Monthly Archives: October 2016

national news, political news

‘Rigging’ depends on who’s winning

donaldtrump_091516getty

Donald J. Trump’s assertions about “rigging” an election cuts to the heart of our democratic traditions.

The Republican presidential nominee, though, cares not one single bit about tradition, as his campaign has demonstrated time and again for more than a year.

He says the media are biased against him, that they’re conspiring with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to undermine his effort.

Nice try, Don. The media don’t have time to “conspire” against anyone or anything.

He talks about “widespread voter fraud,” which could rank as among the biggest lies of his campaign. There is no evidence anywhere of “widespread” fraud. Of the millions of ballots cast over the past decade-plus, officials have uncovered fewer than 100 cases of people voting fraudulently.

Trump’s desperate 11th-hour assertions are undermining the very process that the GOP nominee used to secure his party’s presidential nomination.

That’s right. Trump benefited from the very same “rigged” system that he now condemns as working against him.

Has anyone else noticed that in the past two weeks we’ve heard absolutely not a single positive policy statement from this guy? His rallies are rife with condemnation of his opponent and accusations that she’s “on drugs,” that she “lacks the stamina” to be commander in chief, that she’s “corrupt,” and that she enabled her husband to become the “worst abuser” of women in the history of American politics.

Nov. 8 cannot get here soon enough.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301280-poll-41-percent-of-voters-think-election-could-be-stolen

local news, national news, political news

Outward political expression seems muted

1 Comment

hillary_2016_yard_sign

Maybe it’s just me.

Or, perhaps it’s a national trend.

As I make my way around Amarillo running errands and doing whatever it is I do these days, I notice a glaring lack of political expression.

Lawn signs? Hardly any. Bumper stickers? Same thing. Banners? Nope. Anyone skywriting with airplanes? Hah!

ys206_grande

This election year is supposed to be so very consequential. Republicans backing their nominee, Donald J. Trump, say that Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most corrupt individual ever to seek the presidency. Believe me, I live in the epicenter of the Republican political movement and I’m hearing a lot of it from friends and acquaintances.

Democrats backing Clinton say Trump is the most unfit and unqualified man in human history who’s ever aspired to high political office.

They say it on social media. They grumble it under their breath. They talk to their allies in whatever political echo chamber they occupy — left and right.

But there’s so little sign display. Or bumper stickers.

My theory is this: Emotions are running so high that voters are afraid of vandalism … and not just on the signs or the stickers. They fear the other side demonstrating their political displeasure in more, um, meaningful ways.

I live in Randall County, Texas, where no Democrats have appeared on the local ballot in my more than two decades living here. One isn’t likely to see any such public displays of political affection for Hillary in my neighborhood.

And Trump? Well, I’ve spotted precisely one lawn sign within a half-mile radius of my house during this election season.

We’re less than four weeks out from Election Day. I am going to presume we’ll be relatively lawn-sign-free for the duration.

The good news is that there’ll be less visual pollution to clean up once it’s all over.

national news, political news

A governor suggests violence is the cure? Wow!

bevin

Gov. Matt Bevin needs to have his head examined.

Someone needs to check the Kentucky Republican’s noggin for parasites that have nibbled away at what passes for the reasonable and rational cells in his brain.

He’s lost them.

Speaking to the Values Voters Summit not long ago, Bevin said conservatives may have to resort to violence to protect their values against liberal incursion.

Bevin said if Democrat Hillary Clinton were elected president, she would set the nation on a dangerous course that could prompt violence. He told the audience that the “candle” of liberty might go out “on our watch.”

So, it’s come to this, has it?

Conservatives are so angst-filled with the prospect of losing this election that they ought to shed some blood in order to preserve their principles. That’s what one of them has said.

Who, then, is the conservatives’ vicar, the champion of all they cherish? Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, the reality TV star, real estate mogul, beauty pageant owner/operator and — as we’ve heard — someone who thinks he’s got enough “star” power to have his way with women whenever, wherever and however he chooses.

I haven’t even mentioned — until right now — that he’s alleged to be a serial groper.

