Monthly Archives: November 2016

legal news, national news, political news

Gay marriage, where Trump and GOP base part company

facebook-marriage-equality-rings

Here it comes.

The millions of Republican voters who stood by their man, Donald J. Trump, during the acrid presidential campaign might be feeling the first of many pangs of regret over one of their guy’s core beliefs.

Trump has told “60 Minutes” correspondent Leslie Stahl that gay marriage is the law of the land and that he’s “fine” with that. The U.S. Supreme Court decided it, legalized gay marriage in all the states. The issue is done, said Trump — quite correctly. There, you see? I actually can say something complimentary of the president-elect.

I almost could hear the teeth-gnashing while sitting in my study at home when he said that.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/305803-trump-diverts-from-gop-fine-with-supreme-courts-gay-marriage

Do you think the president-elect has upset those among his base, the folks who stood by him while he insulted prisoners of war, mocked a disabled reporter, admitted to groping women, denigrated a Gold Star family?

All of those things, taken separately, should have been enough to disqualify this guy from being nominated by a major political party, let alone from being elected president.

The GOP base — the true believers — stood by the nominee despite not even understanding what he believed.

Trump has vowed to appoint a conservative to the U.S. Supreme Court to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The court, though, has settled the gay marriage issue, citing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and its “equal protection under the law” clause.

Trump tonight has indicated — finally! — that he understands the concept of “settled law.” The base of his party will be unhappy with the man they backed to the hilt.

national news, political news

Two picks: one works, the other one, well …

priebus-and-bannon

Donald J. Trump has made two of his first key picks for his presidential administration.

Reince Priebus will become the White House chief of staff. Good call there for the president-elect. Priebus is the Republican national chairman, a mainstream GOP guy, well-connected within the party.

Oh, but it gets weirder.

Steve Bannon, the former Breitbart News head, is going to assume the role of chief political adviser for the new president.

Why does this one cause alarm? Bannon ran an organization that published some pretty hateful dogma about Jews, about African-Americans, about gay people. When this guy took over as chief strategist for Trump’s campaign, a lot of folks — me included — became worried about the kind of rhetoric that would come out of Trump’s mouth.

Now he’s going to be advising the president on political strategy? The new president is going to bring this fellow into the White House, next to the Oval Office, place him at this right hand?

Oh, my.

My hope for the Trump administration is that the chief of staff assumes his rightful place as the second most powerful individual in the White House.

national news, political news

Smooth transition under way

President Obama met the man who will succeed him in the Oval Office and said something I found most interesting — and revealing.

The president turned to Donald J. Trump and offered his full support during the transition. “If you succeed, the country succeeds,” the president said.

Imagine that. The man who called Trump “unfit to be president” now is wishing him success as he prepares to seize the levers of power.

Holy cow, man!

Why is that worthy of comment? Consider the kind of things that many conservatives said in 2009 as Barack Obama succeeded George W. Bush as president.

A lot of them — namely many of them talk-radio blowhards — were actually urging failure for the president. They didn’t care about the consequences of failure. They failed to connect the nation’s fate with the president’s performance. They didn’t understand — or refused willfully to understand — that the nation suffers if the president fails.

The Senate’s Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, declared that his No. 1 priority was to make Obama a one-term president. How does he do that? By ensuring failure at every step.

President Obama deserves high praise for insisting that Donald Trump’s success bodes well for the nation.

legal news, national news, political news

Is a presidential pardon out of the question?

presidential-pardon

Donald J. Trump said many crazy things while campaigning successfully for the presidency of the United States.

Take, for instance, his statement to Hillary Rodham Clinton that “You’d be in jail” if he were president.

His crowds chanted the “Lock her up!” mantra continually at his rallies. Trump didn’t silence the madness from his followers.

The FBI director, James Comey, concluded in July that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring criminal charges against Clinton over her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state. Then he told Congress 11 days before the election that he found more e-mails that deserved his agency’s attention; eight days after that he said, “Nope. Nothing has changed.”

Trump continued to hammer “crooked Hillary” with accusations that she broke the law.

So, here’s a nutty idea. Would the new president issue a blanket pardon, clearing his opponent of any potential future prosecution?

Trump isn’t saying. Neither is his transition staff.

Hey, this notion has precedent. President Ford granted a pardon for his immediate predecessor,  former President Nixon, a month after Nixon quit the presidency on Aug. 9, 1974, over the Watergate scandal. No criminal charges had been brought against Nixon, yet Ford sought to prevent a further political fracturing that would occur had any prosecution had been allowed to proceed.

