Category Archives: political news

Palin endorsement of Trump gets roasted

untitled

There’s little I can add to this brutal roasting of Sarah Palin’s endorsement speech for Donald J. Trump.

The writer unloads on Palin and Trump.

The Guardian is a British newspaper. The link near the bottom of this post came to me from a friend in Australia. My friend and I share political observations of each other’s home countries. I must admit that he is much more dialed in to the U.S. political scene than I am to what’s happening politically in Australia.

If you’re a fan and/or an admirer of Sarah Palin, you might not want to read the essay.

However, if you believe — as I do — that the former half-term Alaska governor has become a cartoon character, well, you might get a laugh or two out of this piece.

Reader discretion is advised: It’s full of some pretty nasty invective.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/20/sarah-palin-donald-trump-endorsement-speech-quotes

I really was hoping Palin would have disappeared by now.

 

Palin politicizes PTSD . . . and her family’s latest crisis

Sarah-Palin

There must be no barriers that will keep Sarah Palin from politicizing an event, including those that involve her family.

Palin’s son, Track, has been charged with assault. The incident allegedly involved the young man’s girlfriend and an AR-15 rifle.

Mama Grizzly’s response? She blamed President Obama for her son’s post traumatic stress disorder and his policies regarding care for veterans.

Unbelievable!

The former half-term Alaska governor happened to be at Republican presidential campaign frontrunner Donald Trump’s side Tuesday in Iowa, shrieking about how Trump was going to “kick ISIS’s ass!” while her son was being arrested and booked into jail in Wasilla, Alaska.

So she blamed the president of the United States for her son’s bad behavior.

This isn’t the first time Track Palin’s gotten into trouble because of his behavior. Recall the brawl in which he was involved in Anchorage, the one that also involved his sister, Bristol?

It might be that Track Palin suffers PTSD from his service in Iraq with an Army combat unit in 2008. If so, then he needs — and deserves — the best medical care he can find.

However, for his mother to politicize his ailment and to suggest that it’s another politician’s fault because the young man cannot control his temper goes shamefully beyond the pale.

Meanwhile, a New York veterans group has urged Sarah Palin and others to knock off the political criticism. Focus instead on the problems associated with PTSD.

As for Sarah Palin . . . your son needs help. He doesn’t need to be kicked around as a political football.

What if . . . Clinton loses first two contests?

biden

All right, ladies and gentlemen, it’s time once again for a little game of “What If?”

The Iowa caucuses are coming up. They’ll be followed immediately by the New Hampshire primary.

Forget about the Republicans for a moment. Let’s ponder the Democratic contest.

What if Hillary Rodham Clinton gets thumped in Iowa? She’s leading in that state — supposedly — but the margin is diminishing. Bernie Sanders might be within the statistical margin of error.

If she loses Iowa, then what if she gets pummeled in New Hampshire? Polls in the Granite State show Sanders with a huge — and growing — lead.

OK, then comes South Carolina. What if by some chance Clinton loses there, too? Momentum has a way of dictating how these things go. The e-mail controversy is beginning to swirl once again.

Clinton once was seen as the probable next president. Now? Well, she’s less probable by a good bit than before.

Are the Democrats going to nominate a “democratic socialist” who’ll turn 75 by the time of the next inaugural? Do they really want to fritter away a chance at keeping the White House in an election when the GOP is likely to nominate either a bombastic real estate mogul/reality TV star or a junior U.S. senator from Texas who no one who works with him seems to respect, let alone like?

Oh, yes. There’s another guy. The vice president of the United States, took himself out of the running. Joe Biden said he had “run out of time,” only to declare just a few days ago that he “regrets” not running, even though he said the decision was the “right one.”

Regret making the right decision?

Hmmm. Sounds to me as though regret might override right, if the once-presumed frontrunner keeps stumbling.

This election season has been full of craziness. Who’s the say there isn’t room for a little more of it?

 

Loyalty? Palin throws it away

Former Gov. of Alaska Sarah Palin speaks during the Faith and Freedom Coalition Road to Majority 2013 conference, Saturday, June 15, 2013, in Washington. Religious conservatives have been skeptical of the Republican National Committee's plan for growth, which calls for more tolerant attitudes on immigration and social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage. Palin, the conference's final speaker, rejected calls for an immigration overhaul, that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally.  (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Well, that was fun to watch.

Former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed Donald J. Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. She is the queen mother of the TEA Party movement.

