Tag Archives: Donald Trump

military news, national news

Let’s hope the new security adviser stands test of time

I am more than likely able to stipulate that H.R. McMaster wasn’t privy to any conversations between Donald J. Trump’s campaign and Russian government officials prior to the president taking office.

That is one of many positive aspects of the president’s choice today of McMaster to become the new national security adviser.

McMaster is the second Army lieutenant general to take this post, succeeding retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who Trump dismissed a week ago for a whole host of reasons — some of which are likely to be fodder for ongoing investigations.

McMaster’s appointment is drawing high praise from Republicans interested in national security and defense. At first blush, Gen. McMaster looks like a great choice.

Even Trump critics are pleased. One of them, Sen. John McCain, lavished praise on the president and his national security adviser. “He is a man of genuine intellect, character and ability. I give President Trump great credit for this decision,” said McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, of McMaster.

As with all of Trump’s selections, though, one must ask: Will the president rely on this man’s experience, intelligence and savvy as he presents reports on threats to our national security?

McMaster has been tested in combat, leading a cavalry regiment during the Iraq War. He was a critic of U.S. policy in the Vietnam War. His credentials as a national security expert are unquestioned.

Many of us, though, have questioned whether the president has politicized the National Security Council by placing senior political strategist Steve Bannon on the principals committee.

The national security adviser must have unfettered access to the president and must be able to deliver the truth to the commander in chief when it’s required. My hope is that Gen. McMaster will have the access he needs and my expectation would be that this no-nonsense military man demanded it of the boss before he agreed to serve.

If the president committed full access to the new man, great.

If he keeps his pledge, that’s even better.

national news, political news

Democrats to grass roots: Cool it with the ‘I-word’ talk

The “I-word” might be gaining some traction among rank-and-file Americans who profess worry — even fear — of Donald J. Trump.

Democratic Party officials are issuing a wise word of caution. Avoid the rush toward an impeachment of the president of the United States.

I happen to agree with the Democratic Party elders/wise folks.

Impeachment is a serious matter. It’s only occurred twice in the 228-year history of the Republic. The 17th president, Andrew Johnson, came within a single vote in the Senate of being tossed out; the 42nd president, Bill Clinton, was acquitted by healthier margins on all three counts heard during his Senate trial. A third president, Richard Nixon, was on the verge of being impeached before he resigned in disgrace in 1974.

Trump has stirred plenty of enmity during his single month in office. To suggest that he ought to be impeached is at best far too premature an act to even consider; at worst, well, it might be a fool’s errand.

As Politico reports: “’We need to assemble all of the facts, and right now there are a lot of questions about the president’s personal, financial and political ties with the Russian government before the election, but also whether there were any assurances made,’ said California Rep. Eric Swalwell, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. ‘Before you can use the ‘I’ word, you really need to collect all the facts.’

“’The ‘I’ word we should be focused on,’ added Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle, ‘is ‘investigations.'”

I happen to share the concerns of many of my fellow Americans about the questions that are looming large over the Trump administration. So soon after the president’s inauguration, Americans would be wise to give the guy some time to clear out some of the wreckage he has brought upon himself and his administration.

I want to offer a slightly conciliatory word here. Trump became president with zero experience in government. He hadn’t spent a single moment of his life in public service until he placed his hand on the Bible and took the oath of office of the presidency.

It might be too much to ask that a zillionaire businessman/TV celebrity could know all the nuance and complexity of forming a government as massive as the one he now commands.

He has made some remarkable missteps in just a few weeks on the job. He has said some amazingly stupid things and made some ridiculous gestures. Are any of them impeachable? No.

But he’s got this personal enrichment matter he must clear up. That “emoluments clause” that bars presidents from profiting from relationships with foreign governments is pretty clear. The president hasn’t done nearly enough to clear himself of that mess.

He had better get busy.

The fired-up grass roots Americans who are hell bent on impeaching the president had best listen to the political elders who know about these matters.

Their advice? Cool it.

national news, political news

Trump’s ‘fine-tuned machine’ needs help

1 Comment

I found myself somewhat amazed as I read a story in the Sunday New York Times about Donald J. Trump’s apparent inability to get his administration fully staffed.

The article talked about Trump’s insistence on loyalty. Those who say negative things about The Boss are fired; those who fall into that category are disregarded as potential new hires.

I totally understand the president’s desire to have loyal team members on board. The head of our government is entitled to insist that his lieutenants follow the policies set at the top.

Still, Trump crowed this past week about the “fine-tuned machine” that is his presidential administration. Except that he hasn’t hired a whole lot of assistant secretaries or deputy secretaries to assist his Cabinet picks.

