Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Trump muscles his way into Pence’s big moment

mike-pence

One more thought on what the nation witnessed Tuesday night … then I’ll move on.

Democratic nominee Tim Kaine and Republican nominee Mike Pence jousted vigorously at their vice-presidential “debate” in Farmville, Va.

They talked a lot about their presidential running mates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

But here’s the deal. Trump decided during the event to start “live tweeting” while his man Pence was on the stage.

I have to agree with the assertion made by media and political commentators about that back story. It was that Trump simply is not wired to stand aside and let his running mate do what was assigned to do. Trump just had to throw his own thoughts out there in real time while his No. 2 guy was talking on national television.

Some GOP strategists thought it only showed that Trump and Pence comprise a political “team” and that Trump merely was lending support to his running mate.

Sure thing.

It’s fair to wonder: What might Trump think of Pence doing that very thing during the upcoming Sunday night joint appearance with Hillary?

Trade policy: the great unspoken at VP debate

thdea8bdgr

Is it me or did one of Donald J. Trump’s signature issues in this presidential campaign go unnoticed?

I refer to the issue of trade policy.

The Republican presidential nominee has declared ad nauseam that the North American Free Trade Agreement is one of the “worst trade deals in history.” He has opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership. He has vowed to renegotiate NAFTA immediately upon taking office next January.

Neither of the two men who are running for vice president, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, talked about trade policy.

In fairness to the candidates, moderator Elaine Quijano of CBS News didn’t ask either of them about trade policy.

The question I would have wanted her to pose would have been to Pence. It would go something like this:

“Gov. Pence, you are a traditional Republican. You served in Congress as a traditional Republican lawmaker and your party has been a free-trade party. Why have you changed your mind on NAFTA and why do you oppose TPP?”

She could have asked Pence that question, but she didn’t.

Pence has a long career as a traditional Republican conservative as a lawmaker and as a governor. Trump has no public service career and he has sounded as populist on trade as, say, Sen. Bernie Sanders.

This debate between Kaine and Pence could have helped clear up some of the confusion on trade that Trump has created with his ferocious opposition to trade policy that many within his party have supported.

Let’s bring on Clinton and Trump again

la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-we-re-scoring-pence-and-kaine-s-debate-1475580277

Tim Kaine and Mike Pence are still haggling at this moment. Their vice-presidential “debate” has about another 40 minutes to go.

I am not expecting a “You’re no Jack Kennedy” moment.

So, let’s look ahead to next Sunday’s debate between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump.

They will have to answer the questions that neither of their running mates have been able to answer.

Is this VP joint appearance going to be decisive? I am not predicting that it won’t, but these No. 2 events rarely — if ever — prove to be deal breakers or deal makers.

Clinton’s post-debate “bounce” has moved her back out to a more comfortable lead in those polls that Trump is fond of heralding — when they’ve leaned in his favor. Is there another Clinton bounce coming after the second joint appearance? That will depend if Trump shows up after actually preparing for the questions that will come his way.

I’m just hoping — as I continue to watch Sen. Kaine and Gov. Pence argue over each other — that Trump raises the issue of Bill Clinton’s marital misbehavior as some kind of disqualifier for his wife’s presidential candidacy.

I also am hoping to hear Hillary’s answer.

Let’s flip these national tickets

kaine-pence-jpg

In 1988, a Texan was running for vice president on the Democratic ticket led by Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis.

The Texan was U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen. The buzz in the Lone Star State was that many Texans wanted Bentsen to be the top man. They much preferred him to Dukakis. There was some of that feeling around the country, too, especially given Bentsen’s performance at the VP debate with then Sen. Dan Quayle of Indiana.

“Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” became one of the signature moments of that campaign as Bentsen skewered Quayle for comparing his Senate experience with what JFK brought to the 1960 presidential campaign.

Well, tonight two more No. 2s are going to square off.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia will joust with Republican Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana. They are their parties’ nominees for vice president.

They’re going to make the top-tier candidates — Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton — the issue tonight.

I wouldn’t be surprised in the least that we are going to hear a lot of lamenting when it’s all over from those who wish that Sen. Kaine and Gov. Pence were leading their respective tickets in 2016

Here’s another spin on the fidelity issue

bill-and-hill

I feel the need to put another brief twist to this business about marital infidelity and its emergence as an issue in the 2016 presidential campaign.

