Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Listen to the doctor, Mr. Trump … on second thought

carson

Ben Carson knows what bigotry looks like.

He also knows that using the term “bigot” in a battle between candidates for the highest public office in the land is counterproductive in the extreme.

The former Republican candidate for president has advised his party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, to cease calling Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton a bigot.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ben-carson-trump-clinton-bigot-227453

Dr. Carson said this about Trump’s name-calling:

“I kind of left that behind in the third grade. I certainly don’t encourage it because the issues that we’re facing are incredibly important—for us and for the future generations.”

Do you think Dr. Carson, the surgeon who’s also African-American, will be able to persuade Trump to cool it with the bigot talk?

Probably not.

As Trump’s campaign continues its flailing ways, the candidate is left to say things about Clinton that have nothing at all to do with policy differences he might have with her. Oh, but wait! Trump doesn’t have any policies of his own, which leaves him to rely on the insult machine he oils daily.

Carson, of course, isn’t going to let Clinton off the hook, either. “That’s what people do who don’t have anything to talk about,” he said while referring as well to Clinton’s use of the term “racist” to describe Trump’s statements.

While the Democratic nominee attacks the words that come from her opponent’s mouth, Trump has decided to define his foe’s character by accusing her of being an outright bigot.

This campaign should proceed on a much higher plain.

I fear that it won’t.

E-mail story is getting more convoluted

email-marketing

I am willing to admit the obvious, which is that sometimes I am a bit slow on the uptake.

Things can and do get past me. The swirl of news events at times overwhelms me to the point that I cannot keep straight the particulars of this or that controversy/scandal.

The Hillary Rodham Clinton e-mail matter provides a case in point.

She used her personal server while leading the State Department. The question then became whether she distributed classified or “highly classified” information on this server.

The FBI investigated it. So did the U.S. House Government Oversight Committee.

The FBI concluded that it couldn’t find a reason to prosecute Clinton for any illegal activity. FBI Director James Comey, though, did provide a pile of critical analysis of Clinton’s handling of the e-mails, calling it “reckless,” and “careless.”

Now, though, Donald J. Trump is accusing Clinton of “illegal” use of her personal e-mail server.

Didn’t the feds determine already that she didn’t break the law, or that they couldn’t find reasonable grounds to recommend an indictment?

Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has goaded Russia into looking for 30,000-something missing e-mails. The House Oversight and Judiciary committees are looking for proof that Clinton committed perjury when she testified before Congress.

Then we hear about 15,000 more e-mails that have surfaced. What does that mean? Anything?

The Democratic presidential nominee has endured a serious media and political scrubbing over all of this.

She hasn’t been accused formally of a single criminal act.

And yet …

Republicans keep calling her a criminal. They want to “lock her up!”

My head is spinning.

I need help.

Trump likely to lose … but might not accept it

OB-VG717_Romney_G_20121107020041

I’m glad to be not alone in fearing what might happen on Election Day, which occurs on Nov. 8.

Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump could lose the election to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton in a big way.

He might get buried in an Electoral College landslide. For that matter, it could even be a popular vote landslide.

But just a little while ago, Trump laid down a frightening notion.

He might not accept defeat the way losing candidates traditionally have done. Remember when he said the “only way I am going to lose” is if the election is “rigged.” He said the only way for “Crooked Hillary” to win is to fix it so she gets more votes than he does.

What’s going to happen, then, if — after the news organizations declare Clinton the winner — and Trump fails to make the phone call to the president-elect, offering his congratulations and then stands before his supporters to concede defeat?

Eli Stokols, writing for Politico, thinks it’s entirely possible that Trump won’t concede. He won’t acknowledge what the rest of the world would have just witnessed.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/donald-trump-concede-succession-227252

Stokols writes: “Among the values most necessary for a functioning democracy is the peaceful transition of power that’s gone on uninterrupted since 1797. What enables that is the acceptance of the election’s outcome by the losers,” said Steve Schmidt, the GOP operative who was McCain’s campaign strategist in 2008.

Trump’s insistence that a “rigged” election would result in his defeat seems to put that tradition into imminent danger.

As an American who rather likes political tradition, I see this as a potentially terrible development.

Again, as Stokols writes: “The damage this is going to do to various institutions is going to be long term,” said Charlie Sykes, a prominent conservative radio host in Milwaukee who has been one of the country’s most outspoken and consistent anti-Trump voices. “How do you restore civil discourse after all of this? He is a postmodern authoritarian who’s in the process of delegitimizing every institution — the media, the ballot box — that can be a check on him.”

Are you scared yet? I am.

Clinton faces defamatory attacks about her health

BROOKLYN, NY - JUNE 7: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton attends a primary night rally in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, June 7, 2016 in Brooklyn, New York. Clinton will become the first woman in U.S. history to secure the presidential nomination of one of the country's two major political parties. (Photo by Brooks Kraft/ Getty Images)

 

Rudy Guiliani used to be known as “America’s mayor,” a title he earned by his stellar performance as mayor of New York City as it coped with the hideous 9/11 terror attacks.

He’s now in danger of being considered “America’s goofball.”

