Ethics need extra careful scrutiny

donald

Donald J. Trump’s staff denies it.

Others are saying it happened. What was that? The president-elect took a congratulatory phone call from Argentine President Mauricio Macri and while getting the congrats, Trump reportedly pressed Macri for news about a commercial development Trump has under way in Argentina.

To borrow a word made famous by former Texas Gov. Rick Perry: Oops.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/307050-report-trump-pressed-foreign-building-project-in-congratulatory-phone-call

The Wall Street Journal has called for Trump to divest himself of his vast business interests. Others have said the same thing. There appears to be no end to the potential conflicts of interest that lurk everywhere in Trump World.

These questions are going to dog the new president at every turn as he transitions into the presidency … and later.

A local journalist, Jorge Lanata, noted this about the conversation: “Macri called him. This still hasn’t emerged but Trump asked for them to authorize a building he’s constructing in Buenos Aires, it wasn’t just a geopolitical chat.”

Did he or didn’t he make that request of another head of state?

Heads of state shouldn’t mix their personal business interests while dealing with other heads of state. What part of this isn’t clear to anyone with half a brain?

As for whether Trump asked the question, we need to hear from the principals — the U.S. president-elect and the current president of Argentina — about whether such an exchange ever took place.

Pols say mean things, then they change their tune

romneyandtrumpmeet

My friends and acquaintances on the right are fond these days of reminding me of something I knew already.

It is that U.S. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton said angry things to and about each other when they ran for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008.

Then Sen. Obama was nominated. He went on to be elected president. Then he hired Sen. Clinton to be secretary of state in the first Obama administration.

All was “forgiven,” more or less. The rivals became allies. Then they became friends … or so they said.

The pushback on this issue comes from those on my right and far right who keep yapping at my continuing observation about Donald J. Trump’s former foes/enemies are now lining up for spots in the president-elect’s Cabinet.

Mitt Romney is being considered for secretary of state; Mitt called Trump a “phony” and a “fraud.”

Rick Perry is being considered either for secretary of defense or energy; the former Texas governor called Trump a “cancer on conservatism.”

Chris Christie once led the Trump transition, then he got pushed aside and now he’s back in Trump’s semi-good graces; Christie once said Trump was “unfit” to be president.

The list of “establishment Republicans” who have condemned Trump is long and distinguished. Here they are, though, lining up behind the new president.

Sure thing. Democrats do the very same thing. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson weren’t exactly BFFs when they ran against each other in 1960; then JFK picked LBJ to run with him on the winning ticket.

I guess one’s reaction to this kind of political mood swing depends on your own point of view.

Therefore, I won’t apologize for overlooking how Democrats have played this very same game … at least not until my Republican friends acknowledge publicly what’s occurring at this moment in history with their guy and his former foes.

Now it’s ‘Goodhair’s’ turn to cozy up to Trump

perry

Oh, how I wish Molly Ivins were around today.

The late, great Texas political columnist coined the term “Gov. Goodhair” to describe her longtime foil, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

What would Ivins think of the notion that Perry is heading off to New York today to visit with the man he once called a “cancer on conservatism,” possibly to interview for a job in his former foe’s Cabinet?

Perry went after Donald J. Trump hard during the Republican Party primary this year. The ex-governor was one of a large field of GOP candidates whom Trump defeated while winning his party’s nomination.

All is forgiven? That “cancer” has been excised from the GOP? Or was Perry just blustering to make some kind of political point in the moment?

Perry reportedly is being considered either for secretary jobs at Defense or Energy.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/11/21/perry-meet-trump-new-york-city/

Perry did end up endorsing Trump, getting on the president-elect’s good side.

All this maneuvering, though, does illustrate what many of us believe about politicians, which is that you can’t ever take what they say at face value.

Molly Ivins certainly knew it, and she knew what drove Rick Perry better than most. My own sense is that ambition takes precedence over all else.

