Tag Archives: Republican Party

national news, political news

Trump gets nailed … from the right!

donald

I don’t know much at all about Matt Walsh, other than he writes a pretty good essay.

He’s a conservative writer and blogger. He has written a lengthy treatise for The Blaze, a conservative website.

Here it is.

I want to encourage folks to read it.

The subject of the blog is Donald J. Trump. It’s a sort of open letter to the Trumpsters who just love the reality TV personality/real estate mogul/newly minted politician/Republican presidential frontrunner.

Trumpsters say they admire Trump because he “tells it like it is.” Well, according to Walsh, Trump is as much of a liar as all the rest of Planet Earth he’s branded with that epithet.

The crux of Trump’s lies can be found in his supposed embrace of conservative principles. Walsh has called him out on it. He’s also called him out for all the hypocrisy that Trump has demonstrated throughout his adult life.

He blasts him for his grotesque language, his behavior, his callowness, his hideous assertions about anything and just about anybody.

Walsh is speaking as a conservative. Indeed, conservatives have been none too bashful about expressing their distaste for the idea of Donald J. Trump carrying the Republican Party banner into battle this fall against likely Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

To be blunt, the idea of a Trump nomination has me torn. It’s pulling me in many directions.

Am I inclined to support any of the leading candidates for the GOP nomination? Probably not. The only Republican still standing that I would consider voting for, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, isn’t likely to make it to the finish line.

But of all the leading candidates seeking the GOP nod, Trump is the most dangerous, the most ill-suited, the most repulsive candidate at any level. He’s also the least likely to win the election this fall.

Do I want the party to nominate him? No. Why? Because I believe in a strong two-party system and the Republican Party needs to come to its senses in a big hurry.

Am I a huge fan of Hillary Clinton? Not really. However, considering my own bias and my own presidential voting track record, she is likely to get my vote this fall — particularly if the Republican nominee is Donald Trump.

I do not want Trump anywhere near the White House, near The Button, near the levers of government. He doesn’t know the first thing about how any of it works.

Indeed, he seems to embody the very thing that one of his vanquished foes, Jeb Bush, talked about when he ended his own presidential campaign this past weekend. Bush talked of how presidents are one of us. They serve the people and are not our “masters,” he said.

Matt Walsh has laid it out there for all of those Trumpsters to ponder.

My hunch — and my fear — is that they won’t ponder a thing. It’ll just make them love their hero even more.

For my money, though, he offers a blistering — and much-deserved — critique of someone who’s making a mockery of a once-great political party.

 

entertainment news, national news, political news

Times change, and so do political party dynamics

will rogers

Someone once asked the late, legendary humorist Will Rogers about his political affiliation.

“I don’t belong to an organized political party,” Rogers reportedly answered. “I’m a Democrat.”

Ba-da-boom!

My hunch is that the same answer today could be given as it regards the Republican Party.

The GOP is in a state of chaos. It doesn’t know how to handle the emergence of a reality TV star/real estate mogul as a serious candidate for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.

Donald J. Trump delivered a serious wedgie to the Republican Party “establishment” Tuesday night with his win in the New Hampshire primary. As the story linked to this blog illustrates, the GOP brass is looking for answers to coping with this guy.

He’s insulted his way to the top of the heap. He has demonstrated — by my way of thinking — zero philosophical grounding. If you’re looking for anything resembling a sophisticated answer to the myriad issues facing the candidates for president, do not expect it to come from Trump. Instead, you can expect a sound bite. A laugh line. A stream-of-consciousness rant about this and/or that.

But hey, whatever works.

It’s working for Trump and the Republican Party is grasping for ways to derail this guy.

Forty-plus years ago, the Democrats were the party in chaos. It’s liberal wing was fighting with the establishment — I suppose much like it is today — but the establishment didn’t have an answer for the insurgencies led by the likes of Sens. Eugene McCarthy, Robert F. Kennedy and George McGovern. The issue then was the Vietnam War.

The issue today is much more complex than the cost of young American lives on a foreign battlefield.

There appears to be a lot of anger among voters, which honestly baffles me. Then again, it takes a lot to make me mad.