But here is where the amazement kicks in.

Loyalty hasn’t been Trump’s No. 1 requirement in filling at least two Cabinet places.

Can you say “Ben Carson” and “Rick Perry”?

Carson is the housing secretary who ran against Trump in the 2016 Republican Party presidential primary. He and Trump clashed openly at times on the campaign trail and on debate stages across the country. I recall Dr. Carson saying some pretty harsh things about the president-to-be as his own campaign went down in flames.

But then there’s former Texas Gov. Perry, another former GOP foe. It was Gov. Perry who called Trump a “cancer on conservatism.” He’s now slated to become secretary of energy.

The Times reports, though, that Trump or his senior advisers are nixing appointments because of what individuals have said about the president. Meanwhile, all these posts remain vacant, their offices are dark and top-level administration officials are being denied the kind of help they need in carrying out Trump administration policies — whatever the hell they are.

I love this passage from the Times story: “It is not just Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson who has no deputy secretary, much less Trump-appointed under secretaries or assistant secretaries. Neither do the heads of the Treasury Department, the Education Department or any of the other cabinet departments. Only three of 15 nominees have been named for deputy secretary positions. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has a deputy only because he kept the one left over from President Barack Obama’s administration.”

This is a “fine-tuned machine”? It needs a healthy dose of WD-40.

medical news, national news, political news

Obamacare repeal effort losing steam?

Some chatter is beginning to develop that suggests efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act might be subsiding among congressional Republicans.

A New York Times story lays out what appears to be an interesting scenario. It is that with President Barack Obama now out of power, the repeal-and-replace effort is being replaced by suggestions of tinkering around the edges of the ACA.

What gives?

It appears to me that the issue among House and Senate Republicans might have had more to do with the man who crafted the legislation than the legislation itself.

It’s not an unreasonable view.

ACA also is known as Obamacare, which has been a whipping boy for Republicans and other critics of the former president’s signature domestic policy initiative. Donald J. Trump has called for repeal and replacement of the ACA, calling the insurance plan a “disaster” for the country.

But … is it?

Twenty million Americans now have health insurance who didn’t have it before. Why? They couldn’t afford it prior to enactment of the ACA.

Then we’ve had those town hall meetings across the country. Citizens have been flooding meeting halls and shouting down members of Congress with demands to keep their hands off the ACA out of fear they would lose health insurance coverage.

There might be signs of lawmakers getting spooked by the anger they’re hearing out here among their constituents. Lawmakers also are finding out that crafting a replacement law is far more complicated than simply scrapping the old one. Go figure.

As the Times notes, Obama’s absence from the public stage now has turned attention to potential solutions. According to the Times: “But with President Barack Obama out of office, the debate over ‘Obamacare’ is becoming less about “Obama” and more about ‘care’ — greatly complicating the issue for Republican lawmakers.”

Republicans have had nearly eight years to come up with a replacement plan. However, for virtually the entire length of the Obama presidency, they’ve been hung up on repealing legislation that has the name of the man they detest.

Now they’re learning about the difficulty of replacing it.

legal news, media news, national news, political news

‘Enemy of the people’ talk is way overblown

All the recent “enemy of the people” discussion prompted by the president of the United States has caused me to think about the career I pursued.

I worked in the mainstream media for 37 years. I got to pursue some great stories. I was able to see and do some fascinating things and meet some remarkable individuals.

I never considered myself an “enemy of the people.” Donald J. Trump has labeled the media as such, while proclaiming he doesn’t think the media are his personal enemies.

When the president of the United States impugns the integrity of the individuals who are doing what I used to do, well, I take it personally.

Did I make everyone happy while pursuing my job? Not in the least. I angered some public officials, made them squirm. For instance:

* I once wrote an investigative piece about a trial judge in Oregon City, Ore., who had developed a reputation as a jurist who lacked the temperament to do the job properly. I interviewed fellow judges, prosecutors, defense counsel and, of course, the judge himself. We published the story.

Then the judge died. My editor then assigned me to write his obituary. Who did I call to collect information about the judge? His wife. We had a nice visit and she told me she didn’t harbor ill feelings — let alone hatred — for me.

* I moved later to Beaumont, Texas, and then got another judge quite riled at me when I noticed something in a news story we had published one day. It spoke of the district judge getting a permit to operate a private business on the ground floor of the county courthouse where he worked as a state employee.

Big deal, you say? Well, yes. You see, he used facsimile state letterhead stationery to communicate with the county auditor, who had to approve the bids; the auditor — who reported to a panel of district judges, including the judge who was bidding for the permit — then granted the judge the permit.