Yeah, man. That’s the guy Gov. Bevin and others think will carry the torch forward on behalf of conservative values.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kentucky-gov-matt-bevin-says-bloodshed-might-be-165058821.html

Let’s see. Where was I?

Oh! I know I’m repeating myself, but …

Gov. Bevin needs to have his head examined.

Intgernational news, national news, political news

Here come those ‘damn e-mails’ again

hillary

I have been trying for weeks to grasp the significance of the e-mail controversy that keeps swirling around Hillary Rodham Clinton’s quest for the presidency.

Her one-time Democratic presidential primary opponent Bernie Sanders said he was tired of “hearing about your damn e-mails.” Me, too, senator.

But … here they come again, courtesy of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and — more than likely — the former head of the Soviet KGB spy agency and current president of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

They’re leaking these e-mails near the end of a bitter and ugly presidential campaign between Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Their intent clearly and without equivocation is to embarrass and undermine Clinton’s bid to become president of the United States. They contain communication on a whole array of issues, from her speeches to well-heeled groups and backers, the LGBT response to Clinton’s reaction to the death of former first lady Nancy Reagan and her thoughts on how U.S. policy should deal with the crisis in Syria.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/emails-show-clintons-response-to-lgbt-backlash/ar-AAj2xdX?li=BBnb7Kz

I get the intent, which is my clearest takeaway from it all. Indeed, Clinton hasn’t been very forthcoming on explaining many of these issues raised by the e-mails.

She and Trump are squaring off this week for the third and final (thank God in heaven) joint appearance. I’d bet real American money that moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News is going to ask her some tough questions about the e-mail dump and what it all means about the way she would govern as president.

I’m also willing to bet some serious greenbacks she’ll be ready to respond. Trump? Well, time tell us very soon how he intends to respond to her response.

Perhaps a follow-up question for Trump from Wallace might go something like this: Mr. Trump? You all but invited the Russian government to deliver us the content of those “missing” e-mails. Is this what you had in mind?

Oh, and another one could go this way: You’ve been critical of our intelligence operation and our military. Intelligence officials now seem to believe that President Putin — about whom you’ve spoken quite highly and who has returned the compliment — is responsible for the e-mail dump in these waning days of the campaign. Are they wrong, sir?

national news, political news, religious news

Evangelicals are splitting along gender lines

beth-moore

A friend made me aware of what looks like a significant development in a key part of Donald J. Trump’s coalition of political supporters.

It reveals a split among evangelical Christians. The men among them are sticking with the Republican presidential nominee. The women, however, are splitting away.

Listen to the women, fellas.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/10/beth-moore-the-christian-women-speaking-out-about-trump-s-bad-news.html

The evangelical women are aghast, appalled and repulsed by the revelations disclosed in that hideous recording of Trump boasting about his sexual proclivities.

According to an article published in The Daily Beast, one well-known evangelical preacher, Beth Moore, once was in Trump’s camp. Now she’s out, shocked and horrified at what she heard on that recording.

As The Daily Beast reported: “But something changed for Moore after Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president of the United States, was caught on tape bragging about his ability to sexual assault women. When Trump said, ‘When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything,’ Moore had had enough.”

She’s apparently not alone among women who call themselves evangelical Christians.

Also, from The Beast: “Beth Moore wasn’t alone in her condemnation of Trump. Her comments sent ripples around the evangelical world and were seconded by Christian mega-speaker and author Christine Caine. Sara Groves, the Dove Award-nominated Christian artist, told me, ‘Someone like Beth can go a long way in helping Evangelicals recognize these major blind spots.’”

We hear a lot about hypocrisy during every election cycle. This one is no different. Conservatives accuse liberals of being hypocritical by criticizing Trump’s behavior while being silent about, say, Bill Clinton’s own transgressions.

To my way of thinking, though, the greater hypocrisy occurs among conservatives — notably evangelicals — who continue to support Trump despite the candidate’s known history of behaving in ways and doing things that evangelicals say they detest.

The revelations out of Trump’s own mouth have delivered what ought to be a disqualifier among those who adhere to spiritual values. Beth Moore and other evangelical women are stepping up and declaring that, indeed, they are as disgusted as the rest of us.

local news, political news

Battle of political groups shaping up in Amarillo

grassroots

I love seeing grass-roots politics take shape in communities.

