Tag Archives: CNN

Time for Clinton to meet the press … head-on

hillary

As one who used to make his living trying to hold politicians accountable for their words and deeds, I am perplexed by Hillary Clinton’s aversion to answer questions from the media.

Politico Magazine calls it her “phobia” of press conferences.

Count me as someone who believes the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee should stand firm in front of microphones and answer the tough questions she knows would come at her during a formal press conference.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clintons-press-conference-phobia-214026

As Politico reports, Clinton hasn’t done so since December 2015. When CNN’s Jake Tapper asked her about that, according to Politico, Clinton “blithely” told him that she’d get around to it eventually.

Mme. Secretary, a lot has transpired since the end of this past year.

We’ve had the House Select Benghazi Committee complete its work. FBI Director James Comey announced just the other day that he won’t recommend bringing criminal charges against her in the e-mail controversy, which effectively ends that tumult. Republicans in Congress, though, plan to look some more into whether the FBI did its due diligence in examining the e-mail matter.

And oh yes, she’s got this presidential campaign and she ought to answer some of the weird insults that GOP candidate Donald J. Trump keeps tossing her way.

I get that politicians of all stripes are skittish when the press starts poking around. But hey, it’s their job to ask difficult questions when they need answers.

It’s also the politicians’ job to answer those questions when the media start asking them.

It’s not as if Hillary Clinton is a stranger to this exercise. She served as Arkansas first lady, then the nation’s first lady, then a U.S. senator from New York (which has a notoriously ferocious media climate) and then secretary of state.

She’s now campaigning for the most important office in the nation — if not the world!

It’s not going to get any easier for her from this moment on.

Inquiring minds, Mme. Secretary, are asking for answers to many serious questions.

Star of David or ‘sheriff’s star’?

Donald+Trump+Hillary+Clinton+Star+of+David

Gosh, I always thought I knew what the Star of David looked like.

It’s an important symbol of the Jewish faith. I saw it daily while I was touring Israel in May-June 2009. The Israelis fly their national flag proudly and, yep, it has a Star of David on it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-star-of-david-tweet-225081

I must have been seeing things.

You see, a campaign ad for Donald J. Trump showed up on a tweet that showed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and an image that looked for all the world like a Star of David, along with the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever.”

The ad drew immediate criticism from those who complained it was anti-Semitic. Trump’s campaign took it down immediately and then said the star on the ad didn’t portray the Star of David; Trump — the Republican presidential candidate — called it a “sheriff’s star.”

Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, who now works for CNN, said the uproar is nothing more than “political correctness run amok.”

What … ?

Two quick points and then I’m out.

One is that the ad first appeared on a white supremacist website and we all know what many white supremacists think of Jews.

Two, Trump took the ad down right away after criticism arose about its tone and tenor.

If the ad was as innocent as Trump’s campaign says it is, why did the white supremacists run it and why was the campaign so quick to remove it?

Just asking, man.

Trump shows another example of ‘unfitness’

Hillary Rodham Clinton has coined a new mantra to describe her opponent in this autumn’s campaign for the presidency of the United States.

She says Donald J. Trump is “temperamentally unfit” to become president. My sense is that she’s going to hammer relentlessly on that point.

The Democrats’ presumed nominee has been handed yet another example.

Trump has revoked the credentials of The Washington Post, banning the newspaper from covering his events.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html

Trump is unhappy with the coverage the Post is providing for his campaign. He called the paper “phony” and “dishonest.” Sound familiar? He’s said the same thing about, oh, the New York Times, Fox News and CNN.

He gets his dander up when media outlets report things about his campaign that do not cast him in the most positive light imaginable.

It’s the modus operandi of the presumed GOP nominee.

As the paper reported: “In a statement, Post Executive Editor Martin Baron said: ‘Donald Trump’s decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished.

“‘The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along — honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically and unflinchingly,’ Baron continued. ‘We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it.”’

Does he not get that intense media coverage is part of the deal to which he agreed when he decided to seek the Republican presidential nomination?

What am I thinking? Of course he doesn’t get it.

He doesn’t get anything.

Thus, we see yet another example of his temperamental unfitness for the presidency.

