Abortion enters the presidential debate

Chalkboard - Abortion

Of all the ridiculous assertions Donald J. Trump has made during his time as the Republican presidential nominee, perhaps the most ghoulish came out of his mouth during his final debate with Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He asserted that Clinton would favor allowing a woman to terminate a pregnancy literally on the eve of giving birth to her child.

Trump sought to label Clinton some who could support a doctor “ripping the baby out” of the womb two or three days before birth.

Clinton’s response was to challenge the manner in which Trump described what occurs when a woman decides to end a pregnancy, referring to it as a scare tactic.

Frankly, I also was horrified at how Trump described it.

I get that abortion is one of those topics no one likes talking about. It lies at the heart of the “most painful decision” a woman has to make, as Clinton answered.

She continued to hold to her view that government should not force a woman to do something that could jeopardize her own health, such as deliver a child.

However, I do not ever recall Clinton asserting anything of the sort that Trump described during his anti-abortion rant.

A discussion on this subject does require, it seems to me, an element of civility. Yes, I know that many people consider abortion to be among the most uncivilized acts that human beings commit.

For the purposes of a political discussion? Let’s dispense with the demagoguery.

There’s class … and then there’s Trump

Donald J. Trump keeps exhibiting a profound lack of class and grace as he stumbles his way toward a losing bid to become president of the United States.

bush-and-clinton

He needs to take a lesson from the gentleman on the right in this picture. That would be President George H. W. Bush. The other fellow in this photo is the man who defeated him in 1992, President Bill Clinton.

It’s a tradition for presidents to leave notes for their successor in the Oval Office. President Bush did so when he vacated the presidency on Jan. 20, 1993.

letter

It’s attached in the link I’ve added to this blog. Take a look at it.

It overflows with the kind of class one should expect in a losing candidate for the presidency. This note also is quite riveting, given that George H.W. Bush wrote it to the man who defeated him in a tough, aggressive and often negative presidential campaign.

What are we getting from the current Republican nominee as this campaign staggers toward the finish line? Bluster and threats.

 

Trump tears at the American democratic fabric

alice_gore

Donald J. Trump’s refusal to agree to accept the results of the election in the event he loses — which now seems more probable than ever — raises historic concerns about where we might be headed once all the ballots are counted.

The Republican presidential nominee would not commit to accepting the outcome while responding to a question from debate moderator Chris Wallace. He’ll “look at it” when the moment comes, Trump said.

Trump is now on the cusp of losing the presidency to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. We’ve had a long and well-established — and wisely admired — tradition in this country of losing presidential candidates accepting these results with grace and class.

Peaceful transition of presidential power begins right there.

Trump won’t promise to do that.

Oh, I can hear my friends on the right now griping about the “precedent” set in 2000 when Democratic nominee Al Gore refused to concede the election to Texas Gov. George W. Bush.

The immediate aftermath of that vote count was swathed in tension and controversy. The results from Florida weren’t yet known. That state’s electoral votes would be decisive in determining the next president. Gore conceded, then took it back once it became evident that another authority needed to step in; that would be the U.S. Supreme Court.

Well, the court ruled 5-4 that the Florida ballot recount should stop and that Bush would finish with 537 more votes in that state than Gore. Bush won the state — and was elected president.

What did Gore do? He conceded again — for the final time — and in the process brought some humor into the event by agreeing that “this time” he wouldn’t take it back.

He offered his full support to the new president.

So, let’s get off this idiotic notion that Al Gore did what Trump might do on Election Night.

Donald Trump is hinting that he might not accept the results no matter how wide the margin. In the process, Trump is feeding a dangerous — and demonstrably false — narrative about “rigged” and “phony” election results.

Trump feeds conspiracy narrative

donald-trump-flickr-cc

Donald J. Trump more than likely elicited cheers across the nation in the living rooms of those who believe as he does about the integrity of the national electoral process.

He did so by feeding into that hideous narrative — which he has initiated — that the presidential election is rigged against him.

Fox News’s Chris Wallace, the moderator of tonight’s third and final debate between Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton, asked him straight away: Will you accept the results of the election if voters choose Hillary Clinton?

His answer was just short of a direct “no!” He said he’ll look at it at the time. Trump, the Republican nominee, effectively admitted on national television that he doesn’t trust the system and he won’t commit to honoring the results and continuing this nation’s long tradition of promoting peaceful transition of power from one president to the next one.

My major takeaway from the debate tonight was that the GOP nominee demonstrated — yet again! — just how unfit he is for the office he is seeking.

Donald Trump is pandering to the ill-founded fears of those who have swallowed the bait he has tossed them that the system, the media, the powers that be all are conspiring to defeat him and to elect Hillary Clinton.

