Tag Archives: Politico

As nation grieves, Trump boasts

90

“Temperamentally unfit … ”

We’re likely to hear that a lot during the next few months as Hillary Rodham Clinton campaigns for president of the United States against Donald J. Trump.

Examples? We’ve got plenty of them.

The latest example of temperamental unfitness presented itself in the hours after this past weekend’s slaughter of 49 people at the Pulse, an Orlando, Fla., nightclub.

The nation went into shock at the most gruesome mass murder in U.S. history. Trump’s response was to send out a tweet that boasted about how he predicted that Islamic terrorists were going to strike.

Trump said he called it. He was right. The president of the United States has been “weak” in the fight against terrorism, he said.

Republican insiders now are saying that Trump blew it badly by bragging during this time of national bereavement. “Only an a**hole says ‘I told you so’ the same day 49 people are killed on American soil by a terrorist,” said a New Hampshire Republican, who, like all respondents, completed the survey anonymously, according to Politico.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-orlando-response-224479

The massacre in Orlando has been generally categorized as an act of terror. The killer — an American — seems to have been radicalized by his fealty to the Islamic State.

It’s also been called the “worst act of terror on U.S. soil since 9/11.” That’s now a given.

I now shall remind us all of what national security officials said in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Almost to a person they predicted then that we’d get hit again. That the terrorists had smelled our blood and they wanted more of it.

It’s also been a given that we would feel this kind of pain.

Trump’s braggadocio was so profoundly inappropriate that it only feeds the narrative that Hillary Clinton is going to recite time and again as she campaigns for the presidency.

Trump’s wealth becomes issue of interest

donald

Does it really matter how much wealth Donald J. Trump has acquired?

Should voters really care? Should we concern ourselves with all of this?

Under normal circumstances, probably not. But here’s the thing: The presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee has been making his wealth an issue all along the primary campaign trail.

He brags about his “world-class business.” He boasts about how he built his company from scratch … although that’s not true. He shows off his opulent mansions.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/how-much-is-trump-worth-223329

We’re hearing now that Trump’s net worth is around $10 billion. No one has ever believed he has that kind of dough laying around. Trump filed a 104-page financial disclosure form — and he even bragged about that, calling it the largest such disclosure form in history.

As Politico reports: “Many of his assets and liabilities are simply too large — reaching far above the top disclosure threshold on the filing — for their value to be captured in the report. Trump, for instance, reported at least $315 million in liabilities on the form, many of which are loans and mortgages on his properties. The forms cover Trump’s last 17 months of financial activity.”

Where is all this going? I am not entirely clear, but ultimately it’s going to end up with discussion and debate about Trump’s tax returns, which he still has yet to release.

You see, this is what happens when the candidate makes a big deal of his material holdings. It mushrooms into realms that under normal circumstances wouldn’t necessarily be of voters’ concerns.

Voters knew that the Kennedy family was wealthy. The Kennedy men who ran for the nation’s highest public office — John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Ted Kennedy — didn’t make it an issue. Nelson Rockefeller’s family had acquired immense wealth as well. Rocky didn’t dwell on it, either.

Trump, though, makes his wealth an issue all … the … time.

I’m more interested in debating Trump’s views on the whole array of issues that should be front and center.

 

Who will join Cruz in stopping Trump?

cruz

Ted Cruz has a problem.

He wants to become the “anti-Trump” candidate for president of the United States. He’s seeking a way to get Ohio Gov. John Kasich to bow out. He believes he can coalesce enough “true conservatives” behind him to derail Donald J. Trump’s march to the Republican Party presidential nomination.

The junior U.S. senator from Texas, though, needs some help from his colleagues in the Senate. But as Politico reports, he is nearly universally detested by his fellow senators. And that’s just the Republicans with whom he serves.

Cruz needs to build some relationships. I don’t mean “rebuild.” He’s got to start from scratch.

He’s been in the Senate for slightly more than three years. He’s halfway through his very first term in the very first elected public office he’s ever held.