Gipper’s son is right: Trump is no Reagan

reagantrump

It probably is no surprise to those of you who read this blog regularly to know that of Ronald Reagan’s two sons, my favorite is Ron, the left-leaning radio talk show host.

The Gipper’s other son, Michael — who also is a talk show host — tilts too far to the right for my taste. I once listened to him speak on a panel at the  1994 National Conference of Editorial Writers annual meeting in Phoenix. Oh brother, he was a serious loudmouth.

These days, Michael Reagan is making some sense as it regards whether the latest pending Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, deserves to be lumped with President Reagan.

In the view of the son: No way, man.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/283165-reagans-son-nothing-reaganesque-about-trump

Trump shares none of the late president’s commitment to conservative principles, according to Michael Reagan, who told Smerconish that his dad wouldn’t vote for Trump if he were around today. Michael Reagan said he has no intention, either, of voting for Trump. And, no, he’s not going to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Moreover, Trump embodies none of Daddy Reagan’s good humor, his grace, class and dignity.

“There’s nothing really Reaganesque” about him, Reagan told CNN’s Michael Smerconish. “I mean, my father was humble. That’s not what you find in a Donald Trump, I might say.

“He wasn’t demeaning. He didn’t talk down to people. He talked with people, which is the complete opposite of what Donald Trump, in fact, does,” he said.

Reagan went on to mention the second debate in 1984 between his dad and Democratic nominee, former Vice President Walter Mondale. The president had done poorly in the first debate, causing some pundits to wonder out loud if he was suffering some mental slippage. The question came to him in the second encounter: Mr. President, are you up to the job? He answered, “I will not for political purposes exploit my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

He brought the house down. The person who laughed the hardest was, that’s right, Vice President Mondale.

Michael Reagan sees none of that in Donald Trump.

Neither do I. Or a lot of others.

Media simply ‘afflicting the comfortable’

donald-trump

Journalism has its share of clichés that seek to define its mission.

One of them is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

It doesn’t betray a bias, per se. It simply defines one of the tenets that drives journalists to do their job with thoroughness, while being fair to those they are examining.

Thus, a group of journalists sat before Donald J. Trump on Tuesday and grilled the presumptive Republican presidential nomination on donations he said he made to veterans organizations.

Trump’s response was to throw a tantrum.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/donald-trump-tantrum-media-role-louis/index.html

The issue at hand dealt with whether Trump actually donated the amount of money he said he had donated to veterans organizations.

Washington Post reporters had detected a discrepancy in what Trump had said, that the money went to the organizations many months after he said he made the donation. So, media representatives questioned him about that discrepancy, only to have Trump respond with another round of name-calling and insults.

Trump seems to demonstrate a casual disregard for the facts. He said after the 9/11 attacks that he witnessed “thousands and thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

He didn’t witness anything of the sort.

Some pundits have accused Trump of being a “pathological liar,” defining it as a case in which the candidate tells a lie knowing it to be a lie and understanding full well that others who hear it also know it to be a lie.

It’s the media’s responsibility to ensure that candidates be held accountable for statements they make.

That’s what happened at the news conference Tuesday as the media grilled the candidate on what he said he’d done on behalf of veterans organizations.

Sure, they have “afflicted the comfortable.” It’s their job.

 

Another shameful accusation comes forth

vince-foster

Donald J. Trump keeps tossing accusations against the wall.

Some of them stick in the minds of those who’ve been supporting his Republican presidential campaign.

This one, though, belongs in the trash bin.

In his effort to smear Democratic Party frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton, Trump has thrown out the name of one Vincent Foster, a close friend of Hillary and Bill Clinton who in 1993 went to a park in Washington, D.C., and killed himself.

So, what did Trump do? He called Foster’s death “fishy.” He’s now resurrecting a long-debunked notion that the Clintons had somehow been parties to their dear friend’s death. Right-wing hatemongers dredged up conspiracy theories throughout most of Bill Clinton’s presidency.

CNN commentator Jake Tapper took note of Trump’s latest smear.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/24/cnns_jake_tapper_trumps_vince_foster_accusations_are_outrageous_and_long_ago_debunked.html

Tapper said: “The notion that this was a murder is a fiction born of delusion and untethered to reality and contradicted by evidence reviewed in at least six investigations, one of them by Ken Starr, hardly a Bill Clinton defender.”