For starters, Donald J. Trump’s assertion that Hillary Clinton’s husband’s transgressions disqualify her for high office is ludicrous on its face. Bill Clinton made a mistake in the late 1990s. He got impeached for it; the Senate thought better about tossing him out of office and acquitted him of the charges brought against him.

Hillary’s role? She became the aggrieved wife of the nation’s foremost politician.

OK, but that entire episode spurred another kind of politician.

This was the guy who would boast on the campaign stump, in TV ads, on printed material about how he is faithful to his wife.

“Elect me!” he would say. “I’m a loving husband and devoted father. I believe in the traditional concept of marriage.”

I never could stop wondering: Since when does staying faithful to your sacred marital vows become a bragging point?

Oh, and yes, this kind of phony fealty to marriage does get politicians into some serious trouble. Do you remember former Sen. John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate who ran with Sen. John Kerry in 2004? I recall Edwards boasting of his love for his late wife, Elizabeth, while he was cavorting with Rielle Hunter … and with whom he brought a daughter into the world.

It’s all so much crap.

No, Mr. Mayor, ‘everybody’ doesn’t cheat

rudy

Rudolph Guiliani used to be considered one of the great political heroes of the 21st century.

He stood tall amid the ruins of New York City’s financial district in the wake of the 9/11 attack. He became known as America’s Mayor. He rallied his city and, thus, the nation to fight the terrorists who brought such destruction to our shores.

Then he became a crazy man.

His latest bout of lunacy occurred this past weekend with an assertion that “everybody” cheats on their spouse. He was defending Donald J. Trump’s attack on Hillary Clinton — or, more to the point, his attack on Bill Clinton’s misbehavior while he served as president.

He defended Trump’s assertion that Hillary Clinton isn’t faithful to her husband.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/02/politics/rudy-giuliani-infidelity-everybody-does/index.html

Given that marital vows have become an issue in this campaign, I feel the need to remind the mayor that not “everybody” does what he, himself, did to at least two of his wives. He cheated on them. Trump cheated on his first two wives as well.

I know for an absolute fact, moreover, that breaking one’s marital vows of faithfulness is not something that “everybody” does. No need to mention the example I can give of someone who’s never done what Rudy and Donald and, yes, Bill Clinton have done.

Mr. Mayor, here’s some unsolicited advice: Keep your mouth shut when this subject comes up.

Polls: They’re up, then they’re down, then they’re up again

hillaryclinton_093016getty_0

The political media have this fascination with polling while covering the Hillary Clinton-Donald Trump race for the presidency.

It all has given me reason to wonder: How do these polls fluctuate so dramatically so late in this campaign?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/298793-race-breaking-clintons-way

The Hill reports that Democratic nominee Clinton is now regaining her political footing. Trump, the Republican nominee, had a disastrous week and he’s got seven days to prepare for the next joint appearance with Clinton.

Polls in several swing states are now showing Clinton with an advantage where two weeks ago Trump held a slight lead. Florida now tilts toward Clinton; same for Nevada; Ohio is now a dead heat; Pennsylvania is leaning in Clinton’s direction — again!

We’ve known about Hillary Clinton for the past 20-plus years. It would seem that voters’ minds are made up. Trump? Well, he’s quite the “known quantity” too, but for entirely different reasons. Americans know him through his reality-TV exposure and his flamboyant reputation as a real estate mogul and, dare I say it, a bon vivant.

But the polls go up. Then they go down. Then they go back up again.

Many Americans can’t seem to make up their minds.

I hate to think we have become a nation of wishy-washy fence-straddlers.

Trump wrecks his businesses, loses big dough; that’s ‘smart’

USEconomy1

I’m still trying to understand this one, so bear with me for just a moment.

The New York Times has uncovered information that reveals a big business loss for Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump. He declared a loss of about $916 million in 1995, caused by the wreckage of some business ventures.

The loss allowed Trump, according to the Times, to avoid paying federal income taxes for the next 18 years. The Trump campaign hasn’t confirmed or denied the veracity of the report.