A little perspective seems to be in order

jfk

I’m still in a bit of shock over the election results. It’s going to take some time to get over the notion that a first-time candidate for any public office has just been elected president of the United States of America … for crying out loud!

But I’ll tell you this: There is something of a silver lining at the prospect of Donald J. Trump taking the oath of office and assuming the multiple roles of head of state/head of government/leader of the Free World/commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine.

It lies in what we’ve endured already as a nation. We have survived — in my view — worse crises than what many of us are feeling now.

Fifty-three years ago, TV news networks flashed bulletins on our screens to inform the nation that “shots were fired” at a presidential motorcade in downtown Dallas. The news trickled in at first. Was the president hurt? Did the gunman hit our nation’s leader?

Then we found out. Yes! The president was taken to a hospital. Doctors were treating him for gunshot wounds.

After that, the worst news possible was flashed around the world: President John F. Kennedy was dead.

I was 13 years old at the time. I have vivid memories of how I felt in that moment. I just knew in my gut that the Russians were responsible. They did it! They killed our president and were planning to invade us. The Soviet Union was going to take over the world, just as they threatened they would. Hey, we were locked in a Cold War with those guys, who had as many nukes as we did.

We would learn in short order — later that very day — that a non-Russian pulled the trigger … allegedly. Lee Harvey Oswald was charged with murdering our president. He, too, would be gunned down a couple of days later in the Dallas Police Department garage. All hell broke loose once again.

Crisis begat another crisis.

How did we do? We got through it.

A new president took the oath of office aboard a jetliner dubbed Air Force One. He flew back to the capital with the body of his slain predecessor. President Lyndon Johnson asked for his nation’s help and God’s strength to see him — and the rest of us — through this terrible moment.

Yes, we’ve exhibited tremendous resilience over many years. World wars, economic collapse, constitutional crises and all manner of conflicts large and small haven’t taken us down.

Donald Trump’s election, while still shocking to many of us, was conducted in accordance with the rules and laws prescribed by our founders. He won this contest fair and square. And, no, the results were not “rigged.”

Understand this: I am not equating a presidential election with a presidential assassination. I mention the JFK tragedy only to put matters into what I believe is their proper perspective.

Remember this, too: If the new president messes up — as many folks believe he will — we have a civilized method to embark on a course correction. We call them “elections.”

Obama takes measured tone regarding Trump

U.S. President Barack Obama holds a news conference at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, U.S. August 4, 2016.  REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst     TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

President Barack Obama quite possibly might have written the book on delivering “measured responses” to shocking developments.

He is finishing up his final world tour as president and he told our nation’s allies in Greece, then Germany and now in Peru to “wait and see” how the new president acts before passing judgment.

That is wise advice, indeed, from the man who is awaiting the day Donald J. Trump takes office as the next president of the United States. That the next president is Donald Trump and not Hillary Rodham Clinton lends the shock value to recent developments regarding the transfer of power in Washington, D.C.

As Obama noted in Europe, a political candidate says things that occasionally are vastly different than what he or she might say as an officeholder. Campaign rhetoric differs vastly from governing rhetoric, he said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306963-obama-take-a-wait-and-see-approach-to-trump

Many millions of Americans are hoping that’s the case with regard to Trump and his wild and fiery campaign rhetoric.

Trump’s transition from real estate mogul/TV personality to the highest profile public official imaginable is well under way. He’s made some missteps in this transition, but he’s also made some good choices.

As The Hill reports: “Obama emphasized that seeing the ‘complexities of the issues’ upon becoming the President-elect can shape and modify thinking.

“’Reality will force him to adjust how he approaches many of these issues,’ Obama added. ‘That’s just the way this office works.’”

I rank the selection of Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff as a sound decision. That’s about it, so far, at least in my world view.

President Obama’s advice to the world leaders about Trump would do us all well back home. I’ll be critical of decisions he makes, but I’m going to remain quiet about how I believe he’ll lead the country until he actually takes hold of the levers of power.

