Tag Archives: JFK

national news, political news

Try this conspiracy theory on for size

2 Comments

donald-trump-s-presidential-campaign-manager-arrested-1459339462-4920.jpg

Those who believe conspiracies exist behind every decision or public policy action might be inclined at this moment to believe the following …

That the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, really doesn’t want the job for which he has been campaigning and is throwing the election on purpose.

Do not count me as a conspiracy theorist. I believe men have walked on the moon, that the 9/11 attacks were a surprise and that Lee Harvey Oswald alone killed President Kennedy.

The Trump phenomenon, however, has me thinking — yet again — about whether the guy really wants to become president of the United States.

He gets his party’s nomination, then sits through four days of watching the Democrats nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton the next week.

Then, right out of the chute after Clinton secures the nomination, Trump goes after the parents of a fallen U.S. Army soldier who happened to be Muslim, and then insists that a crying baby be removed from a rally at which he was speaking. Then he said he wished he could have earned a Purple Heart in combat.

What in the name of the Theater of the Absurd is going on here?

Time and time and time again, Trump has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of anything regarding governance. He reportedly quizzed a senior campaign staffer about why the United States was prohibited from using nuclear weapons; Trump’s campaign has denied that he asked the question. OK, Don … whatever you say.

The Republican Party brass can’t stand him. His campaign appears to be disintegrating before our eyes.

Is it on purpose? Is the GOP nominee deliberately sabotaging his campaign so he can stick it in the collective eyes and/or ears of those who fear for their party’s viability as a legitimate political instrument?

Look, I don’t know if any of this is true. It’s just that the unpredictability factor of this campaign makes it impossible to dismiss what — in normal times — would seem to be preposterous in the extreme.

Nothing at all would surprise at this point.

After all, the Republican Party nominated this guy to run for president of the United States of America. Is there anything more preposterous than that?

national news, political news

Gov. Pence waiting in the wings

pence_122_072811

The speculation around who Donald J. Trump will select as his Republican Party running mate seems to be focusing on Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

Honestly, I have trouble believing anyone Trump picks is going to be decisive, that the individual will spell the difference between victory and defeat for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. VP nominees usually don’t sway elections. I say “usually,” because we do have evidence that Lyndon Johnson’s presence on the Democratic ticket in 1960 helped John Kennedy win the Lone Star State on his way to a narrow victory over Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge.

But as long as we’re talking about Pence, let’s look briefly at a couple of aspects of this fellow’s record.

He’s a former congressman. He’s been governor of Indiana for a while. Thus, he has Capitol Hill and executive governing experience. That’s a plus, given Trump’s “record” of hosting a reality TV show, slapping his name on garish hotels and casinos, not to mention his various failed business ventures.

Pence also is a social conservative. He opposes a woman’s right to obtain an abortion; he opposes same-sex marriage.

The question anyone Trump picks as a running mate, though, is this: Will the presidential nominee actually heed whatever political advice the VP candidate gives him?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/donald-trump-ultimate-outsider-turned-insider-mike-pence-indiana-republican-congress?utm_content=buffer03d8b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Until this very moment, Trump is exhibiting a go-it-alone approach to just about everything as he runs for the presidency. He isn’t showing — as far as I can see — any tendency to seek advice from political pros. After all, he’s the ultimate “outsider,” so he doesn’t need any stinkin’ advice from those who he has said all along are part of whatever problems are afflicting the federal government.

Pence doesn’t strike me as someone who’ll be able to change Trump’s modus operandi while he continues his campaign for the presidency.

Suppose it is Pence. Suppose, too, that Pence gets assurances that he’ll be taken seriously as a key member of Trump’s campaign team.

Has the GOP’s presidential nominee exhibited a commitment to keeping his word? Is he totally trustworthy?

Well, I’m guessing Pence — or whomever gets the call from Trump — will have to weigh all of that, too, before deciding whether to hoist the nominee’s hand at the convention in Cleveland.

Well, let’s see what happens Friday. Trump will let us all know who gets the call.

national news

Dallas set to begin long road back from grief

dallas-shooting-protest-390x285

It’s been said in recent days that the tragedy that struck Dallas is somewhat reminiscent of an earlier time, another tragedy, another moment of profound community sorrow.

The deaths of five police officers is tragic in the extreme and no one should give short shrift to the grief. Their families are shattered. A community is forced to ask itself “Why?” in the wake of the violence that erupted the other night near the end of a peaceful march through the city’s downtown district.