It’s where one can see activism at work. It involves people who have things in common as well as things that keep them apart. They may be neighbors, friends, they might attend the same church, their kids might attend the same schools.

But they argue over local politics.

I’m seeing a smattering of lawn signs around my neighborhood and around Amarillo. Unite For Amarillo is pitching its support for the seven municipal propositions on the ballot this November. SaveAmarillo is pitching its opposition to them.

Unite For Amarillo wants all of them to pass. I’m on their side, but you knew that already.

SaveAmarillo wants all of them defeated.

There’s an interesting element to this intra-city squabble. Neither side is willing to split the difference. It’s all or nothing for both sides. Does it remind you of anything? It reminds me of the fight for single-member districts that pops up on occasion in Amarillo. Some folks want the city to divide all four City Council member seats into wards, with only the mayor running at-large. The current system elects everyone at-large. No one in that fight seems willing to discuss a hybrid version: increase the council from five to seven seats, elect the mayor and two council members at large while electing the other four from wards.

Look, the city broke up the $340 million spending package into seven separate categories, enabling us to choose which of them to support. I think that’s a wise way to proceed. I plan to vote for all of them, because they all represent progress for the city, allowing City Hall to make important infrastructure improvements.

I am having trouble understanding why SaveAmarillo wants to toss them all aside. Street repair is not important? More funds for police and firefighters won’t improve public safety? Improving parks doesn’t boost our quality of life?

Why not look at them individually, line by line … and then decide which of them to support and which of them to reject?

But, hey, it’s grass-roots politics. I still like the idea of waging these skirmishes at the local level.

May the better side win. I have made my decision already.

media news, national news, political news

What’s with the first-name usage for Hillary?

hillaryclinton-101-1451652269

I’ve wondered about this for nearly as long as Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in public life — which seems like forever.

Why do the media, the political class, historians and Mr. and Mrs. J.Q. Public refer to the Democratic nominee for president as “Hillary”?

I’ll admit to doing it in casual conversation. My wife and I talk about this election all the time. We’re caught up by it. We’re enthralled — if that’s the right word — by all of its patently bizarre twists and turns.

Then I’ll toss out something like this: “Did you hear what Hillary and Trump said today?” My wife identifies the two major-party candidates the same way.

The Republican nominee doesn’t get the same air of familiarity, if that’s what it is. We refer to Donald J. Trump as “Trump.” I’m inclined to use more, um, descriptive terminology at times. And yes, I’m quite sure those on the other side attach the same pejorative qualifiers to Hillary.

See, there I go again … falling into that first-name trap.

I mean no disrespect. I take her as seriously as I do any other politician, male or female.

I’ll admit to using first names on other pols. Newt, Mitt and Jeb are my favorites. Their names are unusual enough that you don’t need to last names to know about whom one is referring. It’s kind of like Wilt, Arnie, Tiger and Kareem … you know?

There’s got to be a psychologist out there who can explain it to me.

Hey, do you think Dr. Phil might be looking for a topic to cover on his TV show.

entertainment news, national news, political news

Lighten up, Trump; ‘SNL’ goes after Hillary, too

video-alec-baldwin-donald-trump_lncima20161002_0162_3

Donald J. Trump’s feelings are hurt.

He doesn’t like the impressions that Alec Baldwin does of him. He’s told Baldwin and “Saturday Night Live” to knock it off. Why? It’s gotten “personal,” says the Republican nominee for president.

Really. Well, how do you suppose Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton likes being portrayed by Kate McKinnon? Publicly, she’s laughing it off, which is how grown-ups are supposed to react to political satire.

Indeed, “SNL” has proven over many years to be an equal-opportunity jester. It has parodied Al Gore and George W. Bush, Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole and H. Ross Perot.

Oh, and then there’s Sarah Palin.

Let’s go back a ways and recall “SNL’s” treatment of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford — and of Ronald Reagan.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/snl-takes-jab-at-donald-trump/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=29995717

I’m reminded of a politician I once knew when I worked as editorial page editor of the Beaumont Enterprise. Our paper circulated throughout two congressional districts, the 2nd and the 9th. The 2nd District congressman was the late Charlie Wilson, a conservative, free-spirited Democrat.

