Tag Archives: 2016 election

Yes, Donald, you ‘mocked’ the NY Times reporter

I awoke this morning to news that the great actor Meryl Streep tore Donald J. Trump a new one at the Golden Globes awards ceremony.

She called him a bully and some other fitting epithets. I don’t want to comment specifically on the totality of her comments, but I do want to offer a brief critique of part of the president-elect’s tweet-storm response.

He said “for the 100th time” he didn’t mock a New York Times reporter’s physical disability while delivering a campaign-rally speech en route to his election as president.

Actually, Mr. President-elect, you did mock Serge Kovaleski, who suffers from a debilitating muscular disease that inhibits his arm movements. It was a disgusting and disgraceful exhibition of childish petulance the likes of which many of us never have seen coming from a major-party presidential nominee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/09/movies/trump-meryl-streep-golden-globes-speech.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

For Trump to suggest — as if we’re all a bunch of rubes — that he merely was showing how the reporter was ” … ‘groveling’ when he totally changed a 16 year old story that he had written in order to make me look bad. Just more very dishonest media!”

Trump said he “would never do that,” meaning mock someone in such a hideous manner.

Actually, I believe he would. And I also believe he did!

 

Still waiting for sign of hope for Trump

Of all the men who have become president of the United States without my vote, I’ve always harbored hope that they would do the right thing for my country, that they would rise to the occasion.

Until now, that is.

I cannot reach that level of hope and optimism for the 45th president.

Donald J. Trump takes office in 19 days. He’ll raise his hand on a holy book, swear to uphold the Constitution, defend the nation against its enemies and follow the laws of the land.

That’ll be his solemn, sacred promise.

So help me, I cannot yet make the leap that allows me to believe he’ll do all those things.

I’ve voted in 12 presidential elections. I have voted for five men won. Of the men who became president, I have relied on my optimistic nature and my belief in our political system to suspend my own misgivings about them.

I am waiting for that moment to arrive as I watch Donald Trump tweet himself silly over this issue and that. I await that moment when I can actually believe he is giving serious and thoughtful consideration to the myriad issues that await him.

Yes, I hope for the best but as of this moment — on the eve of a new year — I fear for a lot less. I won’t fear for the absolute worst, because the worst is too frightening to ponder.

Happy new year, y’all. Let’s all hang on together.

Unity, Mr. President-elect, bring us unity

Donald J. Trump is having the time of his life as he taunts those who oppose his election as president of the United States.

He went on yet another Twitter rant with a message that belies his pledge to be the president “of all Americans.” Imagine that.

He wrote: “Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don’t know what to do. Love!” 

There you go. Such grace. Such class. Such a striving to make good on his promise to “unify” a divided nation.

I guess this latest example strikes right at the heart — in my view — of this guy’s temperamental unfitness for the job to which he has been elected.

He blasts out these tweets, using the social medium to inject himself into the middle of foreign policy discussions being conducted by the individual who still is serving as president and commander in chief.

This latest lack of decorum only serves  to inflame the anger of those who need little reason to be angry that this guy won the election.

The unity you profess to seek, Mr. President-elect, cannot be found in these childish messages.

Trump sides with the bad guy?

How is this supposed to go?

President Barack Obama retaliated against Russian over reports that Russian spooks hacked into the U.S. electoral system.

He kicked out about 30 Russian intelligence operatives and set in motion some economic sanctions to punish the Russians.

What is Donald J. Trump’s response as he prepares to become the next president of the United States? He lavishes praise on Russian strongman Vladimir Putin for his decision to withhold any reaction to the president’s punishment.

Trump called Putin a “smart” man.

No expression of support for our own president’s decision to punish the Russians for something a number of key intelligence agencies have concluded: that their hackers sought to meddle in the U.S. presidential election.

Where in the world are the new president’s loyalties?

Hmmmm?

 

Give the smaller states a louder voice

This graphic showed up on my Facebook news feed as a statement against the Electoral College.

I looked at it and then thought: Wait a minute! What’s so terribly wrong with giving smaller states, such as Wyoming, a greater voice in the election of the president of the United States?

California has those 55 electoral votes; Texas has 38 of them; Florida has 29.