Dallas, though, has shown a community spirit that was challenged in the most horrific fashion imaginable. It occurred nearly 53 years ago when President John F. Kennedy was gunned down while riding in a motorcade through the city.

Those of us who are old enough to recall that terrible shock understand the national grief that enveloped us all. I’m not at all sure how one grapples with such grief when it happens in your community, with your neighbors directly involved.

Dallas suffered a terrible stigma as a result of that single act of violence in 1963. It took a while for the city to recover. It did.

It became an even more vibrant community. It grew out of its grief and has become one of the world’s — not just one of the nation’s — great cities.

It’s good to take note that communities far more often than not are able to dig deep to find the reservoir of encouragement from which they will build a path toward the future.

Whether they are struck by profound natural disaster or by the kind of violence that erupted the other night — and that which claimed the life of a world leader more than a half-century ago — they find a way back.

I am supremely confident that Dallas will recover and that it will emerge from this tragedy an even better community.

Some prayer and good wishes clearly are in order as Dallas seeks to collect itself.

national news, political news

Obama lacks GOP go-to pal in Congress

Valerie-Jarrett

Valerie Jarrett gave a stellar defense Sunday night of her boss and long-time friend President Barack Obama.

Her appearance on “60 Minutes” was notable in her defense as well of her role — in addition to senior adviser — as friend, confidante and her easy access to the Leader of the Free World.

But she pushed back when CBS News correspondent Nora O’Donnell asked her about the president’s continuing prickly relationship with congressional Republicans. She said Obama has done all he could do to reach out.

O’Donnell, though, asked — but did get an answer — about the lack of a leading Republican in either the Senate or the House to whom the president could turn to fight for his legislative agenda.

It brought to mind the kind of relationship that previous presidents have cultivated with members of the “loyal opposition.” President Lyndon Baines Johnson could turn to GOP Sen. Everett Dirksen in a pinch; President Ronald Reagan had a fabulous after-hours friendship with Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill; GOP President George W. Bush relied on help from Sen. Ted Kennedy to push through education reform.

Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have that kind of personal friendship with members of the other side. He relies on his own instincts, his own circle of friends — such as Jarrett — and the vice president, Joe Biden, who to this day retains close friendships with Senate Republicans.

It’s that lack of kinship that has troubled many of us who want the president to succeed. I recall having this discussion once with retired Amarillo College president Paul Matney, who lamented that Obama had not developed the legislative know-how that LBJ brought to the presidency.

LBJ had served as Senate majority leader before his one-time foe John F. Kennedy asked him to be his running mate in 1960. Ol’ Lyndon knew how the Senate worked and he was able to parlay that knowledge — along with tremendous national good will after JFK’s assassination in 1963 — into landmark legislation.

Barack Obama has been forced to struggle, to battle relentlessly, to get anything past a Republican-led Congress intent on blocking every major initiative he has sought.

The reasons behind the ultra-fierce resistance will be debated long after President Obama leaves office.

He seems, though, to have lacked one essential ingredient to move his agenda forward: a good friend and dependable ally on the other side of the aisle who could run interference for him.

 

business news, national news, political news

Trump’s wealth becomes issue of interest

donald

Does it really matter how much wealth Donald J. Trump has acquired?

Should voters really care? Should we concern ourselves with all of this?

Under normal circumstances, probably not. But here’s the thing: The presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee has been making his wealth an issue all along the primary campaign trail.

He brags about his “world-class business.” He boasts about how he built his company from scratch … although that’s not true. He shows off his opulent mansions.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/how-much-is-trump-worth-223329

We’re hearing now that Trump’s net worth is around $10 billion. No one has ever believed he has that kind of dough laying around. Trump filed a 104-page financial disclosure form — and he even bragged about that, calling it the largest such disclosure form in history.

As Politico reports: “Many of his assets and liabilities are simply too large — reaching far above the top disclosure threshold on the filing — for their value to be captured in the report. Trump, for instance, reported at least $315 million in liabilities on the form, many of which are loans and mortgages on his properties. The forms cover Trump’s last 17 months of financial activity.”

Where is all this going? I am not entirely clear, but ultimately it’s going to end up with discussion and debate about Trump’s tax returns, which he still has yet to release.

You see, this is what happens when the candidate makes a big deal of his material holdings. It mushrooms into realms that under normal circumstances wouldn’t necessarily be of voters’ concerns.