Trump, though, has thrown out this ridiculous notion.

I am reminded of the scolding that Joseph Welch, special counsel to the Army, during those infamous Senate hearings in the 1950s when Sen. Joseph McCarthy was looking for communists operating within the federal government.

Welch asked McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency?”

Donald Trump long ago sunk to those depths. His latest outrageous accusation is despicable in the extreme.

Is this election going to set a low-turnout record?

103477256-trumphillary2rr.530x298

Some months ago I mentioned to friends that I thought the 2016 election would produce a low-turnout result.

My friends laughed me out of the proverbial room. Why? They were certain that if the major-party presidential nominees were going to be Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump that they would energize their parties’ respective bases like no other candidate could do.

Well, here we are. Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee; Clinton hasn’t quite achieved presumptive status yet, but she’s going to be the Democratic nominee, just as she boasted the other day to CNN’s Chris Cuomo.

What do I think now about the turnout?

It’s going to be low. How do I know that? I don’t know it.

But the talk all around Pundit World centers on the high negative feelings that both candidates engender among voters. Trump polls about 70 percent unfavorable; Clinton’s unfavorable rating sits at around 60 percent.

The previous low-turnout record belongs to President Bill Clinton and U.S. Sen. Bob Dole, who ran against each other in 1996. Clinton won re-election that year with just 49 percent of eligible Americans actually voting that year. Clinton, of course, didn’t collect a majority that year, winning a healthy plurality, just as he did four years earlier; third-party candidate Ross Perot sucked enough votes away to deny the president a majority.

I have to agree with those who say that Clinton and Trump both are deeply wounded frontrunners. Trump’s failings are too numerous to mention; at every level one can mention, Trump is the most unfit major-party candidate ever to seek the presidency. Clinton’s been scrutinized carefully for more than two decades and she continues to suffer from this perception that she’s shifty and untrustworthy.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard people say — either to me directly or to others — that they’re going to sit this one out. Republicans cannot vote for Clinton, even though they cannot stomach the idea of Trump carrying their party’s banner into battle.

Democrats aren’t going to walk the plank in favor of Trump.

Where do they turn? A third-party candidate still might emerge to capture the imagination of voters who are disgusted with the major parties’ selections.

If no one emerges, well, this election is looking as though it will set a dubious record for non-involvement.

Is that a mandate the winner will embrace?

Take this veep job and shove it

Vice-Presidents-of-the-United-States-picture-gallery

It’s been said of vice presidents of the United States that their main responsibility is to keep a bag packed in case they have to attend some foreign dignitary’s funeral.

Sure, they’re next in line to the presidency, but until the past quarter-century or so they’ve been treated with far less respect than they deserve.

As the crusty Texan, the late Vice President John Nance “Cactus Jack” Garner once observed of the office — and this is the sanitized version of what he said — “It ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit.”

CNN commentator Jeff Greenfield has written an excellent essay that suggests that the vice presidency well might be relegated to its former inglorious status when the next president takes office in January 2017,

Here’s his essay: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-vice-presidency-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-213886

His premise is a simple one?

The Republican Party’s presumed nominee, Donald J. Trump, possesses an ego so y-u-u-u-g-e that he isn’t likely to take seriously a single word of advice given to him by whomever he selects as vice president. And the Democrats’ probable nominee? Hillary Rodham Clinton would share the White House with a man — her husband, former President Bill Clinton — who would serve as her “Economy Czar” and who would provide all the political and strategic advice she’ll need.

What does that mean for the vice president?

Well, I doubt we’ll see anything like the way, for example, President Lyndon Baines Johnson treated Vice President Hubert Humphrey when he reportedly summoned HHH to his office and lectured him about something while sitting on a commode.

Someone once asked President Dwight Eisenhower about the duties he’d assigned Vice President Richard Nixon. Ike responded, “If you give me a week, I’ll think of something.”

The vice presidency, as Greenfield notes, has become a very important office.