Trump running headlong into D.C. reality

donald

Donald J. Trump is facing the worst of two worlds as he prepares to become president of the United States.

He wants to spend a trillion bucks on infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports. He once compared American airports to “third world” terminals; the bridges and roads are a “disgrace.”

So he has pitched an expensive program to fix it all.

Here’s this little problem. There’s no money to pay for it. Why? He also wants to cut taxes.

Let’s see: Introducing a big spending program while cutting tax revenue seems to be counterintuitive in the extreme. Don’t you think?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-infrastructure-plan-washington-reality-231649

On whom does the president-elect depend to help him enact this idea?

Republicans who control both congressional chambers? Forget about it. They’re skinflints who aren’t about to borrow more money and, therefore, increase the national debt. Do you remember when Joplin, Mo., was leveled by that tornado in 2011 and then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia demanded cuts elsewhere to offset the expense of making one of our communities whole?

What about Democrats who otherwise might be likely to support a big infrastructure “investment”? They detest Trump even more than Republicans do.

Can Trump declare a “mandate” to do what he wants? Um, no, not with a 1.7 million (and growing) popular-vote deficit stemming from the Nov. 8 presidential election.

So, here we are. A political novice set to become president of the United States is getting an on-the-job-training lesson on just how little power he really possesses.

This ain’t a corporate board room, Mr. President-elect.

Sessions pick for AG is the most galling of all

sessions-trump

Jeff Sessions is likely to be confirmed as the nation’s next attorney general.

It’s been said that “to the victors go the spoils.” In Sessions’ case, the victor happens to be a U.S. senator who was among Donald J. Trump’s earliest and most vocal supporters in his winning bid for the presidency.

Trump has rewarded the Alabama Republican with a nomination to become the nation’s top lawyer, its top law enforcement officer, its primary legal eagle.

The irony — not to mention the potential consequence — of this appointment is too rich to overlook.

Sessions has served in the Senate since 1997. For nearly a decade he’s been a member of the very “club” that once rejected an earlier nomination for Sessions to become a federal judge.

President Reagan nominated Sessions to the federal bench in 1986. Sessions, though, seemed to have this thing about African-Americans. He allegedly made some racist comments while serving as a federal prosecutor. He once said something akin to endorsing the Ku Klux Klan until he learned that some KKKers “smoked pot.” Sessions declared that to be a “joke,” that he was just kiddin’ around.

Well, the Senate rejected his judicial nomination. Sessions, though, decided to join the club. He was elected in 1996 and since then has been passing judgment on other judicial nominees who’ve come before the Judiciary Committee, where he serves.

Thus, the irony.

Sessions will be confirmed eventually, but only because senators are deeply resistant to rejecting one of their own, no matter how repulsive he may be.

The Justice Department has made great strides in recent years — under Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch — in ensuring equal protection under the law for all Americans. Does one really expect an Attorney General Jeff Sessions to continue that trend?

I fear that the attorney general’s office is going to take a decidedly less-aggressive posture in enforcing civil rights violations when they occur. I also am wary of anything Jeff Sessions says about his commitment to ensuring equal justice for all Americans.

His buddies in the Senate will confirm this nomination. I am hoping, though, for a thorough going-over regarding his record as a prosecutor and that silly rejection to the federal judgeship over things he said about many of our fellow citizens.

Perhaps one of his inquisitors will ask: “Sen. Sessions, if the Senate deemed you unfit to be a federal judge, why should it confirm you now as attorney general?”

Trump to ‘batch it’ at the White House

49321869-cached

Note: This blog post has been updated.

Melania Trump has declared that she and her son, Barron, will move into the White House after the youngster finishes his school year at his private school in New York City.

***

An interesting and somewhat puzzling development has cropped up in this transition from one president to another.

Melania Trump won’t be moving to the White House when her husband, Donald J. Trump, is inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States.

