Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

national news, political news

Looking ‘presidential’ doesn’t erase the record

Clinton-and-Trump

The Sunday-morning news talk show chatter is full of speculation about one of the major-party candidates for president of the United States.

Will the Republican, Donald J. Trump, look “presidential” when he faces Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton in their first joint appearance Monday night?

Looking “presidential,” I feel compelled to add, does not erase the record of profoundly non-presidential moments in the campaign to date.

The endless list of insults does not vanish simply because the deliverer of those insults looks presidential.

The hideous mocking of a disabled reporter? The bizarre back-and-forth with Marco Rubio that centered on the candidates’ manhood during a Republican primary debate? Trump’s awful response to a journalist’s question about how he treats women? His stream-of-consciousness policy changes on immigration?

Whether the GOP nominee “looks presidential” during this highly anticipated event with the Democratic nominee will not wipe away the lengthy demonstrations to the contrary.

national news, political news

What if roles were reversed?

clinton and trump

Do you want a good idea of the lunacy attached to this year’s presidential election campaign?

Try this on for size.

It’s making the rounds on social media, but I’ll share it here.

Just suppose Hillary Rodham Clinton was mother to five children from three husbands. Suppose, also, that she had cheated on two of her husbands and then bragged about it. What do you suppose would be the reaction from conservatives?

They’d be outraged. They’d vilify the Democratic nominee for flouting the very “family values” to which conservatives adhere.

Why, then, aren’t political conservatives as outraged that the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has produced five children with three wives, cheated openly on two of them and then boasted about it in public?

Gosh. There’s that terrible “double standard” so prevalent these days.

Trump keeps assailing Hillary Clinton’s husband because of his own alleged indiscretions — and the Clinton haters cheer him on while ignoring the amazing irony in Donald Trump’s attempt to grasp some kind of moral high ground.

Where is the outrage? Where is the indignation?

Someone has to explain to me how this guy gets away with this astonishing hypocrisy.

media news, national news, political news

Newspapers forced to explain reasons for endorsement

th

I am getting a sense that newspapers across the country are doing what the Cincinnati Enquirer has just done.

It made an endorsement in the race for the presidency and then the paper’s vice president for audience/engagement, Peter Bhatia, explained why the paper made the endorsement in the first place.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/09/23/why-were-endorsing-president/90832776/

The Enquirer broke with a century-old tradition and endorsed Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton over Republican Donald J. Trump. I’ll let the editorial stand on its own. It’s a pretty compelling statement.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/09/23/enquirer-endorses-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/90728344/

Bhatia’s rationale of “Why do we do it?” glosses over what I believe is a fundamental truth about contemporary society. Although it is true, as he noted, that people get their news and opinion from a huge — and growing — field of sources, they still have this “thing” about newspaper editorial pages.

Readers might not follow a newspaper’s editorial philosophy or march off in lockstep with what it says. Still, I have this view that readers still expect their newspaper to take a stand … if only to give them grounds to criticize it.

I did this kind of work for more than three decades. I found it invigorating to discuss with my colleagues, with readers and with candidates about whether the newspaper should endorse their candidacy.

And sure, I took my share of broadsides from readers who disagreed with whatever position we took on an election.

I will continue to believe that for as long as there are newspapers being tossed on people’s front porches — or their lawns or under their cars — that readers will want to see what that paper thinks about political campaigns and candidates.

The bigger question, though, might be: How much longer will those newspapers be delivered and will those who produce the “digital product” that replaces them be willing to step up and continue to make these statements?

national news, political news

CNN crosses ethical line

corey

Right-wing critics of the so-called “liberal mainstream media” like to pound on CNN for its alleged bias against conservative politicians.

That’s their opinion, I suppose.

Then we have this bit of news: Former Donald J. Trump Republican campaign manager Corey Lewandowski — who is being paid by CNN to provide political commentary — also is being paid by Trump’s presidential campaign. Lewandowski is set to receive another half-million bucks by the end of the year.

Trump fired Lewandowski and then offered a handsome severance package on his way out.

This is so very wrong on so many levels.

There is supposed to be a line that separates media organizations from partisan political activity. Many cable and broadcast news networks have hired former political hands to provide commentary. They come from both political parties and they represent all manner of philosophy, principle and partisan bias.

The Lewandowski matter, though, is markedly different.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/corey-lewandowski-set-to-collect-nearly-dollar500000-from-trump-campaign/ar-BBwyRL0?li=BBnb7Kz

CNN often is criticized by right-wing pols and operatives. They refer to the network derisively as the “Clinton News Network.” Lewandowski’s compensation from an active Republican presidential candidate would seem to silence that criticism. It’s not likely.

