Tag Archives: 2016 election

Robby Mook: campaign loser lands on his feet

I occasionally become amazed at how failed political operatives have this way of continuing to land on their feet.

They lose national elections and yet the TV news networks — cable and broadcast — seek them out for their “expert analysis” on all things political.

Robby Mook is the latest such example of that.

It puzzles me a bit.

Mook managed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Clinton was the prohibitive favorite to win that election. Every pundit from coast to coast to coast said she’d clobber Donald J. Trump. Some of them predicted a landslide … for Hillary!

Well, it didn’t happen. She lost, albeit narrowly. Sure, she won the popular vote and finished ahead of Trump by about 2 percentage points, which is about where the polls had pegged it.

However, the campaign missed a number of key strategic opportunities in critical Rust Belt states. Trump captured those traditional Democratic strongholds.

Who’s to blame for all of that? You’ve got to lay it squarely in the lap of the campaign manager. Mook called the shots. He ran the show. He was supposed to ensure his candidate won. It was his job to make sure Hillary spent her time where it counted the most.

He blew it, bigly.

How does this guy hold up as an expert?

Oh, wait! He’s “telegenic.” That’s got to be it.

Here comes another ‘gate’ scandal

The “gate” suffix no doubt is going to be attached to the brewing controversy boiling up out of the Trump administration.

Russiagate? Flynngate? Hackinggate?

I grew annoyed long ago at this media concoction to put the “gate” suffix at the end of every scandal that comes down the pike.

The Watergate scandal that brought down a president in August 1974 stands alone. It began with a “third-rate burglary” at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate office complex. It morphed into something, well, much bigger than the metro desk crime story that the Washington Post considered it initially.

However, the controversy involving Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and his alleged contacts with Russian government officials smells like a story that could rival Watergate in its gravity.

Some veteran journalists who covered the Watergate scandal are beginning to pick up the scent of something quite serious. Flynn’s contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 presidential campaign could involve collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin to, um, influence the election.

We’re a long way from drawing such conclusions. There needs to be a thorough, aggressive and independent investigation into what Flynn did and what he told those Russians. Congressional Republicans have joined their Democratic colleagues in calling for such a probe.

Let it commence, but please — no “gate” references.

A full-blown scandal appears to be brewing

As I watch the chaos unfold within the Donald J. Trump White House I am wondering: Are we witnessing the beginning of a serious political crisis … already?

This is breathtaking in scope.

National security adviser Michael Flynn is pushed out of office over concerns that he might have negotiated with a foreign government before the Trump administration took office.

But that’s only the beginning. Now we’re getting questions from Republicans — supposed political allies of the president — about whether Flynn was acting alone or whether he was doing Donald Trump’s bidding.

Then we have this mess over when Flynn came clean to the vice president and whether the president was aware of Flynn’s conduct as it was occurring.

Congressional Democrats are demanding an independent investigation. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer insists that the Justice Department is incapable of doing a thorough probe of where this matter might end up.

Democrats aren’t alone, though. A leading Senate Republican — Lindsey Graham — has asked out loud whether Flynn was acting on orders from the then-president elect.

Many Americans, such as yours truly, are utterly flabbergasted at what appears to be transpiring. Trump has been president for less than a single month and there appears to be some serious concern that the government is unraveling.

What gives here? Trump isn’t talking. White House senior staffers aren’t talking. The vice president appears to be seriously angry over the deception that Flynn pulled on him.

Oh, man. This presidency appears to be careening toward full-blown crisis mode. All because a national security adviser cozied up to Russian government officials before federal law would give him permission to do so.

Moreover, we have the amazing timing of the president’s tweets relating to Russia’s decision not to retaliate against U.S. sanctions relating to Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election.

We need some answers. Now!

Hillary won’t run for anything ever again

Matt Latimer is sniffing something weird.

I don’t know the fellow. He’s written an essay for Politico that posits a preposterous notion: Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to run for president of the United States in 2020.

Let’s me be among the many who will say this: No way, no how is Hillary going to run for anything ever again, let alone for president.

