Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Try to imagine this happening … soon!

Not too many years ago, President and Mrs. Obama welcomed back to the White House their immediate predecessors, President and Mrs. Bush, to unveil the official portraits done of George W. and Laura Bush.

The portraits are hanging on the walls of the White House, along those of all who lived there before them.

This video illustrates the remarkable charm and grace — not to mention the remarkable comedic timing — not only of Barack Obama, but of George and Laura Bush.

I’m now trying to imagine how the next portrait unveiling will go when the next president invites his immediate predecessor and his wife back for a similar ceremony.

At this moment, I don’t feel very good about how that will go with Donald Trump playing host.

Oh, how I want to be wrong about that.

Pollsters need a careful revamping of their methods

thbigcx2wm

If it sounds a bit familiar that public opinion pollsters are going back to the drawing boards after missing the call of the 2016 presidential election …

It’s because you’ve heard it before.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307111-pollsters-go-back-to-drawing-board

Virtually ever “reputable” poll had Hillary Rodham Clinton winning the presidency on Nov. 8. Some had her winning by a fairly comfortable margin. She, of course, didn’t. Donald J. Trump is now preparing to become the next president.

Why is this familiar?

I recall the 2004 election in which President Bush won a second term over Sen. John F. Kerry. The sticking point that year was in Ohio, where exit pollsters had Kerry carrying the Buckeye State. Then the votes started pouring in. Bush won Ohio. He was re-elected. Kerry and his team were stunned. They thought they had Ohio in the bag. Had they won, they would have had just enough electoral votes to defeat the president.

Those dismal exit poll results, along with other misfires around the nation, signaled the end of Voter News Service, the outfit that coordinated all the polling and vote tabulation around the country.

The screw-ups this time were much more severe. Even the once-highly regarded FiveThirtyEight.com poll done by Nate Silver missed by a mile. Silver’s analysis had Clinton with a 71 percent chance of winning on he eve of the election.

Of course, many of the pollsters are trying to cover their backsides. They say they predicted Clinton’s national popular vote percentage, more or less. They missed, though, in several key battleground states where Trump won: Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida — all states won by Barack Obama in 2008, who won all of them again except for North Carolina in 2012.

Polling has come a long way since the infamous “Dewey beats Truman” headline of 1948. However, as we witnessed during this election season, it still has some distance yet to travel.

Recount effort is far from a ‘scam’

recount1

My feelings about an effort to recount the votes in Wisconsin are evolving … but only a little.

I am not overly suspicious of the balloting that took place in Wisconsin that granted the state’s electoral votes to Donald J. Trump. Yet, Jill Stein — the Green Party presidential candidate — says there is sufficient reason to doubt the integrity of the system. She has gotten the state to agree to a recount.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has joined in. She wants to ensure the votes are tabulated accurately and the system is audited properly.

Trump’s view? He calls it a “scam.”

OK, Mr. President-elect. You’ve bitched and griped during the entire campaign about it being “rigged” against you. Why not, then, line up behind this effort to ensure that the ballots were counted properly?

Trump was elected president. A recount isn’t likely to produce any shocking surprises … at least nothing as shocking as Trump winning Wisconsin’s electoral votes in the first place.

If the winner felt compelled to accuse state and local election officials of seeking to rob him of victory, then he ought to stand squarely behind Stein’s effort to ensure that it was all above board.

While I disagree with Dr. Stein’s effort, I don’t see it as a “scam.” Neither should the president-elect.

Open your eyes to threats to Obama

barack-obama-serious-expression_1048371_ver1-0_1280_720

Michelle Malkin is one of the nation’s more fiery conservative columnists.

I don’t care for her world view, but I’ll read her essays every so often just to hyperventilate a little, oxygenate my bloodstream; it’s good for my physical health.

Today, the Amarillo Globe-News published a little ditty from Malkin that deserves a brief rejoinder. She writes about what she calls the “assassination fascination” since the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States.

Malkin talks about how all those meanies on the left keep saying they want to kill Trump. They’re echoing earlier meanies who said the same thing about President George W. Bush.

The only mention I could find in the column of President Obama came in a sentence in which Malkin asks why the president is silent on these idiotic pronouncement from aggrieved lefties.

http://michellemalkin.com/2016/11/22/from-kill-bush-to-assassinatetrump-the-return-of-assassination-fascination/

I’ll accept that as a good point. The president ought to condemn such talk.

However, let’s take stock of something else.

Nowhere in Malkin’s screed does she mention that Barack Obama received arguably a record number of threats against his life during his eight years in the White House. There were assassination threats being leveled constantly at the president. The Secret Service has been working diligently to examine all these threats against the current president.

Therefore, this “assassination fascination” isn’t a one-party monopoly.

I agree that such threat-making is dangerous and uncalled for. The lefties who say such things need to get a grip, take stock and understand the consequences of what they’re saying.

