Tag Archives: Democrats

Political leanings turned upside-down

I am listening to U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters rail, rant and ramble about a dastardly human being, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The California Democrat — so help me — is sounding like a 1950s Republican! She is not alone among congressional Democrats who are calling Putin a war criminal, a monster and no friend of the United States of America.

Meanwhile, we have the nation’s leading Republican — the president-elect — continuing to bite his tongue as it regards Putin. Donald J. Trump just won’t — or cannot — bring himself to say what Democrats are saying. Which is that Putin is a seriously bad guy.

What’s going on here?

Republicans traditionally have hated the Russians, especially when they were governed by the communists who created the Soviet Union. Indeed, Putin is a creature of the monstrous Soviet era, the KGB, the notorious and ruthless spy agency he once ran.

These days, though, we’re mired in debate over what role the Russians played in influencing our 2016 presidential election. Democrats are enraged. Republicans, well, are not … generally.

Sure, some GOP senators have spoken out against the Russians. Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio are three harsh critics of Putin and they all have openly challenged Trump’s relationship with him and the rest of the Russian government.

The president-elect? He’s keeping quiet.

Donald Trump is the leader of the Republican Party, the traditional enemy of Russia. Democrats used to be accused of being squishy-soft on the Russians.

Talk about a reversal of roles.

Barack Obama will deserve a high presidential ranking

This is it, dear reader. The hand-off from one president to another is upon us. With that, I believe it is time to assess the performance of the guy who’s leaving office and perhaps try to compare what I believe he accomplished to what was projected of him when he took office.

Bear in mind, bias is implicit in everything anyone says … particularly when it regards political matters. I have my bias, you have yours. Some of our bias might mesh. Much of it might not.

How has Barack Obama done as the 44th president of the United States of America? I’ll give him a B-plus, which is a pretty damn good grade, given what he faced eight years ago.

Let’s start with the economy. We were shedding three-quarters of a million jobs each month when the president was sworn in. What did he do? He got his then-Democratic Party majority in both congressional chambers to enact a sweeping stimulus package. It pumped a lot of money into the economy. It helped bail out major industries, such as the folks who make motor vehicles. Banks were failing. The failures tapered off and then ceased.

Was this a bipartisan effort? Hardly. Republicans declared their intention to block everything he tried. The economy would collapse even faster, they said. The stock market, which had cratered, would implode. What happened? The Dow Jones Industrial Average has tripled since then.

Job losses? They disappeared, too. In the eight years of the Obama presidency, the nation has added 11 million or so non-farm-payroll jobs. Unemployment that peaked at 10 percent shortly after Obama took office, now stands at 4.7 percent.

Has the recovery been even? Has it been felt across the spectrum? Not entirely. It is that unevenness that sparked the populist movement led in large part by none other than the master of decadence Donald J. Trump, who parlayed people’s fear into a winning presidential campaign strategy.

All in all? We’re in far better shape today than we were when Barack Obama took office.

National security anyone?

OK, let’s try these facts.

A SEAL team killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011; we haven’t been victimized by a terrorist attack in the past eight years; we have killed thousands of terrorists around the world as our global war has continued; Obama and his diplomatic team negotiated a deal to prevent Iran from developing an nuclear weapon.

Yes, North Korea continues to pose threats. The president erred in saying he would act militarily if Syria crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons and then failed to act on his threat. We did a poor job of managing the Arab Spring that erupted in Libya and eliminated Moammar Gadhafi.

Immigration reform remains in the distance. Barack Obama has been all-time champion of deportation of illegal immigrants, despite complaints from his foes that he is soft on that issue. And, of course, I believe he is correct to suggest that building a wall is contrary to “who we are as Americans.”

In an area related to national security, I would like to point out that we’ve all but eliminated our dependence on fossil produced in the Middle East. I don’t want to overstate the president’s role here, as much of that is due to private industry initiative. Federal tax breaks, though, have made alternative energy production more feasible, which has reduced our dependence on fossil fuels.

Domestic issues?

Obama’s foes said he would launch raids on Americans’ homes, seeking to take away our guns. It hasn’t happened. There was never any realistic threat that it would.

The president did a 180 on gay marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court — citing the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution — made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

And, oh yes, the Affordable Care Act has provided health insurance to 20 million citizens who couldn’t afford it otherwise. The ACA is in jeopardy as GOP members of Congress want to repeal it. They don’t have a replacement bill lined up. Obama has said he’d support any improvement to the ACA that would come forth. Is it perfect? No. The president admitted this past weekend that he and his team fluffed the launch of healthcare.gov, which was a huge error.

