Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Public education needs an advocate in Cabinet

devos

Donald J. Trump’s choices for many of his Cabinet positions are provoking the kind of response the president-elect might have expected, but might not welcome.

His pick for secretary of education ranks as one of the weirder choices.

Her name is Betsy DeVos. She’s really rich. She gave a lot of money to the Trump campaign, thus making this appointment look more like a political choice than one steeped in intimate knowledge of public education policy.

What’s her education background? Well, I cannot find it.

She didn’t attend public schools. Her children didn’t attend public schools. She’s been a fierce advocate for efforts to divert public money for private school vouchers.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/betsy-devos-education-secretary-trump-231804

If the president-elect would ask me — which he won’t, of course — I’d tell him that he needs an advocate for public education to fill the key post of secretary of education.

Betsy DeVos appears to be anything but an advocate. She’s a foe of public education.

It brings to mind a conversation I had many years ago with a public school district trustee in Beaumont. The late Howard Trahan sent his kids to private schools, yet he served on the publicly run Beaumont Independent School District. I asked him once — on the record — whether that presented a potential conflict for the elected member of the Beaumont ISD board of trustees. He became angry with me and he told me that his kids enrolled in private schools because it was “their choice.”

Trahan’s answer didn’t assuage my concern.

I’m unsure now how the new education secretary-designate is going to calm the concerns of those of us who believe in public education and whether she is the right person to be its latest steward.

I hope someone on the U.S. Senate panel that will decide whether to confirm her appointment asks DeVos directly: How does your lack of direct exposure to public education prepare you for this highly visible job as secretary of education?

Enter the white nationalist in Aggieland

spencer

This is the kind of story that gives First Amendment purists — such as yours truly — a serious case of heartburn.

Richard Spencer is slated to deliver some remarks at Texas A&M University. Just who is this fellow? He’s the founder of a white nationalist group — the National Policy Institute — that’s been in the news lately.

I use the term “white nationalist” only because that’s what he calls himself. He’s actually a white supremacist. A flaming racist, if you will.

Spencer is a young man with an agenda that isn’t going over too well with a lot of us. I include myself in that category of Americans repulsed to the core by what this guy espouses. He recently exhorted a roomful of supporters with a salute hailing the election of Donald J. Trump as president that looked for all the world like something the Nazis used to do in Adolf Hitler’s presence.

Why the heartburn?

Spencer is entitled to speak his peace. He happens to be an American citizen. The First Amendment protects people’s right to express their political views freely.

Some students and I’ll presume faculty at Texas A&M don’t want Spencer to speak Dec. 6 at the student center. They’re planning a protest. Some are petitioning the school to disinvite him.

As much as it pains and aggravates me to say this, they are mistaken if they intend to ban this guy from having the floor for his scheduled 30 minutes in College Station.

A university is a place that is supposed to promote a wide range of ideas, ideologies, philosophies and theories. Yes, even those many of us find offensive.

Here’s what the Houston Chronicle reported: “The university issued a statement Wednesday denouncing Spencer’s rhetoric and sought to distance itself from the event. The university had no immediate comment on whether it would try to cancel the speech.

“‘To be clear, Texas A&M University – including faculty, staff, students and/or student groups – did not invite this speaker to our campus nor do we endorse his rhetoric in any way,’ Amy Smith, a university spokeswoman, said in the statement.”

The Chronicle continued: “Private citizens can reserve space on campus for private functions, Smith said. The event organizer will pay all rental expenses, including security costs, she said.”

Here’s the whole story:

http://www.chron.com/local/education/campus-chronicles/article/White-nationalist-to-speak-at-Texas-A-M-10632460.php?cmpid=fb-desktop

Even though the university didn’t “invite” this fellow, his presence on the campus ought to some credence to the notion that all ideas should be heard within that environment, even if they aren’t welcome.

Conservative speakers have been shunned before on university campuses. I dislike that notion, even as someone who identifies more with progressive than with conservative causes.

However, if we believe in the constitutional protection of free speech and expression, then we need to adhere wholly to it.

Richard Spencer’s message no doubt will disgust and enrage many who hear it. Let the young man speak … then show him the door.

Obama getting some belated love from citizenry

obama-veto

Among the many conventional-wisdom notions that Donald J. Trump blew to smithereens while winning the presidency involves whether Hillary Clinton’s fortunes depended on President Obama’s poll standing.

The better the president’s approval rating stands, the better Clinton’s chances of winning the presidency … or so the theory went. Historians predicted as much. Political scientists, too. Pollsters said it as well.

Wrong!