A columnist who launches into a partisan polemic, though, needs to understand as well that there’s plenty of guilt and blame that belongs to her side of this argument.

Why didn’t she condemn the Barack Obama haters for their equally shameful pronouncements? Oh, I know. It doesn’t fit her right-wing narrative.

Stein wants to recount ballots … to what end?

stein

Jill Stein is so indignant at the voting process in Wisconsin she wants them to recount the ballots.

The Green Party presidential candidate isn’t doing this for herself. She finished fourth in the balloting there. No, she is doing it apparently on behalf of Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, who lost the state to Donald Trump by about 25,000 votes.

Here’s the problem with Stein’s quest, as I see it: Clinton ain’t on board, at least not publicly.

Stein managed to raise about $5 million to pay for the recount. She figures there’s sufficient irregularities in the process that it could turn the state toward Clinton. Flipping Wisconsin’s electoral votes, a highly unlikely event, won’t reverse the election.

This is exercise isn’t going to change the outcome.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jill-stein-formally-files-for-wisconsin-recount-as-fundraising-effort-passes-dollar5m/ar-AAkKPWV?li=BBnb7Kz

Please — please! — do not misconstrue my own feelings here. I wish there was ample evidence of vote-tampering and “hacking,” as Stein has alleged. There isn’t. I also wish the outcome had turned out differently. It didn’t.

We’ve got Donald Trump getting ready to become the next president of the United States. Heaven help us.

As for Stein’s quest to reverse one state’s result — which, if successful, could produce recounts in at least two other battleground states, she is mounting the mother of futile challenges.

It strikes me as odd that she is proceeding without any public show of support from the candidate who continues to roll up a significant popular vote margin over the “winner.”

Why is that? My strong hunch is that Hillary knows as well that it’s a futile endeavor. As Stein herself as acknowledged, she has no “smoking gun.”

So … what’s the point?

Mitt emerges as State contender; Trumpkins are furious

romneyandtrumpmeet

Mitt Romney’s emergence as a top contender for secretary of state in the Trump administration makes me chuckle.

I might even laugh out loud if Mitt actually gets the call from the president-elect.

Mitt said some pretty harsh things about Donald J. Trump during the election. He called him a “fraud,” a “phony”; he questioned whether Trump was hiding criminal activity by refusing to release his tax returns; he said Trump University demonstrated Trump’s lack of real business acumen.

Now the 2012 Republican presidential nominee is being vetted for the top job a State.

Trumpkins are upset about it. They don’t want this man speaking for the president on foreign policy. They distrust him.

If the 2012 GOP nominee hadn’t said those things about the 2016 nominee, then I would be all for Mitt joining the Trump team. You see, given Trump’s absolute absence of any government experience — at any level — someone such as Mitt could be seen as a leavening influence. After all, he did serve one term as governor of Massachusetts. What’s more, Mitt has considerable exposure to foreign heads of government. Isn’t he a BFF with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu?

A part of me understands the angst that’s boiling up within the ranks of true-blue Trumpkins.

Mitt could be an asset to the Trump team. Except that he did deliver that blistering — and in my view accurate — critique of the president-elect during the campaign.

Which version of Mitt would Trump hire if he chose him to run the State Department?

Trump must really believe he’s the smartest man on Earth

aakgcmf

Donald J. Trump told us he knows “more about ISIS than the generals. Believe me.”

I thought the president-elect was just offering us another example of rhetorical bluster on the campaign trail.

Silly me. I think he now actually believes such nonsense.

The Washington Post is reporting that Trump is forgoing the usual flood of intelligence briefings set aside for the president-elect to keep him apprised of ongoing national security threats.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/ar-AAkGkkf?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

The National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency — all of ’em — have helped prepare a team of briefers ready to get the next president up to speed.

He’s forgoing most of it.

The vice president-elect, Mike Pence, however, is soaking it all in. He’s meeting almost daily with briefers, getting tons of intelligence on those threats.

Maybe this is what Trump meant when he was asked during the campaign about Pence’s duties. The Republican presidential candidate said he’d assign Pence some of the nuts and bolts of governance while  concentrates on “making America great again.”

Well, I actually would prefer that the president-elect devote himself as well to some of the nitty-gritty. I mean, the guy has had zero exposure to government policymaking. He has relied on his business acumen and he managed to persuade enough voters during the campaign of that moxie to enable him to win an Electoral College victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Post reported: “Officials involved in the Trump transition team cautioned against assigning any significance to the briefing schedule that the president-elect has set so far, noting that he has been immersed in the work of forming his administration, and has made filling key national security posts his top priority.

“But others have interpreted Trump’s limited engagement with his briefing team as an additional sign of indifference from a president-elect who has no meaningful experience on national security issues and was dismissive of U.S. intelligence agencies’ capabilities and findings during the campaign.”

I believe the president-elect should get up to speed.

Now!

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?