Tag Archives: Democrats

This really is the most important midterm election … ever!

Politicians say it all the time. It doesn’t matter their partisan affiliation — Republican or Democrat — they sing it off the same song sheet.

“This is the most important election in our history!”

That’s what they say. They might mean it. Or they might be saying just to fire up their respective supporters.

Guess what. I think this election, the 2018 midterm, actually is the most important midterm election in U.S. history.

What’s at stake? Plenty, man!

Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House. The executive branch, the White House gang, is being led by a man, Donald J. Trump, who doesn’t know what he’s doing. He entered the presidency without a lick of public service experience, let alone any interest. He is a dangerous fellow who doesn’t grasp the limits of his power, or how the government is designed to function.

The House of Representatives presents the Democrats with their greatest opportunity to seize the gavel from their GOP colleagues. They need to do precisely that if for no other reason on Earth to act as a check on the runaway agenda being pushed by Donald Trump and endorsed by a GOP congressional majority that is scared spitless of the president.

I am among those who believe the Senate is likely to remain in Republican hands when the ballots are counted next Tuesday. Indeed, it appears to be entirely possible that the Senate’s GOP majority might actually increase by a seat or two; Republicans occupy 51 seats at this moment, with Democrats (and two independents who favor the Dems) occupying 49 seats.

The House, however, must flip. It must act as a check on Trump and on the GOP members of Congress who give this seriously flawed president a pass on so many issues. They excuse his hideous behavior; they refuse to call him out vigorously when he refuses to condemn haters — such as the KKK and neo-Nazis; they roll over when he pushes for repeal of the Affordable Care Act or enact tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans; they pledge to cut money for Medicare and Medicaid to help curb the spiraling annual federal budget deficit.

Divided government has worked in the past. Barack Obama had to work with a Congress led by the other party. So did George W. Bush. Same for Bill Clinton. Ditto for George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.

It lends a greater air of a need for compromise.

If the Democrats fall short on Tuesday, clearing the path for Trump and the GOP to run roughshod over the rest of us, well … we’re going to have hell to pay.

Yes, this is the most important midterm election in U.S. history.

Here it comes again: attempt to repeal ACA

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spilled the beans recently.

Congressional Republicans are going to make another run at trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, after the midterm election.

Now, it well might be that Democrats will wrest control of the House of Representatives from Republicans, which likely means that McConnell and short-timer House Speaker Paul Ryan will convene a “lame-duck” congressional session to get rid of the ACA.

Hmm. What a load of horse dookey.

Republicans all over the country — even here in Texas — are campaigning on a pledge to retain insurance for people with “pre-existing conditions.” They actually have accused Democratic candidates of trying to get rid of that provision.

The stark reality is that when Barack Obama was president and Congress was wrestling with ways to repeal the ACA, they fought tooth and nail, hammer and tong to get rid of that provision. Now they want to save it?

As former President Obama noted the other day, “that is a lie.”

McConnell’s stated desire to repeal the ACA also simply goes against prevailing public opinion about President Obama’s signature domestic triumph. Polls have revealed significant public support for the ACA, given that it has provided millions of Americans with health insurance who couldn’t afford it.

Many of us agree that the ACA is far from perfect. But, why repeal it? Why not mend it, repair it, improve what needs improvement?

That kind of mending and repairing has been done. Medicare? Yep. Medicaid? Yes again. How did it happen when Congress enacted Medicare, for example, in 1965? It occurred when Democrats and Republicans sought common ground, worked toward compromise and — presto! — re-created a law that has been an indispensable part of Americans’ lives.

Compromise and common ground, though, has escaped the vocabularies of today’s politicians.

They need to look for them. Once they find them yet again, put those principles to good use.

‘This is war’? Um, no … it isn’t

I’m beginning to repeat myself and for that I apologize.

I don’t intend to apologize for the repetitive topic. It involves this notion that the current state of political debate necessarily must devolve into a rhetorical flame-throwing contest.

Such fiery rhetoric comes from many of my progressive/liberal social media friends and acquaintances. Some of them have scolded me for seeking to reduce the temperature.

“This is war,” a few of them have told me. No. It is not.

I’ve had a brief bit of exposure to war. Believe me when I say this: This is nothing close to the real thing.

Yes, it is a form of combat. Democrats are angry with Republicans for fomenting anger. They suggest that anger can — and does — manifest itself in acts such as what we witnessed the past few days: the mailing of pipe bombs to officials who disagree with Donald Trump, the nation’s 45th president.

So, to counter that anger, they propose to ratchet it up. Among the top proponents of the in-your-face policy of political debate is Michael Avenatti, the lawyer who has made a name for himself representing Stormy Daniels, the adult film actress who alleges taking a one-time tumble with the future 45th president.

Avenatti is considering whether to run for president in 2020. Imagine my surprise. He says Democrats need a gut fighter to take the battle straight to the president and his fellow Republicans.

Where does it go from there? Only heaven knows.