Hillary took her best shot and blew it. She was the odd-on favorite to be elected president in 2016. You remember all that, don’t you? A lot of folks — yours truly included — just knew it would be a lead-pipe cinch that she’d win. Not only that, I actually wondered out loud on this blog whether she’d win in historic fashion; I actually suggested we might be looking at a 50-state shutout.

Silly me.

Hillary had her chance. She is now officially damaged irreparably.

The Democratic Party will need to look for someone new. It should start with anyone not named Clinton. That would eliminate Hillary right off the top.

Latimer harbors this goofy notion that Hillary cannot live with the memory of squandering her best chance at making history. She’ll want to erase that memory by being nominated once more by her party. Too old? Latimer said Clinton is the same age — give or take — as the guy who beat; Trump is certain to seek re-election in 2020 … assuming he’s still in office by the end of his first term.

He might face some serious political trouble, but that’s a subject for another blog post.

My intent here is to dispel any notion that Hillary Clinton is going to run once more.

No way, man. None. It won’t happen.

Hey, it just occurs to me that I swore off political predictions. I said Hillary Clinton wouldn’t run for the Senate in 2000 after her time as first lady had expired. I was wrong then.

Oh well. I’m going to stand by this one.

Trump aide sings the boss’s tune

Donald J. Trump clearly has much to learn about being president of the United States.

However, he’s got one task down pat: He has instructed his senior White House staff to utter the same lies the boss does.

Senior policy adviser Stephen Miller was in the dock today, telling TV news talk show hosts the lie Trump keeps spouting about massive voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election.

Miller failed to provide a shred of evidence to prove what he said, which is that vehicle loads of illegal voters were taken to New Hampshire to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The proof? Miller didn’t provide any. “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos sought repeatedly to get Miller to prove what he alleged. Miller came up empty. He offered nothing.

Indeed, a Federal Elections commissioner has demanded that Trump provide evidence of the allegations he has leveled against state and local elections officials.

Miller has promoted the same falsehoods as the boss. He has continued to delegitimize the electoral process by saying things that either (a) are demonstrably false or (b) cannot be proven.

Absent any proof, many of us are left to conclude that none exists.

Meanwhile, the president continues to perform his role of liar in chief — and his lieutenants are following his shameful example.

The Dossier: It’s ba-a-a-a-ck

I am still trying to figure this one out. So, too, are federal and international law enforcement authorities.

Donald J. Trump went ballistic not long after becoming president at media outlets that reported the existence of a “dossier” that allegedly had been compiled on him. The president called out CNN in particular for being a “fake news” outlet because it reported the existence of unsubstantiated reports contained in this dossier.

Now it appears the dossier’s existence might be gaining some credibility among law enforcement spooks.

Some truth is in order. The issue centers on some information reportedly compiled by a British spy alleging that Russian authorities had some negative information regarding Trump’s business dealings in Russia.

The curiousness of all this seems to center on Trump’s dismissal of allegations that Russian government hackers were trying to influence the 2016 presidential election at the time CIA and other intelligence agencies were saying they had proof that such activity was occurring.

The arc of this ongoing story might find its way back to the president’s continued refusal to release his tax returns for public review.

I have no clue where this story will end up. It frightens me that it might produce some ghastly information regarding Trump’s business interests inside of Russia and whether they involved direct dealings with a government that might have tried to manipulate our electoral process.

Trump, of course, denies any business dealings with Russian government authorities. He asks us to believe him, to take him at his word. Sure thing, Mr. President … just like you want us to believe the baloney about “millions of illegal immigrants” voting for Hillary Clinton or the lie you perpetuated about Barack Obama being born in Kenya..

Let’s get to the whole truth.

It’s done; now it’s time to get used to a new era

The deed is done.

Barack Obama handed over the reins of power to Donald J. Trump. The former president and his family jetted off to California. The new president took up some business in the Oval Office before dancing the night away with his wife.

I’ll make yet another confession: I’m not yet ready to embrace fully the notion that Trump is actually, really and truly, certifiably the commander in chief of the world’s greatest military machine.

Yes, I know he is president. I know he won an election that seemingly everyone on the planet thought he’d lose bigly.

