Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

political news, State news

Clinton within shouting distance of Trump in Texas

ClintonTrump-Split_jpg_800x1000_q100

Take heart, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A University of Texas poll says you’re trailing Donald J. Trump. But, hey, it’s only by 8 points. The previous Democratic presidential candidate — Barack Obama — lost the Texas vote to John McCain and Mitt Romney by double digits in 2008 and 2012, respectively.

A part of me, though, is a bit surprised that Trump has even an 8-point lead over Clinton in Texas.

I don’t know who University of Texas/Texas Political Projects Poll surveyed to come up with an 8-point gap. I wonder if it included the requisite number of Latino voters who comprise such a significant minority of Texans.

We all know how Trump — the presumptive Republican nominee for president — has gone out of his way to offend Latinos. He started with his plan to “build a beautiful wall” along our southern border; then he intimated that all Mexican illegal immigrants were “rapists, drug dealers and murderers”; then came the assertion that  an Indiana-born federal judge was biased against him because the judge’s parents were Mexican immigrants.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/27/poll-trump-leads-clinton-8-texas/

I’m well aware that public opinion surveys only serve as “snapshots.” They don’t predict the future.

However, some political thinkers believe Clinton has a legitimate chance of winning Texas this fall. Others, though, believe the state is too deeply Republican to change now and that Clinton isn’t the type of Democrat who can repaint the reliably red state into a blue one.

If the Democratic nominee is to have a chance of capturing Texas’s huge trove of electoral votes, she’ll need to get Latinos to the polls. History is not on her side.

Then again, we’ve all talked about how “conventional wisdom” has been tossed aside during this election season.

national news, political news

Political tradition may be in jeopardy

The American political system produces many memorable traditions.

One of them involves an event in which the candidates for president of the United States gather in New York to honor a memorial fund established in memory of the late New York Gov. Alfred E. Smith.

The candidates poke fun at each other, and at themselves.

These two clips are from the 2012 event featuring President Obama, the Democratic nominee, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate for president.

It is absolutely hilarious! As is the 2008 event with U.S. Sens. Obama and John McCain.

My question today is this: Is this tradition in jeopardy in light of the obvious disdain that the current presumptive nominees — Republican Donald J. Trump and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton — have for each other?

I’m trying to imagine Trump shrugging off “good-natured” barbs being thrown at him by Clinton. I’m also having difficulty imagining Trump being able to muster up the kind of delivery it takes to sling a zinger at Clinton, who then would laugh out loud.

I’ve noted already what NBC News political director Chuck Todd has observed, that neither Clinton or Trump offered words of congratulations to each other the other night after they secured their respective parties’ nominations.

That omission speaks to what looks to a lot of us as a precursor to the kind of campaign no one wants to see.

One of the beauties of our political system — and the people who participate in it — is that they’ve always found time to put the daggers back in the scabbard long enough to speak with good humor to some common good.

Is that tradition in jeopardy this year?

 

national news, political news

Speaker Ryan’s endorsement seems a bit tenuous

ryan

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan has “endorsed” Donald J. Trump’s candidacy for president of the United States.

Will it put the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s bid over the top? Will it ensure victory in November?

Consider just how Ryan framed his endorsement.

Ryan acknowledged many differences with Trump on policy; he said he wants Trump to change his campaign tone; he didn’t vow to campaign with Trump; he acknowledged that friends encouraged him to withhold his support.

The speaker is going to vote for Trump. So, the combative GOP nominee-to-be will have Ryan’s ballot box endorsement.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/speaker-paul-ryans-trump-endorsement-comes-with-caveats/ar-BBtOuVh?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump and Ryan have said they barely know each other. They’ve met and had what was called a “cordial” discussion about policy and other political matters.

It’s interesting, though, that Trump’s bluster and bravado seems to at odds with the kind of policy discussion that Ryan seems to want from his party’s presumed presidential nominee.

Do you remember how Trump all but threatened the speaker if Ryan doesn’t treat Trump the right way? I guess no one had yet told Trump that the speaker of the House packs way more political punch than a presidential nominee.

But, hey, shouldn’t the Republicans’ leading candidate for president have known that already?

The Ryan endorsement wasn’t a surprise.

The biggest calculation, though, might be in whether the speaker now will be able to deliver his home state of Wisconsin to the Republican nominee this fall.

Hmmm. Well, Ryan himself — as the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2012 — couldn’t deliver Wisconsin to the GOP ticket led by Mitt Romney.

This much now appears certain: Ryan endorsement of the GOP nominee likely has sounded the death knell for the “never Trump” movement.

Oh, and what about Mitt Romney? He’s not supporting Trump.

Let’s get on with this campaign.

national news, political news

Third-party bid emerging from … GOP?

romneymitt_110512gn8

I’m always willing to admit to being a little slow on the uptake at times.

Here’s an example of something I’m having trouble connecting.

Mitt Romney is recruiting members from within the Republican Party to run as “third-party” candidates for president in 2016.

Yes, that Mitt Romney. The Republicans’ 2012 presidential nominee. Mr. Establishment Republican himself.