Barack Obama is now enjoying the highest approval rating since the earliest days of his presidency. He stands at 53.9 percent of citizens approving of the job he’s doing, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls. His percentage of approval-over-disapproval rating stands at 11 percent.

That’s a pretty strong standing, right? Right!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

It’s just a percentage point or so greater than where he stood on Election Day, meaning that Clinton was supposed to win the election.

Wrong again!

Trump insulted just about every voting bloc one can imagine, except perhaps white, rural voters who flocked to him by the millions.

African-Americans? Hispanics? Prisoners of war? Handicapped Americans? Muslims? Women? Gold Star families? They all got the treatment from the man who would become president-elect.

It didn’t matter. That was another supposed truth that Trump turned into a myth.

So it is, then, with this idea that Clinton’s fortunes rested with Barack Obama’s polling.

None of it mattered.

Go bleeping figure, will ya?

When do the results undermine the winner?

clintonhillary_110716getty

Believe me, I’m not going to belabor this point.

The thought just popped into my noggin, though, about the popular vote lead that Hillary Rodham Clinton is running up on the next president, Donald J. Trump.

It has passed 2 million votes. They’re still counting ’em. The lead might grow even more.

The thought is this: At what point does this circumstance begin to undermine the effectiveness of the “winner” of a presidential election?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307326-cook-clinton-passes-2m-in-popular-vote-lead

Trump won the votes that matter, in the Electoral College. Clinton won the actual balloting. Two million votes comprises a substantial margin … even for the “loser.”

I don’t necessarily want to see a change in the way we elect presidents. Nor do I think Clinton should challenge formally the results in three key swing states.

The issue, though, of this widening popular vote margin between the president-elect and the candidate he defeated seems to be inching closer to some critical mass that could undermine seriously the next president’s legislative agenda.

Hillary need not heed activists’ plea to challenge election

aakd1s4

Activists, by definition, I suppose are those who cannot let certain things go.

Their belief in their correctness makes them a bit frenzied in their desire to achieve a desired result.

Thus, we hear that some political activists are encouraging defeated presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton to challenge the election results in three key battleground states in an effort to overturn Donald J. Trump’s Electoral College victory.

Don’t do it, Mme. Secretary.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/activists-urge-clinton-campaign-to-challenge-election-results-in-3-swing-states/ar-AAkD4w7?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

The three states in question are Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clinton lost all three of them to Trump — although Michigan hasn’t yet been called officially for the president-elect, as it’s still determined to be too close to call.

According to the Daily Intelligencer: “Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.”

This would be a futile exercise. It also would be virtually unprecedented. Moreover, how long would it take to prove such an event occurred and how much damage could such a probe do our political system if the plaintiffs fail to make the case?

I feel the need to remind these activists of other close elections in which the loser chose to let the results stand. The most fascinating example occurred in 1960. Vice President Richard Nixon lost the presidential election to Sen. John F. Kennedy by fewer than 150,000 votes nationally, out of more than 60 million ballots cast. Questions arose about the vote totals in Cook County, Ill., which Kennedy won handily and which helped tip Illinois into the Democrat’s column.

Nixon didn’t challenge the result. He chose instead to let it stand. Kennedy went on to take the oath of office, over the expressed anger of the GOP activists who wanted Nixon to make an issue of an outcome that didn’t square with their desire.

Hillary lost the election under the rules set forth by the Founding Fathers. Even those of us who dislike the outcome ought to be able to accept it.

Just as many of us said in dismissing Trump’s assertion of a “rigged” election, I don’t believe that is what produced the stunning result.

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.

‘You’d be in jail’ … except that Hillary won’t go there

aakdd3c

Donald J. Trump spoke a lot of trash during his winning campaign for the presidency.

He turned to Hillary Rodham Clinton during a presidential debate and said “You’d be in jail” in response to a statement she made about his lack of understanding of the rule of law.

Then he talked about appointing a special prosecutor to look for proof that she was as “crooked” as he said she was.

Except that now he’s not going to anything of the sort.

That is a very good call from the president-elect.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-political-calculus-behind-trump%e2%80%99s-decision-not-to-push-for-a-clinton-prosecution/ar-AAkm2l0?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump says now he wants to focus on the fixing the country. He doesn’t want any distractions, such as a futile special prosecutor’s probe into matters that already have been determined to be out of reach for any prosecutor.

The e-mail controversy? The alleged “pay for play”? Benghazi?

It’s all been settled. The FBI determined there was no criminality involved with the e-mail server Clinton used while she was secretary of state. Pay for play has been nothing more than a political talking point. A congressional select committee has been unable to prosecute Clinton for anything involving the Sept. 11, 2012 fire fight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

I wonder now if Trump is going to offer any expressions of “regret” or — dare I say — an actual apology for defaming Clinton with the “crooked Hillary” label.

