Tag Archives: GOP

national news, political news

‘People’ do care about these things, Mr. Chairman

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD - MARCH 04: Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus participates in a discussion during CPAC 2016 March 4, 2016 in National Harbor, Maryland. The American Conservative Union hosted its annual Conservative Political Action Conference to discuss conservative issues. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Reince Priebus is painting the American electorate with a pretty broad brush these days.

The Republican Party’s national chairman says “people don’t care” about the controversies surrounding the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee.

I beg to differ, Mr. Chairman.

“People” do care. Many of us — such as yours truly — care a lot.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-donald-trumps-controversies-people-just-dont-care?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

— Tax returns that Trump refuses to disclose to the public?

— Statements attributed to him about women?

— The myriad lies he’s told while campaigning for president?

— The ridiculous story about Trump posing as a publicist to promote himself?

Yeah, those things matter, Mr. Chairman. They speak to the character of the man who wants to become president of the United States.

I won’t get too far into this blog post without mentioning that Trump isn’t the only candidate with “issues” to address. Hillary Rodham Clinton has her own and they, too, are bothersome.

The issue at the moment deals with the huge speaking fees she collected — allegedly from Goldman Sachs .

The other matters — Benghazi, the email controversy — are being dealt with by a Republican-led Congress that is still on the hunt for something to derail her campaign.

The RNC chairman shouldn’t give his party’s presumed nominee a pass because of some belief that “people” don’t care about the things that are dogging his campaign.

I dislike saying I speak for others. I am fairly confident, though, in presuming that the nation is loaded with inquisitive voters who want these issues settled.

 

national news, political news

Trump upsets the national political truism

donald-trump-gag-big

Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy has turned everything on its ear.

The Republican Party is at war with itself. How does the party back a presidential nominee who opposes traditional GOP orthodoxy? And just how does the party define “unity” if it cannot back its nominee fully?

Let’s play this out a little more.

What, then, about the rest of us who at the same time oppose traditional GOP dogma while also being repulsed by the very idea of Donald Trump ever settling behind a big desk in the Oval Office?

I’m trying to grasp the apparent conflict I’m enduring now as I watch Trump get ready to become the Republicans’ next presidential nominee.

I dislike the traditional GOP view on abortion, on tax policy, on wage and marriage equality, on gun control and on immigration.

I also dislike Trump’s views on at least one of those issues: immigration. The rest of Trump’s views are, to say the least, malleable. I don’t know precisely what he thinks about any of the rest of them.

Which brings me to this point. Why do I oppose this guy’s candidacy so vehemently?

I guess it’s his unfitness for the office he’s seeking.

Trump has no record of public service;  we have nothing on which to base his past performance. He has no grasp of the basics of government, let alone any idea on how to manipulate its complexities. Trump has lied constantly throughout this campaign — and until recently has been allowed by the media to get away with it.

He is a reality TV celebrity. He “owns” beauty pageants. He’s built glitzy hotels and has lived an opulent lifestyle. And American voters are supposed to relate to this?

And I haven’t yet gotten into his moral fitness for the job. He seems to possess no moral bearings. He has boasted openly about his marital infidelity. The things he has said about women simply stand as some of the most revolting things I’ve ever heard from anyone … let alone from someone on the brink of become a major-party presidential nominee.

How many other major, mainstream presidential candidates can you name who’ve spoken to shock jock Howard Stern about his sexual exploits?

This is what I mean about Trump upsetting every political calculation there is.

True-blue Republicans don’t trust him. My goodness, this guy is the classic RINO — a Republican In Name Only. Yet, he continues to collect the votes of millions of GOP base voters who, I guess, are trying to send some kind of “message” to the party establishment.

If he’s a RINO, which he is, then he ought to appeal to the rest of us who don’t swallow the Republican orthodoxy. Am I right?

Not even …

 

media news, national news, political news

Trying to take Trump comments seriously

trump

Maureen Dowd is one of my all-time favorite columnists.