Barack Obama didn’t bridge the racial divide that splits Americans. The first African-American president perhaps misjudged the national mood; maybe he was too hopeful.

However, that this brilliant man was elected president in the first place in 2008 with substantial majorities in both the popular and Electoral College votes — and then re-elected — tells me that we’ve come a long way from the time when even his candidacy would have been considered unthinkable.

I’m proud to have been in his corner for the past eight years. I haven’t agreed with every single decision he has made … just the vast majority of them. He has made me proud, too, at the way he has conducted himself and the way his family has adjusted to living in that bubble known as the White House.

Millions of Americans will wish him well as he and his beautiful family depart on Friday.

As for the future, well … we cannot predict it with any more certainty than many Americans did when Barack Obama took the stage. Let’s just hope for the best.

Go with a brand new face, Democrats

A poll offers some clear instructions for Democrats interested in coming back from the shock of watching Donald J. Trump elected president of the United States.

Go with someone shiny and brand new to the national scene, Democrats.

No more Clintons should run for high office, namely the presidency.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/theres-a-clear-democratic-front-runner-for-2020/ar-BBxq70O?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

USA Today/Suffolk University has released a poll that says Democrats need someone new. It doesn’t specify an individual. Just go with someone new to the national scene.

If you think about it, Republicans might have had the right idea by going with someone “new” as their presidential nominee in 2016. Donald J. Trump wasn’t exactly new to the limelight. He’s been basking in it for 30-plus years.

He burst onto the political scene when he rode down that escalator at Trump Tower and then made his first presidential campaign promise: he’ll “build a wall” to keep those illegal immigrants from coming in.

Trump was a familiar entertainment face, but was new to politics.

He’s not so new to politics these days as he prepares to become president.

Democrats are facing a serious quandary as they ponder their choices for 2020 and, believe it, they are pondering them at this very moment.

One individual did fare pretty well in this poll of Democrats. It is Joe Biden, the current vice president who’ll be 78 years of age on Jan. 20, 2021 when we inaugurate someone after the 2020 election. Personally, I wanted Vice President Biden to run this time around. He didn’t go for it. I fear it’s too late for him next time.

Poll respondents apparently think so, too.

Democrats had better start beating the bushes for their next presidential nominee. The poll results suggest they need to find a fresh face.

I mean, if Hillary Rodham Clinton — a former U.S. first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state — can lose to someone as unqualified and unfit for the presidency as the guy who beat her, then it’s time to start with a clean slate.

Get busy, Democrats.

Texas GOP fed up with agriculture commissioner?

miller-4_jpg_800x1000_q100

Sid Miller blew into Amarillo the other day, ate dinner at a downtown restaurant and then proceeded to make an ass of himself by making a big show of his displeasure with the meal he received.

That’s not even close to describing the misdeeds of this loudmouth politician.

The Texas Tribune is reporting that Miller, the Republican commissioner of agriculture, has become the king of fake news. He puts out bogus items as if they are true. He makes defamatory statements on his social media feeds about Muslims, Democrats … anyone who opposes what passes as his world view of politics and public policy. He collects these gems from ultraconservative websites and then posts them on his Facebook page, which he boasts as having tens of thousands of followers.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/03/texas-ag-chiefs-facebook-account-fake-news-flows/

The Tribune’s analysis of Miller playing fast and loose with the facts is in the link. It’s so very interesting, and damning!

Get this: Texas Republicans just might be embarrassed and ashamed enough of this guy to run a serious primary challenger against him in 2018. How do I know that? Well, I don’t know it to be a fact, as it hasn’t happened yet.

However, I got a snootful today from a member of the Texas legislative delegation — a Republican, no less — who said damn near anyone would be better in the job as agriculture commissioner than Miller.

I happen to agree with that assessment. The guy is a loon.

My hope now is that if Texas Republicans are truly angry at the manner in which this statewide elected official has conducted himself that they’ll do something to get this individual out of office.

Trump running headlong into D.C. reality

donald

Donald J. Trump is facing the worst of two worlds as he prepares to become president of the United States.

He wants to spend a trillion bucks on infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports. He once compared American airports to “third world” terminals; the bridges and roads are a “disgrace.”

So he has pitched an expensive program to fix it all.