Meanwhile, Lewandowski is going to offer his political analysis on the air while being paid by one of the candidates about who he is commenting.

Talk about not passing the “smell test.” This dubious coziness stinks to high heaven.

national news, political news

Cruz does it … he endorses Trump!

cruz-and-trump

Politics can be a fickle endeavor. Your enemy becomes your friend at times for the most dubious of reasons.

History is full of such examples: John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson battled for the Democratic nomination in 1960; JFK then picked LBJ as his vice president. George H.W. Bush accused Ronald Reagan was espousing “voodoo economics” in 1980; then the Gipper picked Poppy to be his No. 2. Barack Obama told Hillary Clinton she was “likable enough” during a 2008 Democratic primary debate; then Obama tapped Clinton to serve as secretary of state.

Now we have Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas — the guy who called Donald J. Trump a “pathological liar,” a “serial philanderer,” and an “amoral bully” — endorsing the GOP presidential nominee.

The Cruz Missile is going to vote for Trump in November, he said. Why the change of heart? It looks for all the world like an anti-Hillary endorsement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-rival-cruz-to-throw-support-to-gop-nominee-228584

Frankly, I thought Cruz might withhold his endorsement throughout the campaign, given the hideous things Trump said about the senator, his wife Heidi and his father. It got intensely personal for Cruz and I believed he was right at the GOP convention to urge the delegates to “vote your conscience.”

Well, it didn’t happen.

The fickle nature of politics has shown once again how foes can set aside hurtful comments to achieve a common end.

Will it help or hurt? Many of Cruz’s most ardent conservative supporters believe Trump is an imposter to their principles.

What the heck. Politics in this raw form can be downright ugly.

media news, national news, political news

Clinton v. Trump: made for television

politics-word-cloud

Americans who care about the election that will choose the next president of the United States are going to tune in to what is shaping up as the perfect made-for-television event.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump — Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, respectively — are going to face off in the first of three televised joint appearances.

I don’t know about you, but I’m intending to watch every second of it.

This might be the ballgame. Or, it might throw the whole contest into yet another cocked hat.

You know my bias already. I detest Trump. I am not enamored of Clinton. It’s a grim choice we all face. One of them, though, is going to win this election on Nov. 8.

To get there they have to prove how nimble they are. They have to show us who is better equipped to deal with the myriad challenges facing the country. This isn’t a time for cheap, easy, throwaway solutions. We need some detail here, folks.

Who between them will provide the detail and depth we ought to be seeking? Well, my money will be on Clinton.

They’ll have 90 minutes to make the case.

I remain hesitant to call this a “debate.” I’m not privy to the format established. The moderator, NBC News anchor Lester Holt, will pose the questions. The candidates will answer him. They won’t debate each other in the classic sense.

Hey, let’s not quibble. These events aren’t set up to be pristine debates. They are created to allow us — the voter — to size up both candidates.

Given the enormously unconventional nature of this election cycle, it might be unwise to suggest that a major gaffe by Trump — who’s committed untold numbers of them already — will doom his campaign. This clown has demonstrated that he’s so far been virtually bullet-proof. He fires off a stream-of-consciousness riff about an opponent that causes millions of Americans to groan in disbelief; but his supporters cheer him on, demanding more of the same.

Yes, there’ll be an audience. They’ll cheer for their candidate. Maybe they’ll boo the other one. It’s TV, folks.

It’ll be a big night in what is shaping up as one of the more bizarre elections any of us can remember.

I keep hearing about the expected huge viewership expected for this event. How does it square with the lack of enthusiasm for these major-party nominees and the incredible negative ratings that burden them both?

Whatever. I’ll be watching.

And you?

national news, political news

Trump makes weird pitch to black voters

trump

So much about Donald J. Trump’s bizarre presidential candidacy confounds me.

Let’s start with the fact that he’s making a race of it against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Republican nominee has insulted his way to this competitive situation. In other election cycles, it would be a deal-breaker.

Now comes his bizarre “outreach” to African-American voters.

He tells white audiences that black voters are living in the worst neighborhoods imaginable; he tells them blacks attend inferior schools and are getting an inferior education; he says African-American neighborhoods are more dangerous than cities and towns in Afghanistan.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/is-trump-racist-228472

But here’s the best part.

