Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

media news, national news, political news

Moderators become part of the campaign ’16 story

03moderators-combo-master768

Admit it if you dare.

You’ve been wondering who would moderate the three joint appearances scheduled with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Now we know.

Lester Holt of NBC will do the first one; ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper will co-moderate the second; Fox’s Chris Wallace gets the call for the third one.

This normally wouldn’t be a y-u-u-u-u-g-e deal, except for what happened in the first GOP gathering in 2015 when Trump bristled openly at the first question posed by Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, who had the “gall” to ask Trump about his previous statements about women. You know, the “fat pigs” stuff.

Trump didn’t like the question. Not only that, he kept up the feud through much of the GOP primary campaign, refusing to participate in a later event moderated by the same Megyn Kelly.

He demonstrated a preposterous level of petulance.

He made the media the issue, which plays well with the Republican base, given that they hate the media, too.

Moderators aren’t supposed to become part of a political story. This year they have been. Remember, too, when CNN’s Candy Crowley in 2012 corrected GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s assertion that President Obama didn’t refer to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror.

Oh, but this is a new era. Trump has ensured that the media will become part of the narrative because, as he discovered, the base of his party’s voters love gnawing on that red meat.

Will he go after Holt, or Raddatz, or Cooper or Wallace?

Or, will any of them provoke a fiery response with a question that Trump deems to be untoward?

Gosh, I’m getting all tingly now just waiting for it.

national news, political news

9/11 to bring relief from campaign

911-september-11th-attacks

Now, for a little good news regarding the dismal campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Both major-party nominees — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Donald J. Trump — have agreed to suspend campaigning for a day.

That day will be Sept. 11, which happens to be the 15th year since the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and crashed a third jetliner into a Pennsylvania field.

An aside: I hesitate to use the word “anniversary” to define this event … if you get my drift.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-clinton-september-11-campaigns-227559

We all remember how we heard the terrible news. We all remember the horror, the shock, the grief, the sickening feeling we felt as we watched the events unfold on that terrible day.

That day ought to be a day of reflection over what happened and a day of solemn prayer for the nation that continues to fight on against the evil forces that seek to destroy us.

It has become something of a tradition since 9/11. President Bush and Sen. John Kerry suspended their campaigns in 2004, as did Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008; indeed, Obama and McCain appeared together at an event at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan. In 2012, President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney held events, but those events memorialized the victims of the attack.

We need not hear the candidates’ yammering on this solemn date.

political news, State news

Trump confounds them by holding rally … in Texas!

061616TTtrump000028_jpg_800x1000_q100

Donald J. Trump has said many times how he has surrounded himself with “the best people” to run his presidential campaign.

If they are “the best,” one can ask, why do they keep sending him (a) to states he has no chance of winning and (b) to states he has virtually no chance of losing in the upcoming election?

As Ross Ramsey of the Texas Tribune points out, Trump is coming to Austin — the one in Texas — for a political rally this week.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/22/analysis-texas-august-funny-place-trump-rally/

It’s an interesting call.

Trump, the Republican nominee, is losing all the battleground states to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, North Carolina … they all need to hear from the GOP candidate.

Texans appear to have their minds made up. They’re going with Trump — apparently — even though a recent PPP poll said Trump leads Clinton by just 6 percentage points. That marks a significant whittling of the margin that Mitt Romney won by in 2012 over Barack Obama.

Trump, though, is going to stage a rally in Texas.

Go figure.

Shoot, as long as he’s in Texas, he ought to fly Trump One — or whatever they’re calling that jet of his — to Amarillo, where I know he’d get a hero’s welcome.

national news, political news, religious news

Utah up for grabs in race for president? Seriously?

trump-temple-hammer-copy

We’ve been “treated,” if that’s the right word for it, to the most unconventional presidential election campaign in memory.

Let’s ponder this bit of intelligence from the campaign trail.

Utah might become one of those “battleground states.”

Yes, that well might be happening as Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump battles Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

You see, Trump has said some things that offend Utahans.

Big deal, you say? He’s offended lots of folks all along the way. Veterans, people with disabilities, Latinos, women, Muslims.