Voters knew that the Kennedy family was wealthy. The Kennedy men who ran for the nation’s highest public office — John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Ted Kennedy — didn’t make it an issue. Nelson Rockefeller’s family had acquired immense wealth as well. Rocky didn’t dwell on it, either.

Trump, though, makes his wealth an issue all … the … time.

I’m more interested in debating Trump’s views on the whole array of issues that should be front and center.

 

International news, military news, national news, political news

Yes, he got the Nobel Peace Prize

obama nobel

The New York Times has posted a story that bestows a dubious legacy on President Barack Obama.

He’s about to exit the presidency after serving two full terms with the country at war.

His time in office will include more time at war than FDR, Richard Nixon, LBJ or Abraham Lincoln, the Times reports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/obama-as-wartime-president-has-wrestled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

I doubt very much that President Obama is going to tout this legacy, particularly as he starts serious planning for his presidential library.

It brings to mind something I brought up in this blog a while back, which is his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize during the first year of his presidency.

He’ll never give it back. I’m not suggesting he should, although I did write a blog that said I wouldn’t be all that upset if he did.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/11/11478/

The Nobel committee honored the then-brand-new president as a rebuke, or so it has been speculated, to his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush. The Nobel panel thought little of President Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq and many analysts suggested that awarding Obama the Peace Prize was meant to stick it in Bush’s ear over the Iraq War.

The official reason was that the Nobel Prize committee felt Obama had the promise of bringing the world to a new era of peace.

It hasn’t happened.

Is it the president’s fault? Does he shoulder the burden of continuing conflict around the world? No.

We’re still killing terrorists. We’ve been fighting a virtual all-out war with the Islamic State, which emerged from the rubble of the Iraq War as that country established a Shiite Muslim government, which is anathema to the Sunni Muslims comprising the Islamic State.

It’s clear that Obama delivered on his pledge to end our active combat role in Iraq. The Afghan War rages on as well, with troops remaining in that theater well past the time the president had hoped to bring them home.

I remain a supporter of Barack Obama. I believe he did a masterful job of infusing aid to shore up an economy in free fall. I also believe he’s done well in developing alliances around the world.

This wartime presidential legacy, though, is one that shouldn’t make any of us proud … least of all the man whose time as leader of the Free World is about to end.

 

national news, political news

When did political spouses deserve the blame?

kennedys

A picture showed up on my Facebook feed with the caption: No one blamed Jackie for what Jack did.

Hmm. Interesting, yes?

Now we’re getting a lot of blame being tossed around at the wife of another president.

Times really have changed.

President John F. Kennedy was a seriously unfaithful husband. During the time he was president — from January 1961 until November 1963 — his transgressions went unreported by the media that knew about it, but kept it secret through an understanding: If it doesn’t affect his performance as president, it doesn’t matter.

Years later, long after JFK had been buried and his wife had remarried, the world knew of what he had done behind his wife’s back.

Have we blamed Jackie for what the president did?

No. Today, the calculus is different.

Republican candidate for president Donald J. Trump is now blaming Hillary Rodham Clinton for being an “enabler.” That’s a reason to vote against her for president, said Trump. Why? Because she was mean to other women who accused her husband, Bill Clinton, of being unfaithful to her.

The House of Representatives impeached President Clinton for lying under oath about his relationship with a young White House intern. The Senate acquitted him in the trail that ensued.

Does any of that have an impact on how Hillary Rodham Clinton would govern the country if she’s elected president this fall? No.

In fact, I saw another social media post that suggested that Hillary Clinton’s response to her husband’s transgression should be saluted, not condemned. The Clinton family stayed together. They worked through their anger and heartbreak.

Of course, none of us knows what they have said to each other in private. Nor should we know. It’s their business exclusively.

Perhaps the most ironic twist of all in this game of blaming a political spouse for her husband’s behavior is the reputation of the individual who’s leveling the blame.

Given his own highly publicized history of marital infidelity, Donald Trump has no standing — zero! — to challenge the moral rectitude of any other human being in public life.

national news, political news

Trump’s innuendo will live on

cruzandfamily

Donald J. Trump has done many seemingly “impossible” things while getting to the brink of the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.

Heck, just getting to this stage of the campaign — as the presumptive nominee of a once-great political party — ought to stand as the premier impossible accomplishment.