She writes with an inimitable flair for the New York Times. She takes on serious topics with a sometimes-unserious tone, which is all right with me. Her brilliance is shown by her ability to know the boundaries she mustn’t cross. Truly serious topics get the serious treatment they deserve in her essays.

I am having trouble, though, with one of her occasional topics. It’s Donald J. Trump, the presumed next Republican Party nominee for president of the United States. The trouble comes when I read quotes attributed to Trump in one of Dowd’s columns and question whether they’re real. Did she make this stuff up? Is he really, seriously responding in this manner?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/opinion/sunday/the-mogul-and-the-babe.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

Even the headline, referencing “the Mogul and the Babe” makes me wonder. When you read the piece, you learn that “the Babe” has nothing to do with a beautiful woman.

Dowd writes about the meeting Trump had this past week with House Speaker Paul Ryan. It was just supposed to be the two men. Here’s Dowd: “They let Reince Priebus stay. ‘He’s a hard worker and a good guy,’ Trump said.”

Gee. That’s deep.

What about Trump’s infamously insensitive campaign style? More from Dowd: “So Ryan didn’t ask Trump to stop making remarks that alienate women? ‘No,’ Trump said, ‘he wants me to be me.’ So much for the showdown.

“When I asked if he had been chided by any Republicans for his Twitter feud with Elizabeth Warren, he replied, ‘You mean Pocahontas?’ So much for reining it in.”

Here’s one more example. Dowd mentioned Texas U.S. Sen. John Cornyn’s advice on how Trump should deal with Hispanic Americans: “I noted that John Cornyn said he gave Trump some tips on how to discuss illegal immigration more sensitively to woo Hispanic voters. ‘I love getting advice,’ Trump deadpanned. ‘It’s just what I need, just what I need is more advice. The 17 people I beat are still giving me advice.’”

As I read this Dowd essay this morning, I was struck by how shallow and self-serving Trump’s answers were … how they always are.

I’ll keep struggling to make sense of what Trump says and try to determine if what I read is intended to be taken at face value.

Dowd declares at the start of her column that she is decided to “dispense with satire.” Thus, she would have us assume she wrote this piece with actual answers to actual questions.

But did she? Really?

national news, political news

Tax matters become our business

2 Comments

13firstdraft-trump1-tmagArticle

You’re running for president of the United States.

It’s a grueling event. It has required candidates to do things they dislike doing, but they do them anyway.

One of those things is to reveal to the public they intend to govern how much they pay in taxes to the federal government. Presidential candidates have been doing it since 1976. It’s not required by law; candidates just do it. Some do so more willingly than others.

So, when a media representative asks the candidate about his or her tax rate, how much they pay in taxes, how is the candidate supposed to respond?

Donald J. Trump got that question this morning from George Stephanopoulos on ABC-TV’s “Good Morning America.” Trump’s response? “It’s none of your business.”

Well, actually it is.

The man now presumed to be the Republican Party’s next presidential nominee is throwing out tax plans left and right. He’s back-tracking, switching his views, telling us what he intends to do — before he changes his mind — about how much money he wants the rest of us to pay in taxes.

Trump has been less-than-forthcoming on his tax returns. He won’t release them for public review, contending that the Internal Revenue Service is in the midst of an audit. IRS officials respond with, “So what?” He still can release the returns.

Trump won’t do it.

Then he tells a network news anchor that the information is “none of your business.”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/13/donald-trump-on-his-tax-rate-its-none-of-your-business/?_r=0

It is absolutely our business to know how much a man who wants to be president pays in taxes to the government — our government, the one financed by American taxpayers.

Of course, the president doesn’t set tax policy by himself — or herself. Tax legislation originates in the House of Representatives. As the saying goes, “The president proposes, Congress disposes.”

Still, if a president is going to propose tax policy to Congress — which might then become law that has a direct impact on every American’s household income — then the public has a right to know whether the presidential candidate is paying his or her fair share.

Who determines what is fair? We do.

