Tag Archives: 2016 election

national news, political news

Trump budget: DOA … of course!

Donald J. Trump’s proposed budget brings to mind a couple of thoughts about the president and the campaign he ran in 2016.

First, the president really is just another politician despite what he and his supporters said to the contrary during his amazing presidential election campaign. That is, he has made promises he cannot — or will not — keep to those who supported him.

Trump promised to leave the social safety net alone. His budget does nothing of the kind. It provides deep cuts to Medicaid, Meals on Wheels and other social programs upon which millions of Americans rely.

What’s more, he hits hard at farm subsidies important to rural Americans who turned out by the millions in 2016 to cast their votes for the flashy New York business mogul/reality TV celebrity.

His populist message, which he foisted on Americans who were willing to listen to it? Forget about it!

His budget provides big tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And, oh yes. He also is proposing big spending increases in the defense budget — all while pledging to balance the budget in just 10 years.

The document sits at $4.1 trillion. Democrats hate it, quite naturally. Many congressional Republicans dislike it as well. It’s the GOP side of Congress that is more interesting to watch, given the peril they face as the 2018 mid-term election approaches.

Both sides are declaring the president’s budget to be “dead on arrival.” That’s standard operating rhetoric for members of Congress, no matter the party affiliation of the president who sends them a budget.

This much is clear: Donald Trump is going to get yet another real-time lesson on how the federal government works. As the saying goes, the president proposes, while Congress disposes of budgets.

International news, legal news, national news, political news

Invoking the Fifth usually doesn’t imply innocence

What in the world are we to make of this bit of news, that former national security adviser Michael Flynn will reject a U.S. Senate committee subpoena and invoke his Fifth Amendment rights protecting him against self-incrimination?

Let me think. My takeaway is that Gen. Flynn doesn’t want the world to know certain things about, um, certain foreign governments.

Flynn’s role in the still-burgeoning controversy surrounding Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign and its potential relationship with the Russian government has taken another, apparently far more serious, turn.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ap-source-says-flynn-will-invoke-fifth-amendment/ar-BBBowHX?li=BBnb7Kz

The Associated Press is reporting that Flynn won’t appear before the Senate Intelligence Committee and that he’ll clam up under his constitutional protection.

If someone were to ask me, I’d say that he doesn’t want to say something that’s going to get him tossed into prison. What might that be?

Hmm. It might be that he did do something potentially illegal when he went to work for Turkey’s government, drawing a substantial stipend for the Turks as a lobbyist while also serving as the president’s national security adviser.

Gen. Flynn, who also served on Trump’s transition team, also might have said something to say about Russian officials who had worked to undermine the 2016 presidential election. There well might be some collusion between the Trump team and the Russians to be revealed … yes? Well, maybe.

Flynn also reportedly sought immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony after the president fired him as national security adviser.

I’m smelling something terribly foul. Do you smell it, too?

national news, political news

As long as POTUS keeps talking about the election …

I’m going to presume that as long as the president of the United States insists on talking about the 2016 election that it’s OK for the rest of us to bring it up, too.

Donald Trump won. He got the requisite number of Electoral College votes he needed to take the presidential oath of office on Jan. 20. But as a story in the New York Times notes, he keeps feeling the impulsive tug to remind visitors to the White House that — by golly! — he won.

Trump get past the win

The story relates how Trump hands out cards showing the electoral map, which gave the president a reasonably comfortable margin over Hillary Clinton. He doesn’t mention to visitors, though, that Hillary won nearly 3 million more popular votes. But that’s all right; Hillary’s “victory” meant far, far less than Trump’s actual win.

The story draws an interesting comparison between Trump’s victory and the previous win by a president who collected fewer popular votes than his opponent. That would be, of course, George W. Bush in 2000.

How did President Bush deal with his skin-of-the-teeth victory? Here’s how the Times analyzed it:

“After President George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but won the narrowest of Electoral College victories after the Supreme Court stopped a hotly disputed Florida recount, he did not publicly dwell on the way he had gotten into office.