As Politico reports: “Cruz’s relationship with his colleagues is now a central paradox of his campaign: He’s openly arguing for the party to rally behind him, but Republican senators are plainly wary of going anywhere near him. Those who feel burned by Cruz in the past say he’ll come to them only if he decides it’s in his self-interest. ”

The man who leads the Senate — the body’s top Republican — once was on the receiving end of a barrage that Cruz leveled at him. Remember when the Cruz Missile called Majority Leader Mitch McConnell a “liar” in a speech on the floor of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body?

How does McConnell put that epithet behind him? How does McConnell gather the forces to help one of their own take down this “interloper” named Trump.

Moreover, Sen. John McCain — the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee — has taken Cruz to task in public for his intemperate remarks about a couple of fellow Vietnam War combat veterans, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel.

Finally, he’s been campaigning against the very “Washington establishment” where he works these days. He’s an “outsider,” he says.

Something tells me Cruz’s efforts to put distance between himself and his Senate colleagues ain’t going well with the ladies and gents with whom he serves.

 

Join the club of former shoo-ins, ‘Jeb!’

Dewey beats Truman

John Ellis “Jeb” Bush is feeling hurt at this moment, more than likely.

The former Florida governor was thought to be a shoo-in for the Republican presidential nomination. Then he ran into some fierce — or ferocious — opposition.

On Saturday night, Jeb suspended his campaign.

He was flush was cash. He had collected more than $100 million for his campaign war chest. He spent a lot of it on TV ads in Iowa, New Hampshire and then South Carolina. He got next to nothing for his investment.

He’s not the first formerly prohibitive favorite to fall on his face, as political science professor John Zeitz notes in a Politico essay.

It’s one of the “epic fails” of presidential campaigning.

The most recent example of such a “fail” is the 1980 campaign of GOP candidate John Connally, the former conservative Democrat who sought the Republican nomination, only to fail to win a single delegate.

Big John also was well-funded. He had a huge name familiarity as a former Texas governor, former Navy secretary and a victim of collateral damage on Nov. 22, 1963, when he took one of the bullets intended for President Kennedy on that horrifying day in Dallas.

We have heard much during this campaign about how “big money” corrupts the electoral process. The infamous Supreme Court “Citizens United” decision of 2010 has become a favorite target of Democrats running for the presidency seeking to roll back the effect of the court ruling that gives corporations virtually unlimited spending authority in these campaigns.

Jeb Bush was well-heeled, all right. It didn’t do him much good.

Rest assured that Bush won’t collect much solace in realizing that other big-name, sure-fire “winners” fell by the wayside.

All he needed, it now appears, was a message.

 

Commander in chief test? Trump’s already failed it

Trump-and-gun-and-cadets

Politico asks in a story whether Donald J. Trump will flunk the commander in chief test.

Republican Party brass is terrified, Politico reports, of Trump getting nominated and then having to answer difficult questions regarding national security.

Trump already has failed that test, in my oh-so-humble view.

In spades.

Time and again on the campaign trail, Trump has exhibited a shocking ignorance of such things as the “nuclear triad,” which is the nation’s three-pronged nuclear weapons system involving land-based missiles, submarine-based missiles and bombs dropped from aircraft.

He cannot articulate with anything approaching precision how he intends to solve the myriad defense-related issues. His answer to illegal immigration is to “build a wall” and “make Mexico pay for it.”

He praises leaders such as Russian leader Vladimir Putin and — get this — North Korean despot/maniac Kim Jong Un for their “leadership” skills.

But I keep coming back to the wackiness of this campaign.

It has produced surprise upon surprise all along the way.

Trump has been criticized by leading conservatives for not understanding the details of foreign and military policy. Never mind what progressives are saying about him; it goes without saying that they would be highly critical of the real estate mogul/reality TV personality.

Before you get all twisted up, I’m also well aware of those who believe the current president has failed the commander in chief test — while he’s been on the job. I simply do not share that criticism.

I totally get that one man’s buffoon is another man’s statesman.

You know where Trump fits in that equation as far as I’m concerned.