I remain officially undecided about whether to toss the Electoral College aside. It would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to support such a drastic measure.

The 2016 election ended with the “loser” winning nearly 3 million more popular votes than the “winner.” But the guy who won carried the Electoral College, which is what the founders intended.

I happen to be one who doesn’t begrudge little ol’ Wyoming the extra stroke it gets from the Electoral College.

When did power sharing become a bad thing?

Here’s the most meaningless debate imaginable

Well now … let’s commence the most meaningless political discussion possible, shall we?

Who would have won if Barack H. Obama had been the candidate opposing Donald J. Trump in this year’s presidential election.

The president of the United States says he’d win. The president-elect — big surprise here — disagrees.

The meaninglessness lies in the indisputable fact that we’ll never know the answer. The U.S. Constitution bars the president from seeking a third term, thanks to its 22nd Amendment.

But as long as the president has introduced this silly argument, I’d like to carry it a bit further.

I believe he would have won. Why? He’s got a ton of political moxie. He would have surrounded himself with he best political strategists possible. He would not have taken anything or any voter group for granted. Obama would not have “played it safe,” as he said Hillary Clinton did. He would have made mincemeat of Trump in any number of televised joint appearances.

There. That’s my view.

However, it’s only my speculation, just as it is anyone’s speculation — including Barack Obama himself — about how an Obama-Trump contest would have ended.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-vs-trump-dispute-erupts-over-who-would-have-won/ar-BBxAD1A?li=BBnb7Kz

Here, though, is a bit of reality to toss into the mix.

Consider the context of the 2012 presidential election. Obama’s presidency was considered by many experts to be on the ropes as he prepared to run against the Republican nominee, who turned out to be Mitt Romney, another formidable and successful businessman — who also had political experience as a one-term governor of Massachusetts.

The economy wasn’t performing all that well. The Affordable Care Act was being vilified as a failure. The Republicans saw a huge opening for their nominee as the campaign commenced.

Oh, but what happened? Obama used his crack political team to target selected audiences in various regions of the country and hammered Romney relentlessly over comments the GOP rival had made. Recall the “47 percent” gaffe.

Obama ended up winning the election by a comfortable margin: 5 million ballots and 332-206 Electoral College votes.

Would he have defeated Trump? I believe so.

However, it’s a silly debate to have.

President Obama is leaving office in less than a month. Donald J. Trump is the man of the hour.

‘SECEDE’ has been replaced with …

I once had this neighbor who had plastered on the rear bumper of his pickup a sticker I found a bit amusing.

It said “SECEDE.” Yes, the letters were in all caps.

He also had another sticker on the bumper that said he had served “proudly” in the U.S. armed forces.

Do you see the dichotomy here? I wrote about it once before, just before Christmas in 2012.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2012/12/love-it-or-secede-from-it/

The “SECEDE” bumper sticker has been replaced by another one.

It says “God Bless Texas.” I noticed it right after the 2016 presidential election. My strongest hunch is that the election turned out the way he wanted it.

There’s another bit of irony, though. The fellow who coined the “God Bless Texas” slogan was a proud Democrat. He was crusty ol’ Bob Bullock, a former Texas lieutenant governor and state comptroller who died some years ago.

I cannot help but wonder if Bullock would be as glad as my neighbor is with the election outcome.

Once ‘noble’ pursuit getting more vengeful

The late Robert F. Kennedy used to proclaim that politics could be a “noble” pursuit if its practitioners kept their eye on the public service aspect of their craft.

It’s gotten a lot less noble in the years since RFK’s time in the public arena.

Politics has become a contact sport. A blood sport in the eyes of many. We are about to witness it become even bloodier as the next president of the United States takes his oath and begins the work of leading the country.

Donald J. Trump is headed for the roughest ride imaginable. More than half of those who voted in this year’s election voted for someone else. There are myriad questions surrounding the president-elect’s fitness for office, about his business dealings and about the quality of the team he is assembling.

It’s been said there might be an impeachment in Trump’s future if he doesn’t take care of some of those business dealings that could run him smack into the “emoluments clause” in the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits presidents from receiving income from foreign governments.

Is all this to be expected? Sure it is.

