Category Archives: political news

Celebrity candidates for POTUS?

Donald Trump’s election as president of the United States has ushered in a new era in American politics.

It’s the Era of Celebrity Candidates.

The latest such celeb to rise to the top is none other than Oprah Winfrey, who brought ’em to their feet Sunday night at the Golden Globes award show. Her fellow entertainers are all agog at the prospect of Oprah running for president against the incumbent.

Indeed, Trump once told talk show host Larry King that Oprah Winfrey would be his ideal running mate. In 1999, Trump called Winfrey a “very special woman,” “really fantastic.” Do you think he’d say the same thing now? Don’t answer that.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2017/05/more-celebrities-set-to-run-for-potus-oh-please/

I’ve heard the names of other celebrities mentioned. The actor Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and singer and celebrity husband Kanye West to name just three. Doesn’t just make your heart start fluttering? Me, neither.

Trump’s election brought the country to a new threshold. It teaches us that anyone can be elected president. I mean, if someone with no understanding of government, or any interest in learning about it, or someone with the load of personal baggage that Trump packed around can get elected, then anyone can.

Has the president’s election in 2016 unleashed a horde of celebrities who want to follow his footsteps into the Oval Office.

I sincerely hope we can catch our breath long enough to ponder whether any such candidate has what it takes to do the most difficult job on Earth.

The current celebrity officeholder keeps demonstrating — at least to yours truly’s mind — that he is not up to the task.

Oprah in 2020? Umm, no thank you

Oprah Winfrey has just elevated herself into the discussion of possible presidential candidates for 2020.

I want to douse this notion with a tanker full of cold water.

Do not do this, Oprah!

The talk-show queen/billionaire businesswoman/partisan activist brought the house down Sunday night at the Golden Globe award ceremony. No more “me too!” she bellowed. Men who abuse women no longer will be tolerated, she exclaimed. Their time is up, she said.

Some pundits suggest that was the start of her campaign for president. I am presuming she would run as a Democrat.

Pleeeaase! No!

The United States of America already has elected someone with zero political experience. Donald Trump parlayed a successful real estate career into a successful reality TV show, when then led to his successful presidential campaign in 2016. He has spent his entire professional life for one purpose only: personal enrichment. He has succeeded. Trump then managed to persuade enough voters in battleground states that he was the man for the job.

Trump has demonstrated what we’ve all thought, which is that “anyone can be elected president.” I do not want just anyone to hold the nation’s highest, most exalted public office.

I am kind of old-fashioned in this regard. I want my president to take office with at least some semblance of government/public service experience. Trump had none of it. His lack of government experience — let alone knowledge of government– has been shown repeatedly during his first year in office.

What in the world does Oprah Winfrey bring to this discussion? Nothing of substance. Not a single thing.

She is an iconic figure to millions of Americans. Winfrey didn’t inherit any of her parents’ money to get started. She worked her way to uber-wealthy status on her own. She was abused as a girl. She came from poverty. Winfrey is a commendable celebrity.

However, she is a celebrity. Winfrey stands on a platform from which she can bring change. She is no more qualified than Donald J. Trump to become commander in chief, the head of state, head of government and leader of the Free World.

One more time: Don’t run for president, Oprah.

Perry, not Trump, set the tone for stiffing the media

Donald Trump likes to crow about how he uses Twitter to “talk directly” to Americans, avoiding the “filter” of the “fake news” mainstream media.

The president, it appears to me, would have us believe he has been a trendsetter in this regard.

I would beg to differ.

Trump is a bit late to this game of sticking it in the ear of the media. Rick Perry, the energy secretary, blazed that trail in 2010 while running for what turned out to be his final re-election campaign as Texas governor.

I wrote about it then:

https://highplainsblogger.com/2010/01/perry-skips-the-ed-board/

Perry, too, wanted to forgo talking to newspaper editorial boards while campaigning for governor. He stiffed us in the business. He didn’t even come to Amarillo, where I worked at the time as editorial page editor of the Globe-News. He might have earned our newspaper’s editorial endorsement against the man he faced in that year’s general election, former Houston Mayor Bill White; the paper had a policy at the time of declining to make endorsements in contested partisan primaries.