‘A test for commander in chief’?

obama_whblog_1203

We’re hearing some chatter about how the Paris terrorist attacks may have transformed the 2016 Republican Party presidential primary campaign.

It might be now a “test for commander in chief,” says Politico’s Shane Goldmacher.

Good. We need something to bring us back to what’s really at stake.

To this point in the GOP campaign, it’s been a battle of sound bites, insults (and the occasional name-calling) and wonderment over how Donald Trump has stayed at or near the top of a slowly shrinking Republican Party field.

The issue now may be turning toward deciding which of these individuals is best suited to handling the serious threat that the Islamic State potentially poses against the United States.

As Politico reported: “It’s one thing to have a protest vote,” New York Republican Rep. Pete King, a member of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee and chairman of the subcommittee on counterterrorism and intelligence, told POLITICO. “If anything good can come of this tragedy, I would hope it would steer the debate toward who can handle Al Qaeda and ISIS and away from sound bites.”

Trump has won the sound bite battle to this point.

But if ISIS is the threat that many observers now say it is — in the wake of the highly coordinated attacks in Paris — then we need to separate the experts from the entertainers.

I hope that with quite a few serious-minded individuals still seeking the GOP nomination that primary voters are going to assess the value of actual experience in the political arena against individuals who — time and again — demonstrate their inability to navigate across a complicated global landscape.

As U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida — one of the serious individuals running for the GOP nomination — said this morning, the first priority for a president is to keep Americans safe from our enemies.

Show time is over.

I hope …

 

Trump tirade … up close and queasy

donald

Ben White, writing for Politico, said he went to Fort Dodge, Iowa to get an idea of what the Donald Trump magic is all about.

He learned a lot about the candidate who’s taken the Republican Party primary campaign by storm.

White’s not sure why Trump remains at or near the top of the GOP campaign heap.

He got an earful from Trump during a 95-minute rant that included statements about how “stupid” Iowa voters must be if they like Ben Carson more than they like Trump; his cuff links; his experience with Macy’s department store; Bowe Bergdahl, the Army sergeant taken captive by the Taliban … and a lot of other things that have nothing to do with much of anything relevant.

White wonders how it can be that Trump’s nonsensical rambling plays so well among his diehard supporters. In another time — not so long ago — a performance such as the one Trump provided in Fort Dodge would have doomed his candidacy. These days? Why, it’s possible his poll rating will skyrocket.

I’ll say this, though, based on White’s reporting of the event. It appears that the packed house of Trump supporters were getting a bit antsy sitting through his tirade. The cheers and whoops became less vocal the longer he went on, White said.

I’d wonder about now if this means he’s worn out his welcome among those looking for something different in a major-party presidential nominee.

Except that given the nature of the GOP campaign so far, I can’t rely on anything approaching conventional wisdom.

 

W said what … about Sen. Cruz?

UNITED KINGDOM - JUNE 16:  U.S. President George W. Bush waves upon arrival at RAF Aldgerove in Belfast, Northern Ireland, on Monday, June 16, 2008. Gordon Brown, U.K. prime minister said Britain is pushing the European Union to impose new sanctions against Iran, including freezing the assets of its biggest bank, to pressure the nation to give up its nuclear program at a press conference with Bush in London today.  (Photo by Paul McErlane/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

George W. Bush can be full of surprises at times.

The former president was attending a fundraiser in Denver over the weekend to raise money for his brother, Jeb — who’s running for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Then he lobbed a grenade: “I just don’t like the guy.”

“The guy” is fellow Texan — and a GOP presidential foe of Jeb Bush — Sen. Ted Cruz.

Politico reported Bush’s feelings about Cruz and noted that many in the audience were stunned by the former president’s statement. As the Texas Tribune reported:  “I was like, ‘Holy sh-t, did he just say that?’ I remember looking around and seeing that other people were also looking around surprised.”

Others have suggested that Cruz’s criticism of Jeb Bush, not to mention his criticism of the former president’s policies, has contributed to the antipathy against the fiery freshman senator from Texas.

