Tag Archives: 2016 election

national news, political news

Trump’s ‘thank you tour’ needs some diversity

trump_thankyoutour

Donald J. Trump proclaimed on Election Night his intention to be the president for “all Americans.”

He said so while he was declaring victory after being elected president of the United States. Trump said he intends to bind the deep political wounds that divided Americans.

Wise words. A wise message. Was it heartfelt? Was it sincere?

Consider this: The president-elect has embarked on a tour of locations where he was victorious over Hillary Rodham Clinton. He’s been to Wisconsin, to Iowa, to Ohio, to Pennsylvania. Today he was in Louisiana. He’s going to Florida.

Trump won all those states. He has spoken to cheering crowds. He has soaked up the love flowing from the cheering audiences.

However, I am wondering along with some other observers why he hasn’t scheduled any appearances in, say, California, or New York (his home state, by the way), or Illinois, or Minnesota. Those states all were won by Clinton.

Were the votes cast in those states for the former secretary of state unanimous? Of course not! It would seem that the next president could muster enough of a crowd at any location in any of the states that Hillary won to offer a word of thanks for those who did support him.

Imagine for just a moment what the reaction would be if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency and visited only those states where she had won and ignored those that went for her opponent.

I get that those would merely be symbolic steps. However, symbolism matters at times. It sends important messages.

This could be one of those times when the president-elect, still aglow from his stunning victory, tells Americans living in those states where most voters opposed him that, by golly, he’s their president, too.

national news, political news

Needing help accepting this outcome … fully

o-donald-trump-facebook

A friend of mine has acknowledged a greater-than-normal disappointment in the presidential election result.

He said he’s having trouble accepting that Donald J. Trump is now the president-elect of the United States of America.

I am now going to admit the same thing.

Just as my friend said, I’ve voted for losing presidential candidates many times over the years. I’ve voted in 12 presidential elections, dating back to 1972. My record as of Nov. 8 is now 5-7 … that’s five winners and seven losers.

I know how it feels to be on the losing side.

This one is different than all the rest of them. It’s even different from my first vote, when Sen. George McGovern got smashed to smithereens in a 49-state blowout to President Nixon. I was young, full of piddle and vinegar, just home from service in the Army, newly married and I worked my butt off in my hometown to elect a good and decent man to the presidency.

It’s not that I believe Trump was inferior to his chief opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. It’s deeper than that. He’s patently unfit for the office. I will maintain that belief more than likely for the entire time he serves as president.

That could change. Trump could prove me wrong. He could turn out to be a quick study. He could muster some semblance of the decorum needed to serve as head of state and the leader of our government. Trump could actually grasp the concept of limited presidential power and he could accede to the will of another co-equal branch of government, the one on Capitol Hill, aka Congress.

I cannot get past the notion, though, that he’s going to try to run roughshod over the system. That he’s going to do some incredibly stupid things, issue some incompetent — or unlawful — orders.

I want none of that to happen. I want the new president to succeed. In some perverse way, I’m actually pulling for him. I know that sounds like a huge contradiction, given what I’ve written already in this post, along with what I’ve stated in countless previous posts on this blog.

It’s not. I have declared already that I do not subscribe to the hope that he will fail. Presidential failure means failure for the entire country. I will not forsake my citizenship; I won’t move to another nation. I will stay put and speak out whenever I feel like it. I’ll praise the good things Trump does and will criticize the bad.

So help me, I cannot yet come to grips with the notion that this guy — the former reality TV celebrity, the hotel mogul, the guy who admits to cheating on his wives, who acknowledges seeking to impose his sexual will on women, who mocked a physically disabled reporter, denigrated Gold Star parents and flung insults at opponents — is about to become the 45th president of the United States.

It’s not like the previous times I’ve voted for the losing candidate. Yes, I know Trump won the election fair and square. I accept the fact that he won the required number of electoral votes. And yes … he will be my president.

