Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Trading with the enemy: Trump steps on his own toes

cuba-trump

Reports that Donald J. Trump did business with the hated communists in Cuba seems aimed directly at one of the last curiosities of this presidential campaign.

The Republican nominee for president has been winning over those staunch GOP conservatives who just can’t cotton to the idea of letting the Cuban commies off the hook for their repression.

Yet now come these reports that Trump’s business enterprises traded with the Cubans long before the Obama administration decided to lift the decades-old economic embargo against the government run by Fidel Castro.

How does that play with the staunchly anti-communist Cuban-American community in, say, Florida … where Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton are fighting furiously for the state’s 29 electoral votes?

One would think it wouldn’t play well at all.

One would think …

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/report-that-donald-trump-did-business-in-cuba-ups-the-ante-in-florida/ar-BBwSAK9?li=BBnb7Kz

According to the New York Times: “The question of whether Mr. Trump sought business opportunities in Fidel Castro’s Cuba is explosive not only because of how loathed the Castro government is among Cuban-Americans in the Miami area, but also because Mr. Trump has taken such a hard line against the Obama administration’s policy of normalizing relations with the island nation.

“As far back as 1999, in public at least, Mr. Trump called efforts to restore relations with Cuba ‘pure lunacy.’”

Pure lunacy? Reports suggest, though, that Trump spent $68,000 on a business trip to Cuba to explore business opportunities.

Trump, quite naturally, denies that the trip had anything to do with business development. Sure thing, dude. He’s also denied a lot of things despite being seen and heard — on the record — saying the very things he denies saying.“

Will this enrage Florida’s still-potent Cuban-American political community enough to turn them against Trump?

“This adds to the long list of actions and statements that raise doubts about his temperament and qualification to be president and commander in chief,” Clinton said Thursday.

If it’s lunacy to trade with the Cuban commies, then only a lunatic would do so. Is that a correct assumption, Donald Trump?

Nothing is ‘impossible’ with Trump

presidential-debate

I thought it would have been impossible for the 2016 presidential campaign to get any lower, more miserable than it has been to this point.

Silly me. I forgot about Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president. He has all but pledged to bring Bill Clinton’s sexual behavior forward as a campaign issue against the former president’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The lesson apparently is that never put anything — anything at all! — past Trump.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-vows-attack-clinton-husband-sex-scandal-article-1.2813694?utm_content=buffercb642&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

He said Clinton can get “nasty,” but adds he can get “nastier.”

That appears to be his signal for what is to come.

I’ve wondered — in this forum and in conversation with others in the Texas Panhandle — what does Bill Clinton’s behavior have to do with Hillary Clinton’s ability to run the country?

Oh, I get it. Trump is going to assert, perhaps, that if she cannot control her husband, she cannot be expected to take command of the U.S. military, that she cannot become head of government, head of state, leader of the Free World. Is that it?

Well, it’s utter horse manure.

Trump knows it. I know it. You know it. Bill and Hillary know it.

That will not stop Trump from making an absolute ass of himself — in the eyes of those who haven’t already climbed into I fear we haven’t yet hit bottom.

Trump has introduced ‘The Issue’

clinton and trump

This thought just occurred to me.

Donald J. Trump’s “threat” to introduce former President Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity has done the job already. He has made the president’s dalliances — alleged and proven — an issue in this campaign.

Thus, he has lowered the bar of standards to new and disgusting levels.

Whether he brings it up when he and Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton meet in their second joint appearance really is moot at this point. He’s done it already.

The media are talking about it. Trump, the GOP nominee, has told reporters that he is considering whether to raise the issue.

Therefore, the issue is out there. It’s on the table.

Here, though, is my question: How is this even relevant to the kind of job that Hillary Clinton would do as president?

I cannot discern any reasonable rationale for making this an issue in the 2016 presidential contest.

Then again, Donald Trump has defied reason and rationality all along the way en route to this point in the campaign.

Twitter storm shows Trump’s bizarre behavior

bbwq3gn

Let’s see if we can get this straight.

Donald J. Trump is in the middle of a fierce campaign for the presidency against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He’s got issues to discuss: trade, immigration, refugees, war and peace, geopolitical standing, jobs, the environment.

So what does he do? He wakes up at 3 a.m. and begins firing off tweets about a former Miss Universe who he said gained a “tremendous amount of weight.” He calls her the “worst ever” Miss Universe. He says Hillary Clinton has been “duped” by this young woman, Alicia Machado.

What in the ever-loving hell is this man thinking?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-on-trumps-miss-universe-attacks-unhinged/ar-BBwQ8Pw?li=BBnbcA1

Hillary Clinton said today that Donald Trump has come “unhinged, even for him.”

