Tag Archives: Donald Trump

national news, political news

POTUS sets dubious polling record

Donald “Smart Person” Trump has set a record.

He won’t boast about it, though.

According to a new CNN/ORC public opinion poll, the president’s disapproval rating — at 53 percent — is an all-time record for someone so new in the job.

I mention this only because Trump has made such a big, noisy and overly inflated point about his poll numbers while he campaigned for the Republican Party nomination and then for election to the presidency.

He made the polls an issue. He bragged about ’em. He ridiculed his foes for their dismal poll numbers.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/donald-trump-approval-rating/index.html

But wouldn’t you know it? Just when the polls sag and public opinion turns against him, he is quite likely to say something about them being “rigged” or questioning the integrity of the polling organization that compiled the results.

Get used to it, Mr. President. This, too, is part of your new job.

business news, national news, political news

Army secretary pulls out; business interests get in the way

Vincent Viola is worth about $1.8 billion.

He was tapped by Donald Trump to be the next secretary of the Army. Oops! He dropped out today, citing the difficulty of severing his business ties from his upcoming public service.

Hmm. That sounds a bit familiar, yes?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317893-trumps-army-secretary-nominee-withdrawing-report

The president himself is reportedly worth a lot more than Viola. He, too, has myriad business interests. Some folks believe he might be violating the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against presidents taking money from foreign governments; it’s that “emoluments clause.”

If Viola couldn’t break his business interests loose in order to serve as Army secretary, how does the president of the United States make good on that requirement?

Just wondering … you know?

local news, national news, political news

Donald Trump is no Gipper

Two weeks into the presidency of Donald “Smart Person” Trump and I’m still trying to digest what it all means and where this will lead the nation he was elected to lead.

An interesting comparison came my way today at lunch. I was meeting with a gentleman I have known in Amarillo for more than a decade. He’s an accomplished member of the Texas legal community and I respect him greatly.

He asked me for my thoughts on Trump’s first few days. I offered him a tepid “Well … I just don’t know” kind of response. My friend harkened back to when Ronald Reagan was elected president and how the president would say the most “unbelievable things.” The Gipper, my friend added, would go on to become “the greatest president in my lifetime.”

He believes we need to give Trump the same measure of patience that the nation granted Reagan.

I’m not sure the comparison is valid. As much as I respect my friend’s knowledge and his perspective, my biggest objection to the comparison lies in this indisputable piece of history: Ronald Reagan at least had experience in government when he became president in 1981. He had served two terms as California governor and by many people’s accounts, they were successful terms at that.

Sure, he entered the White House with a reputation as a “cowboy,” a B-movie actor and someone without a lot of interest in the nuts and bolts of government. President Reagan dealt looked only at the “big picture,” my friend said. I get that.

Reagan, though, at least had been exposed to the complexities of governing.

Trump’s entire life — every single aspect of it — has been geared toward personal enrichment. He has focused his entire professional career on making money for himself and his family. He had zero public service experience, none, when he took the oath of office as president of the United States just two weeks ago.

Thus, as steep as Ronald Reagan’s learning curve was when he became president 36 years ago, Donald Trump has embarked on a 90-degree vertical climb.

Even a “smart person,” as Trump has called himself, must find such a thing to be daunting in the extreme.

Will he succeed? For the sake of the nation he now leads, I certainly hope so. Do I expect that to happen? The first two weeks do not fill me with encouragement that he has learned a thing about how to govern. His “ready, fire and aim” approach to dealing with our allies abroad gives me serious concern.

It’s totally fair and reasonable to wonder: What in the world would The Gipper think of this guy who now sits in the Oval Office?

As my friend said today of the president’s tumultuous start, “It’s OK to shake things up.” Sure it is … if you have a clue as to what you are seeking to accomplish.

International news

Hoping to size up how Trump plans to wall off U.S.

It is my fondest wish — for the moment — to lay eyes on some real estate down yonder.

I intend to take a look at just how Donald John “Smart Person” Trump intends to wall off the southern U.S. border with Mexico, to stop all them “drug dealers, rapists, murderers” and even some of those “good people, I’m sure” who are trying to sneak into this country.

John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, said this week he thinks the wall can be built — start to finish — in two years. Of course, the president insists that Mexico is going to pay for it — apparently presuming that the Mexican government is “sending” all those criminals into the United States.

The wall, of course, would have to be erected on U.S. soil. Still, that doesn’t matter to Trump, who keeps insisting — despite Mexico’s stubborn refusal — that our neighbors will foot the bill.