We had a cartoonist on our staff, Jerry Byrd, who used to poke fun of politicians of all stripes. Yes, we needled Rep. Wilson on occasion for this or that policy statement.

How do you suppose Wilson responded when we published an editorial cartoon that was critical of him? He wanted the original drawing. He loved it. He took it in good humor and never bitched about it.

Trump’s baptism as a politician has occurred at the highest level possible. He gets poked and prodded by some of the best political satirists in the business.

Dude, it goes with the territory.

national news, political news

First-class passengers above ‘groping’?

rudy

Rudolph Giuliani needs to, um, no longer speak on behalf of Donald J. Trump.

Then again, turn him loose! You go, Rudy!

The former New York mayor said the following about allegations that Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, groped a woman aboard a jetliner:

“Some of these things appear to me appear to me on their face to be kind of untrue,” Giuliani said. “Fifteen minutes of groping in a first-class cabin of an airplane? It doesn’t make sense. I’ve been in first class a lot, fortunately. Since I stopped being mayor, I can afford first class. You know, you see everything that goes on in first class.”

He wasn’t there. He has no idea about the circumstances. He is passing judgment — with no knowledge of the facts — on a woman whose accusation of groping fits the M.O. of other alleged incidents involving Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/giuliani-alleged-trump-groping-%e2%80%98couldn%e2%80%99t-possibly-have-happened%e2%80%99-because-it-was-first-class/ar-AAj1cVi?li=BBnb7Kz

It’s fair to point out that Trump opened up this line of so-called political discourse himself by saying what he said to Billy Bush on that “Access Hollywood” tape. The Washington Post obtained it, put it out there for all the world to see.

Now … we’ve got this. A former political hero-turned-attack dog mounting a bizarre defense on behalf of someone who has admitted that he tried to seduce a married woman and has bragged about what his “star” status allows him to do to women.

Hypocrisy? There it is.

national news, political news

‘Rigged election’ talk creates serious concern

trump

It’s been said many times by historians that the United States is the world’s model for peaceful transition of power from president to president, particularly in times of crisis and tragedy.

* 1963: John F. Kennedy was gunned down and Lyndon Johnson took the oath of office shortly after doctors announced the death of the president. We didn’t skip a beat.

* 1974: Richard Nixon resigned from office in the midst of a profound constitutional crisis and Gerald Ford became president, declaring “Our long national nightmare is over.” The beat went on.

* 2000: George W. Bush won election by the narrowest margin imaginable over Al Gore. The Supreme Court settled it in accordance with constitutional law. The government continued to function.

Three earlier presidents — Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and William McKinley — were murdered while they were in office; their vice presidents took power, also without incident.

That history of relative tranquility is being threatened in 2016 by an ominous drumbeat from Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, who keeps harping on a “rigged election” determining who will become the next president. He continues to foment anger among his supporters who talk openly about “revolt” against the system if — and/or when — their guy loses to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-rigged-elections-republicans-229846

This is nasty stuff, man.

According to Politico: “Donald Trump is laying the groundwork to lose on Nov. 8, refuse to concede the election, and teeter the country into an unprecedented crisis of faith in government. Republicans and Democrats, in Washington and beyond, fear that the aftermath of the 2016 election will create a festering infection in the already deep and lasting wound that the campaign is leaving on America.”

On top of what he’s been saying about “rigging” the election, he asserts that Clinton should be thrown in jail. Due process? Presumption of innocence? Forget about it!

There’s this, also, from Politico: “And, they say, only Republican leaders who speak up will have any chance of stopping it.”

They’re quiet — so far.

There needs to be a dialing back of this crackpot rhetoric. Trump likely will ignore all pleas to restore some semblance of reason. After all, he said recently he’s been “unshackled” by House Speaker Paul Ryan’s declaration that he no longer can “defend” Trump over the accusations that he assaulted women sexually.

Trump’s foes have declared him to be a demagogue who presents a serious “danger” to the United States of America.

Trump is proving them to be absolutely correct.