I’m just having trouble moving forward and putting the result behind me.

Do I need an intervention?

national news

New president might face huge intraparty hurdle

mcconnel-and-trump

Donald Trump has good reason to smile.

He won the presidency over someone thought to be the prohibitive favorite. He is now selecting members of his team … to mixed reviews to be sure. Hey, what difference does it make? He won the election.

Now comes the sternest of tests for the new president. He has to govern alongside the very members of Congress he disparaged whenever he could; he demonized them; he called them names, such as “loser.”

I’m not talking about Democrats, mind you. I’m talking about Republicans who control both congressional chambers.

They’re grinning these days, too. I’m not sure whether they’re happy to be working with a fellow Republican (In Name Only) or whether they’re anticipating being able to stick it to the guy who called them all those nasty names.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498

The Politico story attached to this post talks about how the Republicans’ strategy of “no” worked so well against President Obama. It also reminds us of how that strategy enabled them to win back the House of Representatives in 2010, the Senate in 2014 and now the White House in 2016.

Who do they get as president? The guy from within Republican ranks who ran against them!

All this sets up an interesting dichotomy for Republicans, many of whom are those “establishment” types who don’t trust Trump as being truly one of them.

It’s a given, of course, that Democrats who detest Trump are going to do all they can to stop anything the new president wants to do — much like Republicans sought to do when Barack Obama arrived in the Oval Office. The Politico article reminds us that the president got his $800 billion economic stimulus package approved in 2009 with virtually zero GOP support.

How is Trump going to cope with those Republicans who will resist him on, say, his enormous proposed infrastructure project? They keep telling us the Treasury doesn’t have the money.

I guess Trump could remind them that they didn’t have the money to go to war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in 2001, but they did — while approving tax cuts proposed by President Bush. My guess is that GOP leaders in the House and Senate wouldn’t like to hear such a thing coming from one of their own.

We talked during the length of the election campaign that we were entering a new era. This would be the most unconventional election in history. That presumed a Hillary Clinton victory, for crying out loud.

The other person won. Let’s get ready for the most unconventional governance in U.S. history.

My often-trusty trick knee tells me the Republicans who run Capitol Hill might try to wipe the smile off Donald Trump’s face.

national news, political news

Trump ‘mandate’ keeps slipping away

ballot-box

I don’t intend to beat this issue to death, but I do intend to drive home what I believe is an important point about the 2016 presidential election.

It’s this issue of Donald J. Trump’s supposed “mandate” from the election result.

You see, the president-elect is trailing Hillary Rodham Clinton in the popular vote total by an increasing margin.

As of this very moment — at 8:32 p.m. CST on Nov. 22 — Clinton’s vote lead over Trump totals 1,737,744 ballots. They’re still counting ballots in Clinton-friendly states out west. Hillary’s vote lead will approach, perhaps even exceed, 2 million ballots when they’re all done with the counting.

I am not challenging that Trump won the election. He has 306 electoral votes; Clinton’s electoral vote totals 232. Trump needed just 270 of those votes to be elected. He’s going to become our 45th president in January.

He won it under the rules.

Nor am I advocating an end to the Electoral College.

However, Trump needs to be careful when he talks about “mandate,” and whether his victory awards him sufficient political capital to do all the things he vowed to do.

Build a wall? Ban Muslims from entering the country? Revoke trade deals? Appoint arch-conservative ideologues to the federal bench?

Yes, the president-elect won the Electoral College by a comfortable margin, but he’s falling farther and farther behind in the actual votes for president. More than half of those who voted for president cast their ballots for someone other than the guy who won. Hillary won’t achieve a majority of all the votes, but her plurality is looking healthier every day.

That vote deficit must give even a brash braggart like Donald J. Trump pause … or one might think.

Then again, we’re dealing with someone who broke virtually every conventional rule in the book while winning the presidency. Still, he ought to take great care when declaring a “mandate” to do anything once he takes his oath of office.

national news, political news

Pride takes a battering with Trump election

trump-wins

I am not too proud to admit how wrong I was about the presidential candidacy of Donald J. Trump.