These things do run in cycles. I don’t know if the Republican Party high command will find the answers it seeks while trying to cope with Trump. Nor do I know if whatever it is that’s driving Trump will win the day and change the party forever.

All I know for certain is that the once-chaotic Democratic Party — which, yes, has its own conflict underway — is looking peaceful in comparison to what’s roiling the Republicans.

 

media news, national news, political news

When did National Review become a GOP pariah?

27buckley4-600

I’m puzzled.

I’ve always thought that the National Review was seen as the “bible” of conservative thought. The magazine founded by the late, great William F. Buckley was the go-to publication for conservatives to get their view distributed among the masses.

The National Review was the magazine to read.

What in the name of all that is holy is happening?

The Republican National Committee has cut the National Review out of its debate participation. GOP presidential frontrunner calls the magazine a “failing” publication.

Times are changing, yes?

William Buckley might not recognize what’s happening these days to the conservative movement.

Or that his once-revered publication has been shoved aside. There once was a time when thoughtful conservative leaders would occupy the platform that the National Review provided. They would offer their policy views on this or that issue.

Conservatives would embrace them; liberals might not join in the group hug, but they would at least consider the argument made, if only to shore up their own bias.

We have not entered a new age of wisdom when we toss aside thoughtfulness in favor of anger and shoot-from-the-hip talk-show rhetoric.

Mr. Buckley, wherever you are, I wish you were around to talk some sense into these guys who have redefined the conservative movement you once led.

 

national news, political news

Sen. Graham shows what’s wrong with GOP

graham_ap_328

Don’t get me wrong.

Sen. Lindsey Graham — himself — is not what is wrong with today’s Republican Party. The South Carolinian’s departure this week from the 2016 presidential race illustrates what’s so troubling about others within the GOP.

Graham represents what — for the time being — appears to be a dying breed of Republican. He’s one of those individuals who works with Democrats, not against ’em.

His reputation, thus, has become of one what hardcore Republicans call RINO, a Republican In Name Only.

Graham isn’t a RINO. The label is undeserved, except for the fact that he has many friends on the other side of the Senate chamber, which I guess has become something of a kiss of death these days among the Republican Party “base.”

He became quite critical during his presidential campaign of much of the rhetoric coming from his fellow candidates. Remember when he called Donald Trump a “jackass”? He became one of the first targets that Trump singled out, reciting Graham’s cell phone number aloud at a public event.

Graham, though, had the bad form — in the eyes of his GOP base — to work with Democrats on such issues as climate change, immigration reform and tax reform. It didn’t matter that the former Air Force lawyer has been a staunch advocate for a strong defense and that he has been at the forefront of calling for more — and pardon my use of the euphemism that I detest — “boots on the ground” in the fight against Islamic terrorists.

Perhaps it was Graham’s vote against articles of impeachment against President Clinton in 1998 — as a member of the House Judiciary Committee — that sealed the deal for the GOP base.

Whatever, this faithful Republican is now out of the presidential race because he isn’t hardcore enough to suit the red-meat Republicans who still see Democrats as “enemies” and not more “opponents.”

That’s too bad.

For Graham and for his Republican Party.

 

 

 

national news, political news

Memo to GOP: You don’t want to anger Trump

donald

Donald Trump’s latest shot across the bow of the Republican Party leadership leaves me with decidedly mixed feelings.

He again has refused to rule out categorically an independent run for president if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination next summer.

He wants fair treatment by the party. He wants to be treated, I gather, with respect.

Well, if I were to advise Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus, I’d tell him to be very nice to Trump. Treat him right. Baby the fellow. Tell him constantly how bright he is and how right he is … on everything.

I’m not sure what Trump means by insisting on fair treatment by the GOP.

Suppose he shows up in Cleveland next summer without the party presidential nomination locked up. Suppose another candidate has the delegate count in the bag. I’m guessing Trump will want a prime-time slot to make his speech.

Based on what we’ve heard so far along the campaign trail, such a concession could blow up in the chairman’s face. You’ve heard Trump, yes? He tends to, uh, ramble a bit. He says some rather insulting things about world leaders, his fellow politicians and tends to shoot from the hip on, oh, just about any subject under the sun.