Is it unreasonable to ask these probing questions? Of course not!

Vengeance can be most troubling. Trump will take over from a president who’s himself felt the wrath of those who opposed him at every turn. There was talk of impeaching Barack H. Obama, too.

President Obama sought to do some bold things, such as get medical insurance for millions of Americans; he sought to rescue the failing economy early in his presidency with a costly stimulus package; he continued to pursue terrorists abroad using aggressive military action; he sought to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

All along the way, his foes sought to stymie him. There were a couple of shameful incidents, such as when a Republican member of Congress shouted “liar!” at Obama as he was delivering a speech to a joint congressional session; there also was the declaration from Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell who said his “No. 1 priority” would be to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

The Democrats now are on the outside looking in at Republicans’ efforts to reshape the federal government.

It won’t be a cakewalk for the new guy any more than it was for the fellow he will succeed.

Memories are long in Washington, D.C., even if politicians who say spiteful things to and about each other can make up and join the same team — which happens all the time in the nation’s capital.

Trump’s team must know that political nobility is long gone. They’d better get ready to be roughed up.

As they say: Payback is a bitch.

Historians have huge task ahead with this election

Is it too early to wonder aloud about how historians are going to chronicle the major story of 2016?

I don’t think so.

I’ve been thinking about it ever since the TV networks declared that Donald J. Trump — the former reality TV celebrity, billionaire, serial philanderer, beauty pageant owner — had just been elected president of the United States of America.

The world is full of historians who’ve made names for themselves telling us about the political exploits of previous presidents. The history lessons they’ve provided about our nation’s political leaders have been steeped in fairly traditional themes: lower-level political offices, business success, inherited wealth, abiding political philosophies.

Trump’s story tracks along vastly different lines.

He has zero public service experience; he violated virtually rule of standard political decorum; he had never sought public office; he lied through his teeth almost daily; he admitted to doing terrible things to women; he denigrated a war hero; he criticized a Gold Star family; he mocked a reporter with a serious physical disability.

However, he won! He was elected president without ever telling us precisely how he intends to bring jobs back, how he intends to destroy our enemies abroad, how he plans to pay for a mammoth infrastructure improvement plan.

Trump defeated a candidate who virtually every single political observer in America believed would win in a walk. He was outspent and out-organized … or so we all thought!

Historians will be scratching their heads. They’ll have to crack their knuckles and get their fingers limbered up as they prepare to write their first, second and third drafts of history.

The most puzzling element of this history-writing endeavor might be in determining how Trump managed to whip up anger among Americans who live in a country that is demonstrably better off than when the current president, Barack Hussein Obama, took office in January 2009.

Moreover, President Obama then sought to put his relatively high standing among Americans to the advantage of his preferred candidate — fellow Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton. He campaigned hard to Hillary; Michelle Obama delivered stunning speeches in support of Clinton while providing blistering critiques of Trump’s admitted misbehavior with women.

None of it mattered. None of it stuck. It didn’t gain traction.

I do not envy the task that awaits historians.

Good luck to you all. Many of us out here will be awaiting your conclusions.

It’s not a ‘landslide,’ Donald … really

trump_donald_getty_1

May I call you “Donald”?

My head is about to explode as I listen to the president-elect refer to his victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton as a “historic landslide.”

Historic? Yes. Surely. No one saw this victory coming. No one predicted that Donald J. Trump would win this election, that he would become commander in chief of the world’s greatest military complex. No one predicted this showman/reality TV celebrity/real estate mogul/serial philanderer/admitted groper of women would actually get the keys to the White House.

It’s historic, man.

Landslide? Nope. Not even close to one.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/311115-trump-touts-historic-electoral-college-victory

He is trailing Clinton by 2.8 million votes. He won enough electoral votes to become elected. He finished with 304 of them; Clinton’s total ends at 227. Interestingly, Clinton lost more “faithless electors” than Trump when the Electoral College cast its vote on Monday; that, too, is “historic.”

Trump cannot possibly actually believe he won in a landslide. He has seen the numbers. He must know about the nation’s great divide.

He keeps spouting this nonsense. I guess we just need to get used to it. There’ll be much more to come.