Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Finally … the end of this campaign is near

presidential-debate

We have family members visiting us and I’m giving some semi-serious thought to having something of a tailgate party Wednesday in advance of the third — and thankfully, final — face-off between Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Donald J. Trump.

Political junkies have heard it already: The campaign is essentially over. Trump scuttled his presidential bid with that hideous recording of him talking about how he feels about women.

It’s now Clinton’s election to lose. You know, as an aside, I’ve never been comfortable with that phrase, given that I don’t really know what it means.

But the two of ’em are going to square off in the final debate. Fox News’s Chris Wallace will moderate this event. I have complete confidence in his ability to grill them with equal ferocity.

Having said something about a tailgate party, I’ll now stipulate that the end of this campaign cannot arrive soon enough.

It’s been a miserable affair.

About the only thing I’ve learned is that a once-towering American political party has nominated someone — Trump — who has proven to be totally, categorically and unequivocally unqualified to become president of the United States.

So … let’s finish it off.

Ponder when elections are ‘rigged’

donald-trump4

Donald J. Trump is playing the “rigged election”  card as if it’s a new gambit.

The Republican presidential nominee says the electoral system is “rigged.” He says voter fraud is rampant at polling places. He blames the media for “rigging” its coverage of his battle with Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I must add, too, that he says all this without providing a scintilla of credible evidence.

Well, way back in the early days of the GOP primary, Trump lost the Iowa caucus to Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz. His excuse then? It was “rigged,” he said. Cruz’s team stole that one from Trump, said the eventual party nominee.

The rigged election stuff is the mantra of someone who’s going to lose. That’s all it is.

As for the media bias he keeps harping on, I feel a need to mention only this: The media gave Trump invaluable free advertising and publicity throughout his march to the GOP nomination. He called a press event? The media were there. He made a statement of any kind, carrying any kind of weight? The media covered it like a blanket. Trump would fire off an accusation or call an opponent a schoolyard-style name? Why, the media were on that, too.

Trump is about to lose his first and likely final campaign for public office. He is sounding like someone who doesn’t know how to lose with grace and class.

McCain enters the fray with threat of a crisis

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 26:  U.S. Sen. John McCain (C) (R-AZ) speaks during a press conference on the recent bombings by Saudi Arabia in Yemen March 26, 2015 in Washington, DC. During his remarks Graham said, "The Mideast is on fire, and it is every person for themselves." (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

John McCain must be unable to stand the sight and sound of another Republican blowing a once-great political party to smithereens.

The Arizona senator has this apparent need to get into the action himself by making an absurd — and frankly, frightening — assertion about how he and his GOP colleagues are going to handle the next president’s appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy is imploding, paving the way for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s election in three weeks as the first female president of the United States.

What, then, does McCain do? He declares that U.S. Senate Republicans will make it their mission in life to block every single appointment Clinton might make to the Supreme Court.

That’s it. None will make it through the sausage-grinder of the confirmation process if Sen. McCain has his way. He’s actually one-upping the ridiculously political posture that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell struck when he said that President Obama’s next pick would be stalled because, according to McConnell, he’s a “lame duck” and that the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia needed to be filled by the next president.

Do you remember how McConnell weighed in within an hour of he world learning that Scalia had died?

Hell, that’s not good enough for McCain. He and his fellow Senate Republicans are going to block them all!

I’ve long expressed admiration for McCain. I’ve saluted his service to the country — notably his heroic actions as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. However, my old pal Jon Talton, who knows Arizona politics better than anyone I’ve ever met, put the senator’s public life into an interesting perspective in a recent blog post. Here it is:

http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/2016/10/a-looming-constitutional-crisis.html

As Talton wrote: “From ‘moderate’ ‘independent’ McCain, we have warnings of what’s to come. This puts him in the Kook camp that would make Hillary’s election automatically illegitimate. Four years of scorched earth and worse.”

I’ll let Talton’s assessment of McCain’s career stand on its own. He knows more about it than I do.

The idea that McCain would quadruple-down on efforts to block the next President Clinton’s appointment authority to fill potential vacancies on the nation’s highest court creates the threat of a serious constitutional crisis. It could be far worse than, say, Watergate — which was pretty damn frightening.

I continue to hold out hope that President Obama’s pick to replace Scalia — U.S. District Judge Merrick Garland — would get a hearing in the lame-duck session of Congress once the election is over. Senate Republicans might lose control of the upper chamber as Trump’s candidacy goes down in flames. Garland — as solid and mainstream a nominee as you can imagine — might prove to be as suitable a court pick as they could hope for.

Now we have Sen. McCain declaring that no one Clinton would select will be able to pass Senate GOP muster. No one!

Obstruction, anyone? There you have it — in the starkest terms possible.

What happened to Trump’s high praise for Clintons?

donald-trump-hillary-clinton

Many eyes will be on Chris Wallace when the two major-party candidates for president square off later this week.

The Fox News anchor will moderate the upcoming debate between Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Donald J. Trump.

I have a long list of questions that Wallace ought to ask. I know he’s likely to ask Clinton about the e-mails being leaked and whether they undermine her ethical standards. I also believe he’ll ask Trump about that “Access Hollywood” recording about the GOP nominee’s conduct with women.