His (former) honor is peddling pure crap as it regards Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. He has said she is ill. He doesn’t have an iota of hard evidence. He just says it.

When asked on Fox News about his contention, Guiliani then offered the most nonsensical rebuttal of all time. “Go online,” he said, referring to the Internet.

That’s it! If it’s on the Internet, he said, then it must be true.

My head nearly exploded when I heard that.

He’s parroting the line, the strategy being employed by Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

This campaign veered toward the gutter long ago. Trump has been at the wheel of the GOP clown car ever since he declared his candidacy for the presidential nomination. Now that he has been nominated, he keeps gripping the clown car wheel and keep riding it into the same ol’ gutter.

There are those of us out here who are struggling with these campaign choices. Clinton is far from an ideal candidate. She’s got some serious hurdles to clear herself. They deal with trust and whether she would be totally truthful when talking to Americans about serious policy matters.

None of the concerns about Clinton, to my mind, has a thing to do with her physical health.

She is sharp, engaged, well-informed, articulate.

Donald Trump is none of those things.

Rudy Guiliani knows it, too.

Trump confounds them by holding rally … in Texas!

061616TTtrump000028_jpg_800x1000_q100

Donald J. Trump has said many times how he has surrounded himself with “the best people” to run his presidential campaign.

If they are “the best,” one can ask, why do they keep sending him (a) to states he has no chance of winning and (b) to states he has virtually no chance of losing in the upcoming election?

As Ross Ramsey of the Texas Tribune points out, Trump is coming to Austin — the one in Texas — for a political rally this week.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/22/analysis-texas-august-funny-place-trump-rally/

It’s an interesting call.

Trump, the Republican nominee, is losing all the battleground states to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, North Carolina … they all need to hear from the GOP candidate.

Texans appear to have their minds made up. They’re going with Trump — apparently — even though a recent PPP poll said Trump leads Clinton by just 6 percentage points. That marks a significant whittling of the margin that Mitt Romney won by in 2012 over Barack Obama.

Trump, though, is going to stage a rally in Texas.

Go figure.

Shoot, as long as he’s in Texas, he ought to fly Trump One — or whatever they’re calling that jet of his — to Amarillo, where I know he’d get a hero’s welcome.

‘Liberal media’ become target of the right

liberal_media_bumper_sticker

It’s always been this way.

The so-called “liberal media” do all they can to conspire to sway public decisions, policy and the actions of those in power … allegedly.

We’re hearing it again in social media circles: The “liberal media” want to elect Hillary Clinton!

I believe I shall call a time out for a moment or two.

The so-called “binary choice” features Clinton, the Democratic nominee, and Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee. One of them will be elected president of the United States on Nov. 8.

The “liberal media,” according to those on the right, are giving Clinton a pass on all those hideous scandals that have rocked her political history. Isn’t that interesting? How do those on the right even know about the scandals/controversies/dust-ups? They read about them in the media.

Clinton’s past has been covered over and over again. She’s been scrutinized, examined, vetted and interrogated by more reporters than anyone in public life in the past 20-plus years. Congress has investigated her to the hilt and those investigations have been covered — also to the hilt — by the media.

As for the liberal media conspiring to elect her, I want to offer this brief rejoinder. The print media in particular don’t have the time, let alone the inclination, to concoct such conspiracies. I used to adhere to the truism while working as a full-time journalist that producing a newspaper every day was little short of a miracle, given all the things that can go wrong during a given production cycle.

One final point …

If the media were truly conspiring to elect either Trump or Clinton, I would put my bet on the media wanting Trump to win. Think of it: Whenever he shoots off his mouth, he draws a crowd; he attracts viewers to TV news shows and readers to print publications.

Those readers and viewers all mean the same thing to media moguls: money, lots of money.

Liberal media conspiracy?

Give me a break. There. I’m out.

She plays a doctor on TV news shows

Katrina Pierson blamed an earpiece for an earlier gaffe.

I don’t think she can rely on that dodge for this one.

Pierson is a Texan who serves as a spokeswoman for the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign. She told a TV interviewer recently that the Afghan War began on President Obama’s watch.

Oops! Uh, no, Ms. Pierson. It began on President Bush’s watch, right after 9/11. She said she misunderstood the question and couldn’t hear it properly because of chatter on her electronic earpiece.

OK, whatever you say.

Now, though, she has diagnosed a medical condition in her hero’s Democratic opponent for the presidency, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Pierson said Clinton suffers from dysphasia, a rare brain disorder.

Double oops!

You see, Pierson isn’t a doctor. She is a failed congressional candidate. She is a flack for the Republican presidential nominee. She now has tossed a lead weight on the innuendo being tossed around about Clinton’s physical health and taken it to a new depth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/18/trump-spokeswoman-diagnoses-hillary-clinton-with-dysphasia-despite-not-being-doctor/

Of course, though, Trump won’t disavow her “diagnosis.” He won’t take her to the proverbial woodshed. He will allow such nonsense to bounce around throughout social media.

Sometimes politicians — and their spokespeople — tend to speak about matters of which they have no direct knowledge.