“Instead, Mr. Bush plowed forward with his agenda and put the election behind him, rarely speaking of it again. He also made a point of reaching out to Democrats in the early days of his administration on issues like education and tax cuts to try to heal some of the wounds caused by the election, eventually winning bipartisan votes on major legislation in his first year.

“’He knew he won, but he knew many people didn’t see him as a legitimate president and needed to reach out,’ said Matthew Dowd, a senior strategist for Mr. Bush in 2000 and chief strategist for his 2004 re-election campaign. ‘But he didn’t look back in any kind of insecurity because he knew he could only control what was happening today or in the future.’”

That’s how a grownup deals with close calls. If only we had one in the White House these days.

legal news, national news, political news

Don’t pick Sen. Cornyn to lead FBI, Mr. POTUS

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn has shown up on Donald J. Trump’s short list of possible nominees to become FBI director.

In the name of non-bias, non-political leanings and law enforcement professionalism, I am hoping that the president does not pick Sen. Cornyn to lead the FBI in this critical time.

James Comey got the boot from the FBI’s top job because — if we are to believe anything that comes out of the president’s mouth — he was spending too much time and energy on the “Russia thing.”

Truth be told, in my view, the next FBI director needs to spend a whole lot more time on Russia and related matters. Is John Cornyn the man to do the job? No way, dude!

Cornyn may get a good look

I’ve known Cornyn for a number of years in my capacity as a journalist first in Beaumont and then in Amarillo. We have had a nice professional relationship during those years. I’ve known him as a Texas Supreme Court justice, as a state attorney general and as a U.S. senator. I disagree with him politically, but he’s a gentleman.

Over the years, as my hair got grayer, Sen. Cornyn would needle me that I eventually would get as gray as he has been for decades. I’m still not there yet, although I’m close.

All that said, he is as wrong for the job of FBI director as anyone being considered. Why? He is a partisan hatchet man for the Senate’s Republican caucus. He’s the No. 2 man in the Senate GOP hierarchy and his main task in recent Senate sessions has been to ensure the election of more Republicans. I understand that’s part of his job and I respect that someone has to do it, that they need to fill the ranks with partisans on both sides of the aisle.

Cornyn’s highly political profile, though, makes him a terrible fit for the FBI director’s job. Comey was in the middle of an investigation that was looking into allegations that the Trump campaign was complicit in efforts by the Russian government to influence the 2016 election — seeking to help Trump get elected president.

Are we to believe that a member of the president’s own party who would get the task of leading the FBI and, presumably, continue that investigation will shed his partisan leanings?

The president needs to look within the law enforcement community to find a new FBI director. He needs to find someone who has no political axe to grind. He needs to nominate someone with zero political ties to the White House, or to the Congress.

John Cornyn is not the man for this job.

legal news, national news, political news

Congressional clown act isn’t so funny

The clowns who comprise a substantial portion of the U.S. Congress seem intent on deflecting criticism of the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey.

They are staking out an openly transparent — and dubious — strategy in that attempt.

Donald J. Trump canned Comey while the FBI director was in the midst of an investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government’s effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.

It’s the timing of the dismissal that has drawn the incoming fire.

Congressional Republicans are defending the president’s action by saying something like this: Leftists are angry because Trump did something they wanted done this past autumn when Comey sent Congress that letter regarding Hillary Clinton’s e-mails; so now that they’re getting what they wanted in the first place, they should be happy, not angry.

I heard Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., make that argument this morning. I damn near pitched something heavy at my TV set.

That is not the issue, Sen. Paul!

It’s the timing, dude. The timing!

I’m one of those Americans who was angry at Comey for releasing that letter to Congress just 11 days before the presidential election. He sought to inform lawmakers that his office had found some more e-mails that needed some examination. It likely helped stall Clinton’s march to victory, although I am not going to heap all the cause for Hillary’s defeat on the FBI director; she and her campaign made plenty of mistakes all by themselves while Trump and his team were doing things right.

Did I ever think Comey should resign, or should be fired?

In addition to the timing of Trump’s dismissing of Comey we have this White House’s stumble-bum explanation, which simply doesn’t hold up. The president said he was upset at the way Comey handled the Hillary e-mail matter. What the …?! Donald Trump the candidate thought Comey had done exactly the correct thing at the time — and he said so repeatedly as news was breaking in October.