 

national news, political news

Unity? It’s not necessary, according to Trump

12TRUMPMANDATE-master768

There once was a time when political unity spelled success for candidates who traded on it.

In 1968 and again in 1972, Democrats nominated candidates for president who sought to win with their party in shambles.

In 1976, Republicans nominated an incumbent president who had to fight for his political survival against an insurgent.

In every case mentioned here, the disunited party lost the election.

Is that going to happen in 2016? Those of us who’ve been proven wrong at almost every turn about the Republican primary campaign should hold our thoughts to ourselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Donald J. Trump says unity isn’t a prerequisite for him winning the election this fall. The Republican Party is ripping itself into pieces over this individual’s pending nomination for president.

Big deal, says Trump. He has a “mandate” to keep doing what he’s been doing, Trump says. According to the New York Times:

“Mr. Trump, in a telephone interview, compared his candidacy to hit Broadway shows and championship baseball teams, saying that success begot success and that he would be foolish to change his behavior now.

“’You win the pennant and now you’re in the World Series — you gonna change?’ Mr. Trump said. ‘People like the way I’m doing.’”

Still, he’s going to meet Thursday with House Speaker Paul Ryan and some other leading Republicans to talk about, oh, unifying the party.

I’ve become more of a political traditionalist as I’ve gotten older. I once worked real hard to elect the late Sen. George McGovern in 1972. It didn’t work out for us.

I now believe unity is better for the candidate than disunity.

Trump needs virtually all Republicans — and a lot of Democrats and independents — to vote for him if he intends to take the presidential oath next January. My own sense is that he’s still got a gigantic hill ahead of him.

Far more women view him unfavorably than favorably; same with Hispanics and African-Americans. He’ll need far more of them if he has a prayer against the Democratic nominee, who likely will be Hillary Clinton.

Does he obtain majorities with those key voting blocs by leading a divided, disjointed and dysfunctional Republican Party?

For the life of me, I don’t know how he does that.

Then again, I don’t know how this clown finds himself on the doorstep of a major-party presidential nomination.

 

national news, political news

GOP walks tightrope with Trump at top of ballot

Republican hopeful Kelly Ayotte, former Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, of Nashua, at a debate at Franklin Pierce University in Rindge, N.H., Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2010. The Republican hopefuls are running for the United States Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. (AP Photo/Cheryl Senter)

You’ve heard the phrase, no doubt, of “a distinction without a difference.”

How does a politician “support” another politician without “endorsing” that individual?

This is one of the myriad dilemmas facing Republican pols across the nation as the party gets ready to nominate a certifiable huckster as its next nominee for president of the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/08/us/politics/trump-endorsements-congress-republicans-gop.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

I refer to Donald J. Trump as the huckster.

Some leading Republican politicians, though, are seeking to hedge their bets in occasionally awkward manners.

Consider the statement of U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, the GOP senator from New Hampshire, who said she can “support” Trump but cannot “endorse” him.

Ayotte is facing a potentially difficult re-election effort as Democrats likely will send Gov. Jean Shaheen against her. Ayotte can’t take the full plunge by endorsing Trump but, by golly, she’s going to support him.

A distinction without a difference?

It looks that way to me.

Other leading Republicans are walking away from Trump. Still others are offering tepid support. Sure, some have endorsed the hotel mogul and reality TV celebrity; former campaign foes New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who once called Trump “unfit” for the presidency, and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who once called Trump a “cancer on conservatism” have endorsed him.

It’s the Ayotte caveat, though, that I find most intriguing.

I’ve been watching politics for nearly 40 years. I studied political science in college. I became engaged in the presidential election process starting around 1968, when I shook Sen. Robert Kennedy’s hand at a chance meeting one week before an assassin robbed us all of a chance to see if RFK could be elected president.

This truly is the first time I’ve witnessed such intraparty reticence to clutch the coattails of the presumed party presidential nominee.

But it’s there. It’s real.