I am sick of hearing the “war” references to this political debate. Too many politicians I respect — the late Sen. John McCain, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, former Vice President Joe Biden, for example — have demonstrated how elected officials can argue and bicker over public policy without demonizing those on the other side.

Thus, I cannot accept the “this is war” mantra we hear from today’s active participants.

POTUS fails to deliver on unity pledge

Where do we stand at this moment?

Authorities are discovering bombs being sent to offices of Donald Trump’s critics. Two of those critics happen to be former presidents of the United States. The current president vows to seek “unity” and “peace” in a pledge to find whoever is responsible for these acts of terrorism.

What, then, does Donald Trump do? He fires off a tweet this morning that says the following: “A very big part of the Anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the Mainstream Media that I refer to as Fake News. It has gotten so bad and hateful that it is beyond description. Mainstream Media must clean up its act, FAST!”

I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t sound like a message of unity and, dare I say it, presidential leadership.

Donald Trump continues to be totally and utterly tone deaf to the role he has played in fomenting the anger that has manifested itself in this ongoing political crisis.

Federal and local authorities have now discovered 10 devices sent to addresses of presidential critics. They include former Presidents Obama and Clinton. They also include CNN, a former attorney general, a sitting U.S. congresswoman, a former vice president, a big Democratic political donor, an Oscar-winning actor … sigh!

There well could be more devices found, perhaps even before I finish writing this brief blog post.

The president, though, continues to blame others. He continues to lay it at the feet of his critics and, yes, the media.

What’s more, he stood before that campaign rally crowd in Wisconsin last night and began to poke fun — poke fun! — at what’s been happening. He boasted to laughter from the crowd that he was “trying to be nice” in his remarks, as if that suffices as a toning down of his inflammatory rhetoric.

Do you remember a year ago when Republican members of Congress were attacked on a ballfield as they practiced for a charity baseball game? One of them, House GOP whip Steve Scalise, was grievously wounded by gunfire. How did House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, react? She rallied to her colleague’s side, offering public prayers for his complete recovery.

Donald Trump cannot bring himself to respond in a way that reflects the danger of the threats being posed against his critics.

Shameful.

Try this out, Mr. President

These words likely won’t ever fly out of Donald J. Trump’s mouth, but I’ll suggest them anyway in advance of the president’s next political rally, set for tonight in Wisconsin.

Here goes:

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Before I get into my remarks about the upcoming midterm election, I want to speak for just a moment about the news of today.

I condemn in the strongest terms possible the despicable threats leveled against two former presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and their families, against former CIA director John Brennan, against CNN, Rep. Maxine Waters, and against George Soros, the Democrats’ big campaign donor. I have pledged the government will work full time to find out who sent those explosives to these individuals and to CNN and we will bring them to justice.

Yes, I know I have spoken harshly against them. Some of them have spoken against me. The rhetoric has gotten too heated. It’s time now to “unify” the country. I can start right here and now with this speech.

Yes, I want Republicans to win. I want them keep control of Congress. I will fight for them with all my being. 

The time for denigrating our foes, for sanctioning violence with rhetoric is over. We need to restore a semblance of civility.

And from this moment forward, if you start yelling “Lock her up” or “Lock him up,” or question the patriotism of our foes, I will call you out, urge you to stop doing that.

***

Do you think that will happen? I don’t either. But you know, I am no longer going to be surprised or shocked at anything this president says or does.

Sure, this is the weirdest president we’ve ever seen. His weirdness actually could produce a stunning rhetorical reversal.

Big early vote = big total vote? Maybe, maybe not!

I love the chatter about the huge early vote in states that have opened up balloting for the 2018 midterm election.

They say that more than 4.3 million Americans have cast their ballots already, signaling — perhaps, maybe, possibly — a huge increase in total vote turnout.

Excuse my skepticism, but I need to wait for Election Day to make that determination.

I detest early voting as it is. I prefer to vote on Election Day, standing in line, giving some semblance of the pageantry that goes along with voting.

I am likely to wait until Nov. 6 to cast my ballot in Collin County.

Experience tells me that a big boost in early voting doesn’t necessarily translate into a big boost in total turnout. These early-voting statistics tell me that it well might mean only that more voters are casting their ballots early than waiting until Election Day.

Oh, how I hope I’m mistaken this time around.

A big turnout at minimum suggests that Democratic and Republican “base” votes are energized to the hilt. Democrats want to seize control of both congressional chambers, but likely will have to settle for taking control of the House. Republicans want Donald Trump to continue his agenda and believe a GOP-controlled House will enable him to proceed without the fear of getting impeached.

Are these external dynamics going to fuel a huge midterm/off-year election turnout? That remains to be seen, quite obviously.

My belief for years is that representative democracy works best with more voters taking part. I hate the idea of letting someone else determine who sets public policy that affects all of us. I love voting for president … and for members of Congress, the Legislature, and for municipal and county government.

Still, I am not going to salute the expected huge turnout in this year’s midterm election.

At least not quite yet.

