Monthly Archives: July 2018

national news

Wanting some old-fashioned decorum from POTUS

Call me old-fashioned. Maybe even a geezer if you’re so inclined.

I get that under our system of government, “anyone” can be elected president. I thought that truism bore the ultimate fruit when we elected and re-elected an African-American to the presidency in 2008 and 2012. Barack Obama’s life story was itself a tale to behold, irrespective of his racial makeup.

Silly me. I was so wrong.

The 2016 election victory by Donald John Trump Sr. provided the most incontrovertible demonstration of that notion. If someone like Trump can win a presidential election, then, by God, anyone can win the big prize.

So, we elect a guy with zero prior public service exposure. His ignorance of government, politics, public policy has been breathtaking in its scope.

His fans applaud his missteps, his goofiness and, oh yes, his dangerous tendencies, including his seeming desire to obtain authoritarian status.

I’m a traditionalist, though, in at least one regard. While I embrace the notion that anyone can be elected president, I still want the president to be better than the average American. I want the president to conduct himself with dignity and decorum.

Trump doesn’t do that. His use of Twitter is the shiniest example that comes to mind. I read those tweets and I shudder at their inarticulateness. The misspelled words, the use of capital letters, the mangled syntax … it all just drives me nuts. I mean, the social medium recently expanded the capacity available for Twitter users. Can’t the president take some time to at least construct a message that makes sense? Or one that at least is readable?

I guess not.

He’s just content to, um, “tell it like it is.”

Meanwhile, the dignity and stature of the highest office in the land — and arguably the most important elected office in the world — continues to suffer.

national news

AG joins the crazy chant? Are you kidding?

To think I actually once said something positive about U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. What in the world was I thinking?

He recused himself from the Russia investigation because of his key role as a Donald Trump presidential campaign adviser. He handed it over to his deputy AG, Rod Rosenstein, who selected Robert Mueller as special counsel. I applauded the AG for demonstrating an awareness of conflict of interest.

Then the attorney general does this: He stands before a group of teenagers and laughs at the “Lock her up!” chant that came from the audience. Oh, and then he repeats it along with them.

Rule of law, Mr. Attorney General? Due process, sir? Executive decorum? What in the world is going on here?

As CNN reported: “Lock her up,” Sessions said, chuckling at the brief interruption from the audience as the chant then grew louder.

“I heard that a long time over the last campaign,” he said before continuing with his prepared speech.

The chant became a part of the GOP mantra in 2016 as controversy swirled over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s e-mail controversy. Clinton, of course, ran for president as the Democratic Party nominee. The “Lock her up!” chant became the theme of the Republican National Convention.

For the attorney general to laugh it off now is both disgusting and disgraceful.

Therefore, I hereby take back my positive comments about the attorney general.

national news

Donald Trump: Jokester in Chief

3 Comments

I am laughing out loud. Really! I am!

Donald J. “Jokester in Chief” Trump has put a tweet out that says the following: I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump!

Man, that’s a knee-slapper. You know?

Didn’t Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, stand next to Trump in Helsinki and admit to the whole, wide world that he “wanted Trump to win” the 2016 presidential election?

Yeah, he said that. I heard him. So did you

I do have a bit of positive commentary to offer, though. At least the president didn’t fire this Twitter message out with all-capital letters.

national news

Time to rethink ‘stand your ground’? Um, yep

You’ve seen the video.

A man shoves another man to the ground; the fellow who does the pushing is unarmed. The guy on the ground, pulls out a pistol and shoots the other man in the chest. The first gentleman then staggers into a convenience store, collapses in front of his son, and then dies at a local hospital.

The Clearwater, Fla., authorities, though, say they won’t charge the shooter because, they explained, he acted in accordance with the state of Florida’s “stand your ground” law.

The law needs a careful re-examination. Indeed, it needs to be rewritten, in my humble view.

The man who died was Markeis McGlockton, who was at the store with his 5-year-old son and his girlfriend. The victim’s girlfriend, apparently had been hassled by the shooter, Micheal Drejka, because she was parked in a handicapped-only zone.

McGlockton saw the confrontation, then ran to defend his girlfriend. That is when he pushed the other fellow to the ground.

This constitutes a “stand your ground” incident? I don’t get it!

I mean, good grief, McGlockton was walking away from Drejka when he got shot! How in the world does that present a clear and present threat to the shooter?

As CBSNews.com has reported: Criminal defense attorney Anthony Rickman says the fact that McGlockton backed up after the shove raises concerns.

“The question is, at that point in time, was there the possibility of imminent serious bodily injury or death of Drejka that justified the use of deadly force? And after watching that video, I don’t think so,” Rickman said.