The governor decided to stay away during the primary campaign in which he faced former U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and then later in the general election.

I don’t recall him using Twitter at the time; indeed, I cannot even remember that particular social medium becoming the tool it has become in the past couple of years.

I wrote at the time of Perry’s decision to stiff the media that we didn’t “take it personally.” I might have to walk that back just a bit. In truth, we did take it as a mild insult. “Who does this guy, Perry, think he is?” we thought at the time.

It turned out to be a stroke of genius. The media had become the whipping child for conservative politicians. Perry became the spokesman for the Stiff the Media crowd.

Newspapers all across the state ended up endorsing Mayor White for governor. White talked to the Globe-News and made a strong case for his candidacy. So, the Globe-News — a longtime ally of Republican politicians — endorsed a Democrat for governor; I say “longtime ally” of GOP pols understanding that in 1994, the newspaper endorsed the late Democratic Gov. Ann Richards in her bid for re-election, which she lost to George W. Bush.

So … sit down, Donald Trump and stop implying that you’re hacking your way through some sort of political wilderness with your continual Twitter tirades. You aren’t the first to stick it to the media.

‘Fire and Fury’ heading for the nightstand book pile

Donald Trump has become Michael Woolff’s greatest promoter.

Trump, the president of the United States, calls a book by Woolff “fake” and “trash,” and he sought to block its publication.

The result? Sales of Woolff’s “Fire and Fury” account of the Trump campaign and presidency are exploding. They’re flying through the roof.

I plan this weekend to join the crowd I’m sure has lined up at Barnes & Noble right here in little ol’ Amarillo, Texas. I also hope they bought plenty of copies of the book.

I’m not not usually motivated to buy books on the basis of hysterical publicity. This publication has prompted me to respond instantly.

“Fire and Fury” was published four days earlier than planned. Why? The president’s furious response to remarks attributed to his former chief political strategist, Stephen Bannon, pushed the book to the shelves earlier than anticipated.

What is hilarious are the denials coming from Trump and his White House team. Think about this for a moment. The folks who are trashing this book are the same folks who, according to longtime GOP political operative Steve Schmidt:

  • Have questioned whether Barack Obama was born in the United States.
  • Said “millions of illegal immigrants” voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
  • Said that Trump’s voice on the “Access Hollywood” tape wasn’t really Trump’s voice.
  • Argued that Trump’s inaugural crowd was larger than Obama’s.

Trump now says Woolff didn’t have access to White House staff. Woolff says he did. I believe Woolff. Why? Well, Trump has proven himself to be a pathological liar.

The president also says Bannon was a nobody in the White House, that he was a bit player, that he didn’t play a significant role in crafting Trump’s remarkable campaign victory in 2016. Hmm. What about all those pictures of Trump and Bannon huddled around the Oval Office desk, or of Trump placing his hands on Bannon’s shoulders? Were they Photo Shopped?

Naw. They’re real. Again, I think Trump is, um, lying yet again.

I hope I can find a copy of “Fire and Fury.”

Trump declares ‘war’ on California? Hmmm …

California Democrats believe Donald John Trump has declared war on the nation’s most populous state.

They cite the president’s recent actions regarding (a) recreational marijuana use, (b) offshore oil drilling and (c) increased enforcement of immigration laws.

Let’s ponder that for a moment.

I cannot define any president’s motives. People who are  “done wrong” by presidents often accuse them of political retribution.

It was said during the late 1960s that Democratic President Lyndon Johnson hated the Texas Panhandle so much because several counties voted for Republican Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election that he took it out on the region by closing the Amarillo Air Force Base. Many longtime Panhandle residents still hold a grudge against LBJ for that decision.

Now we have the current president — a Republican — imposing policies deemed detrimental to the nation’s most staunchly Democratic state. Democrats say they are certain that Trump is angry enough to punish the state for purely partisan reasons.

I, um, don’t know about that.

Trump vs. California?