It turned out that the pardon opened up a whole new set of fissures.

But, the nation moved on.

Might there be such an action in our nation’s immediate future?

I wouldn’t oppose such an action. How about you?

Uncategorized

Election result: no ‘authoritative command’

mandate-gif

My dictionary describes “mandate” thusly: an authoritative command or instruction.

That’s pretty clear, correct?

So, it’s fair to ask: Does a presidential election in which the winner captures more electoral votes than the other candidate, but who fails to win — by an apparently growing margin — the popular vote deliver a “mandate” for the victorious candidate?

I would say categorically, “no!”

Here is what we are facing with the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the United States. He won, by a comfortable margin, the electoral votes he needed. His opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is continuing to pile up more actual votes than Trump.

The president-elect made some bold pledges while winning. He’s going to build a wall across our southern border, ban Muslims from entering the country, repeal Obamacare, revoke trade deals.

He said that “I alone” can fix what he believes is wrong with the country.

Does an election result that we’ve witnessed give him license to do what he promised to do?

I do not question the legitimacy of Trump’s election. He won this race fair and square. The system wasn’t “rigged” to ensure his election. Sure, some will argue that it was. Keep saying it. It’s not so.

However, I do not sense that voters delivered a “mandate” for him to make sweeping changes.

Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 with 43 percent of the vote. Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992 also with 43 percent of the vote and was re-elected four years later with 48 percent; George W. Bush was elected in 2000 with one more electoral vote than Al Gore, who won more popular votes than Bush. Neither of those men’s victories commanded “mandates” any more than Trump’s. Their victories were equally valid.

For that matter, John F. Kennedy was elected in 1960 with slightly less than 50 percent of the vote, and by a margin of fewer than 140,000 ballots. Is that a mandate … an “authoritative command”? Hardly.

Trump’s fans are continuing to crow about the mandate that their guy captured while defeating a candidate virtually every media pundit, politician and so-called “expert” knew would become the next president.

The Trumpkins need to tone down the boasts. They need to understand that effective and constructive governance is a shared responsibility, that the winners must work with those they defeat.

In this case, more than half of those who voted ended up on the losing end of this election, which adds volume to their voice.

Trump’s mandate? He needs to proceed with great care and caution.

national news, political news

Protests turn violent … to the shame of many

portlandproteststhumb1

I guess none of us should be surprised.

Protesters angry at the result of the 2016 presidential election hit the streets to march, chant and display signs.

Then it turned violent. My attention tonight is turning to my hometown of Portland, Ore., where the police and the mayor are blaming the violent turn on those who have “infiltrated” the city, criminals who are inciting the violence and damage.

I am horrified, mortified and embarrassed by what is occurring in the city of my birth and where I spent the first 34 years of my life.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/11/mayor_police_hold_press_confer.html#incart_big-photo

I get that many Americans didn’t want Donald J. Trump elected president of the United States. Count me as one who is unhappy with the result.

But for crying out loud, man, why in the world does that unhappiness have to turn to destruction of property and personal bodily injury?

As I’ve noted before on this blog, marching in the streets ain’t my style. It’s not how I roll. I prefer to register my protest using this venue; I’ll sit at my desk at home, fire up my computer and gripe until I run out of strength in my fingers.

This idea of marchers turning destructive and violent, though, is inconsistent with so-called American values. Indeed, when one thinks of my hometown, one thinks usually of coffee shops, craft beer, the world’s largest used-bookstore, a bustling downtown district, Mount Hood, a lovely riverfront and tall timber.

One shouldn’t think of Portland — or any city in America — as a place prone to violent protest over a free and fair election.

national news, political news

The ‘system’ elected Donald Trump

trump-wins

The irony of the 2016 presidential election outcome is too good to let go.

Donald J. Trump bitched continually about the possibility of losing the presidential election to a “rigged electoral system.” He even threatened to forgo accepting the result if he came up on the short end of the count.

Then he won. He was elected president of the United States with a healthy Electoral College majority. It stands currently at 290 electoral votes, with more likely to come in once they declare that he won in Michigan, which is still “too close to call.”

But wait! Hillary Rodham Clinton has collected nearly a million more actual votes than Trump. That number is likely to increase once they finish counting all the scattered ballots … and there appear to be many more to be counted in California.

So …

As someone has pointed out already on social media, the people voted for Hillary, but the system elected Trump.

national news, political news

There goes ‘divided government’

votedivided2

Republicans in Congress used to extol the virtues of “divided government,” when they controlled Capitol Hill while a Democrat and his family were residing down the street in the White House.