We’ve had this national debate already. The Florida statute came into play when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death after he spotted the youngster walking through a neighborhood that Zimmerman was patrolling as a private security officer.

Michael Drejka has emerged as yet another embodiment of a law that gives license to individuals to shoot first and … well, the consequences be damned!

International news

Respond to Iran threats? Yes, but do so the right way

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani issued a threat to the United States.

The U.S. president took it seriously. So seriously that he employed his favorite forum to respond: Twitter. He fired off an all-cap response that says Iran had better think twice about issuing threats.

Hey, I no longer am surprised by Donald Trump’s Twitter fetish. He’s got it bad, man.

I just long ago grew tired of reading these tweets when he decides to issue policy pronouncements or when he articulates some sort of threat to a foreign adversary.

I don’t have a particular problem with Trump responding to Iran’s bluster. My concern is the forum the president keeps using. He blathers these counter-threats for all the world to hear.

I wonder if it ever occurs to Trump to just pick up the telephone in the Oval Office and phoning some intermediary nation (since we have no diplomatic relations with Iran) and offering a warning to Iran to pipe down with the tough talk.

It’s called back-channel diplomacy.

Donald Trump, though, knows nothing of how these matters ought to be resolved. None of that is a surprise, given the utter absence of any understanding of government in Trump’s background.

He goes with his gut, his instinct, his penchant for showmanship.

Dangerous.

national news

Trump’s thin skin results in petty punishment

Y’all remember the First Amendment. Among the liberties it guarantees is the right to protest federal government policies.

Several individuals who once held high-profile, sensitive positions in our national security network have been critical of the current president of the United States.

So, what does Donald J. Trump do? He decides he might revoke their high-level security clearances. First Amendment? Who needs it?

The individuals I refer to are: former CIA directors John Brennan and Michael Hayden; former director of national intelligence James Clapper (pictured); former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe; former national security adviser and U.N. ambassador Susan Rice; and former FBI director James Comey.

They all have spoken critically of the president. Trump’s reaction is a study in narcissistic petulance.

It’s also a symptom of someone who appears to relish the role of authoritarian. A president of the United States ought to know what the First Amendment allows and what it protects. He ought to understand that even those who once held top-tier national security posts were entitled to speak their minds if they see fit.

Bear in mind also that no one of the people mentioned in this punitive proposal has said a single thing in public that jeopardizes our national security. They all have been given this clearance — as did their predecessors — as a way to strengthen our national security, giving the current national security team a resource it can use for advice and counsel. The president, thus, seeks to weaken our national security system.

They only element these individuals have put in jeopardy has been the president’s standing among Americans who do not comprise his die-hard base. Donald Trump will have none of that.

State news

Debates do matter, Lt. Gov. Patrick

The word is out: Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick doesn’t want to debate his opponent before Election Day.

That’s too bad. Actually, it’s a shame. Hey, I’ll even say it’s a disgrace to the cause of learning all we can about the individuals who want to represent us at the highest levels of state government.

Patrick, the Republican, is running against Democratic challenger Mike Collier, who has been needling Patrick for weeks about debating.

I cannot quite fathom why Patrick is so reticent. He comes from a media background; he was a radio talk-show host before entering politics as a state senator from Houston.

The Texas Tribune reports: “It’s no secret Lt. Governor Patrick relishes debates, but since his opponent shows no sign of grasping even the most basic rudiments of state government, our campaign has no plans to debate him,” Patrick strategist Allen Blakemore said in a statement to the Tribune. “There isn’t anyone in the Lone Star State who isn’t absolutely clear about where Dan Patrick stands on the issues. He told us what he was going to do, then he did it. That’s why Dan Patrick has the overwhelming support of the conservative majority in Texas.”

OK, I’ll come clean: He doesn’t have my support. He has sought to yank the state into far-right territory that makes me uncomfortable. The Bathroom Bill he sought in 2017 is the example of what I’m talking about. He sought to make it illegal for transgendered individuals to use public restrooms in accordance with their current gender; he intended to make the use restrooms that matched their birth certificate gender. The bill died in a special session.

That’s out of the way.

He should debate Collier. GOP Gov. Greg Abbott and Democratic challenger Lupe Valdez are likely to debate each other, even though Abbott is going to be the prohibitive favorite to win re-election.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, the Republican, will likely debate his Democratic foe, Beto O’Rourke. That contest figures to be a whole lot closer.

So, the lieutenant governor isn’t likely afraid to meet his challenger head to head. Why not just quit playing games, Lt. Gov. Patrick?