The past three VPs have assumed vital roles in their respective administrations, according to Greenfield. Al Gore became a valuable advisor to President Clinton; Dick Cheney, many have argued, grabbed too much power while serving as No. 2 to President Bush; and Joe Biden has become President Obama’s senior advisor/father confessor.

As Greenfield writes: “None of this means the there’ll be a shortage of veep wannabees. A number of Republicans, especially those without (or soon to be without) an official public role, have already signaled their availability: Rick Perry, Chris Christie, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin. And it’s not hard to imagine that any number of Democrats would readily sign up, however challenging the job might be with Bill Clinton shuttling between East and West Wings.”

Well, at least the next VP will get to live in a nice house.

 

Here is what Hillary should avoid

bush-dukakis_6

Bill Clinton’s first campaign for the presidency fine-tuned the art of rapid response.

His team formed the War Room, comprising staff members adept at answering critics immediately.

When his enemies struck, Team Clinton was ready to strike back. Hard.

How is this relevant to the current political race that now seems just about set? It’s that the former president’s wife, Hillary Clinton, is about to become the Democratic Party’s next presidential nominee and — sure as the dickens — she’s going to face a torrent of attacks from Republicans led by their nominee, Donald J. Trump.

The only advice I’m going to offer Hillary Clinton is this: Do not let Trump’s team set the tone for this campaign. Re-create the War Room and be sure you’ve get every face in order before you launch your counterattack.

Bill Clinton’s quick-strike strategy in 1992 was born out of what occurred four years earlier. The 1988 campaign between Vice President George H.W. Bush and Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis featured a tremendously negative stream of attacks from Bush against Dukakis.

How did Dukakis respond? He didn’t.

The ’88 Democratic nominee thought he should stay “above the fray.” So, he let the Bush team define him, paint him as squishy; that he was on crime; that he was unprepared to be commander in chief.

Sure, Dukakis suffered a couple of critical self-inflicted wounds: He allowed himself to be video recorded riding around in that tank, which made him look ridiculous as he wore that helmet; he also fluffed CNN newsman Bernard Shaw’s question about his views on capital punishment during that televised debate, sounding cold and clinical when asked whether he’d support the death penalty if his wife, Kitty, were raped and murdered.

Dukakis’ big lead after that summer’s conventions evaporated and he ended up losing the election to Bush in an Electoral College landslide.

Trump now says Hillary Clinton hasn’t been properly “vetted.” Oh, please. She is arguably the most vetted presidential candidate of the past 100 years. Clinton was subjected to intense scrutiny during her years as Arkansas’ first lady, as the nation’s first lady, as a U.S. senator and as secretary of state.

It seems apparent that we’re heading toward one of the nastiest presidential campaigns on record. Trump already has dispatched a vast Republican field in large measure through is own use of insult and innuendo against many of his former opponents.

Don’t think for a second he won’t try the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

She’d better be ready.

 

C’mon, Bernie; show us your tax returns

berniesanders-61515-1434466786

Sen. Bernie Sanders tries to make a lot of hay about his authenticity, that he’s just one of us, that he’s campaigning for the little guy.

I get his message as he battles Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

But this morning on CNN, the distinguished gentleman from Vermont fluffed a direct question from “State of the Union” host Jake Tapper: Why won’t you release your tax returns, as Secretary Clinton has done for the past eight years?

His answer? “My wife does our tax returns and I’ve been a little busy.”

OK, senator. Enough already.

Americans heard some kind of song-and-dance from Republican frontrunner Donald J. Trump, who said he couldn’t release his returns because he was being audited for the past 12 consecutive years. That, too, is a stretch.

However, these returns have become part of the effort to improve transparency among all the candidates running for president.

It seems to many of us that it’s especially critical to see the tax returns from candidates who keep purporting to be champions for “wage equality” and who keep blasting the “top 1 percent” of income-earners for getting rich while the rest of us are struggling to make ends meet.

Mrs. Sanders does his tax returns? They’ve been “busy”?

Get real, senator. If your returns are straightforward and uncomplicated as your campaign message would seem to imply, then releasing the records wouldn’t be that big a deal.

This, sir, simply goes with the territory. Candidates who ask voters to entrust them with governing the world’s richest and most powerful nation should expect demands to see if they, too, are living up to the high-minded rhetoric they espouse on the campaign trail.