Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Let’s hope big early vote equals big overall vote

early-vote

Texas elections officials are beside themselves.

Early voting is setting records throughout the state, they say. In the part of the state where I live — the Panhandle — Potter County elections officials also report record turnout for the early vote.

Now, the question: Does the big early vote translate to a larger overall vote? My concern is that record-setting early vote means only that more Texans are voting early … period!

We hear similar reports around the country, where state and local elections officials are crowing about all this early-vote interest.

What in the world is driving it?

Well, I suppose it might have something to do with the news of late this past week, with FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that he might have some more information to reveal about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy. Legal experts across the spectrum do not anticipate any penalty will come Clinton’s way. The focus now appears to be on Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged dirtbag husband — Anthony “Carlos Danger” Weiner and his hideous sexting scandal.

Democrats want voters to cast ballots early — perhaps before they change their mind. Republicans are seizing on it, too, before more stuff comes out about their nominee, Donald J. Trump.

As for the Texas turnout, the Lone Star State generally ranks among the poorest turnout states in the country.

I thought early on that because of the two major-party candidates’ low esteem among voters that this year’s presidential election turnout might set an all-time low.

I would be delighted to be wrong about that prediction, too.

Here’s the first and last question for next secretary of state

Biden-1

Reports indicate that if Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected president next week that she is ready to start vetting a short list of potential secretaries of state.

Vice President Joe Biden reportedly is at the top of that short list.

Biden served six terms in the U.S. Senate before being elected vice president in 2008. He retains many close personal friendships with his former Senate colleagues, given that as VP he served also as president of the Senate.

He’s also a first-cabin foreign policy expert.

So, what do you think would be the first question the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will ask when it begins its hearing to determine whether to confirm Biden — or anyone a President-elect Clinton would nominate?

“Do you intend to use a personal e-mail server to communicate with staffers while serving as the next secretary of state?”

I think I know the answer.

 

GOP looking to make Hillary’s service difficult

cruz

Ted Cruz has joined his Senate Republican colleague John McCain in declaring war on a potential — if not probable — new president’s appointment powers.

Cruz, the former GOP presidential candidate, says there is “precedent” for the Supreme Court to operate with only eight members. That is a form of code for saying that it it’s OK for the Senate to block anyone that a President Hillary Clinton would nominate to fill the vacant ninth seat on the nation’s highest court.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/27/cruz-says-theres-precedent-keeping-ninth-supreme-c/

McCain was wrong to say such a thing.  Cruz is equally wrong.

Assuming that Clinton wins the presidency in eight days, the Senate Republicans are digging in as they seek to block any appointment the Democratic president might make.

President Obama already has felt the sting of raw politics in that process. Antonin Scalia died eight months ago while vacationing in Texas. Obama selected federal judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Supreme Court justice — one of the conservative titans on the narrowly divided court.

The reaction from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was shameful in its political nature. Within hours of Scalia’s death, he declared that the Senate would block anyone President Obama would nominate; he declared that the nomination should be handled by the next president.

Well, Mr. Majority Leader, the next president is likely to be a Democrat, too. That has prompted Sens. McCain and Cruz to suggest that the next president won’t be able to nominate anyone, either.

Who’s playing politics with the U.S. Constitution? Republicans keep insisting that Democrats are doing it. They are shamefully lacking in self-awareness … as the continuing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated all too graphically.

Do the e-mails mean anything … or not?

email-marketing

FBI Director James Comey is going to have a busy week.

He’s going to face immense pressure from Democrats who are incensed at the letter he sent to Congress declaring that he might have some damaging information regarding Hillary Clinton’s e-mail controversy.

Does he have the goods or not? He’s not saying. All he’s saying is that he has found more missing e-mails.

B … F … D!

I get that Comey might be constrained to reveal the details of an ongoing investigation. What I do not get is why this fellow decided on the eve of a presidential election to reveal the existence of the e-mails — that well might contain no new information regarding Clinton’s use of a personal server while she was working as secretary of state.

He’s made a mess of it, man.

