Category Archives: political news

Trump now challenges the speaker of the House

donald-trump-1a64c2eda04ee51d

House Speaker Paul Ryan today laid out an interesting challenge to the Republican Party’s leading presidential candidate.

He said Donald J. Trump needs to condemn the politics and policies of the Ku Klux Klan, which Trump has failed to do with anything resembling clarity. The Republican Party, said the GOP speaker, does not stand for bigotry, hatred and racism.

Trump’s response?

He said he doesn’t know the speaker but expects to get along with him once the two men get acquainted. If they don’t, said Trump, then Ryan could have some trouble.

Whoa!

Let’s hold on.

As MSNBC commentator Lawrence O’Donnell noted this evening, the speaker of the House of Representatives has far more power than the president of the United States. Thus, the GOP frontrunner needs to take care if he’s going to “threaten” the Man of the House.

Why? The House generates all tax legislation. Plus, as O’Donnell noted, speakers of the House have the ability to make life quite uncomfortable for presidents. Think of what the House did to President Nixon during the Watergate scandal; think also of what the House did to President Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. Nixon nearly got impeached; Clinton actually was impeached.

Donald Trump needs to learn to make nice. Then again, if he had any understanding of how government actually works, he would know better than to threaten the man who runs one half of a co-equal branch of government.

 

 

Still prefer to stand in long line to vote

NA-BT370_statep_G_20121102163931

We went to the polling place tonight.

We arrived at the place where we usually vote. The parking lot at Arden Road Baptist Church was full. We walked through the door and turned left down the hall, walking past a long, long line of Randall County residents.

We made another turn down another hall and took our place at the end of the line.

It took five minutes past an hour before we cast our ballots.

Man, it was fun!

I remain committed to voting on Election Day. I remain equally committed to the manner we do it in Texas. We have this open primary system. We all stand in the same line. We inch our way to the room with the voting booths. We declare which party we want to vote in. We cast our ballots. Then we leave.

We don’t register with political parties. We make our choice on Election Day — or least we declare our choice when we reach the end of the line.

There’s a certain pageantry to standing in long lines with other citizens seeking to exercise their rights as Americans. We chatted among ourselves, careful of course not to talk about partisan preferences. We joked with election judges who came out to remind us of the need to have our photo ID and voter registration cards handy.

Some states — such as my home state of Oregon — do all their voting by mail. That’s fine, too, I guess. It boosts turnout, which is the best outcome of that process.

However, I remain an old-fashioned kind of guy. There just remains a certain semblance of ceremony attached to going to the polling place, waiting in line, chatting up your neighbors and then doing your civic duty.

I love the process.

 

Legislators remain neutral in presidential race

democrat_republican

The Four Horsemen of the Texas Panhandle legislative delegation are keeping their political powder dry.

According to the Texas Tribune, none of the four has endorsed any of the seven remaining candidates for president of the United States.

Silly me. I said “seven,” even though only the five Republicans still standing are what matters, given this region’s heavy GOP bent.

State Sen. Kel Seliger of Amarillo is neutral, as are state Reps. Four Price and John Smithee of Amarillo, and state Rep. Ken King of Canadian.

It’s an interesting twist to see so many legislators lining up for candidates in both party primaries.

I’ve been of two minds on whether elected officials should make endorsements in party primaries. If they remain neutral, then they can say they “support” the winner without having to demonstrate it. There won’t be any hell to pay if they back the “wrong” candidate. Their vote, of course, remains a secret and if they don’t want to disclose who gets their vote, they aren’t obligated to tattle on themselves.

Then again, why not lead? Why not show us your allegiance to give us a clue as to how you believe the country should be run, in what direction it should travel?

I, of course, fully endorse the secret balloting that’s one of the hallmarks of our representative democracy.

If they don’t want to tell us who they support, that’s their business.

Not ours.

