Tag Archives: White House

Is this how you ‘unify’ the nation? I think not

FILE - In this Jan. 24, 2013 file photo, Executive Producer Stephen Bannon poses at the premiere of "Sweetwater" during the 2013 Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah. Republican Donald Trump is overhauling his campaign again, bringing in Breitbart News' Bannon as campaign CEO and promoting pollster Kellyanne Conway to campaign manager. Trump told The Associated Press in a phone interview early Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2016, that he has known both individuals for a long time. (Photo by Danny Moloshok/Invision/AP, File)

Steve Bannon is about to become one of the new president’s closest advisers.

Big deal? Uh, yeah! It’s a real big deal.

Donald J. Trump hasĀ done two things that are fundamentally at odds with each other. The president-elect vows to “unify” the country torn asunder by one of the most acrid — and putrid — presidential campaigns in its history.

Then he picks someone like Bannon to become his chief political adviser in the White House. Bannon is a virtually avowed white supremacist who ran the Breitbart News outfit before joining the Trump campaign this summer as its chief political strategist.

Bannon’s views about Muslims, gays, immigrants, African-Americans and other racial minorities are well-known. They are ugly, pernicious and totally unacceptable in someone who is advising the president of the United States of America.

Trump is about to become president of a nation that perhaps is more divided than at any time since, oh, the Civil War!

How in the name of all that is holy does the president-elect put someone of Bannon’s ilk in the West Wing of the White House, the people’s house?

Trump selected as well a White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, who has been generally praised. Tradition holds that the chief of staff is the second most powerful person in the White House. Trump, though, said that Bannon and Priebus will work in tandem, with co-equal clout between them.

This is how you unify a nation?

The president-elect is sending precisely the wrong message.

Two picks: one works, the other one, well …

priebus-and-bannon

Donald J. Trump has made two of his first key picks for his presidential administration.

Reince Priebus will become the White House chief of staff. Good call there for the president-elect. Priebus is the Republican national chairman, a mainstream GOP guy, well-connected within the party.

Oh, but it gets weirder.

Steve Bannon, the former Breitbart News head, is going to assume the role of chief political adviser for the new president.

Why does this one cause alarm? Bannon ran an organization that published some pretty hateful dogma about Jews, about African-Americans, about gay people. When this guy took over as chief strategist for Trump’s campaign, a lot of folks — me included — became worried about the kind of rhetoric that would come out of Trump’s mouth.

Now he’s going to be advising the president on political strategy? The new president is going to bring this fellow into the White House, next to the Oval Office, place him at this right hand?

Oh, my.

My hope for the Trump administration is that the chief of staff assumes his rightful place as the second most powerful individual in the White House.

Smooth transition under way

President Obama met the man who will succeed him in the Oval Office and said something I found most interesting — and revealing.

The president turned to Donald J. Trump and offered his full support during the transition. “If you succeed, the country succeeds,” the president said.

Imagine that. The man who called Trump “unfit to be president” now is wishing him success as he prepares to seize the levers of power.

Holy cow, man!

Why is that worthy of comment? Consider the kind of things that many conservatives said in 2009 as Barack Obama succeeded George W. Bush as president.

A lot of them — namely many of them talk-radio blowhards — were actually urging failure for the president. They didn’t care about the consequences of failure. They failed to connect the nation’sĀ fate with the president’s performance. They didn’t understand — or refused willfully to understand — that the nation suffers if the president fails.

The Senate’s Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, declared that his No. 1 priority was to make Obama a one-term president. How does he do that? By ensuring failure at every step.

President Obama deserves high praise for insisting that Donald Trump’s success bodes well for the nation.

Transitions should be peaceful … always

obama-trump-meeting-at-wh-jpg

Barack Obama and Donald J. Trump are giving Americans a fascinating civics lesson.

A bitter, divisive, ruthless and occasionally slanderous presidential has come to an end. The president is about two months out from the end of his two terms in office. The president-elect — one of the principals in the aforementioned campaign — is about to take the reins of the only public office he’s ever sought.

The two men met for 90 minutes in the Oval Office on Thursday.

They sat before the media and spoke of the transition that has begun. No outward sign of the acrimony that punctuated this campaign. No apparent hard feelings over the amazingly nasty things these men said about each other.

As Trump noted, they had never met face to face — until Thursday.

Now, to be sure, the backdrop isn’t entirely peaceful. Demonstrators have been marching in major-city streets for the past few days protesting Trump’s election. They vow to keep it up. Nor will the outward peacefulness at the White House dissuade others from making angry statements about the winner of this campaign, or about the candidate who lost, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That shouldn’t cast too large or too dark a pall over the formalities that are occurring at and/or near the center of power.