Actually, there’s no need to wonder. The president-elect has told us already he never regrets anything … ever.

‘Tough guy’ bristles at this? C’mon, man!

snltrumpalecbaldwin

Donald J. Trump is showing himself to be the master of mixed messages.

Consider some of the proclamations that have come from the president-elect’s mouth.

He vowed during the campaign to “bomb the s*** out of ISIS” while saying out loud that he knows “more about ISIS than the generals, believe me”; he said he’d look Vladmir Putin in the eye and tell him to behave himself in Eastern Europe; he promised to negotiate the greatest trade deals in the nation’s history; he said that “I, alone” can fix all the terrible things he contended are afflicting the nation.

Tough talk, right? Sure.

Then the president-elect gets his skivvies in a knot over media coverage here at home. He invites TV news anchors to his office and blisters them with a scathing critique of the way they cover him.

There’s more.

He blasts out Twitter messages demanding that the cast of a Broadway play “Hamilton” apologize to the vice president-elect over boos that came from the audience.

He tweets out another message criticizing “Saturday Night Live” for its portrayal of Trump by actor/comedian Alec Baldwin; this guy Trump can dish out the insults, but he cannot take ’em in any form. Has this clown never seen the “SNL” parodies of, oh, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter?

Oh, and then he canceled a meeting he had planned with the New York Times, citing its “nasty tone” in covering his transition.

Which of these men is going to take the presidential oath of office on Jan. 20?

Will it be the tough guy who’ll assert American resolve across the world stage? Or will it be the petulant punk who cannot stand up under the criticism that has been leveled at every person who’s preceded him in the nation’s highest office?

Trump stiffs the media; good luck with your message

aakamyn

I guess I’m just an old-fashioned guy.

The president of the United States needs to talk to the media to deliver a message to the people he governs. Not so, apparently, with the man who’s set to become the next president.

No, siree. Donald J. Trump today asked several network news anchors to meet with him at his New York City office. Then he blasted them to smithereens, to their face. He told them they’re dishonest; they got the election outcome wrong; he doesn’t need them; he’s going to talk “directly” to the people.

This tirade really got the Trumpkins out here all fired up. You go, Donald!

I, though, wish the president-elect would rethink this attitude he has toward the media.

The media in truth were quite good toward this guy as his campaign launched in the summer of 2015. Pundits and pols thought his presidential campaign couldn’t be taken seriously. The media, though, provided Trump with thousands of minutes of free air time and thousands of inches of newsprint space reporting on his comings and goings, his boasts and threats.

The media didn’t challenge his endless string of false assertions. They didn’t call them what they were: lies.

The cable and broadcast news networks got caught up in the GOP-fed hysteria over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy, the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation.

All of it benefited Trump. He should thank the media, not condemn them.

Today the meeting with the TV news anchors became what one observer called a “f****** firing squad.” The guy with all the bullets, quite interestingly, was the president-elect.

So, perhaps Trump gored my own ox when declaring he has no desire to “work with” the media. I do believe he is making a mistake.

We haven’t heard him speak to the country via a time-honored tradition called a “press conference.” The media do their job, perhaps not to the president-elect’s liking. Too bad.

He ought to suck it up, face the media’s tough questions that every one of his predecessors have faced.

How about ignoring these ‘alt-right’ groups?

lead_960

I have a suggestion for those in the so-called “mainstream liberal media.”

It is to ignore the idiots who gather to cheer the election of someone they believe has endorsed their “alt-right” political world view.

I refer to the white nationalists. These are the bald-faced racists of the world. They comprise a small, but vocal minority of Americans who are cheering Donald J. Trump’s election as president of the United States.

I get that you want to keep the evil elements of society in plain view. You want to keep your eyes on them. You want them exposed for the moronic evil ideas they espouse.

But I struggle with this idea of giving them more media coverage than they deserve. A group gathered this weekend in Washington to cheer Trump’s election. They numbered a couple hundred individuals. The founder of a group called the National Policy Institute spoke to his followers, some of whom stood and cheered his remarks.

Oh, and then a few of them hoisted their arms in Nazi-style salutes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/?utm_source=fbb

They love the coverage. They lust for the attention they’re getting.

The founder of this group, Richard Spencer, said this, according to The Atlantic: “America was until this past generation a white country designed for ourselves and our posterity. It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us.”

A white country? Really?

The term “alt-right” has become a euphemism for the hate groups forming on the fringes of the American political spectrum.

I guess I am left to ask: Do those on the “fringe” deserve the kind of media coverage reserved normally for those in the mainstream?