The conventional wisdom had been that she’d endorse Ted Cruz for the GOP nomination.

It didn’t happen.

So now  you have to wonder: Has Palin changed her stripes?

TEA Party loyalists — the hard-core folks — call Trump a closet liberal. He’s not the real deal, they say. He used to be friends with (gulp!) Bill and Hillary Clinton, for crying out loud. He’s given money to Democrats.

But then out came Sarah Barracuda today, talking glowingly about Trump.

As for Cruz, he’s now the man left in the cold.

Cruz welcomed Palin to a conservative action conference a year ago, calling her someone who “picks winners.” He called her “principled” and “courageous.”

Is she now all of those things, in Cruz’s mind? I’d bet not.

I never thought the Republican Party primary campaign could get any more fun — or hilarious — than it has been up to this moment.

Silly me. It just did.

 

We’re all sinners . . . and need forgiveness

donald

Donald Trump’s stumbling over the name of a New Testament book Monday seems to punctuate something many of us believed already.

The candidate’s bald-face pandering to a certain Republican Party voting bloc is unseemly on its face.

Trump stood before a “record crowd” at Liberty University and proclaimed the virtues of “Two Corinthians.”

OK, I am not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know the name of the book that contains the Apostle Paul’s “second letter” to the people of Corinth. Moreover, I’ve read “Second Corinthians” many times over the years.

Trump, though, has said something else that reveals the pandering element of his pitch to Christian voters. It is that he’s never sought forgiveness because “I don’t need it.”

Trump  didn’t say it overtly, but statements such as that suggest he believes he is without sin. Now, the Bible I’ve read my entire life tells me that we’re all sinners. Every single human being who’s ever been born needs forgiveness for his or her sins.

I don’t intend to pick apart every single thing Trump said at Liberty University, nor do I intend to question Trump’s personal faith journey. Maybe it’s the real thing. Then again . . . well, I just don’t know.

I do recognize pandering when I see and hear it.

Look, I know that politicians pander. It’s part of their DNA. They have to pander to persuade voters that they — the politician — understands them.

Some politicians do it better than others. Trump has said all along he’s not a “career politician.” His performance at Liberty University certainly proves the point — and not necessarily in a way that should make the candidate proud.

Check this out.

 

Don’t be overly ‘audacious,’ Mr. President

obama_exec_order_020_16x9

President Obama hardly seems like an “audacious” fellow.

Remember the “No Drama Obama” mantra during his first term in the White House? That was meant to describe a president who disliked being overly aggressive in the pursuit of foreign or domestic policy.

I guess that’s about to change now that the president is entering his final year in office.

He wants to ponder “audacious” executive actions, things he can do unilaterally without the approval of Congress.

Presidential prerogative is an important element of governing. I’ve long believed in it, given that the president is elected nationally.

Barack Obama has used the power of his office — granted by the U.S. Constitution — relatively sparingly during his seven years in the White House. However, some of the orders he’s issued — such as those on immigration and on gun control — have caused considerable consternation.

Are they illegal? Is he “lawless,” as some Republican presidential candidates keep alleging as they toss out the red meat to their supporters from the stump? No on both counts, in my view.

But the president’s “audacious” use of executive authority clearly must have its limits.

I will continue to have a large measure of faith that the legal eagles in the Justice Department and in the White House’s West Wing know the limits set forth in the Constitution. What’s more, the president keeps reminding us that he taught constitutional law once.

So, if Congress isn’t going to help govern the country along with the White House, proceed, Mr. President.

But please, young man, be careful.

 

UK leaders want to ban Trump?

Republican presidential candidate, businessman Donald Trump, speaks during a rally coinciding with Pearl Harbor Day at Patriots Point aboard the aircraft carrier USS Yorktown in Mt. Pleasant, S.C., Monday, Dec. 7, 2015. (AP Photo/Mic Smith)

Donald Trump has insulted his way to the top of the Republican Party presidential heap.

Suffice to say that if British Parliament members had a vote in this country, why, they would do all they could to keep anyone from endorsing Trump.

The House of Commons today debated whether to ban Trump from entering the United Kingdom. It’s all in the wake of Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the United States, as well as plenty of other things Trump has said along the presidential campaign trail.

To be honest, I don’t think that Parliament needs to debate this issue. Indeed, the decision rests ultimately with the British home secretary.

Still, we’ve heard a snootful from the Brits about Trump.

It ain’t pretty.

Trump doesn’t care who he insults. He should, at least in this case.