The president is vowing a smooth transition; indeed, he wants to model the hand-off he got from President Bush and his team in 2009.

The peaceful transition of power is a marvelous aspect of our system of government. It becomes especially noteworthy when the presidents are of differing political parties.

In this particular instance, the transition should become a virtual miracle given the fiery rhetoric that was exchanged over the course of the past 18 months. Indeed, in the case of Trump, he’s been at the forefront of one of the biggest political lies of the past century: the one that suggested that President Obama wasn’t a legitimate American citizen.

None of us knows what the men said to each other in private. I would love to know how that conversation went.

However, we’re entitled to hear what they say in public. I am going to retain my faith that the tradition of peaceful political transition at the highest level of power in the United States will continue.

It’s all part of what enables the United States of America to remain the greatest nation on Earth.

Oh, to be a fly on the Oval Office wall

U.S. President Barack Obama pauses while speaking about immigration reform during a visit to Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, Nevada November 21, 2014. Obama imposed the most sweeping immigration reform in a generation on Thursday, easing the threat of deportation for some 4.7 million undocumented immigrants and setting up a clash with Republicans who vow to fight his moves. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS SOCIETY IMMIGRATION HEADSHOT) - RTR4F3RB

I only can imagine how many others out there are thinking the same thing I am.

If only I could be a fly on the wall Thursday in the White House Oval Office when the president-elect walks in to meet with the fellow who’s president until Jan. 20.

Donald Trump and Barack Obama are going to meet, I presume to start preliminary discussions about the transition from one administration to the other.

Why the intense interest? I guess it has to do with the things Trump said about the president while he was campaigning for the office.

Worst president in history; corrupt; disaster; commander in chief of a “decimated” military machine? Oh, and let’s not forget how Trump fomented the “birther” myth that Obama wasn’t a legitimate citizen of the United States.

Trump said all of that — and much, much more — while waging a victorious campaign for the presidency.

And didn’t Barack Obama declare that Trump is “unfit” to be president? Didn’t he ridicule his temperament? Didn’t he suggest Trump curries favor with our adversaries, such as Vladimir Putin?

How does the president deal with the things Trump said? How does he set all that aside?

For that matter, how does the president-elect act as if he never made those amazing statements about the president?

How does the president turn the page from the criticism he leveled at Trump, particularly in the closing weeks of a bruising campaign?

Let the healing begin in the Oval Office … if it’s possible after the campaign we’ve all just endured.

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 abuseĀ … 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.

Trump is committing political suicide

694940094001_5164431143001_examining-speaker-ryan-s-history-of-support-for-donald-trump

I have reached the incontrovertible conclusion that Donald J. Trump has just taken flight on a political kamikaze mission.

The Republican presidential nominee has determined two things:

*Ā He cannot defeat Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton in the race for president.

*Ā He is going to takeĀ as many of the Republican establishment hierarchy with him as he goes down in flames.

That can be the only conclusion to draw from his declaration of war against House Speaker Paul Ryan, arguably the nation’s most powerful Republican, the second in line in presidential succession, the guy who runs the legislative chamber where all fiscal matters are given birth.

I don’t have personal knowledge, of course, that Trump has surrendered the contest to Clinton. I merely am able to see and hear with my own eyes and ears what is happening.

He has been heard saying some hideous things about women. His poll numbers are plummeting. He didn’t deliver the goods in that second debate with Clinton. The polls are accelerating in Clinton’s favor.

Trump cannot win.

Moreover, I read today an item that suggests that independent candidate Evan McMullen, the Republican/Mormon challenger to both Clinton and Trump, has pulled even with them both, putting reliably Republican Utah of all places — where McMullen lives — into play.

They’re calling it a “scorched Earth” retreat. Trump says he is “unshackled” now by Ryan’s declaration that he won’t defend Trump or campaign on his behalf. Trump’s going to take the gloves off — not just with Clinton but with Republicans.

His tweet machine is being revved up for the final month of this miserable campaign. Trump is indicating a desire to let ‘er rip with snark-filled comments about Ryan, Clinton, Sen. John McCain — and anyone else who speaks critically of the nominee’s lack of credentials, qualifications, temperament or moral fitness to hold the job he is seeking.

It’s just amazing in the extreme that Trump would seek to take on the speaker of the House in this manner. All it tells me at this point is that he knows he hasn’t a chance of winning. So, he’s locked and loaded and is going out with guns blazing.