Step onto the stage and have it out with your challenger and make the case on why you should be re-elected.

And, yes, if that’s what happens on Election Day, it will be in spite of the ballot I will cast.

national news

Looking ahead — already! — to Trump departure

Forgive me for getting ahead of myself, but I cannot help but think about how Donald J. Trump is going to leave the world stage when his time comes.

My gut tells me it won’t be pretty, no matter the terms of the president’s departure.

He’ll either leave after one term in January 2021; or he could get a second term and he’ll leave in January 2025.

Or … he’ll leave before the end of either term. If you get my drift.

The custom is that presidents hand over the keys to the White House to their successor. They get on the helicopter and fly away toward retirement. They then serve their retirement years in relative quiet, pursuing this and/or that cause.

Do you really think Trump will go out with that usual customary class and grace? I don’t. I fear he’ll keep yapping well beyond his years in the White House.

And that’s if he is able to walk away on his own terms, either after one term or — God forbid! — two terms.

If he is forced out by issues that have preoccupied many of us for most of his term to date in office, well, we will need to settle in for an indeterminate siege from the 45th president of the United States.

I’ll need to put these thoughts aside for the time being and concern myself with the issues of the day.

They concern whether the president colluded with Russians who attacked our electoral system. Hey, they’re real. They aren’t a “hoax.”

national news

What if Robert Mueller … ?

The special counsel examining whether Donald Trump’s presidential campaign colluded with Russians who attacked our electoral process has many finish lines ahead of him.

I want to focus on just two of them.

What if he finds collusion and obstruction of justice? What if he determines that the president is right, that there was no wrongdoing?

Either way, it won’t satisfy at least half the nation.

If Robert Mueller’s legal team finds evidence of collusion and obstruction of justice — and maybe more — you can bet the farm, the ranch and your first-born child that Trumpkins across the land are going to howl loudly. Mueller might recommend bringing criminal charges. He simply might say that the president did something wrong and leave it at that. Rest assured, it will ignite a firestorm.

If, though, he comes up with nothing, you can make the same wager that those on the other side will howl just as loudly as the Trumpkins. Their angst will come from a deeply held belief that Trump is an agent of the Russians, that Vladimir Putin has the goods on him, that the president simply is unfit for the office to which he was elected.

Whatever the conclusion, Mueller’s final report will not end the intense national quarreling.

My reaction? I would hope to be more, um, magnanimous. Even if it goes against what I believe.

I have many thoughts about what Trump did. Or what he allowed to be done. I have said all along that I believe he is unfit for the presidency. But I haven’t seen the evidence. I haven’t studied the nitty-gritty of it. I haven’t talked to lawyers, national security experts or political operatives close to the situation.

I’m sitting here in the cheap seats, the peanut gallery, where opinions get all the respect they deserve.

I would therefore be forced to accept whatever Mueller decides, even if it rubs me raw, or inflames my political passion, or fills me with anger.

Back in 1995 when the jury acquitted O.J. Simpson of murdering his former wife and her friend, I shared the anger of millions of Americans who believed Simpson got away with a heinous crime. I couldn’t fathom how the jury could make the decision in four hours after sitting through months of testimony, theatrics and fire-breathing testimony.

But the jurors did. The judicial system worked, even if it didn’t satisfy all of us. I didn’t agree with the jurors, but I accepted it. Why? Because they heard all the evidence. I didn’t.

Thus, I believe I am capable of moving on even if Robert Mueller’s investigative journey staggers to a conclusion I won’t like.

national news

Trump channels Nixon with enemies list

Donald Trump has reminded us that one of Richard Nixon’s lasting legacies is alive and so dangerously well in the White House.

Get a load of this: The president is seeking to yank the top-secret security clearances of several former top intelligence officials. They are former CIA Directors John Brennan and Michael Hayden, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey.

What do these men have in common? They’re all critical of the president. Have they released classified information in their criticism of Donald Trump? No.

Yet the president has concocted a phony pretext for stripping these men of their clearances.

Just as President Nixon formulated his infamous enemies list to target his critics, it appears Donald Trump is following suit.

It’s been a long-standing tradition for these individuals — all of whom provided valuable national security service to the nation — to maintain their clearances. The aim was to provide an extra level of security to the defense of the nation.

All these men have done in recent months is exercise their First Amendment rights of political expression. They have spoken their minds but have not given up a scintilla of information that should be guarded with utmost secrecy.

This is tantamount to a presidential enemies list — 2.0. Who’s next? DNI Dan Coats? FBI Director Christopher Wray?

Donald Trump well might be exhibiting symptoms of going bonkers.

Richard Nixon would be proud of this presidential successor.