So, I will do so here. I will admit to being totally off-base, out to lunch and out of touch with what was going on all around me here in the middle of Trump Country.

I’m still baffled by the idea of Trump being elected president of the United States. I accept the result of the election, that the first-time candidate for any public office won more electoral votes than his infinitely more qualified opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Every single warning sign went ignored.

* Trump called Mexican immigrants criminals; his fans didn’t care.

* He denigrated Sen. John McCain’s status as a war hero; pfftt!

* Trump mocked a reporter with a disability; B. F. D.

* Trump criticized a Gold Star family for speaking out against him; who cares?

* This guy boasts about groping women, grabbing them by their genitals; hey, boys will be boys who engage in “locker room talk.”

He got a pass on all of that. Imagine what would have happened had Clinton had said things such as that. Imagine hearing her brag about grabbing some dude by his, um, jewels; imagine the backlash if she had said any of the things that Trump said.

I didn’t see it coming. I didn’t foresee this know-nothing ever being nominated, let alone elected president over someone with the credentials that Clinton brought to this campaign.

I take small comfort — and that’s all it is — in realizing that few of us out here in the peanut gallery got it right. Trump steamrolled his way to his party’s nomination. Then he flipped several of the states that President Obama carried in two winning elections.

Bingo! He wins.

This election result is going to take some time to sink in.

Bear with me while I try to ponder how I got it so damn wrong.

national news, political news

Protests turn violent … to the shame of many

portlandproteststhumb1

I guess none of us should be surprised.

Protesters angry at the result of the 2016 presidential election hit the streets to march, chant and display signs.

Then it turned violent. My attention tonight is turning to my hometown of Portland, Ore., where the police and the mayor are blaming the violent turn on those who have “infiltrated” the city, criminals who are inciting the violence and damage.

I am horrified, mortified and embarrassed by what is occurring in the city of my birth and where I spent the first 34 years of my life.

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/11/mayor_police_hold_press_confer.html#incart_big-photo

I get that many Americans didn’t want Donald J. Trump elected president of the United States. Count me as one who is unhappy with the result.

But for crying out loud, man, why in the world does that unhappiness have to turn to destruction of property and personal bodily injury?

As I’ve noted before on this blog, marching in the streets ain’t my style. It’s not how I roll. I prefer to register my protest using this venue; I’ll sit at my desk at home, fire up my computer and gripe until I run out of strength in my fingers.

This idea of marchers turning destructive and violent, though, is inconsistent with so-called American values. Indeed, when one thinks of my hometown, one thinks usually of coffee shops, craft beer, the world’s largest used-bookstore, a bustling downtown district, Mount Hood, a lovely riverfront and tall timber.

One shouldn’t think of Portland — or any city in America — as a place prone to violent protest over a free and fair election.

national news, political news

Sore losers take to the streets

aak767l

Protests have erupted in several American cities, with thousands of citizens griping about the results of the presidential election.

OK, I shall stipulate two major points.

First, I share the angst of those who are upset that Donald J. Trump has been elected the 45th president of the United States. I didn’t vote for him, either. I abhor just about everything about him: his personal history, his demeanor, his boorishness, his bigotry, his ignorance about government and public policy … you name it.

Second, I prefer to restrict my “protests” to activities that keep me at home. I have my computer keyboard, my blog and … well, there you have it.

I intend to comment often about the president-elect as he prepares to take the highest office in the land. I also intend to comment on his policy initiatives once he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20.

To parade through our streets, damaging property, injuring other individuals and making an ass of oneself is as counterproductive as it gets.

The protests disappoint me. They give other Americans grist to use against the protesters, to call them “sore losers” who cannot accept a political outcome that was arrived at legitimately, legally and in accordance with our cherished political system.