As the legendary TV character Army Col. Sherman T. Potter would say: mule muffins!

Finally … the end of this campaign is near

presidential-debate

We have family members visiting us and I’m giving some semi-serious thought to having something of a tailgate party Wednesday in advance of the third — and thankfully, final — face-off between Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Donald J. Trump.

Political junkies have heard it already: The campaign is essentially over. Trump scuttled his presidential bid with that hideous recording of him talking about how he feels about women.

It’s now Clinton’s election to lose. You know, as an aside, I’ve never been comfortable with that phrase, given that I don’t really know what it means.

But the two of ’em are going to square off in the final debate. Fox News’s Chris Wallace will moderate this event. I have complete confidence in his ability to grill them with equal ferocity.

Having said something about a tailgate party, I’ll now stipulate that the end of this campaign cannot arrive soon enough.

It’s been a miserable affair.

About the only thing I’ve learned is that a once-towering American political party has nominated someone — Trump — who has proven to be totally, categorically and unequivocally unqualified to become president of the United States.

So … let’s finish it off.

Ponder when elections are ‘rigged’

donald-trump4

Donald J. Trump is playing the “rigged election”  card as if it’s a new gambit.

The Republican presidential nominee says the electoral system is “rigged.” He says voter fraud is rampant at polling places. He blames the media for “rigging” its coverage of his battle with Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I must add, too, that he says all this without providing a scintilla of credible evidence.

Well, way back in the early days of the GOP primary, Trump lost the Iowa caucus to Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. His excuse then? It was “rigged,” he said. Cruz’s team stole that one from Trump, said the eventual party nominee.

The rigged election stuff is the mantra of someone who’s going to lose. That’s all it is.

As for the media bias he keeps harping on, I feel a need to mention only this: The media gave Trump invaluable free advertising and publicity throughout his march to the GOP nomination. He called a press event? The media were there. He made a statement of any kind, carrying any kind of weight? The media covered it like a blanket. Trump would fire off an accusation or call an opponent a schoolyard-style name? Why, the media were on that, too.

Trump is about to lose his first and likely final campaign for public office. He is sounding like someone who doesn’t know how to lose with grace and class.

AirHogs take wing … they’re out of here

MPEV

Well, that’s a surprise … not!

The Texas AirHogs, a baseball outfit that this past season split its home schedule between Amarillo and Grand Prairie, has decided to take its game solely to the Metroplex.

The AirHogs aren’t going to play in that rat-trap of a so-called ballpark called Potter County Memorial Stadium.

The reason reportedly is that visiting teams coming here were too repulsed by the lousy condition of the stadium and of the field on which they had to play hardball.

Hmmm. Do you suppose that maybe, perhaps, possibly that Amarillo would be served better by having a shiny new ballpark in, say, its downtown district?

Oh, wait! That’s coming along, yes?

The multipurpose event venue, a $45 million ballpark to be built next to City Hall, received voters’ endorsement a year ago. The City Council has proceeded with efforts to lure a Class AA baseball franchise to the city. They have a franchise in mind, the San Antonio Missions, which is looking for a new place to play ball once the Alamo City secures a Class AAA franchise to take its place.

I remain cautiously optimistic that the city can pull this deal together.

As for the AirHogs, good riddance.

That cockamamie notion of splitting its home games between two communities didn’t serve anyone in Amarillo worth a damn.

There might be an interim period where minor league baseball fans will have do without some ball while the MPEV gets built and the city works out the details of landing a legitimate minor-league franchise.

My optimism is still springing eternal that it will come to pass.

McCain enters the fray with threat of a crisis

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 26:  U.S. Sen. John McCain (C) (R-AZ) speaks during a press conference on the recent bombings by Saudi Arabia in Yemen March 26, 2015 in Washington, DC. During his remarks Graham said, "The Mideast is on fire, and it is every person for themselves." (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

John McCain must be unable to stand the sight and sound of another Republican blowing a once-great political party to smithereens.

The Arizona senator has this apparent need to get into the action himself by making an absurd — and frankly, frightening — assertion about how he and his GOP colleagues are going to handle the next president’s appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy is imploding, paving the way for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s election in three weeks as the first female president of the United States.

What, then, does McCain do? He declares that U.S. Senate Republicans will make it their mission in life to block every single appointment Clinton might make to the Supreme Court.

That’s it. None will make it through the sausage-grinder of the confirmation process if Sen. McCain has his way. He’s actually one-upping the ridiculously political posture that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell struck when he said that President Obama’s next pick would be stalled because, according to McConnell, he’s a “lame duck” and that the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia needed to be filled by the next president.