However, does the party want to deny him that chance and risk having him bolt the GOP and launch that independent candidacy, which surely is going to siphon off more votes from the Republican nominee than from whomever the Democrats nominate?

Chairman Priebus, I reckon this is why the party pays you the big bucks.

 

national news, political news, religious news

Shocking! County clerk joins GOP

Old fashionet American Constitution with USA Flag.

There once was a time when I argued that many county offices should be made non-partisan … with county clerks being among them.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Ky., clerk who’s been in the news lately has demonstrated that perhaps my earlier view was, well, not entirely correct.

Davis today switched from Democrat to Republican, saying that the Democratic Party left her long ago.

Davis joins GOP

Why comment on this? Davis is the county clerk who said she couldn’t issue marriage licenses to gay couples. So, she quit issuing licenses to anyone. She refused to do the job she took an oath to do, which is serve the public and to obey the laws of the land. A federal judge found her in contempt of court, then tossed her into jail for a few days; the same judge released her and then former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — a GOP candidate for president — volunteered to go to jail in her place.

Oh, please.

The public include gay citizens. The laws of the land allows gay people to get married, just like straight people.

Davis said she is acting according to God’s will. God, she said, disapproves of gay marriage. Therefore, she is empowered to flout the oath she took.

Wrong, Ms. Davis.

You are not free to quit performing your job as long as you hold the title of “county clerk.”

With that, she joined the Republican Party. Does the GOP approve of elected public officials tossing aside their sworn oath?

Man, I hope not.

Oh well, if she feel more at home in the GOP, then that’s her call.

Just do your job, Mme. Clerk … or else quit.

 

political news

This man needs an intervention

1 Comment

Bill Press is a Democratic Party operative. He’s as partisan as they come.

Thus, it is with keen interest that I share this Facebook post that Press put out there.

***

Bless me Father, for I have sinned. I have a man crush on Rand Paul.

Yes, it’s enough to drive me to confession: Every day I find myself agreeing more and more with the Libertarian from Kentucky. He may be running for president as a Republican, but he says some things that any liberal Democrat could support.

Who’s the leading champion to shut down NSA’s vast phone spying operation? Rand Paul!

Who blames Republican hawks, not Barack Obama, for the Iraq War and the eventual rise of ISIS? Rand Paul!

On the environment, Rand Paul says: “You’ll find I’m a tree hugger, literally…I compost.”

On Ferguson, Missouri, Rand Paul said: “The police department showed up in grear more fitting for Fallujah or Kandahar.”

And on the Republican Party, Rand Paul says: “Right now, the Republican brand sucks.”

No wonder I have such a man crush on Rand Paul. But I’d feel a lot less guilty – if he’d just run as a Democrat!

***

It’s rather weird, but I am feeling the same kind of “man crush” myself about Sen. Paul.

However, I’m not a paid partisan hack. I’m just a guy out here flapping my proverbial jaws about politics and other things.

Bill Press is finding himself being drawn into saying nice things about a Republican against his partisan loyalties, given that he works for Democrats, who pay him real American money to offer them political advice.

Therefore, I am thinking he needs an intervention.

Am I likely to vote for Paul should he obtain the GOP presidential nomination? Probably not.

Then again …

 

political news

Fox, CNN get it right on debate format

The Republican Party’s presidential field figures to be a thundering herd by the time summer rolls around.

Accordingly, two cable news networks have decided on a format that is going to exclude some of this potentially huge field.

Good for them. The networks, that is.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/20/fox_cnn_set_criteria_for_gop_debates.html

Fox News Channel is going to play host to the first GOP primary debate on Aug. 6 in Cleveland. Its plan is to limit the participants to the top 10 candidates, based on their standing in the polls at that time. There well might be at least double that number of candidates seeking the party’s 2016 presidential nomination.

Fox says the candidates must be declared. Many observers are noting that the criteria are going to keep several high-powered candidates off the debate stage.

CNN is going to play host for the second debate, on Sept. 16, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. Its format is a bit more convoluted. CNN is planning a two-tiered event: The top candidates will share one stage; the also-rans will share another one.

I prefer the Fox approach, to be honest.