What’s more, he has given Donald J. Trump license to convict Clinton of “crimes” and “corruption” on the campaign stump — while not being privy to a single shred of evidence that the Democratic presidential candidate has done anything wrong, let alone illegal.

Oh, and one more point: Comey isn’t “reopening an investigation” of Clinton, which is another lie that Trump has proffered while trying to rescue his floundering presidential campaign.

For that matter, none of us knows what Comey has discovered.

He might be unable to pore through all the contents, but at the very least he now owes it to the public to explain whether he has found anything that might contradict his earlier finding that “no reasonable prosecutor” would call for an indictment against Clinton over her use of the personal server.

We’ve got a week and a day before we go to the polls, Mr. FBI Director.

Let’s clear the air … immediately!

A campaign of paradoxes staggers to its finish

evangelicals

There may be no greater example of just how weird the 2016 presidential campaign has become than this example right here.

It speaks volumes. Hideous volumes.

The evangelical Christian bloc that is so critical to Republicans’ ballot-box success remains — more or less — devoted to the party’s current presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Yet many of those folks just couldn’t bring themselves to support the candidacy of its most recent nominee, Mitt Romney. The 2012 GOP nominee is a Mormon. There were many within the evangelical movement who contend that Mormons belong to a “cult.”

As for Trump, the current nominee … well, the photo accompanying this blog posts says plenty about him.

Those of us who oppose this man’s presidential candidacy are left to ponder what we thought was the imponderable: that evangelical voters would continue to give this guy a pass on some of the most reprehensible behavior imaginable.

Sure, many of them have bolted. That recording of Trump boasting to “Access Hollywood” about his behavior toward women have sent many of those evangelicals packing. Many others, though, remain.

The rest of us are asking, simply: Why?

These pro-Trump evangelicals are more than willing to convict Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton of crimes for which she hasn’t even been accused of committing. Due process? It doesn’t apply in their minds to a leading politician.

Yet, they look the other way when their guy acknowledges seeking to seduce a married woman, who has boasted about previous extramarital affairs, has hung ghastly labels on women he believes are physically unattractive.

Ugh!

Someone has to explain this to me. I’m all ears.

No honeymoon for Hillary

hillary

Let’s play out how many of us believe this presidential election will conclude.

Hillary Rodham Clinton will become the 45th president of the United States. She’ll be the second consecutive history-making president, following immediately the election of the nation’s first African-American; she’ll become the first woman to hold the exalted office.

Will she be granted the “traditional honeymoon period” that Congress grants a newly elected president?

You can stop laughing now. I realize that borders on a stupid question. It’s also a rhetorical one.

She won’t get one any more than President Barack Obama was granted such a period when he was elected in 2008.

I harken back to what Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declared in 2009, that his “No. 1 priority” was to make Barack Obama “a one-term president.”

Do you remember that? That was Job One. Front-burner stuff. Forget working with the newly elected president to solve the economic crisis that was destroying our nation’s well-being. McConnell’s primary mission ended in failure when Obama was re-elected in 2012.

Hillary Clinton is likely to face the same level of hostility — if not a greater level — from congressional Republicans, many of whom she worked with while she served in the Senate from 2001 to 2009.

The leader of the peanut-gallery jeering section well might be the guy she’s going to defeat — Donald J. Trump, someone who has zero public service history, zero commitment to fighting for the nation at any level, zero understanding of how government works.

Honeymoon period? Those days may be gone for the foreseeable future.

E-mail controversy rivals Watergate? Hardly

widemodern_watergatecomplex_051513

Donald J. Trump is likely going to lose his bid to become the next president of the United States, so he is bound to say damn near anything.

Thus, the Republican nominee has declared that the Hillary Rodham Clinton e-mail controversy rivals Watergate as among the nation’s worst “political scandals.”

Umm. Let me think. No, it doesn’t even come close.

Let’s review.

Hillary Clinton used her personal e-mail server to communicate with staffers while she was secretary of state. The FBI director determined there was no credible evidence to prosecute her over suspicions that she might have let classified information fall into the wrong hands. Now comes an announcement — 11 days before an election — that he’s reopening the investigation.