 

Get ready for the battering, Mr. Trump

720x405-GettyImages-481233084

There are times when my mind wanders into seriously weird flights of fancy imagination. This is one of those times.

Take the future of Donald J. Trump’s candidacy for president of the United States.

All the smart money today suggests that Trump’s Republican nomination campaign is going to take big leap forward once they count the ballots in the 12 Super Tuesday primary states.

The likely Democratic nominee figures to be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

We all know that the Clinton political machine is a formidable beast. It is well-funded, well-organized, well-tooled — and well-supplied with opposition research staffers who spend their waking hours digging up dirt on political foes.

Let’s play this out.

Suppose Trump captures the Republican nomination in Cleveland this summer and Clinton walks out of the Philly convention with her party’s nomination.

Then the battle will be joined.

Clinton’s public life has been pretty much an open book for, oh, the past 20-plus years, dating back to her husband’s first campaign for president. Trump’s public life? Not so much.

It figures to be opened gaping wide for all to see and hear.

The Republican Party hierarchy doesn’t trust Trump. They believe he’s a faux Republican. We’ve been exposed in Texas to a devastating 30-second TV ad that contains only Trump’s words in which he declares himself to be pro-choice on abortion, that he considers himself to be a Democrat, in favor of universal health care and in which he thinks Hillary Clinton is just a fantastic person.

On top of that, you need to watch a brilliant comedic put-down of Trump by John Oliver.

Here it is.

It’s long, but it’s hilarious. It also rings so very true.

And this kind of thing marks only the beginning of the evisceration that Trump will face if he secures the GOP presidential nomination.

Now let’s ponder another admittedly remotely possible outcome.

I cannot shake this very strange feeling that he really and truly doesn’t want to be exposed fully for the fraudulent circus-clown act that he is.

I’m going to wonder aloud now about whether Trump intends to take this fight all the way.

Just suppose this master of political theatrics does the unthinkable. He goes to the convention having taken all the battering that his so-called fellow Republicans have delivered.

Then he decides, “You know what? I don’t need this. I’m really wealthy. I have several beautiful homes. A gorgeous wife. I have all the creature comforts. I think I’ll just declare that I’m out. I’ll release my delegates. Maybe I’ll make an endorsement. And then I’ll go home.”

Wouldn’t it deliver the final blow to the GOP brass that has sought to take him down? He could toss the convention into utter chaos and leave it to that very same brass to figure out how to nominate a candidate. He could stick it straight into the party’s gut.

I cannot predict whether he’ll accrue enough delegates prior to the convention to secure the nomination. I also am not going to predict that the scenario I’ve just described actually will take place.

However, given the incredible twists, turns and gyrations this campaign that taken to date, nothing — not a single, solitary thing — would surprise me.

America is still great

hillary

Hillary Clinton might have punched the perfect campaign theme button when she declared victory in this past weekend’s South Carolina Democratic presidential primary.

She took dead aim at Donald J. Trump’s pledge to “make America great again.” The Republican primary frontrunner keeps asserting that the United States no longer is the greatest nation Earth, that it has ceded its greatness to trade rivals such as China and, get this, Mexico. He asserts that foreign governments no longer “fear” this country.

Clinton has a different view. It is that the United States “always has been great,” and she declared it to her fans while basking in the victory glow in South Carolina.

Indeed, the Trump message — depending on how you interpret it — can be seen as a supreme insult to the men and women who serve t protect us. It also insults the career diplomats, foreign service officers, domestic agency staffers and all the rest of those who serve within the public sector at the will of the American taxpayer.

Did I say “insult”? I almost forgot. That’s how Trump has endeared himself to those who claim to be Trumpsters.

I choose not to march to that cadence.

Trump’s fear-mongering, negativity and the message that borders on bigotry might play well among those who have swallowed the notion that we are in steep decline.

Others, though, should keep reminding us — just as Ronald Reagan did so eloquently while proclaiming it was “Morning in America” — that our nation’s best days are still to come.