There is no possible way that having 20 — or maybe more — candidates on the same stage is going to do a bit of good for the voters who might be undecided on who would get their vote in a Republican primary. Fox has taken a simpler approach to determining which candidates should participate in the first of what looks like a long series of joint appearances.

My only hope for the debate formats as the series unfolds is that the networks somehow restrict audience cheering. The 2012 GOP debates were annoying in the extreme as the candidates paraded onto debate stages, waving to their cheering fans in the crowd. It was weird and in my view detracted from the importance of the event, which was to ask these candidates for their views on critical issues of the day.

But for starters, I’m glad to know Fox and CNN are going to cull the herd of hopefuls from a debate stage with limited space.

political news, State news

Here we go again, Gov. Perry

Rachel Maddow is no fan of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

There. I’ve stipulated what many folks know already about the liberal commentator for MSNBC.

That all said, she noted Friday night that Perry is about to break another “glass ceiling” for Republican presidential candidates. He’s about to become the first candidate under felony indictment to seek his party’s presidential nomination. He’ll make his announcement on June 4.

The Texas Tribune has posted a fascinating analysis on the pluses and minuses of a Perry presidential campaign.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/15/case-and-against-perrys-2016-campaign/

You remember the indictment, yes? A Travis County grand jury indicted Perry in 2014 on charges of abuse of power and coercion when he tried to get the Democratic Travis County district attorney to resign after she pleaded guilty to drunken driving; if she quit, he’d then let the DA’s Public Integrity Unit have the money appropriated by the Legislature. She didn’t quit. So Perry vetoed the money.

The grand jury said that sequence constituted an indictable offense.

Hey, that doesn’t matter. He’s going to run for the presidency a second time, hoping that all will be forgiven from his first — and disastrous — run for the White House in 2012; he actually lasted only a few days into 2012, as he dropped out of the race in January of that year.

Will the indictment hold him back? Will it matter to GOP voters who are looking for a right-wing darling to embrace as an alternative to squishy moderates such as Jeb Bush, Rob Portmand, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham or Chris Christie? All of those guys — and the others who already have declared their intentions to run or are about to declare them — will seek to paint themselves as hard-core conservatives.

Perry, though, is the real thing … he says.

He’s got this chink in his conservative armor, however. It’s immigration. You see, as the governor of a border state for a bazillion years, he has this idea that we really ought to have immigration reform. He also favors something akin to President Obama’s DREAM Act, which grants amnesty to illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States by their parents, when they were children. And … he also favors granting in-state college tuition waivers to those very illegal immigrants.

That area is where I happen to agree with the former governor.

The rest of it? No thanks.

Plus, he’s got that indictment matter to settle before he thinks about taking the presidential oath on Jan. 20, 2017.

Something tells me it won’t come to that.

 

International news

Partisanship gone too far?

Barack Obama could have made this argument possibly long before now. Heck, maybe he has.

But now the president says partisan bickering over the merits of the Iran nuclear deal brokered with five other great powers and the Islamic Republic of Iran has gone too far.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-partisanship-over-iran-deal-gone-too-225234380–politics.html

He spoke at the Summit of the Americas, where he has made historic inroads in restoring relations with another longtime enemy, Cuba.

Back to Iran.

The deal seeks to scale back Iran’s nuclear development program. It also seeks to prevent Iran from developing an atomic bomb. Republicans universally seem opposed even to talking to Iran about such a deal. Some Democrats have expressed misgivings too. Let’s throw in the categorical objections of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and you have the makings of a donnybrook over a critical U.S. foreign policy initiative that in an earlier time might have enabled the president and his loyal opposition to speak with a single voice.

Those days are gone — at least while the current president occupies the White House.

You had The Letter signed by the 47 GOP senators urging Iran to reject a deal, which they stated might not survive once President Obama leaves office on Jan. 20, 2017. Yes, the letter sought to undermine U.S. negotiators.

I certainly understand the need for partisan principle to matter, to count for something. These issues of foreign policy, of difficult and complicated international negotiations need to above that kind of bickering.

Obama’s critics say he is guilty of diminishing U.S. standing in the world. Those very critics are doing that, and more, when they seek to ambush the president while he and his team are working to prevent an enemy nation from developing a weapon of mass destruction.