Do you remember how McConnell weighed in within an hour of he world learning that Scalia had died?

Hell, that’s not good enough for McCain. He and his fellow Senate Republicans are going to block them all!

I’ve long expressed admiration for McCain. I’ve saluted his service to the country — notably his heroic actions as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. However, my old pal Jon Talton, who knows Arizona politics better than anyone I’ve ever met, put the senator’s public life into an interesting perspective in a recent blog post. Here it is:

http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/2016/10/a-looming-constitutional-crisis.html

As Talton wrote: “From ‘moderate’ ‘independent’ McCain, we have warnings of what’s to come. This puts him in the Kook camp that would make Hillary’s election automatically illegitimate. Four years of scorched earth and worse.”

I’ll let Talton’s assessment of McCain’s career stand on its own. He knows more about it than I do.

The idea that McCain would quadruple-down on efforts to block the next President Clinton’s appointment authority to fill potential vacancies on the nation’s highest court creates the threat of a serious constitutional crisis. It could be far worse than, say, Watergate — which was pretty damn frightening.

I continue to hold out hope that President Obama’s pick to replace Scalia — U.S. District Judge Merrick Garland — would get a hearing in the lame-duck session of Congress once the election is over. Senate Republicans might lose control of the upper chamber as Trump’s candidacy goes down in flames. Garland — as solid and mainstream a nominee as you can imagine — might prove to be as suitable a court pick as they could hope for.

Now we have Sen. McCain declaring that no one Clinton would select will be able to pass Senate GOP muster. No one!

Obstruction, anyone? There you have it — in the starkest terms possible.

‘Media bias’ is a non-starter, Rep. Kingston

newspapers

Jack Kingston today made arguably the most absurd assertion I’ve ever heard about alleged “media bias” in covering the 2016 presidential election.

The former Republican congressman from Georgia — who supports Donald J. Trump’s election to the presidency — actually said the lack of newspaper endorsements illustrates the point that the media are biased against his candidate.

Kingston took  that leap today on MSBNC. He was reminded immediately, however, that many of the newspapers that have endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton have adhered to historically conservative editorial policies. Thus, the papers’ aren’t traditionally “liberal” organs.

UNITED STATES - Dec 12: Rep. Jack Kingston, R-GA., address the media during a press conference in the House Studio B in the U.S. Capitol on December 12, 2013. (Photo By Douglas Graham/CQ Roll Call)

Kingston stuck to his mantra. The media are biased, he said, continuing the line that Trump, VP nominee Mike Pence and campaign manager Kellyanne Conway have been reciting whenever possible.

Oh … my.

The media always are a convenient target for losing political campaigns. That part of this tactic from Trump isn’t particularly new or original. I’ve heard it for decades.

Trump’s floundering campaign has revealed only the profound failure of the candidate. It has shown us this man’s unfitness for the job he seeks. His lack of knowledge of anything speaks volumes. His desperate tactics as the campaign draws to a close only affirm the wisdom of the newspapers’ editorial positions.

Donald Trump is losing this campaign. Moreover, he is acting like someone who has lost his mind.

As for former Rep. Kingston, he is smarter than he demonstrated today with that ridiculous assertion about media bias.

What happened to Trump’s high praise for Clintons?

donald-trump-hillary-clinton

Many eyes will be on Chris Wallace when the two major-party candidates for president square off later this week.

The Fox News anchor will moderate the upcoming debate between Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Donald J. Trump.

I have a long list of questions that Wallace ought to ask. I know he’s likely to ask Clinton about the e-mails being leaked and whether they undermine her ethical standards. I also believe he’ll ask Trump about that “Access Hollywood” recording about the GOP nominee’s conduct with women.

But here’s a potential set of questions I hope Wallace will ask. They should go to Trump:

“Mr. Trump, you once praised Hillary Clinton as a ‘great person.’ You have played golf with her husband, the former president. You have attended parties with them. You’ve been photographed arm-in-arm with both of them.

“What changed? How did the former president and the current Democratic nominee for that office go from being friends of yours to becoming mortal political enemies?”

There’s something potentially revealing to me about Trump’s change in attitude toward the Clintons, now that he’s launched this scorched-Earth campaign against Hillary while seeking to drag Bill into the discussion over his wife’s fitness to become president.

It’s fair to wonder if Trump is nothing more than an opportunistic back-stabber. It’s also fair to ask if he schmoozed with the Clintons for self-serving purposes only. It’s also fair to wonder if he still harbors warm-and-fuzzy feelings toward them and he’s saying all these venomous things about Hillary for purely political purposes.

Trump did, after all, declare that he said those nasty things about women for “entertainment.”