Then we hear that Trump became angry because Comey was exerting too much energy on the Russia hacking matter, but then comes word from some in the White House that the firing had nothing to do with the Russia investigation. Holy mackerel!

Deputy White House press flack Sarah Huckabee Sanders said it’s time to “move on,” away from the Russia matter. Oh, no it isn’t, young lady! Far from it.

But this crap from congressional Republicans and Trumpkins all across the land that those who are critical of the firing are the same folks who wanted Comey canned in the first place are missing the point by a country mile.

Timing, as they say, is everything.

national news

No, ma’am, it’s not yet ‘time to move on’

Sarah Huckabee Sanders gets paid to do the bidding of the president of the United States.

However, the deputy White House press secretary should know better than to insult Americans’ intelligence with a goofy assertion about it being “time to move on” from questions swirling about Donald Trump’s campaign and its possible link to Russian government operatives.

We’ve got a lot more ground to cover, young lady, especially in light of the president’s abrupt firing today of FBI Director James Comey.

With that, I would urge you to tell your boss — the president — something he needs to hear, but likely won’t want to hear. It is that these questions won’t blow away with the wind until he comes clean about what he knew, when he knew and who was doing it.

The “it” happens to involve questions about whether the Trump presidential campaign colluded with Russian hackers seeking to swing the 2016 presidential election in Trump’s favor. He keeps dismissing the questions out of hand. He suggests that “anyone” could have done the hacking; yet he never fingers the Russians directly.

All of these dismissals, all this obfuscation, all the maneuvering only lend credence to the suspicion in many circles that the president is trying mightily to keep information from the public — from those he now governs as head of state.

Time to move on, Sarah Sanders? Hardly.

Sanders said: “Frankly, it’s kind of getting absurd. There’s nothing there. We’ve heard that time and time again. We’ve heard that in the testimonies earlier this week. We’ve heard it for the last 11 months. There is no ‘there’ there.

“It’s time to move on and frankly it’s time to focus on the things the American people care about.”

I happen to “care about ” knowing whether the president worked with a foreign government to influence our election. I suspect I am not the only American with such concerns.

national news, political news

Comey didn’t order Hillary to stay out of Wisconsin

I didn’t realize David Axelrod is such a smart aleck.

Axelrod, former President Barack Obama’s trusted political guru, offered a tart response to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s assertions over who is to blame for her stunning election loss in 2016 to Donald J. Trump.

“Jim Comey didn’t tell her not to campaign in Wisconsin after the convention,” said Axelrod on CNN. “Jim Comey didn’t say ‘don’t put any resources into Michigan until the final week of the campaign.'”

Clinton had said earlier this week that Comey, the FBI director, might have torpedoed her campaign by issuing the letter to Congress informing lawmakers that he had some additional information pertaining to the Clinton e-mail controversy.

Yes, the former Democratic presidential nominee took plenty of blame for losing to Trump. But Axelrod’s assessment is on target in that Comey didn’t call the campaign shots that ultimately cost her critical Electoral College votes on election night.

Axelrod added: “She said the words, ‘I’m responsible’, but everything else suggested she doesn’t really feel that way,” he said. “And I don’t think that helps her in the long run.”

The complete history of this amazing election is being written. It no doubt will dish out its share of blame — or credit — to individuals and/or actions that deserve neither.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were the candidates for president. One of them did a lot of things wrong while the other one did many things right.

We can argue ourselves hoarse over our whether the election turned out the right way. Axelrod, though, is correct to admonish Hillary Clinton about shifting responsibility for her loss. She needs to own it — and then leave it at that.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/03/david-axelrod-reacts-hillary-clinton-james-comey-237924

 

national news, political news

Here’s why Hillary lost

Hillary Clinton has blamed a lot of factors on her shocking defeat during the 2016 presidential election.

FBI Director James Comey’s 11th-hour letter to Congress about those “damn e-mails”; WikiLeaks dumps of more e-mail material; Russian hacking … and yes, her own missteps.

