How will we respond to the result?

election-day

Let’s play this out for a moment … or maybe two.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is poised to make history in about 24 hours. Her opponent, Donald J. Trump, is poised to lose the first — and likely only — political campaign he’s ever run.

How will the rest of us react?

Clinton voters will be joyful. Trump voters will be, um, angry? Filled with rage? Suspicious?

If we are to believe the last-minute polling, Clinton’s lead is holding firm at around 4 or 5 percent nationally.

The national anger well might hinge on the speech that Trump will be forced to give sometime Tuesday night. The networks will call the election for Clinton. Trump will embrace his wife and kids. He’ll take them by the hand and walk onto a stage at Trump Tower and make some kind of statement.

Tradition holds that the loser’s speech precedes the winner’s victory proclamation.

Will the loser do the right thing? Will he accept the result? Will he do something finally — finally! — that hues to longstanding political tradition?

If he does what he should do, Trump can go a long way toward heading off the anger he has fomented with his own rhetoric along the way. Would a graceful exit quell all the anger? Don’t bet the farm on that one.

Yes, it’s been a long and difficult slog. It’s about to end.

It’s fair tonight to wonder: How would Clinton sound if the world spins off its axis tomorrow? How would she handle defeat? My gut tells me she would follow tradition, that she would honor the result.

The most important speech of this entire campaign is going to occur when the loser concedes.

A speech that strikes the right tone can do far more than any of the bluster we’ve been hearing since seemingly forever.

 

Punditry produces its share of annoying phrases/words

th

Thank goodness this election season is coming to a close.

The next one is likely to commence the moment we know who the next president will be. Then what? We’ll get a fresh dose of annoying phrases and/or words from the punditry and political class to which we listen on cable and broadcast news programs.

I’ve collected a number of these words and phrases over the years.

My newest member of the annoying phrase pantheon is “baked in.” Pundits are saying that voters’ opinions of the two major-party presidential candidates are baked in, which is a kind of shorthand for saying that their minds won’t change … no matter what we learn about the candidates.

A good friend of mine is annoyed by the word “pivot.” We hear that one when politicians seek either to (a) change the subject of a discussion or (b) change his or her mind on a public policy issue.

Let’s not forget “double down.” Mark Halperin and John Heilmann — two of the best political journalists in the business — wrote two “Double Down” books chronicling the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. When a politician doubles down, that means he or she is ratcheting up the rhetoric on a policy statement that more than likely has been met with a negative response..

Don’t they ever “triple” or “quadruple” down?

My all-time favorite pundit phrase — which politicians of all stripes have adopted — is “at the end of the day.”

I ought to initiate a new drinking game. Take a swig of hooch every time you hear a politician or pundit say “at the end of the day.” I listen for this phrase whenever I am watching a TV news discussion.

I have a theory about why pols and pundits are so fond of “at the end of the day.” It’s a set-up phrase. It is meant to convey an aura of wisdom for the very next thing that’s coming out of the mouth of the pol or the pundit.

“Well, Chris, here’s my thought on that. At the end of the day, we are going to learn that the sun will set in the west tonight.”

Do you get my drift? When the TV smart guys use “at the end of the day,” they mean to make themselves sound smarter, more urbane, more sophisticated than they really are.

We’ve heard a lot of this kind of rhetoric over many years. It annoys the daylights out of me.

I’m going to settle in the for the night. At the end of the day, I’ll be sure to double down on doing something worthwhile this evening before I pivot from my baked-in routine.

Recalling the first time

politics-word-cloud

I am in a reminiscing kind of mood today.

I’m thinking of the first vote I cast for president of the United States. It was 44 years ago; that’s 11 presidential elections ago! I was 22 years of age. Newly married. My wife was pregnant with our first son. I was full of exuberant idealism.

The Vietnam War was still raging. My candidate for the presidency wanted to end the war quickly. I had returned from service in the Army as confused about the war as I was when I reported for duty at a place called Marble Mountain in the spring of 1969.

He got my vote on Nov. 7, 1972. Sen. George McGovern needed a whole lot more votes than he got that day. He lost the election huge to President Nixon.

I was proud of that vote.

Eleven elections later, I am decidedly less proud of the vote I am about to cast. To be certain, my enthusiasm for presidential candidates has had its ups and downs. Some campaigns got me far more excited than others.

This one, though, feels different — and it’s not in a good way.

You might ask: Is this a difficult choice? No. Not at all. My preference is clear. Both major-party candidates are deeply flawed. One of them, though, is far more flawed than the other.

When it’s over — and I expect we’ll have a new president chosen by the end of the night Tuesday — I am going to cling to another hope.

It will be that the loser will accept the result, deliver a concession speech that at least contains a semblance of grace and agrees to support the next president.