Good luck with that.

I’ll report back to you when — or if — I get my chance to see it for myself. I might even ask around to see how the locals feel about it.

Stay tuned, dear reader.

entertainment news

Collusion between … Donald and Arnold?

I smell a stinky rat.

Donald J. Trump stood before the National Prayer Breakfast audience — of all places — and poked fun at the ratings of “Celebrity Apprentice,” which is now hosted by one-time muscleman/movie actor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Arnold responded with a video dig at the president, suggesting the two men should trade jobs, given that Trump is such an expert on TV ratings. Arnold said he could become president and therefore enable Americans to “sleep comfortably at night.”

Oh, wait! Donald used to host the “Apprentice.” He retains the title of executive producer, even though he’s now got a fairly full plate trying to “make America great again.”

Might there possibly be a wink-wink agreement between the men to gin up a fake controversy to, um, boost ratings — and deliver more money to the president of the United States of America?

Why, such a thing would be so very “unpresidented.”

International news

Trump not playing well Down Under

An e-mail came to me overnight from a friend in Australia.

My friend is a former journalist, an erudite man, a student of America politics. He knows far more about U.S. politics and policy than I do about Australia.

He writes this about the rant Donald J. Trump’s launched against Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull while on a long-distance phone call with his colleague Down Under:

Shocking, yes. Disappointing, certainly.

Surprising, ‘fraid not! 

This was always on the cards, and I can’t help wondering whether Obama perhaps had laid this as a trap for Trump in the event he did win the presidency.  

A good analysis from an Australian academic here:  

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/03/australia-needs-to-adapt-to-the-new-circumstances-of-trumps-america

Trump picked his target well. Australia is small enough, friendly enough and inconsequential enough to be the perfect scapegoat for Trump to demonstrate what now substitutes for diplomacy.

He wanted to make an example of someone in his typical swingdick manner, and we fit the bill perfectly. Think of the school bully singling out the smallest kid in a group of friends and beating the s*** out of him just to show the others who is boss. That the leader of the US… any leader of the US… publicly behaves like this is sad, pathetic… and dangerous. I was going to say Leader of the Free World… but Angela Merkel has assumed that mantle, while China is showing maturity and poise in its stewardship of international trade.  

Over here, we are dreading to think what favours Trump will extract from us if he’s going to honour this deal. Possibly military intervention in the South China Sea, which we cannot afford and certainly don’t need. Sadly our Prime Minister is a hostage to the hard right in his own party here, so us taking these unfairly-detained refugees is off the table for nothing more than base political reasons. Karma at work, some would say.

I thought the job of government was to bring order to chaos and protect the citizenry. I must be clearly mistaken.

Trump is scary alright … but Steve Bannon is terrifying! Him along with the cabal of crooks, vandals and liars they’ve assembled as an administration.

I know Michael Moore has suggested it’s actually a coup in all but name.

It’s a sad day when someone whose nickname is ‘Mad Dog’ stands out as the sanest person in the room.  

I’ve been reading commentary this week suggesting either impeachment or the 25th Amendment as fail safes. 

My money’s on impeachment – tax returns, business conflicts-of-interest, or eventual proof of collusion between Russian hackers, Putin and the Trump campaign on the Podesta emails.

It’s in there somewhere! The question is, how much damage will be done beforehand, and to what extent will it be irreparable. 

Take care my friend … We’re still holding our breath over here.

Hmmm. So are many of us here.

legal news, national news, political news

Catfight over Gorsuch? Wait until the next justice leaves the court

“So, are you ready for the catfight that’s going to erupt over this guy Trump has picked for the Supreme Court?”

That was the question posed to me today by a colleague of mine.

The reference, of course, was to Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the highest court in the land.

“Catfight? Over this? Naw. The earth is going to open up and quake when the next justice leaves the court,” I said, referring to the possibility that either Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer or Anthony Kennedy might leave the court.

That, I said, will produce the “mother of all catfights.”

Gorsuch’s nomination doesn’t change a thing on the court. The president is seeking to place a judicial conservative on the court to replace another conservative’s seat, that of the late Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016.

Yes, Senate Democrats are enraged. Not at the selection of Gorsuch, necessarily, but over the treatment that President Obama got when he nominated Merrick Garland this past year to succeed Scalia.

My own thought is that Gorsuch is likely to be as good a choice as Democrats are going to get, given Trump’s insistence on picking a conservative judge.

