Category Archives: political news

‘Good government’ is about to take some time off

I consider myself to be a “good government progressive.”

Government should do the most good possible but it takes individuals on both sides of the political aisle to make it work as I believe our nation’s founders intended.

So … having laid that out, I fear we are about to enter an era of “no government” action aimed at helping Americans.

Impeachment now is clouding it all in Washington, D.C. Donald Trump is enraged at Democrats who want to impeach him for violating his oath of office. He says a phone conversation he had with the Ukrainian president was “perfect,” even though he asked his counterpart for foreign government assistance in getting re-elected and in digging up dirt on a potential 2020 opponent, Joe Biden.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has launched an “impeachment inquiry.” Trump is spending his days now firing off Twitter tirades and tantrums at his foes.

What does all this do for the cause of good government? It throws it into the crapper.

Democrats are enraged at Trump, too. The president, who doesn’t work well with Democrats under the best of circumstances, isn’t likely to work with them on anything now that House Democrats appear intent on seeking his ouster from office.

So, we’re going to pay our lawmakers a six-figure salary ostensibly to enact legislation, cast votes and send bills to the Oval Office for the president’s signature.

Except that none of that is likely to happen as House Democrats and Donald Trump play political chicken with each other.

Therefore, good government will vanish for the foreseeable future.

On the hunt for Trump supporter

GOLDEN, British Columbia — I received a grim prediction from a resident of Vancouver, B.C.: My hunt for a Canadian who supports Donald J. Trump is likely to prove futile.

No worries. I intend to keep looking for that individual.

My acquaintance, a retired biochemist who is on his way to Regina, Saskatchewan to see family members, told me that Trump supporters in this country are a scarce commodity.

What is this gentleman’s view of the president of the United States?

“He is too unpredictable,” he said. “He just doesn’t act presidential,” he continued. “We expect more, I guess, from the president of the United States.”

Does that sound familiar? Sure it does. We might have this lengthy divide between our two countries, but we do share the same massive — and magnificent — continent. Most Americans and Canadians appear to be of like minds regarding the president, according to the gentleman.

What’s more, this fellow we met told us a quick story about his father. “My dad happens to be an American,” he said. My new friend explained that when Trump was running for president in 2016, his father — who he described as a “right wing thinking” sort of fellow — was all for Trump. “He just thought Trump was going to ‘make America great again,’ and all that kind of thing,” he friend said.

His father’s view now?

“Dad has changed his mind,” he said.

My acquaintance didn’t say it directly, but his slight chuckle while discussing Donald Trump seems to reveal a view my cousin revealed to me about a Canadian friend of his. Canadians are laughing at us Americans. OK, I get it. Except that none of this man’s tenure in office is funny.

So, the hunt goes on.

I hope the retired biochemist is mistaken. I am going to keep searching for a pro-Trump Canadian.

Y’all will be among the first to know if I find that person.

Just who can slug it out with Donald Trump?

It is now a given. Donald J. Trump will conduct a mean, unorthodox and vile campaign for re-election as president of the United States.

The question facing Democrats as they look over their still quite large field of presidential candidates is: Who among them is willing and able to stand up to the onslaught that Trump will hurl at them?

I have my doubts about all of ’em.

I believe it is becoming clearer by the week, if not daily, that this campaign is going to rest between Trump and one of four, maybe five, Democratic contenders.

Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie (gulp!) Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and (maybe) Beto O’Rourke stand at the top of candidates who I think will stay the course beyond the first caucuses and primaries. If only Kamala Harris could shake the race up just a bit more.

It might be that someone will emerge as the gut fighter the Democrats will need if they have a chance of defeating the carnival barker in chief. Remember when former first lady Michelle Obama implored Democrats to “go high” when Republicans “go low”? We can kiss that mantra good bye, or so it appears to me at this moment.

Trump is a street fighter. The hideousness he displayed while beating Hillary Clinton in 2016 might resemble a hen party by the time he gets ramped up against whomever the Democratic Party nominates next summer to run against him.

I will lay this out right now, as if it’s a big surprise … which it isn’t. Any of the Democrats now in the field — with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders — would have my vote against Trump in November 2020. Why not possibly Bernie? Because his mantra about wealth inequality is becoming like a one-note samba.

Donald Trump never should have gotten elected in 2016. The Democrats’ major error was in nominating someone who had at least as many negatives going for her as Trump. I know what you might be thinking: Sure, you can say that now, even though you were predicting a big win for Hillary the last time. Well, I wasn’t alone.

I guess the task now for the field of Democratic challengers is for someone among them to emerge as the toughest of the bunch to handle the nastiness that is sure to come from the president.

I just wish someone could stake that claim.

GOP ‘canceling’ elections in effort to ‘rig’ POTUS’s re-election?

I am sure you remember when Republican Party presidential nominee Donald J. Trump accused Democrats of trying to “rig” the 2016 party nomination process to favor of Hillary Clinton.

He never really offered any scenario on how that would be done, but he kept yammering and yapping about it.

Well, the GOP now has a strategy to “rig” its nominating process to favor Trump’s effort to be nominated by his party in 2020. They’re planning to cancel primary elections in various states in an effort to protect a weakened incumbent.