Here’s this little problem. There’s no money to pay for it. Why? He also wants to cut taxes.

Let’s see: Introducing a big spending program while cutting tax revenue seems to be counterintuitive in the extreme. Don’t you think?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-infrastructure-plan-washington-reality-231649

On whom does the president-elect depend to help him enact this idea?

Republicans who control both congressional chambers? Forget about it. They’re skinflints who aren’t about to borrow more money and, therefore, increase the national debt. Do you remember when Joplin, Mo., was leveled by that tornado in 2011 and then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia demanded cuts elsewhere to offset the expense of making one of our communities whole?

What about Democrats who otherwise might be likely to support a big infrastructure “investment”? They detest Trump even more than Republicans do.

Can Trump declare a “mandate” to do what he wants? Um, no, not with a 1.7 million (and growing) popular-vote deficit stemming from the Nov. 8 presidential election.

So, here we are. A political novice set to become president of the United States is getting an on-the-job-training lesson on just how little power he really possesses.

This ain’t a corporate board room, Mr. President-elect.

Trump still not listening to advice

GettyImages-583518404

Eighty-seven days to go before Election Day.

Public opinion surveys are showing a clear trend: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is opening up a significant lead over Republican candidate Donald J. Trump.

The so-called “battleground states” are leaning increasingly toward Clinton.

So, where is Trump campaigning today? Is he in one of those battleground states battling Clinton tooth-and-nail?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-connecticut-why-is-he-campaigning-there-226959

No. He’s in Connecticut. The Nutmeg State hasn’t voted GOP since 1988. It won’t vote for Trump this time, either.

And this, I believe, sums up just why Trump is losing this campaign.

He’s got a campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who supposedly is an experienced hand. Is Manafort sending Trump into the belly of the beast? Does he actually believe Trump has a shot of winning Connecticut?

My guess: Probably not. Trump is continuing to march to his own cadence.

For someone who knows nothing about politics and even less about government, this is the “strategy” of a loser.

It may be too late for Trump to ‘turn it around’

donald-trump

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead over Donald J. Trump is large — and it’s getting larger.

The pundit class, though, seems somewhat fixated on how the Republican Party’s presidential nominee can “turn it around” if he has a chance of defeating his Democratic Party opponent.

My own view is that Trump likely is well past the point of no return.

Will a speech do it? Does he need to embarrass Clinton at any of the three joint appearances scheduled? Forget about the VP encounter between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence; that won’t change a thing.

It looks for all the world as though Trump’s interminably long record of insults and his astonishing demonstration of ignorance about anything involving public policy has done him in.

How in the world does this buffoon/clown/carnival barker/con man/narcissist persuade voters now — at this point — that all that prior stuff was just a joke?

He cannot help himself. He cannot resist the urge to veer off into some nonsensical rant whenever he delivers what passes for a “campaign stump speech.”

He vows to “unify” the Republican Party, then he trashes the GOP leadership. Party hot shots are deserting him in droves. I heard last night that Trump was coming to Texas for a fundraiser, but the biggest donors in the state aren’t going to show up.

The only possible way for Clinton to lose this election would be for something truly terrible to come out about her. Or … she would have to drool all over herself or somehow revert to some form of Trump-like campaign stump-speech riff that makes as little sense as the stuff that’s been pouring out of Trump’s mouth for the past year.

Sure, the first thing is entirely possible. We might learn something egregious about Clinton. Then again, the most scrutinized and examined political candidate of the past quarter century has weathered lots of storms already.

I once wrote on this blog that the election figured to be a blowout. Then I thought Trump might make a race of it. I’m back to believing a rout is in the making.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/05/time-to-handicap-the-fall-election/

 

Facing an unhappy choice this fall

Clinton-and-Trump

It’s time to make an admission.

Others already have said it, but I’ll chime in with this: The election this autumn presents the unhappiest choice I’ve ever faced since I voted in my first presidential election way back in 1972.

At this very moment, I am not yet rock-solid certain what I’m going to do when I go to the polling place.

Republicans have nominated a certifiable buffoon/goofball/fraud/con artist as their presidential nominee. Donald J. Trump is unqualified at every level one can mention to sit in the Oval Office and make decisions as our head of state and government.

Democrats have nominated someone who is far more qualified — on paper — than Trump. Hillary Rodham Clinton, though, is trying to face down that darn “trust” issue. Is she to be trusted implicitly to tell us the truth when we need to know it? That is where I am having trouble with her candidacy.