The president’s offshore drilling proposals also involve the Gulf Coast, which comprises states that all voted for Trump in 2016. Immigration enforcement? Texas, too, is affected by whatever stricter policies come from the Trump administration.

I suppose one might make a case that California’s recent legalizing of recreational pot use might be construed as some sort of payback. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the federal government is rescinding Obama administration rules softening punishment for those caught using marijuana, which the feds still consider a “controlled substance.”

And while we are talking about President Obama, I will mention that Barack Obama could have ordered one of the decommissioned space shuttles to be displayed in a museum in Texas. Hey, the state is home to the Johnson Space Center in Houston. Neil Armstrong’s first words in July 1969 from the moon’s surface were, “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.”

Texas was shunned. Why? Well, some have said President Obama had no love for Texas, given that the state voted twice for his Republican opponents.

I am not a big fan of this kind of political conspiracy theory.

Still, California Democrats do make a fascinating point. They say Donald Trump is the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to fail to visit California during the first year of his presidency.

Hey, the state qualifies as the world’s fifth-largest economy.

What gives, Mr. President?

Muddy probe may be getting a lot muddier

Robert Mueller is up to his armpits in issues to peel away as he seeks to learn the truth about allegations that the Donald Trump presidential campaign colluded with Russians seeking to influence the 2016 election.

Now comes a book, “Fire and Fury,” by journalist Michael Wolff, in which a former key Trump aide — Stephen Bannon — has tossed out words like “unpatriotic” and “treasonous” to describe a meeting between Don Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort and a Russian lawyer.

And, oh yes, it’s getting a lot muddier than it already has gotten.

Mueller, the special counsel appointed by the Justice Department, is now getting an even fuller plate. He might be buried up to his eyebrows in these issues relating to the allegations of collusion.

The president has issued a “cease and desist” order to Bannon; no more talking about the book, he has ordered. He’s also trying — in a stunning example of prior restraint — to keep “Fire and Fury” from being published.

And the media are continuing to report even more astonishing developments. Such as White House counsel Don McGahn being ordered to talk Attorney General Jeff Sessions out of recusing himself from looking into the Russia meddling matter. Um, who issued the order? Might it have been, ohhh, the president himself?

Trump has torched Bannon for speaking to Wolff. That, too, is fascinating in the extreme, considering that Wolff had been given astonishing access to White House sources.

Bannon’s view of the president? He continues to “support” Trump’s agenda and says there’s no daylight between them on the key issues of the day.

My head is spinning like Linda Blair’s noggin in “The Exorcist.”

I am believing that someone has poured sand into the president’s “fine-tuned machine.”

Moreover, the special counsel’s investigation well might have been given more fuel.

I cannot keep up with it. I need a good night’s sleep.

Hillary again? Absolutely!

Donald Trump cannot resist the temptation to re-litigate the 2016 election.

Neither can some of the rest of us who didn’t support the president in his winning bid for the White House.

That all said, I want to state something that won’t surprise regular readers of this blog: If I could re-cast my most recent vote for president a second time, I would cast it in a New York minute for the candidate I supported in 2016; that would be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

We’re coming up on the first year since Trump took the oath of office. It’s been the longest year of many of our lives. Each day, let alone each week and month, has brought crisis upon crisis. Headaches caused by chaos and confusion abound in the White House. The president cannot get his feet under him.

It’s fair to wonder: Would a President Hillary Clinton have taken office amid such stumbling and bumbling? No. The transition would have been seamless.

It also is fair to ponder whether Hillary Clinton was the perfect candidate for president. Of course she wasn’t. She had her flaws. Clinton didn’t seem genuine. At times she sounded and actually looked inauthentic. But I didn’t — and still don’t — buy the notion about her being “crooked.” Her flaws as a candidate in my view do not include criminality.

My continued support for Hillary Clinton, I must add, presumes she would run against Donald Trump. To be totally candid, there were other Republicans I found much more attractive than the guy who won the GOP nomination. Had the nominee been, say, Ohio John Kasich or perhaps even U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida I might be persuaded to vote Republican for the first time in my voting life. I particularly like Gov. Kasich — and I actually would like to see him challenge the president in 2020.