But here’s a potential set of questions I hope Wallace will ask. They should go to Trump:

“Mr. Trump, you once praised Hillary Clinton as a ‘great person.’ You have played golf with her husband, the former president. You have attended parties with them. You’ve been photographed arm-in-arm with both of them.

“What changed? How did the former president and the current Democratic nominee for that office go from being friends of yours to becoming mortal political enemies?”

There’s something potentially revealing to me about Trump’s change in attitude toward the Clintons, now that he’s launched this scorched-Earth campaign against Hillary while seeking to drag Bill into the discussion over his wife’s fitness to become president.

It’s fair to wonder if Trump is nothing more than an opportunistic back-stabber. It’s also fair to ask if he schmoozed with the Clintons for self-serving purposes only. It’s also fair to wonder if he still harbors warm-and-fuzzy feelings toward them and he’s saying all these venomous things about Hillary for purely political purposes.

Trump did, after all, declare that he said those nasty things about women for “entertainment.”

 

‘Rigging’ depends on who’s winning

donaldtrump_091516getty

Donald J. Trump’s assertions about “rigging” an election cuts to the heart of our democratic traditions.

The Republican presidential nominee, though, cares not one single bit about tradition, as his campaign has demonstrated time and again for more than a year.

He says the media are biased against him, that they’re conspiring with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to undermine his effort.

Nice try, Don. The media don’t have time to “conspire” against anyone or anything.

He talks about “widespread voter fraud,” which could rank as among the biggest lies of his campaign. There is no evidence anywhere of “widespread” fraud. Of the millions of ballots cast over the past decade-plus, officials have uncovered fewer than 100 cases of people voting fraudulently.

Trump’s desperate 11th-hour assertions are undermining the very process that the GOP nominee used to secure his party’s presidential nomination.

That’s right. Trump benefited from the very same “rigged” system that he now condemns as working against him.

Has anyone else noticed that in the past two weeks we’ve heard absolutely not a single positive policy statement from this guy? His rallies are rife with condemnation of his opponent and accusations that she’s “on drugs,” that she “lacks the stamina” to be commander in chief, that she’s “corrupt,” and that she enabled her husband to become the “worst abuser” of women in the history of American politics.

Nov. 8 cannot get here soon enough.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301280-poll-41-percent-of-voters-think-election-could-be-stolen

Outward political expression seems muted

hillary_2016_yard_sign

Maybe it’s just me.

Or, perhaps it’s a national trend.

As I make my way around Amarillo running errands and doing whatever it is I do these days, I notice a glaring lack of political expression.

Lawn signs? Hardly any. Bumper stickers? Same thing. Banners? Nope. Anyone skywriting with airplanes? Hah!

ys206_grande

This election year is supposed to be so very consequential. Republicans backing their nominee, Donald J. Trump, say that Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most corrupt individual ever to seek the presidency. Believe me, I live in the epicenter of the Republican political movement and I’m hearing a lot of it from friends and acquaintances.

Democrats backing Clinton say Trump is the most unfit and unqualified man in human history who’s ever aspired to high political office.

They say it on social media. They grumble it under their breath. They talk to their allies in whatever political echo chamber they occupy — left and right.

But there’s so little sign display. Or bumper stickers.

My theory is this: Emotions are running so high that voters are afraid of vandalism … and not just on the signs or the stickers. They fear the other side demonstrating their political displeasure in more, um, meaningful ways.

I live in Randall County, Texas, where no Democrats have appeared on the local ballot in my more than two decades living here. One isn’t likely to see any such public displays of political affection for Hillary in my neighborhood.

And Trump? Well, I’ve spotted precisely one lawn sign within a half-mile radius of my house during this election season.

We’re less than four weeks out from Election Day. I am going to presume we’ll be relatively lawn-sign-free for the duration.

The good news is that there’ll be less visual pollution to clean up once it’s all over.

A governor suggests violence is the cure? Wow!

bevin

Gov. Matt Bevin needs to have his head examined.

Someone needs to check the Kentucky Republican’s noggin for parasites that have nibbled away at what passes for the reasonable and rational cells in his brain.

He’s lost them.

Speaking to the Values Voters Summit not long ago, Bevin said conservatives may have to resort to violence to protect their values against liberal incursion.

Bevin said if Democrat Hillary Clinton were elected president, she would set the nation on a dangerous course that could prompt violence. He told the audience that the “candle” of liberty might go out “on our watch.”

So, it’s come to this, has it?

Conservatives are so angst-filled with the prospect of losing this election that they ought to shed some blood in order to preserve their principles. That’s what one of them has said.

Who, then, is the conservatives’ vicar, the champion of all they cherish? Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, the reality TV star, real estate mogul, beauty pageant owner/operator and — as we’ve heard — someone who thinks he’s got enough “star” power to have his way with women whenever, wherever and however he chooses.

I haven’t even mentioned — until right now — that he’s alleged to be a serial groper.