Sure, Trump has appealed to millions of Americans who claim to be “angry” with politics as usual. This clown “tells it like it is,” supporters tell us, while they ignore — or laugh off — the abject crassness of his rhetoric and the tastelessness of his insults.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another former primary campaign foe, said it well: “I just really believe that the Republican Party has been conned here, and this guy is not a reliable conservative Republican.”

Just today, on “Meet the Press,” Trump said he would consider raising taxes on wealthy Americans, which by my way of thinking runs utterly counter to standard Republican Party tax principles.

This is the problem facing Republicans across the country as they ponder their own political futures. How do they run with someone who says whatever pops into his head?

Or do they seek to split hairs as finely as they can by “supporting” him without “endorsing” him?

It is tough to be a Republican these days.

 

national news, political news

Palin illustrates GOP affliction

2 Comments

5-sarah-palin

You might be wondering: Just how messed up is today’s Republican Party?

I might have an example to share with you.

The former half-term Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, said she’s going to work to defeat House Speaker Paul Ryan in Wisconsin’s upcoming Republican primary.

Why would the 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee do such a thing? Because the speaker says he cannot “yet” support the probable 2016 GOP presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Palin has endorsed Trump. Ryan has so far declined. It’s not clear that he ever will. Why do you suppose the speaker is withholding his support?

My guess is that Trump isn’t a “real Republican,” that he doesn’t adhere sufficiently to basic Republican principles to suit the speaker.

Palin calls herself a true-blue Republican. But she’s backing Trump. Now she wants to work against a fellow true GOP believer, Ryan.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/08/politics/sarah-palin-paul-ryan-paul-nehlen-endorsement/index.html

As near as most of us can tell, the only principle to which Trump holds dear is to himself. I believe that’s why he’s been labeled a narcissist.

Sure, it’s appealing to a lot of Republican “base” voters who like how Trump “tells it like it is.” Someone, though, has to explain to me what “it” really is.

Trump and Ryan plan to meet this week, as I understand it. Will they settle their differences? Don’t look for a kumbaya moment after their meeting.

As for Palin, I guess she’s trying to make herself relevant yet again by seeking to defeat the nation’s most powerful Republican politician.

What she is managing to do, though, is demonstrate — as if it needed further demonstration in the context of this year’s presidential primary season — how dysfunctional this once-great political party has become.

 

national news, political news

Now, here’s a political dilemma

1407859219000-Election-3-

My dictionary defines “conundrum” most succinctly.

“A riddle; a dilemma.”

By that definition, the Republican Party is facing a classic conundrum with its presumptive nominee for president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

Do the conservative purists who run he party want to stick with their guy — who they detest — and watch him lead the party to a potentially historic defeat? Or do they look for an alternative, a true believer, to run as an independent candidate and then assure that historic loss?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/278941-third-party-push-gaining-steam

The Hill reports that the third-party push is “gaining steam” within the ranks of the GOP.

The publication says the push got some added juice when House Speaker Paul Ryan said he cannot support Trump’s nomination. At least not yet. Trump’s got to “unify” the party, Ryan said.

Frankly, I don’t care which way the GOP goes as it struggles with this, um, dilemma.

Were the party brass to ask me, though, I’d possibly advise them to back their guy. Stand by their nominee and then set out to rebuild the party once the ballots are counted in November.

The Republican Party as many of us have known and respected — if not loved — appears to be drawing its final breaths.

It’s no longer even the party of Ronald Reagan, let alone the party of Abraham Lincoln. It’s the party of Trump. Think about that for a moment.

A man with zero government experience — at any level — is about to become the party’s nominee for president of the United States. By almost every calculation imaginable, he is patently unfit for the office he seeks. Qualifications? He possesses none of them.

The fitness level, though, is even more frightening.

Either way the party goes, from my perspective — and factoring in my own bias — the GOP is headed for the political boneyard. A third-party/independent bid by a true believer merely seals the party’s fate.

I’ve long favored a robust two-party system. I like having two healthy parties argue policy differences in public. I’ve grown used to divided government, but prefer it to actually work, to function productively. We haven’t seen much productivity in the past eight or 10 years.