Do you remember when Terry Schiavo, the comatose patient whose family sought permission to let her “die with dignity,” was in the news? A senator, Bill Frist, offered a medical diagnosis that sought to support his contention that Schiavo should be kept alive.

Let’s understand that Frist, a Tennessee Republican who’s no longer in the Senate, is a noted transplant surgeon. However, he never examined Schiavo, so he was unable to offer anything close to a precise diagnosis of her medical condition.

Now we have someone else — with even less knowledge of medical matters — going on the air and saying some truly thoughtless, careless and ridiculous things about a major-party candidate for the presidency of the United States.

I have a simple request of Katrina Pierson: Don’t talk about things about which you know nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4mB714-8K0

 

A kinder, gentler Trump set to emerge … but wait!

manafort

Paul Manaford quit the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign three days after getting kicked out of his job as campaign CEO.

There appear to be some potentially difficult legal issues for Manaford to navigate. But I digress.

The issue today is how the Republican presidential nominee becomes a new man, a new candidate.

Honestly, this is all quite confusing.

Steve Bannon is the new CEO. Kellyanne Conway is the new campaign manager. Conway says she dislikes the personal insults that Trump has hurled throughout his campaign. Bannon, though, is a rough-and-tough character known for his take-no-prisoners style.

Trump has said publicly he plans “no pivot.” He’s not going to change his style.

OK, then.

How does his campaign get traction? How does he become a more “focused” and potentially gentler candidate for the U.S. presidency? His expression of “regret” over the “personal pain” he caused rings — to my ears — as hollow as his assertion that he’s going to “work for you.”

Moreover, how does he make these changes without pivoting … and without the public forgetting those astonishing utterances that have poured out of Trump’s mouth during the GOP primary campaign?

I won’t recite them here. You’ve heard ’em all. They fired up the GOP base. They’re still in Trump’s corner. What about the rest of the general election voters, though, who need convincing that Trump is their guy?

Trump’s campaign has gone through a remarkable set of changes in its high command quite late in the process of electing a president. They all seem to suggest a campaign in serious disarray.

And, oh yes, we have that organization issue to be resolved.

Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton has put — if you’ll excuse the ridiculous euphemism — “boots on the ground” in all 50 states. She’s got precinct chairs, workers, campaign staff, volunteers — and maybe even their pets, for all I know — lined up to work for her election. Trump? He’s got next to no one filling those essential line jobs in the field.

I’m waiting to see if Trump assumes Americans are as gullible and malleable as he hopes. My sense is that voters — those of us far beyond the GOP base — aren’t going to forget the lengthy string of insults and innuendo that propelled this guy to his party’s presidential nomination.

Innuendo machine getting cranked up again

trump and babies

Donald J. Trump has shaken up his Republican presidential campaign high command.

Many GOP experts are saying the same thing: Steve Bannon’s ascent to campaign CEO and Kellyanne Conway’s promotion to campaign manager means that they plan to “let Trump be Trump.”

Good. Bring it!

So what are we hearing now from the GOP nominee?

It’s that Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee, is too ill to be president. She doesn’t have the stamina. She doesn’t have the intellectual goods. Clinton takes too much “time off.” She “takes naps” after appearing at national campaign events.

The innuendo machine is being re-fired.

That develop, I suggest, is one of the results of Trump being Trump.

Will this campaign tactic stick? Will the GOP nominee be able to ride this fundamental lie to victory? Count me as one who doubts it seriously.

Many of those GOP “experts” also say Bannon’s promotion portends a disaster for Trump and the party he is leading. He’ll be able to solidify his GOP base, but will fail to expand that base to include independents, frustrated Democrats or even “establishment Republicans” who detest the idea that Trump is their party’s flag carrier.

The innuendo, though, about Clinton’s health will make headlines.

It also will give the Democratic nominee some ammo I’m quite certain she’s going to fire back at Trump when the two of them meet for their joint appearance.

Should ‘short-circuited’ remain a talking point?

Clinton-and-Trump

A former colleague of mine scolded me once a few weeks ago over my criticism of Donald J. Trump’s gaffe when he referred the Apostle Paul’s second letter to the Corinthians as “2 Corinthians.”

My critic reminded me that people who speak for a living could be excused for saying things improperly on occasion. He made an interesting and thought-provoking point.

So, I’m left to wonder about Trump’s opponent in the presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said she “short-circuited” when answering questions about the e-mail controversy that continues to dog her.

She’s been pilloried for the statement by her foes, led by Trump, who’s now questioning whether Clinton’s got the intellectual snap she needs to be president of the United States.

Trump and Clinton will square off soon in the first of three joint appearances. It’s seems a good bet that Trump will bring up the “short-circuited” comment. He’s hired a new campaign CEO and manager, both of whom vow to “let Trump be Trump.”

Is the criticism of Clinton fair? Or did she — as a politician who makes her living these days talking constantly — merely say something in a less-than-artful manner?

As my ex-colleague/critic reminded me: He knows “how easy it is to say something wrong and even incredibly stupid despite knowing better.”

Politicians, though, usually aren’t allowed — for better or for worse — the luxury of a simple misspeak.