Again, as the Tribune reports, quoting an observer who heard the comments: “He sort of looks at this like Cruz is doing it all for his own personal gain, and that’s juxtaposed against a family that’s been all about public service and doing it for the right reasons. He’s frustrated to have watched Cruz basically hijack the Republican Party of Texas and the Republican Party in Washington.”

Hijack the GOP? Gee. Do ya think? The guy storms into office, grabs the first microphone within reach and starts bellowing about how the Senate Republican caucus isn’t conservative enough, doesn’t confront Democrats enough, doesn’t do enough to push the ultra-conservative agenda that Cruz and other TEA Party favorites desire.

Welcome to the club, Mr. President.

 

R.I.P., Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate

President Barack Obama was among many dignitaries gathered this week in Boston to honor the opening of an institute that tells the story of the U.S. Senate.

The Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate honors a place that the late Massachusetts Democrat served for more than three decades. The Senate that Kennedy served no longer exists, according to the president.

What a shame.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/letter-from-boston-obama-says-kennedys-senate-is-dead-116516.html?hp=b1_r3

Ted Kennedy was admired and reviled. His friends cherished his loyalty. His foes loathed his ferocity.

Kennedy, though, had this amazing ability to make friends across the political aisle. Many of his former political foes came to Boston to remember him for his wit and for the good cheer he spread among those he met.

Where is that collegiality now? Barack Obama wondered how the Senate functions today.

“What if we carried ourselves more like Ted Kennedy? What if we worked to follow his example a little bit harder?” Obama said. “People fight to get in the Senate, and then they’re afraid. We fight to get these positions and then don’t want to do anything with them. Ted understood the only reason to get these positions is to get something done.”

No, the late Liberal Lion was far from perfect. He had his faults and demons. He behaved badly off the clock at times in his life. Despite his occasional missteps, Kennedy knew how to legislate. He worked well with others, which in a legislative body comprising 100 occasionally monstrous egos is an essential element of good government.

Kennedy also knew about tradition and believed it meant something important. As Politico reported: “Kennedy waited a year to deliver his first speech on the Senate floor, Obama recalled at the institute, noting dryly that ‘that’s no longer the custom.’ (Freshman Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton had barely been sworn in before he riled up the White House over his own maiden speech and his open letter attacking the Iran talks.) The president looked over to former Senate majority leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, joking that they could talk about the time when traditions meant something, though he left out his own impatient ambition that led him to announce a presidential campaign two years into his first term.”

There’s a glimmer of hope, though, for the Senate.

Edward M. Kennedy can’t come back. A constructive U.S. Senate is able to rebuild itself, however, into an institution that relearns how to build consensus across the aisle and avoid demonizing the other side as being an “enemy” of the common good.

Sanders sounding like a non-candidate

It’s not a stretch to equate running for president to deciding to get married.

You’d better be all in on both counts, or else you’re doomed to fail in both endeavors.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who sounds like a left-leaning Democrat, now says he’s not so sure about running for president, which many liberals in his party want him to do.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bernie-sanders-isnt-so-sure-about-this-2016-thing-116031.html?hp=l3_3

Don’t hold your breath on this one, lefties. I don’t think Sanders is going to do it.

“If I run it has to be done well,” Sanders said in an interview with POLITICO this week. “And if it’s done well, and I run a winning campaign or a strong campaign, it is a real boon to the progressive community, because I believe that the issues I talk about are issues that millions and millions of people believe in. On the other hand, if one were to run a poor campaign, didn’t have a well-funded campaign, didn’t have a good organization, did not do well, because of your own limitations, then that would be a setback for the progressive community.”

Sanders is sounding, with those comments, as if he’s full of doubt about whether it’s worth it.

Politico noted that he hasn’t raised much money, has hired virtually zero key campaign advisers, has done next to no groundwork in any of the early crucial primary and caucus states.

Now he’s talking like someone who seems to question whether he has the fire in his gut to go all the way.

The late Sen. George McGovern once said that the first thing a presidential candidate needs is a huge ego. Sanders likely possesses the requisite ego to mount a campaign. He needs the rest of it — all of it — to make it a reality. I’m talking about commitment.