Do you think?

Before we cheer these endorsements, consider this …

newspapers

Hillary Rodham Clinton is rolling up some impressive support among the nation’s major newspaper editorial boards.

Let’s see: The Houston Chronicle, the Dallas Morning News, the (Phoenix) Arizona Republic, the Cincinnati  Enquirer, the San Diego Union-Tribune all have weighed in on Clinton’s side in her campaign against Republican Donald J. Trump.

All the papers mentioned have something else in common: They virtually never have endorsed Democrats for president.

Clinton also has racked up more endorsements from normally friendly editorial boards, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post.

It’s impressive. But will it be decisive? Will these media giants’ editorial opinion on the merits of Trump and Clinton determine the electoral outcome all by themselves?

Trump has earned, all told, zero editorial endorsements from major newspapers. He might get a smattering of endorsements from papers of smaller size. As a point of personal privilege, I’m waiting to see how my former employer, the Amarillo Globe-News — which is owned by the very conservative William S. Morris family of Augusta, Ga. — weighs in on this campaign.

I pose the question about whether these endorsements will make the difference for a good reason. Let’s flash back to 2010.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry was running for re-election. He faced a stout challenge from within his Republican Party from then-U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. Perry defeated Sen. Hutchison handily in the GOP primary.

Then he faced former Houston Mayor Bill White, a conservative Democrat, in the general election. Perry then did something quite interesting: He declared he wouldn’t meet with any newspaper editorial boards. The governor didn’t need to talk to us ink-stained wretches. He’d talk “directly to the people of Texas.”

The result was that Perry got virtually zero editorial endorsements from newspapers around the state. Even the Globe-News, as reliably Republican-friendly as any paper in Texas, backed Mayor White.

What was the electoral result? Gov. Perry cruised to re-election. He barely broke a sweat while defeating White 55 percent to 42 percent.

Rick Perry knew how to win in Texas. He was first elected to statewide office in 1990 and was as familiar with the state’s political landscape as any politician anywhere.

I make this point to caution those out there who consider these media endorsements to be deal makers and/or deal breakers for the candidates involved.

There might be plenty of other issues that swing this election toward Hillary Clinton’s favor. I’m dubious, though, about believing that newspaper endorsements will be among them.

As my friends on the right are fond of reminding me: Newspapers don’t pack as heavy a punch as they did in the old days.

Gingrich, Guiliani: spokesmen for marital fidelity?

how_common_is_infidelity_anyway

Donald J. Trump has enlisted two of the more ironic choices to stand up for him as he ponders whether to raise the issue of former President Bill Clinton’s marital difficulties during the presidential campaign.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are two of the GOP nominee’s main men on the subject of marital fidelity.

The irony is rich!

For starters, Trump is now on his third marriage. He has bragged about cheating on wives No. 1 and 2.

Gingrich? Well, let’s see. He, too, is on his third marriage. Calista Gingrich once worked for Newtie when the speaker was railing against Bill Clinton’s affair with the White House intern. It turns out Newtie was fooling around with Calista while he was married to wife No. 2 — and while he was telling Americans that the president had the morals of an alley cat.

Guiliani? OK, there’s this. He’s on his third marriage as well. The first marriage ended in divorce. But then Rudy decided later to seek and annulment from his first wife. Why annul the marriage? Because he’s a practicing Catholic and church doctrine doesn’t allow divorce. So, an annulment wipes a marriage off the books as if it never happened. I guess I should mention that Guiliani also engaged in extramarital activity.

Three politicians. Nine marriages among them. Several extramarital affairs, too.

I truly dislike talking about this stuff in the context of a presidential campaign. Trump, though, brought it up.

He might bring the issue of Bill Clinton’s transgressions to the forefront at the next joint appearance scheduled with the former president’s wife, Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Someone as well will have to explain to me as if I’m a third-grader how Bill Clinton’s behavior really matters in the current campaign for the presidency.

Well … ? How is any of this relevant?

Marital history now an issue?

President Clinton, his daughter Chelsea, center, and wife Hillary walk with Buddy Tuesday, Aug. 18, 1998, from the White House toward a helicopter as they depart for vacation enroute to Martha's Vineyard, Mass. (AP Photo/Roberto Borea)

I cannot believe I am hearing this.

Donald J. Trump is actually considering a new line of attack against Hillary Rodham Clinton that discusses former President Bill Clinton’s extramarital behavior.

Moreover, Trump says he is “comfortable” with his own marital history and believes there’s nothing with which his foes can use against him if he decides to steer this campaign straight into the gutter.