That’s a big part of Hillary Clinton’s victory message.

There’s no need to “make America great again,” she said.

We’re still the greatest nation on the planet.

 

Mischief possible on Election Day?

Texas-calendar

Texas’ open primary system is going to be on display.

As it should.

The state’s election system provides opportunity for polling-station mischief. There might be some of it played out Tuesday, but in this wacky, unpredictable, topsy-turvy election season it would seem to be the diciest of propositions.

Texans aren’t “registered” with political parties. We go to the polls with unmarked voter registration cards. We choose which primary to cast ballots: Democrat or Republican. We can zig or zag our way to the polling station of our choice.

How does the mischief come into play? There could be those who are loyal to one party but who might venture into the other party’s polling place to vote the candidate they believe will be the weakest against the candidate of their choice.

Parties are able to muster up concerted efforts in that regard, although it’s at times difficult to prove.

In 2008, heavily Republican precincts in Texas saw a huge spike in Democratic primary voter activity as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battled for their party’s nomination. Clinton won the primary and it was whispered that a lot of Republicans crossed over to vote for her hoping Democrats would nominate her to run against Sen. John McCain in the fall.

Indeed, I spoke to several Republican friends who actually admitted to doing precisely that: voting for Clinton and hoping she would be nominated.

It didn’t work out that way; Obama got the Democratic nod and went on to thump McCain in the general election.

Can such a thing happen on Tuesday? I keep reading about Republican Party “establishment” honchos sweating bullets over the prospect of Donald J. Trump winning their party’s nomination. Might that spur some Democrats to cross over to vote for Trump hoping to push the reality TV celebrity and real estate mogul toward the GOP nomination?

In another time and era, perhaps that could be the case. This  year? Well, it might be a case of being “careful what you wish for” if such a conspiracy materializes across Texas. Democrats wanted Republicans to nominate Ronald Reagan in 1980 — and look how that turned out.

I’ve never been one to “waste” a vote by playing that game. I tend to cherish my vote as something that gives me pride. I’m not seeking to sound righteous. I’m just saying that in my humble view, game-playing with one’s vote cheapens this rite of citizenship.

Of course, I cannot possibly pretend to speak for others.

Let’s just see how it plays out.

 

Here’s a little info about David Duke, Mr. Trump

duke-firstdraftSUB-tmagArticle

David Duke once was a grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

You’ve heard of the KKK, right? They hate African-Americans, Asians, Latinos, non-Christians. They have burned crosses. They have killed people.

It’s an organization from which one cannot ever really escape, unless one does something demonstrable: such as disavow their previous association with the group; condemn its actions categorically.

David Duke — one-time Louisiana state legislator and gubernatorial candidate — hasn’t done that.

Duke, though, has endorsed Donald J. Trump’s platform on which he is standing as he runs for the Republican presidential nomination. He hasn’t endorsed Trump, per se. He just likes the things Trump is saying on the stump.

I’ll take a leap here to presume he means primarily the things Trump says about building a wall across our southern border and banning all Muslims from entering this country.

Trump, though, hasn’t distanced himself from the former grand wizard — Or is it grand dragon? I can’t keep those titles straight.

Instead, Trump says he doesn’t know anything about Duke.

Doesn’t know anything? Holy cow, man! He’s been in all the papers. Here’s how the New York Times reported it: “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with CNN. “I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists.”

Trump needs to get out more, maybe.

The NYT went on: “I think he deserves a close look by those who believe the era of political correctness needs to come to an end,” Mr. Duke said, calling for a leader who would secure the border and dismantle the “Jewish controlled” financial industry.

As the conservative radio talk-show host Mark Levin said in a tweet: “Is it really that hard to disavow” a known Klansman?

One more item from the Times: “I don’t know David Duke,” (Trump) said. “I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.”

Well, I’ve never met David Duke, either. Nor have millions of other Americans who detest the organization with which he is most closely associated.

 

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.