Do I expect all of that to happen? Will the person who should lose this contest — Donald J. Trump — toss aside the stuff about “rigged elections” and do the right thing? I am not holding my breath.

However, as they say: Hope springs eternal.

Having declared my general unhappiness with the choices we face, I remain proud of the fact that I have the right to make that decision. I will go to our polling place Tuesday morning excited that I will have my voice heard.

I just wish I could be as proud of the vote I am about to cast as I was the first time.

Now … the wait begins

aajcgbc

I’m out.

You’ve heard from me countless times already about how much I detest Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. I’ve said much less about Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. I guess I’ve fallen into the trap that lures people to speak negatively more readily than they speak positively.

So, with less than two days to go before we decide this presidential election, I’m done commenting on the candidates.

I’m going to await the results along with the rest of a dispirited nation.

Those who know me best might recognize that I am generally an optimist. I tend to see the good in people and in institutions. This election campaign — which has gone on non-stop for a year and a half — has tested that optimistic outlook to the max.

I am unhappy with the choices we face. I’ll make my own choice on Tuesday. My wife and I plan to vote early on Election Day, hoping to get to the polling place before the most of the rest of our neighbors wake up.

For me, it’s never really been a close call. I had considered a third party choice. I’ve decided against that.

My vote is more valuable than for me to cast it as a protest. On that score, my idealism remains strong.

If only I felt better about the process we’ve witnessed for an interminable length of time or about the candidates who’ve been responsible for bringing this process about.

What’s more, if only I felt better about the media that have contributed to this miserable exercise.

Atkinson needs to get back into the game

atkinson

I am pulling for Jarrett Atkinson.

The former Amarillo city manager is now in the running to become the chief administrator down yonder in Lubbock, Texas.

He was run out of a job he was doing well here. There’s no way to sugarcoat what happened to him in Amarillo. Voters elected three new City Council members in reaction to some sense of municipal “anger.” I’m still puzzled by the source of that alleged anger and angst.

Was he the perfect city manager? Did everything he touched turn to gold? No, but if you look at the big picture, you see a city that was on the move in the correct direction. Amarillo enjoyed steady growth, maintained a low tax rate, kept its debt obligation to a bare minimum. The city manager deserves a huge chunk of credit.

Atkinson quit his job not long after the new council took office.

Now he might be on the cusp of getting back into municipal government game.

Lubbock needs some help managing a priceless resource. I refer to water, something about which Atkinson is an acknowledged expert. On his watch at Amarillo City Hall, Amarillo was able to acquire vast water rights, setting the city on course to remain viable for the next century or two.

I didn’t like what happened to Atkinson here. I don’t have any inside information on how the Lubbock City Council will go with this key appointment.

I just want to put it on the record that I hope for the best for Jarret Atkinson … and for the city that might be about to hire him to do a difficult and demanding job.

Wait for the apologies … if you have the time

comey

FBI Director James Comey on Oct. 28 sent a letter to Congress informing lawmakers that he was looking at more e-mails relating to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Republicans were quick to jump all over it — and all over Clinton. GOP nominee Donald Trump called her a crook; he said the “scandal” was the “worst since Watergate.”

Trump rallied in the polls; Clinton sunk.

It was “game on.”

Today, Comey said that after reviewing the e-mails, he has decided there will be no further action taken. His statement from this past summer that “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek an indictment for wrong-doing.

It’s now back to where we started. No criminal investigation. No indictment.

Will there now be any mea culpas offered by those Republicans? Will they apologize for rushing to judgment?

You can stop laughing now.

What will be your agenda, Mr. Clinton?

bill_clinton

Melania Trump has disclosed her signature first lady issue if she gets to move into the White House with her husband, Donald J. Trump.

It’s cyber-bullying. It’s a nice issue to concentrate on, although the irony of her focus on this issue has been lost on no one, given the GOP nominee’s abuse of social media.

That all said, what about Bill Clinton’s agenda as the nation’s first-ever “first gentleman”?

First, we’ll have to clear up how the media will report on the former president’s coming and going. Do they call him “former president Clinton” or do they refer to him as “first gentleman”? I’ve heard that when he and his wife are together, they will be introduced as President and Mr. Clinton.

What, though, will be the issue that occupies his time, enables him to speak out publicly on behalf of his wife’s administration?

First ladies all have identified themselves with signature issues: Michelle Obama — healthy eating and physical fitness; Laura Bush — education; Hillary Clinton — children’s welfare; Barbara Bush — family literacy; Nancy Reagan — drug abuse … and on and on it goes.

Hillary Clinton has indicated her husband will play a key role as an economic adviser. That’s a good call, given the economic vitality the nation enjoyed during the 42nd president’s two terms in office. That’s no “theme,” though, for the first spouse.

I will await — assuming Hillary wins the election Tuesday — word from the former president/first gentleman on how he intends to use the enormous public profile his new status will provide.