Who’s left? The Libertarian ticket led by former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, whose signature issue is to legalize marijuana? The Greens, led by Jill Stein?

I’ve already declared in this blog that Democrats have gotten my vote in every presidential election. The first presidential ballot I ever cast, for the late Sen. George McGovern, remains the vote of which I am most proud.

I happened to be — if my Marine Corps friends don’t object to my stealing their service’s motto — one of the “few, the proud” to vote for Sen. McGovern. Then came Watergate and the resignation of President Nixon two years later and one became hard-pressed to understand how it was that the president won by as large a landslide as he did.

The next election four years later gave me a bit of heartburn. I truly admired President Ford and I didn’t really feel comfortable with Jimmy Carter. Well, you know what happened, right?

I’ve been comfortable with my choices every election season since.

Until this one.

You can count me as one of the millions of Americans who’s unhappy with the choices we have. I’ll have made up my mind in time for Election Day.

I’ll just keep it to myself.

Welcome to the circus, Sen. Kaine

547384532-democratic-presidential-candidate-hillary-clinton-and.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2

Hillary Rodham Clinton laid down an important marker just before announcing her vice-presidential pick.

The Democratic presidential candidate said the person she would select first and foremost needed to be able to step into the presidency immediately if something would prevent her from continuing in the office.

Fine. Fair enough, Mme. Secretary.

Then she selected U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia.

Did politics have anything at all to do with the selection?

Let’s see. Clinton had several other names on her short list. They included Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Sherrod Brown of Ohio. All of them would fit that qualification. Oh, except for this: They all come from states governed by Republicans, which means that the GOP governor would fill their Senate seats with Republicans, thus putting in jeopardy the Democrats’ hopes of reclaiming the Senate majority.

Virginia’s governor is a Democrat, good Clinton friend Terry McAuliffe. He poses no such dilemma for the Democrats if they win the election this fall.

There were others as well: Labor Secretary Tom Perez, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, retired Admiral James Stavridis.

Indeed, Republican nominee Donald J. Trump surely needed someone to run with him who is capable of becoming president. He turned to Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate. Pence clearly fills the presidential qualification need for the GOP, given his executive and legislative government experience.

Clinton and Kaine are going to make their first joint appearance today in Miami. Kaine, incidentally, is fluent in Spanish; gosh, do you think he’ll get to say a few words — in Spanish — to his south Florida audience that might include something like, “We won’t build a wall to keep others out!”?

So, the tickets are set. Democrats are getting ready to convene their four-day event in Philadelphia.

Compared to what transpired at the GOP convention in Cleveland, the nominating event coming up is going to look utterly boring.

But in this case — if you’re a dedicated Democrat — boring will be a good thing.

Timing could be everything for the next VP selection

clinton-appears-alongside-safe-vp-pick-sen-tim-kaine-at-virginia-campaign-stop_1

I really dislike getting ahead of myself.

After all, Republicans have just nominated Donald J. Trump to be the next president of the United States. The GOP convention delegates are happy — I guess — at the prospect of their party nominating someone who had launched what amounts a hostile takeover of the party.

So now we can call Trump the party’s nominee. No “presumptive,” or “presumed” or “pending” adjective is required.

Now he and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, his running mate, will get to march off arm-in-arm to wage political battle against the Democrats’ nominee-to-be, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

OK, why am I getting ahead of myself … maybe?

Republicans will adjourn their Cleveland convention on Thursday. The delegates will gather themselves up and go home.

Then the Democrats will convene their convention in Philadelphia.

How do you suppose the Democratic Party can suck the air out of the proverbial Republican room?

Here’s an idea: by allowing Clinton to announce her vice-presidential pick on Friday.

The two frontrunners for the Democrats’ VP slot now appear to be U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa.

Imagine the PR value of Clinton announcing her selection a single day after Republicans have pulled the curtain down on their own show in Cleveland.

They would expect to have the stage all to themselves over the weekend.

My gut tells me that Clinton and her team are quite close to deciding who she should select. They might have decided already. The only thing left is for Clinton to call the also-rans to give them the news that they ain’t the one.

If it’s Kaine, Vilsack, or Housing Secretary Julian Castro, or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker or — what the hey? — the current vice president, Joe Biden, it’s going to be big, huge, gigantic news that yanks the political world’s attention away immediately from Trump and Pence.

Timing is everything, man.