Oh, yes, about those Muslims who have been singled out by Trump. That’s where the Utah story starts to take root.

Mormons comprise a large majority of Utah residents. They understand — and recognize — religious bigotry when they see it. Their forebears went through lots of discrimination and persecution when they settled in Utah. Indeed, there remain remnants of it to this very day.

Trump, of course, has proposed banning Muslims from entering the country. He is fostering a fever-pitch fear of terrorists by injecting an element of religious profiling. How do you think that plays with a key Republican voting bloc that knows a thing or two about such profiling?

Utah also hasn’t voted for a Democrat for president since 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson was elected in that historic landslide. That’s 12 presidential elections.

Mormon culture also fosters an overwhelmingly pro-family environment. Devoted Mormons embrace conservative lifestyles. They aren’t likely too keen on the flamboyance and opulence that Trump flaunts as he traipses across the country.

You want an unconventional election result? The bizarre nature of this campaign would be buttoned up quite nicely if Donald Trump were to actually lose Utah to Clinton.

Consider, too, that 2012 Republican presidential nominee (and devout Mormon) Mitt Romney — a fairly iconic political figure in Utah — has declared his unwavering opposition to Trump’s candidacy.

If Utah becomes a contested battleground for Trump and Clinton, you likely can bet the farm that the Democratic nominee is going to win this election in a gigantic rout.

national news, political news

Ready for a ‘first-name president’?

hillary

Am I hearing things?

Whenever I watch TV news/opinion talk shows, I keep hearing people — political experts, strategists and rank-and-file voters — referring to the Democratic Party presidential nominee by her first name.

She’s just plain “Hillary.”

Hillary’s got to do this or that. Hillary suffers from this “trust” deficit. Hillary’s standing in the polls is going up.

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary …

I don’t yet know about the psychology of this first-name reference. Hillary Clinton is a serious person. By my way of thinking, she’s far more serious than her Republican presidential nominee opponent, Donald J. Trump.

I’ve tried throughout my commentary on this political campaign to reference the Democratic nominee the same way media refer to every other politician or public figure: first and last name in the initial reference; last name in subsequent references.

I’ll admit, though, to fall off the traditional method wagon. I’ve taken to referring to other politicians by their first names. They are Mitt (Romney), Newt (Gingrich) and Jeb (Bush).

I mean no disrespect to any of them. I actually rather like Mitt and Jeb. Newt? Not so much.

I get a strange sense, though, that the use of Hillary Clinton’s first name only is more a symptom of disrespect than affection. I hear it from disgruntled voters who are likely to vote for Trump. I hear it also from conservative media talking heads who certainly are no fans of the Democratic Party presidential nominee.

As for the office these two people are seeking — the presidency — I also have taken up the custom of using the term “President” while referring to those who have held the office. I use that reference out of respect for the office.

My hope is that the media and others will treat Hillary Clinton with the same respect accorded those who have preceded her in that high office.

Now … as for Donald J. Trump, I’ll admit to anticipating a serious struggle if somehow he manages to become the next president of the United States.

International news, military news, national news, political news

NATO remains our premier alliance

formation-of-nato-hero-AB

Here’s a quick pop quiz question for you …

Of all the alliances that included the United States, which of them was deemed the most crucial and which of them has lasted the longest?

Time’s up!

The answer is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, formed in 1949 as the Cold War was reaching a fever pitch. It was formed as a defense alliance against the military threat posed by the Soviet Union and its bloc of nations against Western Europe.

Its mission has changed a bit since 1991, when the Evil Empire collapsed. The Soviet Union no longer poses a threat, but Russia does.

So, what does the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, propose to do? He wants to establish financial conditions on whether the United States would honor its treaty obligations in case Russia were to attack, say, any or all of the Baltic States.

Trump told the New York Times that if he’s elected president that he would examine whether a threatened NATO nation had upheld its financial responsibilities as part of the defense pact. I mention the Baltic States because they once were Soviet provinces, but they became independent as the Soviet Union fell; Russia has been making some noise about re-annexing Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, all of which are now NATO members.

With that statement, Trump has proposed a fundamental rewriting of our oldest post-World War II military alliance.