I wrote some editorials calling this activity into question. The judge took great offense at it and, from what I heard, wanted to sue the newspaper and yours truly for libel.

* I moved to Amarillo after that and promptly got sideways with a former city commissioner who was appointed to the board of a public district that oversaw the then-publicly owned hospital. The problem, though, was that he was employed by a competing for-profit hospital, which seemed a tad inappropriate; he shouldn’t have served on a public hospital district board while working for a competitor. I wrote an editorial calling attention to that conflict of interest — and incurred the wrath of the former city commissioner.

I was doing my job as I understood it in all those cases. I never thought of myself as a purveyor of “fake news” or someone who “had an agenda” that differed from the public I sought to serve.

When the president assumes such things about the media and then challenges them in such a direct manner, a lot of us with ties to this particular craft take it all quite personally.

I am one of them.

I might have angered my share of officials along the way. As for “the people,” well, they cannot live without a free and aggressive press … no matter how mad the president says they might be in the moment.

International news, military news, national news

National security must be above politics

I cannot help but wonder if it ever has occurred to Donald Trump that the presence of his top political strategist on the National Security Council might deter qualified individuals from seeking the national security adviser’s job.

OK, I know that the president isn’t prone to introspection at any level. But the longer he goes without a national security adviser, the more grave the risk for the United States in the event of an international crisis.

These things have a way of exploding with zero advance warning … you know?

Michael Flynn was dismissed from the post after 24 days on the job, setting some kind of dubious record for brevity. Vice Admiral Bob Harward — a Navy SEAL and a highly regarded military mind — was thought to be ready to become the new national security adviser. Then he backed out!

Now the job remains vacant. Trump’s “fine-tuned machine” of an administration does not have the individual who is closest to the president after the White House chief of staff.

And this brings me to another, related point. Steve Bannon is part of the principals committee on the National Security Council. Bannon has limited experience in national security. Sure, he was a junior officer in the Navy once. He earned his political spurs, though, while running the Breitbart.com website.

He’s a political hand. A hack. Experts in national security issues have bemoaned his presence on the NSC, suggesting that national security should be totally, completely and irrevocably removed from any political maneuvering.

The president needs unvarnished assessment of national security threats without the taint of what a response would mean politically.

Trump elevated Bannon to the NSC and demoted the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the director of national intelligence, two people who historically have served on the principals committee that meets regularly with the president to assess these national security issues in detail.

What the … fudge?

The president insists his administration is on track. It’s running smoothly, he says. Everything is in order. Everyone is on the same page.

Except that the one individual he needs to provide accurate and detailed analysis of threats to the nation is nowhere to be found. Hey, he’s got Steve Bannon — the hack and purported white supremacist sympathizer — on hand to give the president the advice he’s supposed to digest.

Trump also told us he knows “more than the generals about ISIS.” Well, actually he doesn’t know squat … in my humble view.

I believe I’ll pray each day that we can survive the chaos that has erupted in what was supposed to be a “seamless transition of power” from one president to the next one.

national news, political news, Uncategorized

Response to Trump … it’s about what we should expect

Donald J. Trump’s supporters are pushing back on the intense criticism coming from the portion of the country — most of which voted against him in 2016 — of the man’s presidency.

I feel the need to flash back for a moment to 2009.

Let’s remember what a leading Senate Republican said at the time about the previous president of the United States, Barack H. Obama.

Mitch McConnell then was the minority leader in the Senate and I presume he was speaking on behalf of the GOP Senate caucus when he made a straightforward and ominous declaration.

He said his “No. 1 priority” as the Senate GOP leader was to “make Barack Obama a one-term president.”

Yep. That’s what he said. He laid down his marker early in the Obama administration. He didn’t stress enactment of landmark legislation, or working with the president to rescue the economy — which was collapsing when Obama took office. He didn’t propose any reforms of his own or suggest ways Republicans and Democrats could find common ground.

He said he intended to make Obama a one-term president. That translated into “obstruct everything he intends to do.”

Hmmm. It didn’t quite work out that way. Obama got re-elected in 2012 and finished his time in the White House with soaring approval ratings in every single leading public opinion poll.

Is it right and proper for Democrats now to follow the Republicans’ lead? Mostly “no.”

I’ve noted here before that I don’t wish for the president to fail. A presidential failure means the country fails and we all pay the price for that.

However, as the new president seeks to form a government — and he still has quite a way to go — my hope is that Democrats can find some common ground with the Republican president whenever possible.