Trump faces possibly three party challengers, former U.S. Reps. Mark Sanford and Joe Walsh and former Gov. William Weld. States party organizations are seeking ways to cancel the primary elections because they fear a possible Trump loss in any upcoming GOP primary.

Is it “rigged”?

I know this isn’t exactly unprecedented. Democrats have done the same thing in recent election cycles, such as what happened in South Carolina in 2012 when President Obama sought re-election; the South Carolina Democratic Party canceled that state’s primary eight years ago. One thing, though: No Democrats rose to challenge the president.

This one seems a bit different, given the expressed interest among three Republican politicians in challenging an incumbent GOP president.

Yep. It looks like they’re “rigging” the outcome.

Was the 2016 election ‘rigged,’ Mr. POTUS?

Mr. President, I lost count of the number of times you said that the 2016 election would be “rigged” if Hillary Rodham Clinton were to win the presidency.

I remember how it became a sort of campaign stump speech mantra. You kept hammering away at what you said would be a “rigged” result stemming from what you said were “Crooked Hillary’s” instincts. I recall how you said the Democratic Party rigged its nomination outcome to ensure Clinton would carry the party banner against you over Bernie Sanders.

Well, your victory surprised a lot of us, Mr. President.

But then came the reports of Russian hackers interfering in our electoral system. I accept that Robert Mueller’s investigation said you and your campaign didn’t conspire to collude with the Russians.

However, his insistence that the Russian interfered on your behalf brings to mind the question: Was the 2016 election “rigged” to benefit you, Mr. President, over your opponent?

You have kept so very quiet about that aspect of the election. I know you have stood by your pal Vladimir Putin’s denial that he interfered in our electoral process. I also know how you’ve undercut the nation’s intelligence network that says categorically that the Russians interfered in our election.

I once thought out loud that the Russian attack didn’t have a discernible impact on the election result. I have changed my mind.

Impeachment without conviction: a non-starter

The idea of impeaching Donald John Trump with next to zero hope of obtaining a conviction is to my mind the classic recipe for a non-starter.

That appears to be the calculation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made in her reluctance to launch impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States.

I happen to agree with the notion that an impeachment by itself will do nothing constructive for those who believe as many of us do: that they want Donald Trump removed from office. Impeachment is the easy part. Democrats need a simple majority to impeach the president. Conviction is different. Republicans control the Senate, which would need 67 votes to convict the president. Will that happen? Hardly.

The daylong testimony by former special counsel Robert Mueller this week was seen as the “aha” moment for congressional Democrats. It wasn’t. Mueller stuck to his script. He said he wouldn’t speak beyond what his lengthy report concluded about Trump and he was generally faithful to that pledge.

Mueller’s report concluded that his 22-month probe produced insufficient evidence to charge Trump with conspiring to collude with Russian election hackers; nor was he able to indict the president on obstruction of justice, following Office of Legal Counsel rules and guidelines.

Despite all that, Mueller laid it out there: Trump likely committed a crime. That has gotten Democrats slathering over the prospect of impeaching him.

Hold on! What is the point of impeaching the president if the Senate won’t convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors and thus, remove him from office?

I am now believing more strongly than ever — and it pains me to say this — that impeachment is off the table. The only path left is for Trump’s opponents to focus solely on the crimes he committed as a candidate for the office and as president and use the knowledge they have obtained to pound Trump senseless on the 2020 presidential campaign trail.

I wish there was a way to remove the president before the election. I don’t see it developing. The man sickens me at a deeply visceral level. I want him gone. I had hoped that Robert Mueller would have changed minds, that he could have gotten those obsequious Republicans to move off their fawning fealty for Donald Trump.

It ain’t gonna happen.

The time is coming for Democrats to prepare instead for a presidential campaign for the ages.

Boycotts prove to be a counterproductive statement

I’ll get this off my chest right off the top.

I hate boycotts of businesses because their ownership happens to adhere to a certain political point of view or supports a certain political officeholder.

Home Depot is the latest mega-business to feel the sting of boycott. Its owner and founder, Bernie Marcus, happens to support Donald J. Trump’s re-election in 2020; he is pledging lots of money to assist in that effort.

Social media have exploded over this development. Social media users are seeking to boycott the company because Home Depot just cannot possibly be allowed to support and endorse Trump.

Good grief, man!

Why do I hate boycotts? They inflict too much collateral damage on individuals and families who get caught in the crossfire.

Now, do I endorse Home Depot’s corporate view in support of Trump? Of course not! But that’s not the point here. My intense refusal to take part in such an activity is because I would be taking money away from the store employees who might share the view of their corporate ownership.

Why punish the store clerk, or the warehouse personnel, or the drivers, or service technicians, or the installers? For all any of us knows, they might be on our side in this dispute, but draw a paycheck from someone on the other side.

I would be inclined to join a boycott only if the store clerk demanded I give money to a political campaign or preached to me about the virtues of a candidate or an officeholder with whom I have strong disagreements.

Anything short of that? It’s a meaningless gesture.