According to the New York Times: “The United States created the 28-nation alliance, and Article 5 of the NATO treaty, signed by President Truman, requires any member to come to the aid of another that NATO declares was attacked. It has been invoked only once: NATO pledged to defend the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Yes, we’ve been a charter member of the United Nations, which was formed in 1945. I’m wondering if Trump — in stating his nationalist fervor — is going to propose we withdraw from the U.N. as a sop to the TEA Party faction with the GOP that has been supporting his presidential candidacy.

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012 called Russia the nation’s No. 1 geopolitical threat. Given that hindsight provides such clarity, Romney’s view now appears to be quite prescient.

Trump now is going to put conditions on whether we rise to the defense of a NATO member nation. Are they paying their bills? Have they made good on maintaining their financial obligations to NATO? Are we going to let the citizens of a country under attack be subjected to the tyranny that Russian rule would bring to them because their government hasn’t paid their fair share of the cost associated with NATO membership?

How many more examples is the GOP presidential nominee going to provide that demonstrate his absolute ignorance of geopolitical alliances before it sinks in that he is unfit for the office he seeks?

Great nations do not go back on their word to protect their allies.

national news, political news

Host governor takes a pass on GOP convention

john-kasich-970f2f8054b7f4d6

Of all the Republican Party no-shows for this week’s GOP presidential nominating convention, I want to focus on one of them.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich is taking a pass.

He won’t be in the convention hall to welcome the delegates. He won’t speak on behalf of the party’s presumptive nominee. He will be absent from the proceedings.

Kasich has told the media he plans to be in Cleveland, even though his governor’s duties might require him to stay on the job down yonder in Columbus.

He’s not alone, of course. The party’s two living former presidents — George H.W. and George W. Bush — are staying away. The party’s two most recent presidential nominees — John McCain and Mitt Romney — won’t darken the convention hall door. Jeb Bush will be a goner. Several GOP members of Congress facing tough re-election fights won’t be there, either.

None of these folks can stand Donald J. Trump, the party’s nominee.

Kasich’s absence, though, is the most profound.

He was one of the 16 Republicans who ran against Trump. Although he didn’t get tagged with a label — a la “Lyin’ Ted,” “Little Marco,” or “Low Energy Jeb” — Kasich became the target of a Trump barb as the GOP frontrunner poked fun of Kasich’s eating habits, for crying out loud!

It’s a very big deal for the governor of the state that is hosting a political nominating convention to stay away.

Kasich, who was my favorite Republican primary candidate, is a longtime GOP pol with a stellar record as a member of Congress. He had a record on which to run, such as his leadership in helping craft a federal balanced budget while he chaired the House Budget Committee. In a normal election year, that might be enough all by itself to put a presidential candidate over the top.

Oh, wait! This is anything but a normal election year.

I’m glad to see Gov. Kasich refuse to have his good name tainted by an association with a nominee who has parlayed his penchant for insults into a winning campaign formula.

national news, political news

Trump talks about ‘Trump’ while introducing Gov. Pence

pence-and-trump1

I watched Donald J. Trump make his big announcement this morning.

He stood before a row of Old Glories to introduce Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his Republican Party vice-presidential running mate.

I sat there, in front of my TV. I waited. And waited. And waited some more. I waited for Trump to stop talking about himself — often in the third person — and waited for him to say something good about the guy with whom he’ll run for the White House.

The presumptive GOP nominee prattled on and on for nearly 30 minutes, boasting about his primary victory over a huge field of candidates.

He railed against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. He talked about how free trade is bad for America, about how NAFTA has siphoned jobs from the United States to Mexico.

Then he got around to introducing Pence, who then delivered a fairly straightforward pasting of Clinton and the Democrats. He also said a few nice words about Trump, who he called a “good man.”

Pence, by the way, voted in favor of NAFTA and CAFTA while he served in the House of Representatives. The two candidates are going to have to come to an understanding on trade policy, yes?

Mike Pence’s big day turned out to be, oh, Donald Trump’s big day.

Is that a surprise? Heavens no!

