Tag Archives: POTUS

national news, political news

Uh, Mr. President? Listen to Sen. McCain — for once!

John McCain has laid it on the line to the president of the United States.

If you’re going to make an explosive allegation against your predecessor, Mr. President, it is imperative that you tell Americans the “basis on which” you are making that allegation.

That’s what McCain has told Donald J. Trump to do.

Trump ignited a firestorm over the weekend when he rolled out of the sack at 6 in the morning and fired off a tweet that said President Barack Obama “ordered” a wiretap of Trump’s offices in New York.

No proof. No evidence. No attribution. Nothing accompanied the tweet. But the flames began burning out of control.

McCain says a simple tweet isn’t good enough.

To my ears, it sounds as though the Arizona Republican — and 2008 GOP presidential nominee — doesn’t exactly believe what Trump has asserted.

At issue, of course, is the reported relationship between Trump’s campaign and Russian government officials. Trump asserts that Obama had the phones bugged so he could eavesdrop on Trump’s campaign officials to learn whether there was a relationship with a foreign government during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump has accused Obama of breaking the law. He has essentially called his predecessor a felon. Presidents cannot order phones to be bugged. These things occur through a warrant issued by a federal judge at the behest of the Justice Department.

Sen. McCain is insisting that Donald Trump tell us the basis of his wild-ass allegation.

Well, Mr. President? What is it? Talk to us. You are the president of the United States of America. You owe us — your bosses — a complete and thoroughĀ explanation.

International news

Trump’s new travel ban: better, but still not worthy

I’ll hand it to Donald J. Trump.

At least he can tinker around the edges of a bad policy to make it somewhat more palatable, even if the very principle behind it stinks.

I refer to the revised travel ban he introduced to the world Monday.

He took Iraq off the list of Muslim-majority nations where refugees are banned from entering the United States; he exempts those with current visas from the list; it removes language that grants exemptions for “religious minorities” in the Middle East; it won’t take effect until March 16.

Is this one better than the old policy that was shot down by a federal judge, whose opinion was upheld by a federal appeals court? Yes.

It remains problematic for those of us who just dislike the idea of singling out countries and people who adhere to certain religious faiths from this brandĀ of “profiling.”

The reaction to this revised rule has been far less vocal than the outburst that greeted the initial rule, which the president signed into law via executive order one week after taking office. Accordingly, it’s interesting, too, that Trump signed this executive order in private; no cameras, no ceremony, no hoopla, hype or hysteria.

ā€œThis is definitely on much firmer legal ground,ā€Ā according toĀ a former assistant secretary of Homeland Security. ā€œItā€™s pretty narrowly applied to new visa applicants, which is probably the place where the president has the most authority.ā€

Time will tell — probably very soon — whether this one will stand up to court challenges. My guess is that it will, although if I were king of the world I would prefer that the president simply instruct immigration, customs and border security troops to be hyper-vigilant when checking everyone who seeks to come here.

national news, political news

How would Hillary have fared?

I’ve resisted the temptation to ask this question out loud, but I no longer can contain myself.

How would Hillary Rodham Clinton made the transition from private citizen to president of the United States?

I cannot in my wildest imagination think that she would have encountered the problems that have plagued Donald J. Trump, the guy who beat her in the 2016 presidential election.

Russian connection? Inability to find qualified individuals to serve in the Cabinet? ContradictionsĀ between what the president says and what he or she means?

None of those issues would be dogging her.

Yes, she’d have her share of issues to settle. The foundation matter; that e-mail controversy; perhaps even Benghazi would continue to fester. Republicans no doubt would ensure those troubles would drag her down.

I am not going to spend too much energy ruminating over this query. I likely won’t have another word to say about how Hillary would have done.

I’m just perplexed at this moment in history at the absolute clumsiness and lack of discipline the president and his senior staff are exhibiting as they seek to get their hands on the complex machinery that operates this federal government of ours.

Hillary Clinton means a lot of things to different people.

She isn’t clumsy. She knows how to govern. She would have zero difficulty assembling her team.

But … we won’t ever know any of that with absolute certainty.

In the meantime, the soap opera at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. continues.

entertainment news, national news, political news

Oprah in 2020? Please … no!

I have nothing against Oprah Winfrey as a person, as a media celebrity/mogul, as a highly successful businesswoman.