2020 election really might be the ‘most important in our lifetime’

Every presidential election cycle we hear the same thing: This is going to be the “most important election in our lifetime.”

The candidates say it. Their handlers say it. Many in the media say it.

The election — no matter the context, the backdrop or the candidates — is the “most important” election we’ll see for as long as we live.

You know what? The 2020 election really and truly might be that election. It truly might tell us plenty about ourselves, how much we can tolerate in our political leaders and whether the 2016’s result was much of a fluke as many of us — such as me — believe it was.

Donald Trump’s re-election campaign essentially began the day after he was inaugurated. If not on the day itself!

He has been campaigning basically since the moment he stepped off the podium in front of the Capitol Building.

Why do I attach such significance to this election coming up? Because in my estimation Donald John Trump had no business winning the Republican Party nomination in 2016, let alone winning the election over a supremely more qualified opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Yes, Hillary Clinton had plenty of negatives. She might not have been the best-suited candidate to oppose Trump, but she at least knows how government works; Trump knows not a damn thing.

He has been lying and misrepresenting almost every aspect of his presidency, starting with the way he has characterized his election. Trump got elected by one of the narrowest margins possible; he lost the actual vote by nearly 3 million ballots but squeaked by with enough Electoral College votes to win the White House. Yes, he won it legally, but it was far from the historic landslide he has portrayed it.

The 2020 election well could be a referendum on a return to what the late Sen. John McCain used to refer to as “regular order.” Trump has upset that order at almost every level imaginable. I am one American who prefers that our president knows government, understands the Constitution and is able to forge relationships — if not friendships — with politicians with whom he has disagreements.

I believe the country can withstand four more years of Trump, but the price would be enormous.

The 2020 election can stem that huge cost. Therefore, this upcoming election could actually be the most important in our lifetime.

‘Midnight Cowboy’ is wrong about Trump

I need to get something off my chest.

I truly admire Jon Voight’s work as an actor. He is a brilliant performer who can portray a male prostitute in “Midnight Cowboy” and President Franklin Roosevelt in “Pearl Harbor.”

However, he is mistaken in saying that Donald Trump is the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln.

What is this fellow seeing that others — such as yours truly — are missing?

Voight posted a two-part video to extol the virtues of Donald Trump. It includes this statement, according to CNN: “This job is not easy, for he’s battling the left and their absurd words of destruction,” Voight, 80, said. “Our nation has been built on the solid ground from our forefathers, and there is a moral code of duty that has been passed on from President Lincoln.”

A “moral code of duty”? Voight seems to believe that Trump follows a “moral code” in the conduct of his office. My . . . goodness!

I’ve never detected any form of “moral code” to which the president is faithful. The only “code” he appears to follow stems from whatever is in his best interest, whatever serves his brand, whatever boosts his poll numbers.

Don’t misunderstand me. I will continue to watch Voight’s work. I am able to separate his politics from his art. Indeed, I don’t watch films in which Jon Voight appears because or in spite of his political persuasion. I watch his films because he’s a marvelous actor.

I do not hold his political views against him, any more than I hold Clint Eastwood’s right-leaning politics against him, or the politics of, say, the late John Wayne or the late Charlton Heston against them.

As much as I admire Jon Voight’s work as an actor, I just believe — contrary to his view — that Donald Trump is going to rank as one of the worst presidents in our nation’s history. At almost every level this guy has managed to shred the presidency’s time-honored institutions.

I happen to believe in decorum and dignity in the office. How in the world can anyone — even an early supporter of Trump such as Jon Voight — believe he has conducted himself with any semblance of dignity while protecting the decorum associated with his high office?

There. I feel better now. I don’t want anyone to believe that I won’t spend money on a Jon Voight movie in the future. I just don’t consider his views of Donald Trump to be anywhere near the truth.

Beto’s early burst needs a boost

Beto O’Rourke burst on the national public political stage with a near-miss loss to a Republican U.S. senator in Texas in 2018.

Then the former El Paso congressman launched his presidential campaign and hearts started fluttering beyond Texas’s state line. He raised a lot of money in the first 24 hours of his 2020 presidential candidacy.

But then . . . O’Rourke plateaued. Other Democrats — and there are a lot of ’em out there — began stealing Beto’s thunder. They spoke in many more specifics than O’Rourke has offered.

So now, according to the Texas Tribune, O’Rourke is now finding himself looking for a bit of a reset. He is settling in for the long haul. The Tribune reports that O’Rourke is still campaigning “aggressively,” but he’s now just one among a large field of politicians who want to become the next president of the United States.

Yep. It’s going to be a long one, no matter how O’Rourke finishes this campaign.

The RealClearPolitics poll average has former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. as the runaway frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination. Biden stands at 41 percent among all the announced candidates; Sen. Bernie Sanders is next at something like 16 percent. Beto stands at 4 percent, according to the RCP poll average.

It’s way too early to write Beto off, just as it way too early to anoint Joe Biden as the next Democratic Party presidential nominee.

I guess O’Rourke’s recent struggles tell us about the fickle nature of the voting public and offer an example of how a candidate cannot rely solely on a prior campaign . . . that he lost!