The commentators who opined about the Pence roll-out noted something quite interesting: Sen. John McCain of Arizona spoke for 7 minutes while introducing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in 2008; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney spoke for about 10 minutes before unveiling Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin in 2012.

McCain and Romney spent their entire time talking about their running mates. That moment was about them, not the men at the top of their tickets.

Trump didn’t do it that way.

Naturally!

political news

Get ready for record low turnout … possibly

jeb-bush-donkey-hotey

John Ellis Bush likely spoke for a lot of Americans over the weekend.

He doesn’t like Donald J. Trump and he won’t vote for him for president. Nor does he trust Hillary Rodham Clinton, so she won’t get his vote, either.

Bush — aka “Jeb” — is quite likely going to leave the top of his ballot blank when the time comes for him to vote.

He said it “breaks my heart” that he cannot support the Republican Party nominee, Trump. But he and the presumptive GOP nominee have some history that Bush cannot set aside.

Bush told MSBNC’s Nicolle Wallace — a former communications director for President George W.  Bush — that Trump has conducted what amounts to a successful mutiny of the Republican Party. He praises the real estate mogul/TV celebrity for winning the party nomination fair and square. Trump, though, did it by tapping into a voter sentiment that none of the other GOP candidates — including Jeb Bush — could locate.

This makes me think my earlier prediction of a potentially record-low-turnout election might not be too far off the mark.

The current record belongs to the 1996 contest that saw President Bill Clinton re-elected over Bob Dole and Ross Perot with just a 49 percent turnout of eligible voters.

Now we have polling data that tell us Hillary Clinton and Trump are profoundly disliked by most voters. FBI Director James Comey’s stunning critique of Clinton’s handling of classified information on her personal e-mail server has only heightened voters’ mistrust of her … and to think that the director then said he wouldn’t recommend criminal charges be brought against her!

As for Trump, well, I won’t weigh in here. You know how much I despise that guy.

Jeb Bush won’t attend the GOP convention. Neither will his brother and father — two former presidents. Nor will Mitt Romney or John McCain, the party’s two most recent presidential nominee.

Oh, and the governor of the state where the convention will take place? Ohio Gov. John Kasich, another former Republican presidential candidate, won’t darken the door at the Cleveland arena where delegates are going to nominate Donald Trump.

Let’s face the daunting reality that a lot of Americans just might follow Jeb’s lead and stay home.

legal news, national news, political news

Clinton need not be shut out of classified access

BBrGg2n

Let’s settle down just a bit, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan.

The Wisconsin Republican said Wednesday that Hillary Rodham Clinton should be denied access to “classified material” after she becomes the Democratic Party’s nominee for president of the United States.

Why? Because of her handling of the e-mails while she was secretary of state and because, according to the speaker, it “looks like” the FBI gave her preferential treatment in its yearlong investigation into her use of a personal e-mail server while she led the State Department.

It’s been customary for decades to allow presidential and vice-presidential nominees access to national security briefings while they campaign for the White House. Ryan got it when he ran for VP four years ago along with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

I thought the best response to this statement of outrage from Ryan came from famed defense lawyer and constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz. He said on CNN Wednesday that — in light of FBI Director James Comey’s stern tongue-lashing in announcing he would recommend no criminal charges be brought against Clinton — that the former secretary of state would be careful in the extreme in reviewing this classified material.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ryan-block-clintons-access-to-classified-materials/ar-BBu0Vt8?li=BBmkt5R

Ryan, of course, won’t be called off. Quite naturally — and expectedly — he’s angry that the FBI and the Justice Department have decided that Clinton didn’t commit any crimes. He’s going to proceed with a Republican investigation into the FBI probe to determine whether Comey and his staff of career prosecutors did their job fairly, without bias and without outside influence.

It’s quite obvious to me that Ryan’s mind is made up, that the FBI was in the tank for the Democratic presidential candidate. This GOP investigation won’t answer any questions.

For her part, Clinton needs to face the partisan outrage head-on. I hope she does so. Will she be able to quell the partisan anger? No.

In the meantime, Clinton she should be able — as a candidate for president — to receive the national security briefings that has gone to previous nominees.