No, the real donnybrook will occur when one of the liberals or swing justices decides to leave … or is unable to serve.

My own advice to Democrats would be to pick their fights carefully. Sure, they battle Gorsuch’s nomination. They’ll insist on keeping the 60-vote majority required to approve a Supreme Court nomination. Republicans might decide to invoke the “nuclear option” and allow a 51-vote majority.

I have no real clue as to which way this fight will go.

It might serve Democrats better to hold their fire for the next vacancy when — or if — it occurs during Trump’s time in office.

Given the tenuous ideological balance of the court, with its slim conservative majority, I sincerely doubt that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer — both picked by President Clinton in the 1990s — are going to resign amid the political climate that has fallen over Washington.

As for Justice Kennedy, one of President Reagan’s picks, well, that might be another matter.

Whatever happens, the serious political bloodletting is yet to occur.

entertainment news, national news, political news

If only Arnold could switch with Trump …

I do not favor amending the U.S. Constitution to allow naturalized U.S. citizens to run for president of the United States.

But a brief retort from a noted former politician/superstar actor/turned reality TV host has me pondering. What if … ?

Donald J. Trump tossed a dig at Arnold Schwarzenegger over his ratings as the new host of “Celebrity Apprentice.” He made the remark at the National Prayer Breakfast — of all places — this morning. “Pray for Arnold,” the president said.

Sheesh!

Well, Arnold — a former California governor — responded to Trump. It’s in the link below.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/schwarzenegger-responds-to-trump-why-dont-we-switch-jobs/ar-AAmyfsb?li=BBnb7Kz

Arnold said that since Trump is an “expert” at ratings, let’s switch jobs.

It has me thinking. You know I think I actually would vote for Arnold for president were he eligible to run for the office. Too bad the Austria-born muscleman can’t.

legal news

Say ‘no’ to term limits for justices

2 Comments

Donald J. Trump’s nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court has spurred a discussion that needs to end.

It involves whether there should be term limits for Supreme Court justices.

The nation’s founders didn’t create a perfect government after the American Revolution. They got a few things wrong: Women didn’t have the right to vote; they allowed human beings to own other human beings.

They got a lot of things quite right. One of them was to establish an independent federal judiciary where judges are given lifetime jobs upon being confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour …”

There you go. If judges behave themselves and do the job to which they take an oath, they can stay for as long as they want. That holds true for Supreme Court justices especially.

Some progressives are alarmed that Trump has appointed a conservative judge to replace an iconic conservative justice, Antonin Scalia, who’s been dead for nearly a year. Let’s limit the terms of justices, they contend.

Hey, I’m on their side most of the time. Not here. The founders had this idea that judges should be free of political pressure. Thus, the lifetime appointment gives them a measure of independence to interpret the U.S. Constitution according to what they believe it tells them.

http://blog.independent.org/2017/02/01/term-limits-for-supreme-court-justices/

History has provided ample demonstration of that independence from judges who didn’t rule quite the way their presidential benefactors wanted. They find their own voice and serve as a check on the legislative and executive branches of government.

I see virtually nothing wrong with judges serving for the rest of their lives on the federal bench — even those with whom I disagree; and believe me, I am sure I will dislike most, if not all, of Neil Gorsuch’s rulings from the high court bench when or if he is confirmed by the Senate.

Then again, given the freedom to interpret the Constitution as broadly or narrowly as he chooses, Gorsuch could surprise us all and join the ranks of men such as Earl Warren, William Brennan, Byron White, John Paul Stevens and Harry Blackmun — all of whom broke with how legal experts expected them to rule.

national news

Trump on Douglass: He did an ‘amazing job’

Donald J. Trump opened the White House’s commemoration of Black History Month in a most bizarre manner.

He said this today about Frederick Douglass, the 19th-century hero of the effort to abolish slavery in the United States and some other great Americans:

“I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things, Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.”

Huh? Amazing job? Big impact? Some of those who heard the president refer to Douglass as some “who’s done an amazing job” are wondering if Trump realizes that Douglass died in 1895.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Trump-update-He-praises-amazing-job-by-10900531.php

When I hear the president refer to these historic figures as if they are contemporaries, I get this uneasy sense that Trump has no idea about whom he is speaking, that he has no clue about the struggle they endured and pain they suffered.

Am I the only American who is baffled beyond belief about the president’s seeming utter ignorance of history?