The problem, though, is that Donald Trump has begun harping about the media being the “enemy of the people” while continuing to boast about his Electoral College victory. Enough, already!

Some positive proposals ought to be formulated and presented for Congress to ponder.

Until then, my Republican friends ought to just swallow the swill they offered eight years ago when Barack Obama was elected … with, I feel compelled to note, a far more robust majority than his successor earned.

media news

Trump performs a one-80 on the press

“If there’s one thing I’ve learned from dealing with politicians over the years, it’s that the only thing guaranteed to force them into action is the press, or more specifically, fear of the press.”

— Donald Trump, “The Art of the Deal”

Imagine that. The man who — at the time he made that statement — likely didn’t envision himself as the president of the United States of America.

It’s all different now for Trump the politician as he stumbles and bumbles his way past his first month in office as the Leader of the Free World.

The very same media upon which he has declared war are doing the very thing he seemingly praised in his talked-about book. They are seeking answers to difficult questions. They want all the information they can gather so they can inform the public — the folks to whom they and, oh yes, the president answer — about the performance of its most visible institution.

Let’s all consider just for a moment that the public and the president serve the same masters. That would be you and me. The public.

Yes, I understand that media companies are privately held, for-profit organizations. The public they serve, however, make it possible for them to earn the income they want.

Trump now has gone to war with the “fake news” media. Someone will have to explain to me what he means by that, although I think I have an inkling of an idea. He appears to refer to those media organizations that don’t report only the “good news” he says he deserves.

The rest of it is, well, fake. It’s phony. It’s bogus. It’s not real.

With all due respect, Mr. President, you are full of crap.

The man had it right in that book of his. The media are forcing the nation’s No. 1 politician “into action.”

media news

McCain to Trump: Don’t go after a ‘free press’

I’ve never really considered John McCain to be a friend of the press.

Silly me. I guess I was wrong about the Republican U.S. senator from Arizona. He is now telling the president of the United States to back off from his declared war against the media, which Donald Trump has labeled as the “enemy of the people.”

“That’s how dictators get started,” McCain said.

Well …

McCain denies calling Trump a would-be dictator, insisting he’s just spelling out what has happened throughout history. Dictators seek to weaken — if not destroy — the press, giving them an avenue to complete power.

McCain detests Trump, it seems quite clear. The senator’s loathing of the president, though, seems well-earned.

Candidate Trump once declared that he didn’t consider McCain — a decorated Navy pilot and one-time Vietnam War prisoner — a “war hero.” Trump said McCain was a hero only because “he was captured. I like people who aren’t captured, OK?”

Some of us thought that ridiculous assertion would doom Trump’s presidential candidacy. Hah! It didn’t happen. It seemed to energize his supporters.

McCain, though, has kept up his drumbeat of criticism of Trump. I happen to applaud the senator’s verve as he challenges Trump’s ignorance about Russia and now about the dangers of seeking to weaken the Fourth Estate.

Those of us toiled in the craft of reporting and commenting on events of the day don’t consider ourselves to be “enemies” of the people. I have never thought of myself to be anyone’s enemy, although I am certain some of individuals I’ve encountered along my lengthy journalism journey perceive me as their enemy.

As Sen. McCain has noted correctly, the president ought to tread carefully if he continues this fight with the media.

national news

What? No outrage over pricey Trump outings?

Wait for it. The fiscal conservatives who were so outraged over President Barack Obama’s vacation tabs are going to go ballistic over the cost to taxpayers of Donald J. Trump’s jaunts to his posh Florida estate.

Do you think they’ll cry the blues over it?

Naw. Me neither.

It’s a fascinating case of selective outrage. The current president’s outings to Mar-a-Lago have cost taxpayers nearly as much in a month as the Obamas cost in an average year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

What was outrageous is now acceptable. Isn’t that the message?

I am having difficulty understanding any of this, much as I am having difficulty understanding why Trump’s behavior has been given a pass by those who continue to hang on his every inarticulate sentence.

I should note that Trump was among those who were critical of Obama’s golf outings, his family vacations and his assorted visits to whomever and wherever away from the White House.

Judicial Watch, a conservative think tank, estimated the annual cost of Obama’s travel expense at $12 million annually. Meanwhile, the Trumps’ three visits to Florida since he became president a month ago have cost about $10 million. It’s a rough equivalence, but it’s telling nevertheless.

Still, the silence from the right about the president’s pricey travel to his resort home in Florida is deafening in the extreme.

And, what the heck: I haven’t even mentioned — until this very moment — the cost of providing Secret Service protection for the first lady and the couple’s son, who are living in Trump Tower in New York City.