Here’s what’s puzzling. At least two of the names he’s recruiting belong to other mainstream Republicans. Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279926-report-romney-met-with-kasich-sasse-about-third-party

These two fellows have at least one thing in common: They both despise Donald J. Trump, the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee.

For that matter, you can add Mitt to the list of Trump foes.

Let’s play this out for a second or two.

What happens if, say, Kasich or Sasse decide to take Mitt’s bait? They run for president as a “third party candidate.” What in the world do they call this “third party”? Would it be Republican 2.0? How about the Real Republican Party? Or, Your Grandpa’s GOP?

Trump’s brand of Republican Party politics bears virtually no resemblance to the kind of platform on which Mitt ran in 2012, or on which Kasich ran this year until he suspended his campaign just a few weeks ago.

I don’t know much about Sen. Sasse, other than he’s been a vocal Trump critic ever since Trump decided to run for the party’s presidential nomination.

I guess you have to go way back to 1912 to find such a serious schism within the Republican Party. That was when former President Theodore Roosevelt broke away from the GOP to form a progressive party, the Bull Moose Party. That split guaranteed the election that year of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

I’m guessing no one needs to remind Mitt that history does have a way of repeating itself.

 

business news, national news, political news

Release the tax returns already!

tax-return-form

Here’s how you give birth to rumor.

You refuse to do something that others in your position have done for decades. You then offer lame excuses for the refusal, which then start to breed gossip around the country about the alleged real reasons for the refusal.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump is refusing to release his tax returns. He says the Internal Revenue Service is in the midst of an audit; the IRS responds that an audit does not preclude someone from releasing the returns.

Other candidates for the presidency have routinely released their returns for public review. It’s part of the examination process to which the public is entitled as they consider who should become the nation’s head of state and government and commander in chief.

Trump should release the returns. Now.

I am not going to weigh in on what’s been said by those who think Trump might be hiding something. Such allegations have come from, say, 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

This might seem like a diversion. It really isn’t.

The refusal to comply what’s been customary among presidential candidates speaks to the character of the candidate.

Recall that Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders balked initially at releasing his returns, and he faced questions from an inquiring public. He said his wife prepared them and he described the findings as “boring.” He finally did.

Trump has been bellowing for decades about his immense wealth. He’s boasted about what a “world-class businessman” he’s been.

Well, OK. Let’s open up the books and let the public see for itself.

The world is chock full of equally world-class certified public accountants and tax lawyers who can parse the details for us.

 

 

 

International news, military news, national news, political news

Trump to get access to top-secret info

Protection Lock

Since 1952, the custom has been to give major-party presidential nominees access to top-secret security briefing material.

The idea has been to keep these individuals in the loop on pressing issues involving the safety of the nation. The 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, got the information from the Obama administration as he ran against Barack Obama; four years earlier, the Bush administration provided the briefings to Sens. Obama and John McCain while they ran against each other. That’s been the norm dating back to the days of the Truman administration.

Consider, then, that in just a few weeks the next Republican Party presidential nominee is going to receive these briefings and will be privy to some highly sensitive material.

Yes, that means Donald J. Trump is going to peek under the national security tent and know much of what the president and his military and intelligence staffers know about the dangers that threaten us.

I am not sure what is more frightening: the material to which Trump will have access or that he’ll actually be given that information in the first place.

This is the guy who this past year told “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd that he derives his national security “expertise” by watching “the shows” on Sunday morning, meaning the news talk shows presented on several of the broadcast and cable news networks.

Trump most recently said that former GOP rival Ted Cruz’s father might have been complicit in the murder of President Kennedy. His source for that disclosure? The National Enquirer.

The real estate mogul also said he wouldn’t have any problems with South Korea and (gulp!) Japan developing nuclear arsenals to deter the idiot/madman who runs North Korea.

President Obama will make the final call on the classification level of the information to be disseminated to the major-party nominees. There’s no law that mandates any of this. It’s strictly a judgment call. The president cannot let one nominee see more than the other, however, which means that Trump and probable Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton will get the same information.

I mentioned all this briefly last night to my wife, that Trump is going to get these national security briefings the moment he becomes the GOP presidential nominee.

Her response? “Oh … my.”

Exactly, my dear.

 

national news, political news

Ryan settles it: He’s will not accept it

90

I’ve been waiting for this declaration.

Today, it finally came from U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, who declared that he will not accept the Republican Party’s presidential nomination if it’s offered to him.

There. It’s a done deal.

Ryan’s declaration spells out a gloomy prospect for the Republican Party. It’s going to nominate — more than likely — one of two men who hold tremendous negative ratings among rank-and-file voters.

Donald J. Trump will go to the GOP convention with more delegates than anyone else. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas will show up with the second-most delegate stash.

Neither of these fellows is going to defeat probable Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, although surely their partisans will argue differently.

Ryan might have been able to rescue his party from what could turn out to be an electoral landslide loss. He’d bobbed, weaved, dodged and danced all over the question about whether he’d be open to a draft at the convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

“Count me out,” he said today. The convention should nominate someone who “actually ran for the job,” he said.

Don’t misread my intention here.