It isn’t, though. Instead, Trump managed to make Sen. Ted Cruz a sympathetic figure.

How did he do that? By tossing out the innuendo that Cruz’s father had some kind of relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who shot President Kennedy to death in 1963.

Cruz’s campaign for the presidency is now over. But the utterly hideous assertion about the senior Cruz’s supposed “role” in the JFK murder lives on.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/

Dallas Morning News blogger Jim Mitchell calls it a “new low” in a campaign full of new lows.

Trump used a National Enquirer story into a talking point on his campaign. That’s correct. A supermarket tabloid offered grist for Trump to assert something about a member of an opponent’s family.

As Mitchell writes: “What Trump did is what makes him such a loose cannon. He reads or hears something and then repeats it as the truth. Imagine President Trump making policy on hearsay, or an outright lie, or a plotline he picked up from a television show the night before. I can imagine waking up and having a President Trump explaining why he ordered a nuclear strike with this rationale.”

In truth, I cannot even imagine the words “President” and “Trump” next to each other in a written or spoken sentence.

The Cruz/Oswald innuendo is likely to stand out in the endless list of ghastly assertions Trump has made on his way to becoming the Republican Party nominee for president of the United States.

Unbelievable.

 

national news, political news

JFK becomes part of this campaign?

ted-cruz-father-jfk-assassination-f

Chris Matthews is a well-known liberal commentator with a reputation of talking over anyone he’s interviewing.

When the MSNBC pundit gets his dander up, he’s quite capable of delivering profound analysis of all things political.

Consider this: Matthews is incensed at Donald J. Trump’s assertion that Ted Cruz’s father somehow was complicit in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Matthews’ point? It is that Trump has crossed yet another boundary of good taste as he campaigns for the Republican Party presidential nomination. This time he has invoked a tragic memory that has burned itself indelibly into the minds of Americans old enough to remember the Nov. 22, 1963 murder of a president.

And for what purpose? Matthews called it cheap politics. Trump has cheapened Americans’ heartbreak by using the JFK murder as a political cudgel with which he seeks to beat a political opponent.

Trump remembers that day, just like the rest of us who were old enough to recall it.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Matthews’ belief that Trump once again has displayed an utter and absolute lack of respect for historical context.

Matthews also believes Trump’s preposterous assertion about Cruz’s father’s relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald is going to “matter.”

I’m not sure about that.

I do believe, though, that Trump lacks a fundamental trait necessary to become the head of state of the world’s greatest nation.

It is decency.

 

national news, political news

Don’t look for these rivals to make up

cruz-trump_jpg_800x1000_q100

Recent political history is full of examples of how rivals for the presidency have said means and occasionally disgusting things to and about each other … and then hooked up as allies.

In 1960, U.S. Sens. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson fought each other for the Democratic presidential nomination. JFK was nominated and then picked LBJ to run with him. They won the election and the rest is, well, history.

Twenty years later, former Gov. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush battled for the 1980 Republican nomination, with Bush labeling Reagan’s tax plan as “voodoo economics.” Reagan won the GOP nod and then picked Bush to run alongside him as vice president.

In 2008, the combatants were Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden fighting for the Democratic nomination. Biden dropped out, Obama won the nomination and picked Biden to run with him. President-elect Obama then turned to another campaign rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and selected her to be secretary of state.

In 2016, well, matters are quite a bit different.

The battlers this time are Donald J. Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz. They are fighting for the Republican nomination.

The gloves are off. The brass knuckles are on. The men loathe each other. Trump calls Cruz “Lyin’ Ted.” Cruz is now responding with attacks on Trump, referring to him as a “pathological liar” and a “serial philanderer.”

Trump now says that Cruz’s father might have been a principal — are you ready for this one? — in the assassination of President Kennedy. Cruz’s response was classic: “Let’s be clear: This is nuts. This is not a reasonable position. This is kooky,” Cruz said in Evansville, Ind. “While I’m at it, I should go ahead and admit yes, my dad killed JFK, he is secretly Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa is buried in his backyard.”

Cruz is likely to get battered badly in today’s Indiana GOP primary. He’s going all-out against Trump. The men seem to truly despise each other.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/03/bracing-indiana-loss-cruz-unloads-trump/

Trying to predict any outcome in this year’s wacky presidential contest is a dicey proposition at best.

I feel comfortable, though, in asserting that Trump and Cruz will not team up for the fall campaign.