Great Britain is arguably our most loyal ally on the planet. Sure, we shook off the bonds of the British Empire in the 18th century and then fought them again in the early 19th century. Since then? We have been side by side through two world wars, the Cold War and now in the war against international terrorism.

What on Earth could be transpiring here if the Brits were to actually ban someone from entering their country if that certain someone happened to be elected president of the United States of America?

I’m not predicting either event will occur: Trump’s election and the home secretary’s decision to ban him from entering his country.

But members of the British Parliament have delivered a stunning rebuke of a guy who wants to become the next “leader of the Free World.”

Does he care? Again . . . he’d better.

 

Hillary says she’ll ask for Bill’s advice . . . duh?

hillary clinton

This might qualify is a dumb question.

It came Sunday night during the Democratic Party presidential debate and the questioner wondered whether Hillary Rodham Clinton would seek the advice of the 42nd president of the United States.

Wow! Do you think?

Why wouldn’t she? Bill Clinton left office in January 2001 with a 65 percent approval rating, and that was after he’d been impeached by the House of Representatives.

I totally understand that the former president had, um, some issues relating to a certain White House intern. I’m also aware of the official reason for the impeachment, that he committed perjury to a federal grand jury that asked him directly about the relationship.

But let’s get real here. Bill Clinton’s presidency was a rousing success. Was it totally free of tragedy? Of course not.

However, if the former first lady/U.S. senator/secretary of state is elected this November as the nation’s 45th president, she’d be stupid beyond belief not to enlist the advice of her husband.

Bill Clinton presided over eight years of superb economic growth in this country. The president — with support from Congress — managed to balance the federal budget and left office with the budget operating in the black for the first time since seemingly forever.

Is the former president’s advice worth obtaining?

Yeah, I kind of think so.

 

GOP contest is a two-man match race

rs-trump-cruz

Will Rahn, writing for the Daily Beast, has concluded that the Republican Party presidential primary campaign has settled into a two-man race.

It happens to comprise perhaps the two unlikeliest candidates of the field . . . but there’s a third highly unlikely guy out there who’s been left in the dust.

Donald J. Trump vs. Ted Cruz.

That’s who the GOP has left to decide in this primary battle, Rahn writes.

A part of me is saddened  by that possibility. Another part of me wonders if either Trump or Cruz really and truly can defeat whomever the Democrats nominate.

It’s looking a bit dicier at this moment for one-time prohibitive Democratic favorite Hillary Rodham Clinton. She once was thought to be invincible. No longer.

Still, I am trying to grasp the notion of either Trump or Cruz being able to defeat Clinton in a national election. I cannot get there.

Both men represent the so-called “outsider” wing of the party, even though Cruz has been a member of the U.S. Senate since January 2013; I guess that means he isn’t an entrenched member of Congress.

The once-enormous GOP field had a number of highly qualified individuals seeking the presidential nomination. My favorites, if you consider their skill and experience, were John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie and Rand Paul. They remain my personal favorites.

Then we had Ben Carson, the retired pediatric neurosurgeon seeking election to the only public office he’s ever sought. He isn’t qualified and that’s all I intend to say about that.

The rest of the field? I’ll just shrug.

We’re going to be left with Trump and Cruz fighting it out to the end, says the Daily Beast writer.

It appears to me at least that the Republican Party is morphing into a political organization that some truly great Americans — Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater — wouldn’t recognize.

 

 

What’s with this ‘national poll’?

polls

More often than not I’m going to look carefully at public opinion poll results.

In this election season, we’re being inundated with them. Republican-leaning polls say one thing; Democratic-leaning polls say another. I prefer to look most closely at polls unaffiliated with either party, or certain ideological think tanks, or media outlets I know to have bias in either direction.

But one recent poll has me wondering: Is this one even relevant to anything?

Hillary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders by 25 percentage points nationally, according to a poll released by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

The relevancy issue?

Well, consider a couple of things.

They’re both running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, which means that they’re not going to face each other in a national election. Therefore, they are battling state by state: Iowa, then New Hampshire, then South Carolina . . . and on it goes.

They’ll get to Texas in early March.

Therefore, whether Clinton beats Sanders by a single percent or a million percent in a national poll doesn’t matter one bit.

How are they faring in each state?

The poll does compare the candidates’ chances against a potential Republican nominee and it shows Clinton faring better against the GOP foe than Sanders.

That’s relevant, I guess.

However, these polls pitting one candidate against the other running in the same party primary simply doesn’t register with me.