What do we know about the new e-mails? Very little, other than they came from a top aide of Clinton and might include communications with her estranged husband, a former congressman who’s been disgraced because of a “sexting” escapade with underage girls. It’s disgusting in the extreme. Scandalous? Give me a break.

Now, about Watergate.

Some goons broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters in June 1972. Investigators looked into it. Two newspaper sleuths at the Washington Post began snooping around. They discovered a White House connection.

Then they learned that President Nixon was involved. They found out he ordered the FBI to squash the investigation. Then came news about those infamous Oval Office tape recordings, which then revealed that the president used the power of his office to obstruct justice.

That, folks, is a serious constitutional crisis … not just a political scandal.

Nixon quit the presidency. Others went to prison. President Ford pardoned his predecessor.

I see no symmetry here. One does not match the other.

Don’t let the e-mail mystery build, Mr. FBI Director

comey

The question of the moment — if you’re Hillary Rodham Clinton — is this: Do the recently uncovered e-mails contain damaging information or are they, well, harmless?

Clinton doesn’t know what FBI Director James Comey has uncovered.

Neither do the rest of us. Not me, or you, or Donald J. Trump — Clinton’s opponent in this race for the presidency of the United States.

That, of course, hasn’t stopped Trump from asserting — without a shred of proof, Clinton has committed a crime while using her personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state.

Comey, though, has fed the rumor-mongers among us to pre-suppose and pre-judge what’s in those supposedly “missing” e-mail messages.

And that brings me to the point I’ve made already, but which needs to be made once more.

Comey needs to release the details of those e-mails immediately — if not sooner.

Moreover, it now becomes apparent that U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch — Comey’s boss — said the FBI director’s decision to announce some mysterious findings are not in keeping with Justice Department policy.

This e-mail controversy — and it is not a “scandal” — has become (and pardon the sanitized version of this term) a big-league cluster-fudge.

It is of James Comey’s making. He needs to clean it up.

Come clean, now, on e-mail issue

FBI Director James Comey has told only part of an on-going story regarding Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He has left the most important part of it out. Comey very well might be keeping secrets from the public. He needs — immediately! — to finish telling this tale.

Comey announced today that he has uncovered more e-mails that Clinton sent out on her personal server while she was secretary of state. Perhaps you’ve heard about these e-mails.

Comey then said they might amount to nothing, or they might be important.

Which is it, Mr. Director?

Eleven days before a presidential election, Comey has tossed a serious pile of goo into this contest.

Clinton happens to be correct to demand that he let the public know all the facts regarding the e-mails. No delay. No hanging cloud. No suspicion.

He has determined once already that he had no grounds to seek a criminal indictment. Now this?

Let’s clear the air. Now.

Humans tinker with ballots, not machines

vote1

Potter County Judge Nancy Tanner has put the kibosh on a social media rumor about ballot integrity.

“There is nothing wrong with any of the machines we use for voting,” Tanner said in a statement. “They do not flip your vote. They do not flip parties. Humans do that.”

At issue is a complaint filed by a voter in Randall County who said that after voting for a straight Republican ticket her ballot showed a vote for the Hillary Clinton-Tim Kaine Democratic ticket for president and vice president.

Tanner said it didn’t happen, apparently consulting with her colleagues in Randall County.

The maddening aspect of this episode is that it comes in the wake of repeated allegations by GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump about “rigged elections” at the precinct polling level. Quite naturally — and this is of zero surprise — Trump hasn’t provided a single snippet of evidence to back up his specious contention.

That hasn’t stopped — in my mind, at least — the Internet trolls from promoting such nonsense in the GOP-friendly Texas Panhandle.

I’m glad to hear Judge Tanner weighing in with her assertion that her county’s election system is working as promised.

Indeed, about the only way to suspect actual voter fraud would be if the Clinton-Kaine ticket actually won in Randall County.

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2016-10-25/potter-county-judge-nothing-wrong-voting-machines