Am I hearing this correctly?

Trump said Bill Clinton’s presidency was a “disaster” and he was impeached for “lying” about an affair he had with the young White House intern.

Disaster? Are you kidding me? Yes, the impeachment soiled the president’s otherwise sparkling record as the head of state. The Senate eventually acquitted President Clinton of the charges brought against him.

So now the discussion is turning in this direction.

And the man who well might take us down the lowest of roads is not worried about his three marriages, his boasting of cheating on at his first two wives, his treatment of women, his hideous statements about them.

This is the criterion we’re using to select the Leader of the Free World? Heaven help us.

Here’s a profound non-endorsement

636107742502713528-gty-538708234

USA Today has done something I didn’t think I’d ever see in a major newspaper editorial page.

It published an editorial non-endorsement of one candidate for president while at the same time saying it could not endorse that candidate’s opponent.

I’ve read the editorial twice. I might read it again and again, looking for some nugget of justification for the USA Today editorial board’s rationale. Wish me luck.

Here is the editorial in question:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/

In its 34-year existence, USA Today never had opined on a presidential campaign. Until now.

It has declared Republican nominee Donald J. Trump to be patently, profoundly unfit for the office of president of the United States. It lists its reasons for reaching that consensus among its editorial board members.

The paper is categorical in its declaration. It also is correct.

Then, near the end of it, the paper says it cannot endorse Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, who the paper states has too many flaws of her own. Still, the paper states:

“Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president,”

OK, what now?

USA Today says it cannot recommend a vote for Clinton. It urges voters only to withhold their vote for Trump … for the myriad reasons it declares forcefully in its editorial.

No vote for Clinton? A “hell no” vote against Trump?

Does that mean Hillary Clinton can boast of an editorial endorsement from USA Today after all?

My head is spinning.

Do endorsements matter? Yes, if you disagree with them

th

A curious dichotomy appears to be unfolding way out yonder in the Valley of the Sun.

The Arizona Republic — for the first time in the newspaper’s history — has endorsed a Democrat for president. Hillary Rodham Clinton got the nod from Arizona’s largest newspaper over Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

The reaction from around the country has been stunning, to say the least. But get this: The endorsement has ignited a firestorm in the Phoenix community, with subscription cancellations out the wazoo — and even reportedly a death threat against someone high-up in the paper’s management chain of command.

Here’s the dichotomy.

Critics of the so-called “mainstream media” keep saying that newspaper endorsements don’t matter, that they no longer carry the weight they once did in an earlier era when papers were run by media titans named Hearst, Chandler, Graham and Pulliam.

Why, then, has there been such a reaction to the Arizona Republic’s recommendation? Is it that average rank-and-file Americans really do care after all?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-paper-faces-death-threats-cancellations-after-clinton-endorsement/ar-BBwKJck?li=BBnb7Kz

I kind of feel the pain their experiencing in Phoenix. In 2010, the paper where I was working at the time, the Amarillo Globe-News, decided to endorse a Democrat for Texas governor over the Republican incumbent. We backed former Houston Mayor Bill White over Gov. Rick Perry. We might as well have endorsed Satan himself. The reaction from our readership was ferocious.

The good news, though, is that I don’t believe we received any death threats.

Part of the criticism we heard, of course, was that our voice “didn’t matter.” If so, then why firestorm of anger over what we said?

The same question perhaps needs to be asked now as we digest the reaction to a major newspaper deciding to go against tradition by — for shame! — backing a Democrat for the presidency of the United States.

Trump takes low road while seeking high road

ClintonTrump-Split_jpg_800x1000_q100

Donald J. Trump sought — in yet another awkward pronouncement — to make nice with Hillary Rodham Clinton by saying he could have said something “very negative” about his opponent. He chose not to that. I guess he wanted us to believe that he is such an oh, so decent human being.

The Republican presidential nominee’s comments came during the joint appearance at Hofstra University.

Afterward, he told reporters that he was referring to Bill Clinton’s marital infidelity. He said “Chelsea was in the room” and he didn’t want to make her feel uncomfortable.

So, there you have it.

Trump said during the event he showed restraint; then he told reporters later — on the record — precisely to what he was referring.

He chose not to say something, then he said it.

It reminds me of when then-Sen. Walter Mondale was asked during the 1976 presidential campaign whether Watergate would be an issue in the contest between Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republican President Gerald R. Ford.

“No,” said the Democratic vice-presidential nominee with a huge smile, “I am not going to mention President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon.”

That is the disgraceful non-denial route that Donald Trump is taking these days.