She and the couple’s son, Barron, will remain in New York while husband/dad tends to governing the country. Why won’t she move to the White House? Mrs. Trump said she wants her son to continue attending the private school he attends near their home.

OK, I won’t challenge her parenting skills. Mrs. Trump reportedly wants to shield 10-year-old Barron from the pressures of living in the People’s House.

I do have some advice for the new first lady. She ought to get on the phone and talk once again to Michelle Obama, Laura Bush and — oh, yeah! — Hillary Rodham Clinton. What do these women have in common? They all raised young children under the glare of the White House lights.

* The Obama girls haven’t quite left the nest, but they appeared to adjust well as Mom and Dad went about the business of being the First Couple; it helped, too, that Mrs. Obama’s mother also lives in the White House. Grandma no doubt was a steadying hand for Malia and Sasha.

* The Bush girls — twins Barbara and Jenna — also have grown into successful adults after spending most of two full terms in the White House.

* Chelsea Clinton was famously protected by her parents during her father’s two terms as president. She turned out just fine, too.

If she wants to go way back, Mrs. Trump could visit with Caroline Kennedy, who lived for a time in the White House as the daughter of a president before tragedy struck on Nov. 22, 1963.

I’ll have to think more about this news for it to sink in. My reaction to learning about Melania Trump’s decision to stay in New York City, though, is that it seems to be yet another curious turn in what’s becoming a most unusual presidential transition.

And don’t you know: The Secret Service is gnashing its teeth over the measures it will take to protect Melania and Barron Trump while they’re away from the White House.

Trump settles suit … with no admission of guilt? Really?

trump

Donald J. Trump once said he’d never settle a fraud lawsuit brought against him by former students of “Trump University.”

Oh, but wait! Then the president-elect did settle. This past week he agreed to pay $25 million to those students who had alleged they were cheated out of money they paid to attend the university. They didn’t get the bang for the buck they expected, they said.

These settlements often puzzle me.

Lawsuit defendants — such as Trump — agree to settle but insist they did nothing wrong. If that’s the case, then why the payout? Why fork over that kind of dough if they insist, as Trump has done, that the lawsuit lacked merit?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-university-lawsuit-settlement-231610

Trump said he settled the lawsuit so that he can devote his full attention to “the country” he is about to lead as president.

I’m going to remain skeptical about Trump’s stated reasons for settling. My gut tells me he well may have wanted to cut his losses, which well might have been a whole lot more had this case gone the distance.

Obama might speak out as a former POTUS? Bad idea

barack_obama_laughing_hd_wallpaper_-1024x680

Barack Obama is sending some signals that he might not leave the public arena once his successor takes office.

The 44th president of the United States might keep speaking out even as the 45th president, Donald J. Trump, begins his term.

Let’s think for a moment about that.

OK. I’ve thought about it. It’s a bad notion. I hope the president rethinks his temptation to keep speaking out.

I have applauded two former presidents — George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — for their decisions to stay away from the rough-and-tumble. Both men have declared their intention to stay out of the limelight. They both have said essentially the same thing: They had their time in the arena; it’s time to cede the spotlight to someone else.

I was particularly pleased that George W. Bush remained faithful to that pledge, particularly while former Vice President Dick Cheney kept popping off about President Obama’s foreign policy decisions. I urged Cheney to follow his former boss’s lead: Keep your trap shut, Mr. Vice President.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2009/03/follow-your-boss-lead-mr-vice-president/

Barack Obama’s time is coming to an end. He will have plenty of work to occupy his time while he returns to some semblance of a private life. He’s got a presidential library to plan and develop. He can set up a foundation that continues to speak to the issues near to his heart; the state of race relations comes to mind.

Should he provide post-presidential critiques of decisions that come from the man who’ll succeed him? I hope he keeps his thoughts to himself.

As many of his predecessors have noted, we have only one president at a time. The guy who’ll sit in the Oval Office will get plenty of hits from the rest of us out here in the peanut gallery.