I don’t think Paul Ryan should become the next president. I voted against the ticket on which he ran in 2012 as the VP nominee with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

It would have been a fascinating development in the extreme, though, to see whether the convention could turn to him as a sort of political savior.

It won’t happen.

Now the party is left with a sour choice.

legal news, national news, political news

Clinton, Sanders differ on SCOTUS approach

hillary

Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders differ on quite a bit these days.

One of the more intriguing differences is seen in how they want the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court to be filled.

Sanders would pull the nomination of Merrick Garland — who President Obama has appointed to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia — off the table if he is elected president in November. He then would pick someone of his choosing.

Clinton doesn’t even think that’s a topic for discussion. She said this week that Obama is president until January and he deserves to have his pick for the court considered by the U.S. Senate.

She also takes sharp aim at the reason Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gives for obstructing this nomination, for wanting the next president to make the choice. McConnell said “the American people deserve a voice” in determining who that person should be.

Fine, said Clinton. “I was one of the 65 million people who voted” for President Obama’s re-election in 2012, she said, adding that McConnell is now trying to silence her voice, along with tens of millions of other voters who choose Obama over Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

You got that right, Mme. Secretary.

I, too, am among the nearly 66 million Americans who cast their ballots for the president. I don’t like being silenced any more than Clinton does. Nor should the rest of those who cast their ballots for the president.

Don’t we operate in a system that grants power to the candidate who gets more votes than the other person?

Yes, we have one president at a time. The man in the hot seat right now still has all the power entrusted to him by the U.S. Constitution.

Let this nomination go forward, Mr. Majority Leader. Americans’ voices have been heard.

legal news, national news, political news

‘American people’ have spoken, Mr. Leader

mitch

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is really starting to tick me off.

He keeps harping on this idiotic notion that “the American people” deserve to have a voice in determining who the president should nominate to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Their voice has been heard, Sen. McConnell. It was heard four years ago when the country re-elected President Obama.

Thus, he greeted today’s nomination of an eminently qualified jurist — Merrick Garland — with his vow to block it out of hand. Judge Garland will get no hearing; Republican senators won’t meet with him; there will be no vote.

The Senate won’t do its job. It won’t follow through on President Obama’s nomination. Why? Because, according to McConnell, Barack Obama’s time as president is about up and the next president should make the appointment.

So, with that, the majority leader of the Senate has decided that Barack Obama’s second term will be cut short by nearly a year. No need to consider an appointment that the incumbent president sends to the Senate, because the legislative body’s upper chamber won’t do anything about it.

This is an outrage of the first order.

Merrick Garland is a first-class jurist. Senators thought so when they confirmed his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court in 1997. Republicans joined Democrats in praising Garland’s credentials.

Now, though, it’s different. McConnell said today it’s not “personal.” Of course it is! He and Senate Republicans don’t want Garland to fill a court vacancy created by the untimely death of the court’s leading conservative ideologue, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Garland is not a flaming liberal. His judicial record is the model of judicial moderation. Indeed, leftists today expressed disappointment with the president over his selection of someone who is not a favorite of the Democratic Party’s liberal base.

American citizens have spoken already, Mr. Leader, about who should sit on the Supreme Court. They spoke clearly in the November 2012 general election.

Five million more Americans voted for Barack Obama than voted for Mitt Romney. Case closed.

For the Republican leader of the Senate to suggest that the president’s pick should be stalled because GOP senators don’t want him to do his job is an outrage.

 

national news, political news, State news

Obama: Trump is GOP creation

POTUS-Austin2016-003A_jpg_800x1000_q100

Count me as one American who was impressed with former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s brutal critique of Donald J. Trump’s rise to political power.

I listened the other morning to every word of Mitt’s 17-minute speech in Utah. (Yes, I’ll call him Mitt because I like the sound of the name.)

Mitt sought to stand for the GOP “establishment” in its effort to stop Trump’s nomination as the party’s next nominee for presidential of the United States.

It didn’t go over universally well, though.

Some folks wondered whether Mitt was the right guy to carry the message forward. After all, he lost fairly handily to President Obama in 2012 and, by the way, he did so even with the coveted endorsement of one Donald J. Trump.

One of the doubters happens to be the president his own self.

Obama said the GOP is just “shocked that there’s gambling” going on here.

Speaking at a Texas Democratic fundraiser, Obama took particular pleasure in reminding donors that the GOP establishment stood by silently while Trump and others promoted the wacky notion that the president was born in a faraway land, that he was an illegitimate candidate for president.

“As long as it was directed at me, they were fine with it. It was a hoot,” Obama told the Austin crowd.

I understand where the president is coming from on this matter. Indeed, it continues to boggle my admittedly feeble mind that Obama’s place of birth was even an issue in the first place, given that his mother was an American citizen, which by my reading of the U.S. Constitution granted U.S. citizenship to Baby Barack the moment he took his first breath.

But the GOP brass didn’t care to silence the idiocy being spewed by Donald Trump and others.

So now they’re shocked and dismayed at what they’ve helped create?

I still stand behind Mitt’s criticism of Trump. If only, though, he would acknowledge the mistake he made in seeking Trump’s endorsement.