So … is this a case of Trump gaming the federal tax system? Or is it smart business practice, as his supporters are now insisting?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Rudy Guiliani, one of Trump’s key advisers, defends the GOP nominee’s tax-paying record.

It’s a complicated story, full of economic nuance and wheeling/dealing with which I am patently unfamiliar. As the Times reported: “Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.”

It’s not yet clear, of course, whether Trump actually did avoid paying income taxes over the course of nearly two decades. My achy old bones tell me he probably took full advantage of tax law  to dodge the tax burden.

After all, he did tell Hillary Rodham Clinton during their first presidential debate this past week that it would be “smart” of him to avoid paying taxes.

OK, then. Let’s see those tax returns so we can determine for ourselves who’s telling the truth.

So wrong, so often on this election campaign

donald-trump4

Please pardon this bad rip-off of a famous poem, but … How many time have I been wrong about this election cycle? Let me count the ways.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning wouldn’t approve, but what the heck. I feel the need to atone for some terrible misfires on this presidential election campaign.

I take small solace — and it is small, indeed — in the knowledge that I am not alone in failing to shoot straight.

Donald J. Trump has confounded damn near everyone, first by grabbing the Republican presidential nomination this summer and then by making a race of it against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I once vowed to never again make a political prediction. I should have kept to my pledge. I should have buttoned up my pie hole/typing fingers and called it good. Let others stick their necks out.

But no-o-o-o! I had to weigh in. I had to make an ass of myself.

I never thought Trump would be nominated. I never thought this novice politician with the very big mouth and even larger ego could wrestle the nomination away from the Republican pros.

Then again, I never thought Hillary would run for the U.S. Senate in 2000 and I thought that Colin Powell would run for the presidency in 1996. Neither of those things happened.

With that track record, I still managed to stick my neck out on this campaign.

Once Trump got the nomination, I was dead certain Clinton would win in a landslide. She was destined to be president, kind of like the way Ike was destined in 1952 for the top job … after leading Allied troops to victory in World War II.

I didn’t anticipate Clinton’s flaws being such a drag on her candidacy. Nor did I envision Trump ever being able to get away with some of the hideous things he has said over the past year: John McCain is a war hero only because he “was captured?; the U.S.-born federal judge being a “Mexican”; his mocking of a reporter’s physical ailments; his suggestion that Mexico is sending “rapists, drug dealers, murderers” and other assorted criminals to the United States.

I never anticipated that his GOP base of support would hold as strong as it has done.

Moreover, I was so certain that Trump’s flaws were so egregious that I actually blogged that Hillary could win a 50-state sweep this fall.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/05/time-to-handicap-the-fall-election/

OK, with all of that out of the way, I am going to make another stab at fulfilling an earlier pledge.

I am — once again — declaring myself to be out of the political predicting game.

I lack the intuitive powers, perhaps even the intellect to try to guess what voters are going to do.

If you catch me falling off the wagon again, you are welcome to call the guys in the white coats. I won’t be silent. There will be more commentary to come. Just no predicting.

I’m just going to wait this spectacle out … and hope for the best.

Debate prep matters … it really does!

trumpclintonill927

Donald J. Trump blew it in that first joint appearance with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

No doubt about it.

Now he’s got to ready for the next one. Will he do what he needs to do or will he follow his misdirected instincts and do what he seems to always do: ignore the best advice he can get?

Dan Balz, a veteran political columnist for the Washington Post, seems to think he’ll do the latter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/will-trump-shift-gears-in-time-for-the-next-debate/2016/10/01/92ac526c-87e7-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html

Lessons learned from the first debacle seem to have gone unheeded by Trump, according to Balz. Contrast that with what happened when Barack Obama fell asleep during his first debate in 2012 with Mitt Romney. He thought initially he did well; then his staff told him otherwise. Obama listened, then got ready for the next one.

Trump, according to Balz, instead is relying on “Internet polls” that have told him he did just fine during that first encounter.

Keep thinking it, Trump.

This “unconventional” campaign of his worked well in securing the Republican presidential nomination. That’s because the base of his party was willing and ready to accept someone wholly unqualified, unfit and unprepared for the office he is seeking.

The rest of us know better.