But this notion making the social media rounds about whether she might run for president of the United States of America in 2020 is driving me a bit nuts.

Oprah apparently said out loud recently that if Donald John Trump can be elected president, then damn near anybody can be elected.

I happen to agree with that assessment.

However, the presidency should not become a playground for the rich and powerful. Oprah has as much public service exposure as Trump. That would be, um, none!

I’m a bit old-fashioned in that regard. I kind of prefer heads of state and heads of government to at least have run for something, anything, that demonstrates a commitment to public service.

Oprah is a celebrity. She’s a star, in fact. She’s made some fine films and has been an eloquent spokeswoman for the causes she deems worth espousing. She’s made Dr. Phil McGraw a star. She faced down some angry Texas Panhandle cattlemen who sued herĀ for defamation because she said on the air that she didn’t think beef was safe to eat.

That’s all fine and dandy.

She ain’t presidential material.

I hope this little mini-tempest settles down quickly.

national news, political news

Yep, Trump speech was worth watching

It was an open question in my own mind for most of the day whether I would watch Donald J. Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress.

When the time arrived, and the House of Representatives sergeant at arms introduced the president of the United States, there I was … waiting to hear what Trump had to say.

I got scolded, though, from a friend of mine, an Amarillo businessman and apparently an avowed Trumpkin. He was putting some comments out on social media about how Democrats weren’t willing to stand and applaud the president. He and I got into a brief snit this evening over it, but I think we’re still friends.

He did imply, though, that I don’t respect the office of president. I sought to assure him that I most certainly do respect the office; I don’t think my friend believes me.

I’ll say so here: IĀ respect the office, even if I dislike the occupant. This isn’t the first time I’ve had this dual feeling of respect for the office but disrespect for the individual. Hey, it happens.

My friend also implored me to “get over it!” I should get over it, but then so should have Republicans “gotten over it” when Barack Obama was elected president in 2008. Many of them didn’t, even to the point of questioning whether he was constitutionally qualified to hold the office to which he was elected twice; one of them was — oh yeah! — Donald J. Trump.

I watched all but about four minutes of Trump’s speech tonight. I had to take Toby the Puppy for a brief walk in the middle of it. But I watched most of the speech precisely because I do respect — even revere — the office.

I powered through it. I’m proud of myself.

national news, political news

America is still great, Mr. President!

It took only five minutes for Donald J. Trump to toss out the first canard in his speech before a joint session of Congress.

He pledged yet again to “make America great … again.”

I now will stress once more — with emphasis — that United States of America is a great nation. It’s always been a great nation. It will continue to be a great nation.

And we have not slipped under the rung of greatness.

I will not let the president of the United States continue to denigrate our country’s greatness as he has done repeatedly — during the 2016 presidential campaign and since his election.

Mr. President, lose the “make America great again” mantra and tell us, if you would, how you intend to maintain our nation’s greatness.

media news

Trump has chosen the wrong ‘enemy’

Donald J. Trump’s war on what he calls the “enemy of the American people” has taken a seriously counterproductive and dangerous turn.

It’s also patently frightening. Outrageous. Un-American. Pick whatever negative description you prefer.

The president has ordered several major media organizations excluded from White House briefings. They include CNN, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News, The Hill, Buzzfeed, Politico and the BBC.

He calls them “fake news” outlets. He doesn’t like the tone of their coverage. He is limiting access to, um, more “friendly” media organizations.

So help me, I am running out of ways to express my utter outrage over this treatment of the media by the president of the United States. Not since the late Richard Nixon have we seen anything quite like this — and not even Tricky Dick managed to do what one of his successors has done.

If you think for a moment about this, you have to wonder: What in the world is Trump hoping to accomplish? White House press flack Sean Spicer will deliver his briefings to certain media outlets; meanwhile, those that are left out will be left to write about their being excluded. That reporting, then, might simply anger those Americans who understand the meaning of the First Amendment’s protection of a “free press.”

Trump’s bullying of the media is an outrageous act of a thin-skinned narcissist who doesn’t comprehend — seemingly at any level — what the nation’s founders envisioned when they provided for a press that should be free of government intimidation.

We now are hearing the president of the United States of American declaring that the media are the “enemy of the people.”

Are you kidding me?

The irony of this approach is mind-boggling in the extreme. It can be argued that Trump owes his ascent to the pinnacle of political power to the media, which covered his every utterance for months without ever challenging their veracity.