I’ve mentioned already that I’ve voted in 12 presidential elections. Five times my candidate has won; seven times he has lost. I know what it’s like to be on the short end of the vote count. Heck, the first election I voted in — that would be 1972 — my guy lost 49 states.

However, in every case I’ve been able to accept fully the outcome and move on … until now.

This one feels strangely different. It has something to do with what I still believe about the president’s unfitness for the office he now occupies. I get that not everyone agrees with me. Many of my friends here in the Texas Panhandle voted for Trump. They’re still my friends.

Still, I ask you to hang with me. I’m likely to come around.

Eventually.

‘American carnage’ becomes Trump’s signature line

It turns out Donald J. Trump found a phrase after all that likely might stick in the minds — and perhaps the craw — of millions of Americans.

“The American carnage is going to stop right now,” the president said in his inaugural speech on the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

American carnage.

Wow, man!

I guess the president has chosen to ignore the crime trend in this country, which is that violent crime is at a 40-year low. Sure, some communities have been victimized by evil-intended criminals. Chicago has been torn by waves of violence, as have other large American cities.

Does this portend a nationwide “carnage” that has gripped the nation, a place where all Americans are living in fear of being shot? I’m having difficulty understanding why the brand new president would send this kind of message out across the vast landscape of the nation he leads and around the world that continues to rivet its attention on what occurs in this country.

The president has painted a stark, forbidding and frightening picture of the United States. So help me, I believe he has severely misstated the condition of our great nation and has delivered the same message that fired up the Republican base to nominate him in the first place — and helped carry him to victory in the general election.

The campaign has ended, Mr. President. It is now time to unite the nation. Rhetoric that tells of a fictitious “American carnage” only does more harm.

Gov. Christie, we hardly knew ye

We’re two weeks and two days into 2017, so why not take a quick look back at the biggest political winners and losers of 2016?

The biggest winner? No question: Donald J. Trump. He’s the next president of the United States. He won an election almost no one thought he’d win. Not me. Not most of the so-called “experts.”

One of my Facebook friends, though, said she called it early on. She knew Trump would win all along. Bully for her.

Enough of that.

The biggest loser? It’s not who you think. I am going to give the Biggest Loser Award to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Sure, Hillary Rodham Clinton lost big in 2016. Christie, though, imploded in a curious way.

He started the year running for the Republican presidential nomination. He was full of bluster, bravado and boastfulness. He was going to kick a** and take names. He was no pushover.

Then he got steamrolled by Trump, who flattened the field of 15 other GOP contenders/pretenders.

Christie then endorsed Trump and became his go-to guy. He would run his transition if Trump got elected.

Then what happened? Trump actually got elected and just like that Christie was removed as transition boss; Trump gave that task to the vice president-elect, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

Christie, meanwhile, has been fingered in that on-going, never-ending “Bridgegate” scandal emanating from the closure of the George Washington Bridge because Christie was mad at a New Jersey mayor who declined to endorse him for re-election in 2014 … allegedly!

Christie’s poll numbers have tanked. He is coming up for re-election and he now stands a good chance of being thumped.

There you have it. Stand tall, Donald Trump and Chris Christie.

Once again: Trump didn’t win in a ‘landslide’

My head is exploding as I write these words.

The incoming White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, has just said — twice, in fact! — that Donald J. Trump was elected “in a landslide” over Hillary Rodham Clinton on Nov. 8, 2016.

I am about to scream.

Trump was elected with 304 electoral votes; Clinton garnered 227 votes.

Clinton collected 2.8 million more popular votes than Trump.

Read my lips: That is not a landslide victory for the president-elect.

Priebus, appearing on ABC News’s “This Week” program, suffers from a form of selective amnesia. Yes, Trump won 30 of 50 states, as Priebus said; yes, again, he won “more counties” than any presidential winner since President Reagan in 1984.

However, we cannot cherry-pick certain barometers and use them to deliver a message that conflicts with reality.

I don’t question that Trump was elected. He won the states that he needed to win. He won more than enough Electoral College votes to be elected.

But if we’re going to pick and choose which criteria we want to cite, let’s try this: A switch of 175,000 votes in three swing states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — and today we’d be getting ready for the inauguration of President-elect Clinton.

Landslide? Hell no!