign frontrunner try to string sentences together.

Trump is so astonishingly inarticulate that it utterly boggles my mind how in the world we’ve come to this point in this presidential nominating process.

Others were wondering: Whatever happened to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who figures to do well in the Texas primary coming up Tuesday?

Oh yeah, no one’s talking  today about Ohio Gov. John Kasich or Dr. Ben Carson.

I guess my wonderment lies in how it’s gotten to this pitch so early in what I thought was supposed to be a marathon.

Is this what we’re going to get from now until the nominating conventions adjourn this summer? Or will this white-hot coverage continue until the election this November?

Man, oh man. I don’t know if I have the stamina to keep up with it. I might have tune this out — if only long enough to catch my breath.

And hold on to my sanity.

 

Still prefer a debate without crowd noise

GOP debate

The GOP Five are still debating on that Houston stage as I write this.

I am taking a moment to lament the circus atmosphere that these joint appearances have taken on.

Hillary and Bernie play for the same applause lines as Democrats.

Tonight, the Republican presidential candidates are engaging in a multi-pronged insult exchange aimed at bringing out the loudest cheers, hoots, shouts possible.

I wish we could return to the way it was done when these televised presidential debates first came into being.

In 1960, two men — U.S. Sen. John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon — talked to each other about the issues of the day. A moderator sat in front of them. There was no crowd noise.

The upshot of it? We remember the substance of the debates those two men had. We also remember some of the “optics,” such as at the first debate when Sen. Kennedy appeared robust and Vice President Nixon appeared to have pulled himself out of a sick bed.

The crowd noise is a distraction and it provokes the kinds of exchanges we’re hearing tonight.

 

Political bloodbath on tap?

rs-trump-cruz

Five men are set to stand on a debate stage tonight in Houston.

Two of them are likely to unsheathe the long knives to use on each other.

A third man, the frontrunner, also is going to be a target.

Candidates No. 4 and 5?  I just hope they get to get a word in edge-wise.

Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio want to elbow each other out of the way to become the Republican Party “establishment” alternative to Donald J. Trump. For Cruz, the Houston debate has been called his “last stand,” or kind of an Alamo reference.

Rubio faces other obstacles, with polls showing him trailing Trump in his home state of Florida.

I continue to root for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who’s the fourth-place candidate — but the one who exhibits the most executive and legislative government experience. He’s a grownup, but in this election cycle, political adulthood isn’t seen as a plus. Too bad.

The fifth man on the stage? I sense that this likely will be Dr. Ben Carson’s last bow on the national political stage.

So, let’s watch the debate tonight and see how much “blood” gets spilled.

My sense is that it’s going to be a serious spectator-friendly event.

 

Timing determines ‘lame duck’ status

lame-duck

I’ve noted before the importance of timing.

Perhaps it might have something — or everything — to do with the kerfuffle that’s consumed Washington, D.C., over President Obama’s upcoming attempt to fill a critical vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death created a political earthquake within minutes of the announcement that he had succumbed at a West Texas ranch. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, master of proper decorum that he is, declared about an hour later that the Senate would block any nominee that Obama would present for confirmation.

Other Republicans, namely the candidates for president, called Obama a “lame duck” and said the task of filling the vacancy belongs to the next president — who he or she is.

A reader of this blog commented on an earlier post that the president really isn’t a lame duck. He didn’t lose re-election in 2012, the commenter noted. Given that he won, he implied, the president is entitled to fulfill all the duties granted to his office by the U.S. Constitution.

Which brings up a question: Would we be waging this political fire fight had Justice Scalia died during the first year of President Obama’s second — and final — term rather than in the final year?

Surely the president’s foes wouldn’t suggest in early 2013 that filling a critical vacancy on the court — the next pick, after all, is likely to change the philosophical balance — should belong to the next president. The court would be short a justice for the next three years … maybe longer.

As it stands now, if McConnell and Gang succeed in blocking the president’s choice for the high court, the Supreme Court could be short a member until next summer. The court adjourns in June and won’t resume its duties until October 2017.

Hey, what difference does it make, correct? So what if the narrowly conservative court is short a member for the next 18 months?

McConnell showed his hand very early during Barack Obama’s time as president. He vowed to make Obama a “one-term president.” That, he said, would be his top priority as then-minority leader.

He failed to accomplish that mission, so he’s settling for the next-best thing by denying the president the opportunity to ensure the nation’s highest judicial panel remains whole.

Timing. Sometimes it really stinks.

Popular culture overwhelms public policy

Donald-Trump_3372655b

A friend and I were visiting at Amarillo College earlier this week.

I was there to talk to a journalism class about trends in modern journalism and politics. My friend broached the subject of Donald J. Trump’s astounding success in the Republican Party presidential primary.

He calls himself a “conservative,” and then offered this piece of wisdom: It is that we are now witnessing a campaign in which popular culture is determining which candidate might become the nominee of a major political party.

It’s celebrity worship, my friend said. Voters have become smitten with the idea that a pop culture icon actually can become president, he said.

Does this explain the allure that Trump has cast over a Republican primary electorate? I believe my pal is onto something.

Other friends of mine who actually support Trump keep harping on his willingness to “tell it like it is.” They are swept away by his tossing aside what they call “political correctness.” They just love how he is able to say what he wants, when he wants and to whom he wants.

Is this what where we’ve arrived? Are some Americans actually willing to throw their support behind a candidate who demonstrates zero understanding of how government actually works? They’re willing to line up behind someone who believes insulting his opponents passes for legitimate political debate? They are actually going to vote for an individual who sounds very much like someone who believes he is bigger and more important than the office he seeks to occupy?

Popular culture has its place. I grew up during a turbulent time in this country where we all witnessed massive changes in the country’s popular culture. Remember when dead-pan comedian Pat Paulson ran for president — as a joke?

Well, these days we have a bombastic carnival barker seeking to become the head of state of the greatest nation in world history. Forget the crap about how he wants to “make America great again.” We’re still the greatest nation on Earth and his assertion we are not denigrates all the public servants — military and civilian — who pledge to defend us.

Several of the candidates for president keep saying how frightened they have become since Barack Obama became president more than seven years ago.

They’ve persuaded many Americans to join them in that fear.

Other Americans — such as myself — worry what might happen if this election produces the worst result possible.

That would be the election of Donald J. Trump.

I will maintain my hope that reason and rational thinking will overtake this infatuation with popular culture.