Now that they have done what they should have done from the beginning, the president has decided he doesn’t like being challenged.

Mr. President, that’s what the media do. It’s their job.

You, sir, do not get it.

media news

Trump performs a one-80 on the press

“If thereā€™s one thing Iā€™ve learned from dealing with politicians over the years, itā€™s that the only thing guaranteed to force them into action is the press, or more specifically, fear of the press.ā€

— Donald Trump, “The Art of the Deal”

Imagine that. The man who — at the time he made that statement — likely didn’t envision himself as the president of the United States of America.

It’s all different now for Trump the politician as he stumbles and bumbles his way past his first month in office as the Leader of the Free World.

The very same media upon which he has declared warĀ are doing the very thing he seemingly praised in his talked-about book. They are seeking answers to difficult questions. They want all the information they can gather so they can inform the public — the folks to whom they and, oh yes, the president answer — about the performance of its most visible institution.

Let’s all consider just for a moment that the public and the president serve the same masters. That would be you and me. The public.

Yes, I understand that media companies are privately held, for-profit organizations. The public they serve, however, make it possible for them to earn the income they want.

Trump now has gone to war with the “fake news” media. Someone will have to explain to me what he means by that, although I think I have an inkling of an idea. He appears to refer to those media organizations that don’t report only the “good news” he says he deserves.

The rest of it is, well, fake. It’s phony. It’s bogus. It’s not real.

With all due respect, Mr. President, you are full of crap.

The man had it right in that book of his. The media are forcing the nation’s No. 1 politician “into action.”

media news

‘Leaks are real, news is fake’ Huh? What?

I’m trying to digest the contents of Donald J. Trump’s press conference today.

It’s upsetting my stomach.

The president has declared all-out war on the media, which he calls “dishonest” and “fake.” The very men and women who cover the president’s statements and actions are told to their face that they are out to get the president, that they have an anti-Trump agenda.

One of them asked Trump today about the leaks that have allowed information to pour out into the public. Trump’s response is utterly mind-boggling on its face: “The leaks are real. The news is fake.”

I don’t even know what that means.

My media activity these days is confined exclusively to this blog. I did spend nearly four decades covering and commenting on local and state governments in two states — first in Oregon and then in Texas. I didn’t have the honor of covering the White House or politics at the highest level imaginable.

However, I do share a bit of empathy with the reporters who are doing their job in the face of withering attacks from the president of the United States.

He should seek to use the media to his own advantage. The president has a message to deliver, or so I am presuming. He must rely on the media to deliver it to the public. Why, for heaven’s sake, does he insist on the ad hominem attacks on the media? Why does he insult the men and women sitting in front of him with labels such as “dishonest” and “fake”?

This guy — the president — cannot remove himself from flat-out campaign mode. He used that tactic against his Republican Party primary opponents and then against the Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The media now have taken over the role political opponent.

I think I amĀ picking up the scent of Steve Bannon, the White House senior strategist, who has called the media the “opposition party” and suggested that the media should keep quiet.

The media are nothing of the kind. Nor should they keep quiet; the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the media’s right to pose probing questions of those in power.

If only the president of the United States could demonstrateĀ an inkling of knowledge of the media’s role in a modern society.

International news

Hey … what happened to the Russian hacking story?

Events often overtake other events. News gets shoved aside when events bury them.

Such appears to be the case with the Russian hacking controversy.

Remember that one?

Donald J. Trump got elected president of the United States amid reports/rumors/allegations that Russian government computer geeks hacked into our electoral system in an attempt to aid Trump’s campaign.

The president has dismissed any kind of link. He has disparaged our intelligence agencies, which have concluded that the Russians played a role in hacking into our electoral process.

Isn’t it a big deal to have a foreign power — Russia, no less! — involved in such activity?

Well, it turns out that Trump has a way of changing the subject: executive order banning travel into the country from several Muslim-majority nations; strange confirmations of Cabinet officials; questions about his daughter’s line of clothing; his continual tweets criticizing federal judges; a Supreme Court nominee telling senators the president’s tweets are “disheartening” and “demoralizing.”

All the while, the Russian hacking story has been tossed aside. It’s been pushed to the back of the bottom shelf, way behind the other stuff.

We still need some definitive answers about the Russians supposedly did and how they might have affected the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.