Keep it civil, Hillary

I have been on a mission quest for more political civility. It won’t end any time soon. I now want to issue some advice to a woman who should have won the 2016 presidential election, but who got the surprise of her political life.

Hillary Rodham Clinton needs an attitude check.

Clinton has told interviewers the time for civil public debate will occur when and if Democrats win control of Congress after next month’s midterm election. Until then? All bets are off, she says.

Republicans only understand “strength,” she said. She said Democrats cannot deal with a political party that won’t adhere to a code of civil discourse and debate.

The only option, according to the World of Hillary, is to take the fight straight to the GOP. Hit them as hard as they hit you, she said.

C’mon, Mme. Secretary/former senator/former first lady! 

That kind of attitude only begets more anger. It is unbecoming of someone who had my vote in 2016. Just for the record, I don’t regret for one second — or an instant! — casting my presidential vote for Hillary Clinton.

My hope is that we can return sooner rather than later to a time when Democrats and Republicans can work together, rather than at cross purposes. I want a return to an era when Republican lawmakers, such as the late Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois, locked arms with Democratic presidents, such as the late Lyndon Johnson. Or when Democratic lawmakers, such as the late Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, did the same with Republican presidents, such as George W. Bush.

Dirksen and Johnson helped forge the Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts; Kennedy and Bush helped formulate sweeping education reform.

These days, the two sides lob grenades at each other from a distance. That is not in the interest of good government.

I remain a bit of an idealist on this, but I believe one of the political parties can set the example for the other one to follow. If Hillary is right, that the GOP only understands “strength,” the remedy could be to show the other side an ability and willingness to bridge the great divide.

McCain tributes remind us of what has gone wrong

As I have watched the various tributes pouring in to honor the memory of U.S. Sen. John McCain, I am reminded of what some folks might say is the obvious.

I am reminded that as the men and women spoke of the late senator’s principled passion that much of the principle has been decimated in the name of partisan passion.

Former Vice President Joe Biden spoke of his “love” for his political adversary. He spoke of a friendship that transcended partisan differences. The Democratic ex-VP talked about how McCain’s devotion to principle superseded his Republican credentials.

Indeed, the same message came from Senate Majority Leader (and fellow Republican) Mitch McConnell, who today echoed much of what Biden said the previous day. McConnell noted that McCain could be your strongest ally or your most ferocious political foe. Indeed, McConnell and McCain had their differences over campaign finance reform — for which McCain fought and McConnell opposed.

What is missing today? The sense that political opponents need not be “enemies.” McCain could be irascible, grouchy, in your face, profane. He assumed all those postures because he believed strongly in whatever principle for which he was fighting.

Almost to a person, those who memorialized Sen. McCain reminded us of how it used to be in Washington and how it could become once again. If only the late senator’s political descendants would follow his lead.

I have been uplifted by the tributes to this American hero and political titan. I also am saddened by the comparison to the political standards he set to what has become of them in the here and now.

You want ‘contact’ in politics? Wait for midterm election result

The late great U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas used to call politics a “contact sport,” especially as it was practiced in the Lone Star State.

With the midterm election approaching quickly, it appears as though the political climate in Washington is going to get a good bit more “contact oriented” than it already has become — if that is possible.

I offer this bit of information with extreme caution. The “experts” who suggest that Democrats are looking more likely to take control of at least one congressional chamber, the House of Representatives, also “predicted” Hillary Rodham Clinton would be the 45th president of the United States.

They missed that one.

Suppose, though, that the Democratic Party does take the gavel from the Republicans. What do you suppose will happen?

Let me ponder that.

We must not rule out impeachment of the current president of the United States. Donald Trump is facing a bushel basket of trouble in the months after the midterm election.

What’s more, there well might be a lot of congressional hearings as newly constituted House committees — with Democratic chairs — summoning witness after witness to look into whatever they damn well want to examine.

Yep, payback is a bitch — ain’t it?

Republicans saw fit to examine that matter called “Benghazi” seemingly forever. Then we had that email matter. The Benghazi probe produced nothing incriminating, nor did the email kerfuffle.

So, what might the Democrats do in return?

It’s anyone’s guess. Go ahead and speculate, if you wish.

I’m betting it’s going to get a lot less fun for Republicans once the smoke clears from Midterm Election Day — presuming, of course, that the experts are right … this time!

If they are, get ready for a whole lot of blocking and tackling in the nation’s capital.

Once again: What damage has Brennan done?

A few congressional Republicans have joined their Democratic colleagues in criticizing Donald Trump for revoking the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.

The president’s reason? Brennan has acted “erratically” with his criticism of the administration.

I need to pose this question one more (and perhaps final) time: What has the ex-CIA boss said that has damaged national security?

The Hill has reported on the reaction. Read about it here.

Yes, he’s been harsh. And, yes, he has been vocal in his criticism of the president. Perhaps he should dial it back a bit, but he need not go silent just because Donald Trump dislikes the nature of his criticism.

The president’s reaction is, in the words of some Democratic members of Congress, the stuff of a “banana republic.”