However, if I had the chance to vote all over again between Trump and Hillary Clinton, I wouldn’t regret for a minute supporting Clinton.

Her competence and her understanding of government cannot be questioned. Neither can we question her decorum or her dignity.

I grew tired very early in the Trump administration of shuddering at the president’s rhetoric. I have zero doubt that Hillary Clinton would know how to act presidential.

Imagine top aides for Obama, ‘W’ turning on the boss

Stephen Bannon’s assertion in a new book that Donald Trump Jr. might have committed an act of “treason” by meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 brings to mind a fascinating observation.

It didn’t come from me originally. I heard it from Jeffrey Toobin, a legal analyst for CNN. Toobin said it would be unconscionable for David Axelrod to turn on Barack Obama or Karl Rove to do the same thing to George W. Bush.

Those two former White House strategists and key political aides were loyal to the boss and remain so to this day. Bannon presents another situation altogether.

He has said that Trump Jr.’s meeting with the Russian legal eagle constituted potentially “unpatriotic” and “treasonous” activity. They met, according to a book, “Fire and Fury,” written by David Wolff, to discuss dirt on Hillary Rodham Clinton. The inference is that Don Jr. might have colluded with Russians seeking to influence the 2016 presidential election outcome.

The revelation made public has enraged the president. He says Bannon “lost his mind” when he was fired from his job as chief strategist for Donald Trump. He argues that Bannon had little influence or impact on the White House.

We might be witnessing an unprecedented unraveling of a presidential administration. It does appear to be unusual in the extreme that someone who once had the president’s ear to turn on him in the manner that has occurred.

What’s more, the reaction from the president does have the appearance of near-panic within the White House.

Toobin does pose a fascinating query. Can you imagine Presidents Obama and Bush being torpedoed in this fashion?

I cannot.

Voter fraud commission is a goner … good!

Donald J. Trump said this today in a statement released by the White House:

“Despite substantial evidence of voter fraud, many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry.

“Rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today I signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and have asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues and determine next courses of action.”

Where do I begin? I’ll start with this: Mr. President, the only “evidence” produced came from your mouth or, more accurately, your Twitter account.

The president said after the 2016 election that “millions of illegal immigrants” voted for Hillary Clinton, giving her the nearly 3 million popular vote margin she rolled up while losing the Electoral College tally. Trump never produced a scintilla of evidence. No one ever proved a thing about alleged widespread voter fraud.

So he convened this voter fraud panel to prove he was right. It didn’t find a thing. The president is right about one thing: States refused to cooperate because elections officials — including those in Texas — couldn’t determine any rational cause for releasing the information.

This looked for all the world like an effort to find a solution in search of a problem. The problem didn’t exist in the manner that the president alleged.

I’ll make a friendly wager. No money involved: The Department of Homeland Security won’t find anything, either.

Utah’s loss is nation’s gain

Bye, bye, Sen. Orrin Hatch.

The Utah Republican has announced his plans to retire from the U.S. Senate at the end of this year. He won’t seek re-election to his umpteenth term.

It doesn’t sadden me to see Hatch retire. He’s had his time … and then some, in the Senate. When he was first elected in 1976 he campaigned partly on the notion that senators need not stay too long in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. I believe 42 years could be construed as “too long.”

I don’t favor term limits, mind you. It’s just that Sen. Hatch has grown old and stale.

Hatch resisted intense pressure from Donald Trump to stay on. He has become one of the president’s staunchest Senate allies.

Now comes the fun part.

Mitt Romney, the guy who called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud” is likely to run for the seat Hatch will vacate. I look forward to how Sen. Romney — presuming his election this year — will deal with the “phony and fraudulent” president’s agenda.

Romney — the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee — made sort of nice with Trump when the president-elect was looking for a secretary of state. Romney didn’t get that gig, and has been critical of the president from time to time. Trump’s closest aides don’t trust Romney. Too bad … not!

Romney figures to be the prohibitive favorite to succeed Hatch. I welcome Mitt’s return to public life, notably because he’ll be a bur under Trump’s saddle.