 

Trump using tenuous ‘defense’

trump

What am I missing here?

Donald J. Trump — at the time newly married — went off on a hot-mic rant 11 years ago in which he talked about having sex with a married woman, groping another woman,Ā about how his “star” status enabled him to have his way with women, disparaged another woman’s appearance … all while dropping f-bombs and using crude references to the female anatomy.

Then he defends himself by saying essentially two things:

* The audio recording is more than a decade old and does not reflect the person he is or was — or will be as president of the United States.

* Bill Clinton abused women and his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, fought savagely to defend her husband over what he did more than two decades ago.

So, which is it? Does the 11-year-old audio recording count more or less than a 20-plus-year-old series of alleged sexual dalliances — plus an actual relationship that occurred while Bill Clinton was president of the United States?

Trump, the RepublicanĀ nominee for president, is running against Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee.

I’ll ask one more question: Does the behavior of a nominee’s spouse even rise the level of actual relevance that’s equal to the behavior of a current candidate for the presidency?

O’Reilly: Slaves were ‘well-fed’ … seriously?

oreilly_0

Bill O’Reilly once taught history to students.

I wonder if he imparted this little tidbit to the young’nsĀ  gathered in his classroom, which is that the slaves who helped build the White House were “well-fed” and well-cared for.

I also wonder if he told them the rest of it, which is that under federal law at the time, they still were considered to be “personal property” of their owners, that they were three-fifths human and that they were no better off than, say, farm animals.

O’Reilly made his feelings known about slavery the other day after first lady Michelle Obama told the Democratic National Convention about living in the house built by slaves. She spoke also of the pride she feels that her daughters have been able to play on the White House lawn, given the slave labor that went into building the structure.

O’Reilly just had to chime on in his “O’Reilly Factor” cable show by seeming to suggest that slave life was OK because the slaves’ masters fed them well and gave them “decent lodging.”

Well, I feed my dog well, too. My puppy lives in a nice home; he’s comfortable. But for crying out loud, he’s still a dog!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/michelle-obama-bill-oreilly-fact-check-white-house-built-slaves-well-fed-decent-lodgings#.V5jR0-nbQk4.twitter

I likely shouldn’t give a damn what Bill O’Reilly thinks. The issue, though, is that many Americans do give a damn.

I have members of my family who glom onto his commentary. They worship the guy. Thus, if O’Reilly says it, why it justĀ has to be true … or so these family members have actually told me.

It might be that the crux of O’Reilly’s critique of the first lady’s comments were that slaves were among the workers who helped build the White House, that others were part of the construction crew as well.

But geez, man, why suggest that their living conditions somehow justifies the ownership of human beings as pieces of property?

This is what you call ‘outreach’

RPTThuEve228TT_JPG_800x1000_q100

I hereby crown Barack Obama as the King of Political Outreach.

The president is convening a town hall meeting at the White House to discuss racism in the nation.

Who do you think he’s invited to take part? None other than Texas Lt. Gov. Dan “They Are Hypocrites!” Patrick.

This is awesome, man!

Patrick popped off right after the shooting erupted in Dallas that killed five police officers. He appeared on “Fox and Friends” to criticize the Black Lives Matter protesters for fleeing the gunfire and seeking help from the very police whose conduct they were protesting.

Thus, came the “hypocrites!” charge.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/13/patrick-attend-town-hall-obama/

It’s good that Lt. Gov. Patrick will attend this event. It will be televised on ESPN and ABC. The White HouseĀ is seeking to assemble a diverse group of participants to get as many different points of view as possible.

This, I submit, is the real beauty of town hall meetings, which shouldn’t be used as political echo chambers where everyone applauds the views of everyone else.

As the Texas Tribune reports, quoting White House press secretary Josh Earnest: “I think the president is hopeful that those kinds of interactions will both illuminate a variety of perspectives for the American people to see,” Earnest said, according to a transcript of his daily briefing with reporters. “I also think he’s hopeful that it will illustrate what can happen when people open up their hearts to a different perspective.”

The catalyst for all this, of course, is the shooting of the two young men in Baton Rouge and suburban St. Paul, as well as the Dallas march and the shooting that erupted there. Two young black men died after being shot by white police officers and the shooter — another young black man — opened fire in Dallas in an act of revenge against white police officers.

It’s good that the White House is playing host to this town hall.

It’s even better that the president of the United States has invited an outspoken critic — Dan Patrick — to take part.

You want outreach? This is it.