I only can surmise that one of those self-inflicted wounds occurred when Clinton failed to visit Wisconsin, one of the key “battleground states” that went for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 election. She also paid precious little attention to Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania — all of which also swung in Trump’s favor. She wasted a lot of time by taking those states for granted in the closing days and weeks of a campaign she thought was in the bag.

Had she and her campaign devoted the energy she needed to fire up her base on those states, none of the other matters would have amounted to anything.

She didn’t. She blew it. Her campaign disserved her.

Democrats have concluded as much in assessing where this election went south.

Now it’s time to look ahead. Democrats have a mid-term election next year on which to concentrate. After that, in 2020, they have another shot at the White House.

I will stand by my an earlier assertion that Democrats need to find a freshly scrubbed, unknown political star to carry their standard forward. I believe there’s something to be said about “Clinton fatigue.” Her best chance at grasping the big prize stood before her this past year, but she let it slip away.

Who would that new political star be? I have no idea. I haven’t heard his or her name yet.

Get busy, Democrats,

national news, political news

Hillary takes the blame — and places it elsewhere, too

Let’s stipulate something right up front: Political historians and journalists have a monumental task on their hands trying to assess and analyze the mind-boggling results of the 2016 presidential election.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, the candidate who lost the election to Donald John Trump, did not make their jobs any easier when offering her own view of how she snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Clinton spoke during a Women for Women conference in New York City.

Clinton took responsibility for the errors she made. She has determined that she ran a flawed campaign. She also said FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress revealing that he was taking a fresh look at the e-mail controversy played a part; so did the release of data from WikiLeaks, which raised questions among undecided voters about Clinton’s candidacy.

“It wasn’t a perfect campaign — there is no such thing — but I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter on Oct. 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

She also blamed a latent misogyny among voters who just couldn’t vote for a woman to become president of the United States.

Was it Comey? The WikiLeaks release? Misogyny? Campaign incompetence?

All of the above.

Hillary did note something that continues to rumble in the president’s craw, which is that she did win nearly 3 million more popular votes than Trump. She just was unable to win in those Rust Belt states that had voted twice for Barack H. Obama.

I’ll just add as well that pollsters took a lot of heat in the immediate aftermath of the election. But get a load of this: The RealClearPolitics average of polls shows that Hillary won the popular vote by a bit more than 2 percentage points, which is just about where the RCP pre-election poll average had pegged it.

What we have here is a perfect storm of circumstances that produced the most shocking U.S. political upset of, oh, the past 100 years.

Good luck, political historians, as you sort all of this out.

national news, political news

More celebrities set to run for POTUS? Oh, please

Donald John Trump’s election as president of the United States was unprecedented at many levels.

He had never held public office; he was a TV celebrity and real estate mogul who slapped his name on seemingly every high-rise being built in the past two decades; he’s been married three times and has bragged about his infidelities.

But he’s the man. Now we hear plenty of chatter out here in the peanut gallery about other first-time pols — who also happen to be celebrities — pondering whether they want to run for the presidency.

Spare me! Spare the country! Please say we aren’t about to get more of this ridiculousness.

Kanye West has said something about running in 2020.

Oprah Winfrey has been mentioned as a possibility. Oprah? She’s far more preferable than Kanye “Kim K’s Husband” West … but, really?

Oh, how about Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook? This youngster isn’t even old enough to run for the office  — but he will be by the time 2020 rolls around. He, too, has gotten a mention by some of the TV talking heads.

I’m a bit old-fashioned in this regard. I happen to think experience with government and politics is a valuable commodity on which to run for the highest office in the land. I also like the notion of politicians having a record of public service to reveal to the public whose votes they would be seeking.

Trump didn’t bring any of that to the 2016 presidential campaign. I guess he was blessed to be running against Hillary Rodham Clinton who, it turns out, became a terrible candidate. The irony in all of this is that the “smart money” thought the tables would have been turned, that Hillary had been “blessed” with getting to run against someone so patently unqualified and unfit for the office that he ended up winning.

Who knew?

Trump is now the president and his presence on the world stage is creating a bit of buzz out in the land of other celebrities with no qualifications for the presidency; they, too might decide to become candidates.

Say it ain’t so. Someone. Please.