Guess what. Divided government is about to be tossed into the crapper. On Jan. 20, a Republican — Donald J. Trump — will take the oath of office as the 45th president of the United States; meanwhile, the GOP will retain control of Congress, although with slightly diminished majorities.

But we’re going to have one party in charge of everything.

Oh, boy!

The last time one party ran the whole show was from 2009 to 2011. Democrats were the big dog. What did they do when they ran the government? Oh, the 111th Congress — along with the president — managed to save the nation from total economic collapse, despite many Republicans’ best efforts to stop them.

Then the GOP took over both congressional chambers and began obstructing just about everything the Democratic president, Barack Obama, sought to do.

What lies in store for the new GOP president and his fellow Republicans who run Congress? That might depend on how well Democrats learned the obstructionist practices of their “friends on the other side of the aisle.”

Trump intends to do a few things that are anathema to Democrats. He wants to repeal environmental protection laws; he wants to toss aside the Affordable Care Act — although he now says he hopes to save the strongest portions of it; he intends to “build a wall” across our southern border; he hopes to ban Muslims from entering the United States of America.

I believe Trump once also said he intends to make department store owners force their employees to wish their customers a “Merry Christmas” during the holidays. Government overreach? Uh, yeah!

In each of these cases, I am all for a little obstruction. I trust Democrats have learned their lessons well from their Republican colleagues.

national news, political news

And the world thought the GOP was in trouble

hillary

It’s only been a few days since Americans elected a new president.

Consider the distance traveled in just a short span of time. Prior to that election, the political world was wondering: How in the world is the Republican Party going to reshape itself?

Then they counted the ballots and we found out that Donald J. Trump, the Republican, had won the election. It wasn’t Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrat.

Now the tables are turned and it’s the Democratic Party that faces the question: How does it recover?

Let’s start with the obvious: The Democrats’ future does not rest with anyone with the last name of Clinton.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what%e2%80%99s-next-for-democrats-for-starters-a-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-party/ar-AAkd0Qv?li=BBnbcA1

Hillary Clinton had her chance. She was seen on the cusp of making history. Then it came apart, thanks in large measure to an FBI director who decided 11 days away from the election to raise more questions about an issue we all thought had been settled, that the feds didn’t have any grounds to prosecute Clinton over those “damn e-mails.”

She lost. The election is history. Trump is preparing to take the reins of government. The Republican Party had nominated someone with zero public service experience. Now he’s about to embark on the steepest climb in U.S. political history as he seeks to learn something about which he knows nothing: the art of governance.

Meanwhile, Democrats are left to ponder where they go from here.

Those of out us here in the peanut gallery — and that would include yours truly — have no clue at this moment how the party collects itself.

Does the party leadership reflect the changing demographic? Consider this from the Washington Post: “The Democratic establishment had their chance with this election,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “It’s time for new leadership of the Democratic Party — younger, more diverse and more ideological — that is hungry to do things differently, like leading a movement instead of dragging people to the polls.”

Leading a movement? Hmm. Interesting. Trump started calling his effort a “movement” as well. He won without the kind of “ground game” organization that Democrats boasted would carry Clinton across the finish line first.

They say that “elections have consequences.” Boy, howdy, do they ever! What looked like a sure thing for Democrats now has them — not Republicans — searching for answers.

national news, political news

Reaction to Trump … merely a continuation

1 Comment

nc_signshocks_141119

Just so we’re clear, I dislike the street protests that have occurred since the election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the United States.

It ain’t my style. Got it? OK.

But before the nation’s Trumpkins get all wadded up over the anger being expressed by those who voted for Hillary Clinton, I feel the need to remind them of what transpired after the election of the 44th president, Barack H. Obama, in 2008.

The anger then perhaps was even more palpable, more demonstrative and more, um, hateful than what we’re seeing now. (See picture attached to this post.)

May I remind everyone about the signage that portrayed the then-new president as some sort of alien? Or suggested he was a terrorist sympathizer? Or that he was not a legitimately elected individual, that he didn’t qualify for the office because he was born in some far-off foreign place?

Who was one of the leaders of that slanderous endeavor? Oh, wait! Donald Trump!

I hope the Trumpkins of this nation spare us soon the “Get over it” mantra.

There’s a lot of anger out there. Trump himself tapped into it while winning this election. Much of the anger is misplaced and it doesn’t do any good.

It’s real, though.

It also is a carryover from two previous elections.

And we’re finding out that, by golly, the other shoe does fit.