He says — again to white audiences — that President Barack Obama is the worst president in history and that race relations are at their lowest ebb “ever, ever” under the president’s leadership.

Yep, he tells a key American demographic group that holds Obama in high esteem that the man they adore is leading the nation straight to hell in a handbag.

This is how Trump seeks to win the hearts and minds of voters who — according to those pesky polls — cannot stomach the notion of this guy becoming president of the United States?

business news, national news, political news

Wealth an issue in this run for the White House

ar-140629403

One candidate for the U.S. presidency, the Republican, keeps harping on his “fabulous” wealth.

Donald J. Trump likes to boast about all the dough he has made in business, erecting tall buildings and getting his name slapped on the sides of them. It’s that boasting and braggadocio that make the release of his income tax returns a campaign issue … that and the questions about whether he’s paying his fair share of taxes and with which foreign governments he’s been doing business.

Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, on the other hand, has said a number of other things about her wealth. She has claimed to have been “dead broke” when she and her husband exited the White House in January 2001.Then she said she isn’t “truly well off.”

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/06/not-truly-well-off-mme-secretary/

She’s pretty damn “well off” now. Collecting six-figure speaking fees every time she or her husband, the former president, stands before a microphone adds up quickly.

Now, am I as concerned about her wealth as I am about Trump’s stubborn refusal to release his tax returns? Not at all.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have released their returns. The public has seen where and how they have acquired their wealth. They haven’t enriched themselves through the Clinton Foundation or the Clinton Global Initiative.

Yes, the “dead broke” statement was troubling. You know and I know she and her husband weren’t “dead broke” in the way many Americans understand the meaning of the term. Heck, they were able to secure financing to purchase a high-end home after they left the White House; lenders don’t dole out money to those who are “dead broke,” if you know what I mean.

However, her financial portfolio is an open book. Hillary Clinton’s role in the various works of the foundation and the CGI have been scrutinized to the nth degree.

Trump, on the other hand, remains a man of mystery regarding his supposedly vast holdings.

He keeps bragging about them. In public. For all to hear.

Inquiring minds want to know the truth behind the bluster.

national news, political news

Bush 41 voting for Hillary

bush

This probably isn’t nearly as spectacular a political story as some are making it out to be.

Still, it’s an important development in the presidential campaign of 2016.

Former President George H.W. Bush — aka Poppy Bush, Bush 41 and Bush the Elder — has told a member of a leading Democratic family that he’s going to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton over Republican Donald J. Trump.

The person who “outed” Bush 41 happens to be Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a former Democratic lieutenant governor of Maryland — and the eldest child of the late Robert F. Kennedy.

Sure, it’s an important story. President Bush is as “establishment Republican” as you can get. He served in many high-profile government capacities before being elected president in 1988. Now he’s going to vote for the wife of the man who defeated him for re-election in 1992. Bush’s forsaking of Trump’s candidacy speaks to the reluctance among many Republicans to back their party’s nominee.

But hold on. Is this a jaw-dropper? Hardly.

President Bush is a dedicated family man who loves his children more than life itself. When a politician attacks the kids, as Trump did this year en route to the GOP nomination, it’s only natural for Dad to take it personally.

Trump called former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush “Low Energy Jeb” and chided him repeatedly for his failure to do better against Trump in the GOP primary campaign.

Then there is this: Trump said the younger President Bush — George W. — “lied” the country into going to war in Iraq. He accused W. of fabricating the pretext for taking out Saddam Hussein by saying he had “weapons of mass destruction” and that he was complicit in the 9/11 attacks.

Setting aside whether one believes Trump’s assertions about W.’s veracity — and they do ring true to me — it’s totally understandable that the first President Bush would hold those utterances against the man who made them.

With 49 days to go before the election, it remains to be seen whether Poppy’s plan to vote for Hillary will bring other disaffected establishment Republicans along.

As for George H.W. Bush’s apparent defection … I do get it.

legal news, national news, political news

How many more instances of Trump ignorance are there?

2 Comments

2d-amendment

This graphic showed up on my Facebook news feed, so I thought I’d share it here … and offer a quick comment.

The item here illustrates a fundamental failure of the Republican Party nominee for president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

He has said at various times that Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What that blanket comment made on the campaign stump reveals is the candidate’s utter ignorance of the power invested in the presidency.

The president cannot abolish a constitutional amendment.

Congress has to have a say. So do the states. As the graphic illustrates, it takes a super-majority in both cases for an amendment to be added — or rescinded.

None of that stops Trump from fomenting fear.

The man has no clue about the limits of presidential power.