And, yes, Democrats bear some responsibility for the stalemate as well.

Maybe once the smoke clears from the upcoming election, we’ll find a Republican Party ready to reach out and re-engage in the act of governing.

national news, political news, State news

Political alliances are shifting … rapidly

1 Comment

DonaldAndRick_jpg_800x1000_q100

Rick Perry once called Donald J. Trump a “cancer on conservatism.”

He then backed fellow Texan Ted Cruz, who — before bowing out of the Republican presidential campaign this past week — called Trump a “pathological liar.”

Now the former Texas governor has endorsed Trump.

I guess the “cancer” has been cured.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/05/perry-endorses-trump-president/

According to the Texas Tribune, Perry then offered up the obvious: “‘He is not a perfect man,’ Perry told (CNN). ‘But what I do believe is that he loves this country and he will surround himself with capable, experienced people and he will listen to them.'”

There you go. Yesterday’s cancer becomes today’s panacea.

This is part of what makes politics such a maddening thing to witness.

Opponents are capable of saying the most horrific things about each other. Then, when opportunity knocks, they bury hatchets — and not in each other’s skulls — and make nice as if nothing ever happened.

That’s what Perry seems to have done here. He also told CNN that he “wouldn’t say ‘no'” to Trump if the reality TV celebrity/real estate mogul/presumptive GOP presidential nominee offers a spot on the ticket this fall.

For his part, Trump now says he’s going to stick with a true-blue Republican as his running mate. He wants someone with political experience. He’s also said something about selecting someone with legislative experience.

Former Gov. Perry is a real Republican. He’s got loads of political know-how, although he has been unable to take the success he enjoyed in Texas beyond the state’s borders. The legislative background is a bit sparse, as he didn’t serve all that long in the Texas Legislature before aspiring to statewide office.

It appears, to me at least, that his willingness to endorse Trump after tearing the bark off of him before bowing out of the race himself, that he’s putting party loyalty first.

As the Tribune reports: “Trump, Perry told CNN, ‘is one of the most talented people who has ever run for the president I have ever seen.'”

Trump might have been a “cancer,” but he’s got talent.

Go figure.

 

national news, political news, State news

Bushes 41 and 43 to remain silent

4143bush-2016_jpg_800x1000_q100

At one level this bit of news isn’t much of a surprise.

At another level, though, it’s still a big deal.

Two former Republican presidents — George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — are going to keep their thoughts to themselves regarding the upcoming presidential campaign.

They have no plans to endorse the presumptive GOP nominee Donald J. Trump.

This is more or less in line with what these two men have pledged to do since leaving office. Bush 41 left the White House in 1993 and took, in effect, a vow of political silence. Bush 43 made his exit in 2009 and more or less did the same thing. Neither of them has spoken much about public policy issues or engaged fully in discussions about them.

Both men stepped back into the arena briefly this election cycle to campaign for Jeb Bush. It didn’t work for the younger Bush, who dropped out several months ago.

Why is this a big deal? Why does it matter?

To my mind, it matters because the name “Bush” exemplifies traditional Republican politics. For both men now to say they won’t publicly state their support for — or endorse — Trump speaks volumes.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/04/bush-41-43-have-no-plans-endorse-trump/

Their silence deprives Trump of a statement of support from two former presidents who between them served 12 years in the nation’s highest office.

The elder Bush, as I’ve said before, entered the White House as arguably the single most qualified man ever to assume the presidency. The younger Bush took office in 2001 and just nine months later was thrust into the role of wartime president when the terrorists flew those planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

What these men think about the state of the current campaign matters.

Indeed, the elder Bush in the past has thrown his support publicly behind GOP nominees. That includes one-time rival Bob Dole in 1996. He, of course, backed George W. in 2000 and 2004, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

This year? He’s going to remain mum.

The Bush men’s silence in 2016 perhaps means more than either of them is going to acknowledge.