FBI boss tries to cover his trail; Hillary breathes more easily

122316507

What? Do you mean to say, Mr. FBI Director, that the letter you released to Congress a few days ago has amounted to a whole lot of nothing? Is that what you’ve said today, sir?

James Comey has sent another letter to Congress, telling members that his agency has pored through the e-mails it recovered regarding Hillary Clinton’s years as secretary of state and has — get a load of this — found that nothing has changed from its conclusion this summer.

The FBI determined that “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek criminal charges against Clinton over the e-mails. Now he’s said the first conclusion will stand.

Oh, but that doesn’t end the story … even though it should.

Comey’s first letter to Congress sent the campaign into serious tumult. It has been the primary reason for Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump’s recent rally in public opinion polls. Trump used the letter to say that Clinton was guilty of corruption, that his campaign had struck the “mother lode,” and that Clinton was involved in the “worst scandal since Watergate.”

The lode has dried up. The “scandal” won’t materialize.

The FBI director has effectively concluded his probe into those e-mails. End of story?

Well, one might hope. Republicans, though, aren’t about to let it go.

So much for ‘editorial autonomy’

newspapers

I worked for four newspaper “groups” during my nearly 37 years in daily journalism. They were, in order: Newhouse Publications, Scripps League, the Hearst Corp., and Morris Communications.

They all said publicly that they didn’t “dictate” from corporate HQ’s how their individual newspapers formulated their editorial policies.

It was a bit of a challenge to explain all of that to readers and officials, but I managed.

Well, today the Morris Communications company that runs the paper where my career ended has put to rest the quaint notion of editorial “autonomy.” It has declared that all of its editorial pages today have endorsed Donald J. Trump for election to the presidency of the United States.

I haven’t yet read the Amarillo Globe-News’s “endorsement,” given that it hasn’t been posted on its online edition; I just looked this morning and couldn’t find it. Here, though, is the Florida Times-Union’s statement about the campaign. I’m guessing it’s being repeated here in West Texas:

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/2016-11-04/editorial-trump-change-agent-america-needs

The CEO of the Morris company, William Morris IV, has written what he’s called an “explanation” of the endorsement. It really is nothing of the kind. It’s actually a vapid restatement of platitudes and clichés. I don’t know Morris well, but I’ve had enough exposure to him to expect nothing more from this individual. Take a look:

http://jacksonville.com/news/2016-11-04/will-morris-explains-times-union-s-trump-endorsement

My favorite cliché is this one: “While this endorsement reflects our opinion, we want readers to know that this does not influence our news coverage. Newsrooms run independently from our editorial pages.”

Well, no s***!

I won’t delve too deeply into this statement. It’s too shallow, frankly, for any serious examination.

***

But what fascinates me about it is its timing. Today is Sunday. The election occurs on Tuesday. That gives readers of Morris papers today and Monday to comment, to respond.

Hmmm …

One of my former editors — a mentor and a friend to this day — had a name for this kind of timing. He called it a “last-minute dump.” He disallowed letters to the editor that came in too close to the end of a political campaign. His belief was that readers deserved the opportunity to respond — either positively or negatively — to what was published.

That was a policy I sought to follow during my decades practicing that craft.

The advent of early voting usually meant that newspapers would get their editorial endorsements “on the record” at the start of the early voting period. In Texas, that window opened on Oct. 24 and it closed this past Friday. The idea would be to let voters know the paper’s view on campaigns, candidates and issues prior to readers voting on them; it would give readers the chance — if they desired — to use the paper’s perspective to help them make their own decision.

Texas Panhandle — and readers of all the papers served by Morris anywhere in the country — won’t get that chance today. They’ll open their newspaper and read an editorial endorsing Trump and will have virtually no chance to comment. No chance to condemn it or praise it. No opportunity to add some context.

Oh, they’ll get online and put some social media chatter out there. A letter to the editor? Something that would be published on the printed page after being examined by the folks who run the editorial pages? Forget about it!

That, folks, is a last-minute dump.

If only Will Morris would have explained that strategy to his company’s newspaper readers.

This is how you treat political protest

President Barack Obama has given us all a lesson on how you treat political protesters.

Watch the video and you see the president of the United States — speaking at a rally on behalf of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton — defend a gentleman who was waving a Donald J. Trump banner.

The crowd booed. It jeered the fellow. The president sought to get the audience’s attention.

Then he said, “We live in a country that honors free speech.”

The video is worth your time. It’s not long.

Once you watch it, think for a moment how Trump has handled similar incidents in which protesters raised a ruckus at his rallies. I believe he said he wished his fans would “knock the crap” out of protesters. He also said something about paying the “legal fees” for anyone sued if they reacted violently to protests.

You’ve got someone who understands the Constitution.

You also have someone who, well, doesn’t seem to understand the liberties the nation’s governing document guarantees to all citizens.