Let’s chill out, shall we? Sure, many of us dislike the outcome of an important political contest, but the American way is to accept it, move on and look for civil ways to gripe.

business news, national news, political news

Elections have consequences

donald

I’ll be brief, as I’m feeling as though there’ll be a lot more to say in the days and weeks to come.

Do elections have consequences? You bet they do.

Look at what the Dow Jones futures market is doing at this very moment. It is plunging more than 600 points. Why is that? It’s the prospect of a Donald J. Trump presidency.

Therein lies the first consequence of this election, no matter how it turns out.

The very notion that someone such as the 2016 GOP nominee can be this close to becoming the Leader of the Free World is going to cost a lot of us a lot of money.

 

national news, political news

Chaotic campaign becomes even more chaotic

161027094402-new-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-composite-5-super-tease

You want chaos on the election trail? Pandemonium in the board room? Shock in our living rooms?

Welcome to Presidential Election 2016, which is heading for what looks like the wildest finish in history. Why, this might even top the 2000 election, where Al Gore won more popular votes than George W. Bush, but lost the presidency because Bush got one more Electoral College vote than he needed.

I’m not going to predict that this campaign will end with that scenario. The grenade that FBI Director James Comey tossed into the middle of this fight has the potential of upsetting everything we thought about the bizarre nature of this bizarre campaign.

He said he’s found more e-mails that might have something to do with Hillary Clinton’s on-going e-mail controversy. We don’t know what’s in them. We don’t even know if she sent them.

Donald Trump calls it the “mother lode.”

I keep hearing two things: (1) The polls are tightening and (2) few voters’ minds have been changed because of what Comey has said.

Are we really and truly going to elect someone — Trump — who has admitted to behaving boorishly? Are we going to elect an individual with a string of failed businesses, lawsuits, allegations of sexual assault leveled against him?

We’re going to do this because the FBI director has inserted himself and his agency into the middle of a presidential campaign while saying virtually nothing of substance about what he might — or might not — have on one of the candidates?

Am I happy with the choices we face? No. I wish the major parties had nominated different candidates for president. We’re stuck, though, with these. We’re left with a choice. Of the two major-party nominees, the choice is clear — to me.

If only we could rid ourselves of the chaos.

national news, political news

Michelle Obama emerges as potent political weapon

michelle-obama

The political world is buzzing this evening over a speech delivered earlier in the day by a woman who hasn’t been elected to a public office, nor is she seeking one.

The speech came from first lady Michelle Obama, who took up the cudgel for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She stood before a crowd in Manchester, N. H., and blistered Republican nominee Donald J. Trump over his behavior toward women.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/300918-michelle-obama-becomes-clintons-most-powerful-weapon

“This is not normal. This is not politics as usual,” Obama said at one point. “This is disgraceful. It is intolerable.”

There was a whole lot more.

She peeled the bark off of Trump without naming him specifically. Everyone knew of whom she spoke.

I am reminded of something I said to members of my family … and perhaps to a few friends back in 2009 when Barack Obama took office as the 44th president of the United States.

My thought then was that the first lady would emerge as the president’s secret weapon. She would become his most potent political ally. Indeed, her public approval ratings have loomed far greater than the president’s have during his entire eight years in the White House.

Well, now she has emerged as Hillary Clinton’s most effective surrogate.

The first lady was taking aim at that infamous video recording of Trump talking with Billy Bush about what he does, or would like to do, to women.

“This was not just a lewd conversation, that wasn’t just locker room banter,” the first lady said. “This was a powerful individual speaking freely and openly about sexually predatory behavior and actually bragging about kissing and groping women — using language so obscene that many of us were worried about children hearing it when we turn on the TV.”

Michelle Obama has taken this stuff personally. As she should.

As for Trump and how he might respond to this blistering barrage, he needs to take great care.

“I can’t think of a bolder way for Donald Trump to lose even more standing than he already has,” said deputy White House press flack Eric Schultz,  “than by engaging the first lady of the United States.”