Yeah, man. That’s the guy Gov. Bevin and others think will carry the torch forward on behalf of conservative values.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kentucky-gov-matt-bevin-says-bloodshed-might-be-165058821.html

Let’s see. Where was I?

Oh! I know I’m repeating myself, but …

Gov. Bevin needs to have his head examined.

Here come those ‘damn e-mails’ again

hillary

I have been trying for weeks to grasp the significance of the e-mail controversy that keeps swirling around Hillary Rodham Clinton’s quest for the presidency.

Her one-time Democratic presidential primary opponent Bernie Sanders said he was tired of “hearing about your damn e-mails.” Me, too, senator.

But … here they come again, courtesy of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and — more than likely — the former head of the Soviet KGB spy agency and current president of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

They’re leaking these e-mails near the end of a bitter and ugly presidential campaign between Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Their intent clearly and without equivocation is to embarrass and undermine Clinton’s bid to become president of the United States. They contain communication on a whole array of issues, from her speeches to well-heeled groups and backers, the LGBT response to Clinton’s reaction to the death of former first lady Nancy Reagan and her thoughts on how U.S. policy should deal with the crisis in Syria.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/emails-show-clintons-response-to-lgbt-backlash/ar-AAj2xdX?li=BBnb7Kz

I get the intent, which is my clearest takeaway from it all. Indeed, Clinton hasn’t been very forthcoming on explaining many of these issues raised by the e-mails.

She and Trump are squaring off this week for the third and final (thank God in heaven) joint appearance. I’d bet real American money that moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News is going to ask her some tough questions about the e-mail dump and what it all means about the way she would govern as president.

I’m also willing to bet some serious greenbacks she’ll be ready to respond. Trump? Well, time tell us very soon how he intends to respond to her response.

Perhaps a follow-up question for Trump from Wallace might go something like this: Mr. Trump? You all but invited the Russian government to deliver us the content of those “missing” e-mails. Is this what you had in mind?

Oh, and another one could go this way: You’ve been critical of our intelligence operation and our military. Intelligence officials now seem to believe that President Putin — about whom you’ve spoken quite highly and who has returned the compliment — is responsible for the e-mail dump in these waning days of the campaign. Are they wrong, sir?

What’s with the first-name usage for Hillary?

hillaryclinton-101-1451652269

I’ve wondered about this for nearly as long as Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in public life — which seems like forever.

Why do the media, the political class, historians and Mr. and Mrs. J.Q. Public refer to the Democratic nominee for president as “Hillary”?

I’ll admit to doing it in casual conversation. My wife and I talk about this election all the time. We’re caught up by it. We’re enthralled — if that’s the right word — by all of its patently bizarre twists and turns.

Then I’ll toss out something like this: “Did you hear what Hillary and Trump said today?” My wife identifies the two major-party candidates the same way.

The Republican nominee doesn’t get the same air of familiarity, if that’s what it is. We refer to Donald J. Trump as “Trump.” I’m inclined to use more, um, descriptive terminology at times. And yes, I’m quite sure those on the other side attach the same pejorative qualifiers to Hillary.

See, there I go again … falling into that first-name trap.

I mean no disrespect. I take her as seriously as I do any other politician, male or female.

I’ll admit to using first names on other pols. Newt, Mitt and Jeb are my favorites. Their names are unusual enough that you don’t need to last names to know about whom one is referring. It’s kind of like Wilt, Arnie, Tiger and Kareem … you know?

There’s got to be a psychologist out there who can explain it to me.

Hey, do you think Dr. Phil might be looking for a topic to cover on his TV show.

Lighten up, Trump; ‘SNL’ goes after Hillary, too

video-alec-baldwin-donald-trump_lncima20161002_0162_3

Donald J. Trump’s feelings are hurt.

He doesn’t like the impressions that Alec Baldwin does of him. He’s told Baldwin and “Saturday Night Live” to knock it off. Why? It’s gotten “personal,” says the Republican nominee for president.

Really. Well, how do you suppose Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton likes being portrayed by Kate McKinnon? Publicly, she’s laughing it off, which is how grown-ups are supposed to react to political satire.

Indeed, “SNL” has proven over many years to be an equal-opportunity jester. It has parodied Al Gore and George W. Bush, Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole and H. Ross Perot.

Oh, and then there’s Sarah Palin.

Let’s go back a ways and recall “SNL’s” treatment of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford — and of Ronald Reagan.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/snl-takes-jab-at-donald-trump/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=29995717

I’m reminded of a politician I once knew when I worked as editorial page editor of the Beaumont Enterprise. Our paper circulated throughout two congressional districts, the 2nd and the 9th. The 2nd District congressman was the late Charlie Wilson, a conservative, free-spirited Democrat.

We had a cartoonist on our staff, Jerry Byrd, who used to poke fun of politicians of all stripes. Yes, we needled Rep. Wilson on occasion for this or that policy statement.

How do you suppose Wilson responded when we published an editorial cartoon that was critical of him? He wanted the original drawing. He loved it. He took it in good humor and never bitched about it.

Trump’s baptism as a politician has occurred at the highest level possible. He gets poked and prodded by some of the best political satirists in the business.

Dude, it goes with the territory.