Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Outward political expression seems muted

hillary_2016_yard_sign

Maybe it’s just me.

Or, perhaps it’s a national trend.

As I make my way around Amarillo running errands and doing whatever it is I do these days, I notice a glaring lack of political expression.

Lawn signs? Hardly any. Bumper stickers? Same thing. Banners? Nope. Anyone skywriting with airplanes? Hah!

ys206_grande

This election year is supposed to be so very consequential. Republicans backing their nominee, Donald J. Trump, say that Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most corrupt individual ever to seek the presidency. Believe me, I live in the epicenter of the Republican political movement and I’m hearing a lot of it from friends and acquaintances.

Democrats backing Clinton say Trump is the most unfit and unqualified man in human history who’s ever aspired to high political office.

They say it on social media. They grumble it under their breath. They talk to their allies in whatever political echo chamber they occupy — left and right.

But there’s so little sign display. Or bumper stickers.

My theory is this: Emotions are running so high that voters are afraid of vandalism … and not just on the signs or the stickers. They fear the other side demonstrating their political displeasure in more, um, meaningful ways.

I live in Randall County, Texas, where no Democrats have appeared on the local ballot in my more than two decades living here. One isn’t likely to see any such public displays of political affection for Hillary in my neighborhood.

And Trump? Well, I’ve spotted precisely one lawn sign within a half-mile radius of my house during this election season.

We’re less than four weeks out from Election Day. I am going to presume we’ll be relatively lawn-sign-free for the duration.

The good news is that there’ll be less visual pollution to clean up once it’s all over.

A governor suggests violence is the cure? Wow!

bevin

Gov. Matt Bevin needs to have his head examined.

Someone needs to check the Kentucky Republican’s noggin for parasites that have nibbled away at what passes for the reasonable and rational cells in his brain.

He’s lost them.

Speaking to the Values Voters Summit not long ago, Bevin said conservatives may have to resort to violence to protect their values against liberal incursion.

Bevin said if Democrat Hillary Clinton were elected president, she would set the nation on a dangerous course that could prompt violence. He told the audience that the “candle” of liberty might go out “on our watch.”

So, it’s come to this, has it?

Conservatives are so angst-filled with the prospect of losing this election that they ought to shed some blood in order to preserve their principles. That’s what one of them has said.

Who, then, is the conservatives’ vicar, the champion of all they cherish? Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, the reality TV star, real estate mogul, beauty pageant owner/operator and — as we’ve heard — someone who thinks he’s got enough “star” power to have his way with women whenever, wherever and however he chooses.

I haven’t even mentioned — until right now — that he’s alleged to be a serial groper.

Yeah, man. That’s the guy Gov. Bevin and others think will carry the torch forward on behalf of conservative values.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kentucky-gov-matt-bevin-says-bloodshed-might-be-165058821.html

Let’s see. Where was I?

Oh! I know I’m repeating myself, but …

Gov. Bevin needs to have his head examined.

Here come those ‘damn e-mails’ again

hillary

I have been trying for weeks to grasp the significance of the e-mail controversy that keeps swirling around Hillary Rodham Clinton’s quest for the presidency.

Her one-time Democratic presidential primary opponent Bernie Sanders said he was tired of “hearing about your damn e-mails.” Me, too, senator.

But … here they come again, courtesy of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and — more than likely — the former head of the Soviet KGB spy agency and current president of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

They’re leaking these e-mails near the end of a bitter and ugly presidential campaign between Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Their intent clearly and without equivocation is to embarrass and undermine Clinton’s bid to become president of the United States. They contain communication on a whole array of issues, from her speeches to well-heeled groups and backers, the LGBT response to Clinton’s reaction to the death of former first lady Nancy Reagan and her thoughts on how U.S. policy should deal with the crisis in Syria.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/emails-show-clintons-response-to-lgbt-backlash/ar-AAj2xdX?li=BBnb7Kz

I get the intent, which is my clearest takeaway from it all. Indeed, Clinton hasn’t been very forthcoming on explaining many of these issues raised by the e-mails.

She and Trump are squaring off this week for the third and final (thank God in heaven) joint appearance. I’d bet real American money that moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News is going to ask her some tough questions about the e-mail dump and what it all means about the way she would govern as president.

I’m also willing to bet some serious greenbacks she’ll be ready to respond. Trump? Well, time tell us very soon how he intends to respond to her response.

Perhaps a follow-up question for Trump from Wallace might go something like this: Mr. Trump? You all but invited the Russian government to deliver us the content of those “missing” e-mails. Is this what you had in mind?

Oh, and another one could go this way: You’ve been critical of our intelligence operation and our military. Intelligence officials now seem to believe that President Putin — about whom you’ve spoken quite highly and who has returned the compliment — is responsible for the e-mail dump in these waning days of the campaign. Are they wrong, sir?

Evangelicals are splitting along gender lines

beth-moore

A friend made me aware of what looks like a significant development in a key part of Donald J. Trump’s coalition of political supporters.

It reveals a split among evangelical Christians. The men among them are sticking with the Republican presidential nominee. The women, however, are splitting away.

Listen to the women, fellas.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/10/beth-moore-the-christian-women-speaking-out-about-trump-s-bad-news.html

The evangelical women are aghast, appalled and repulsed by the revelations disclosed in that hideous recording of Trump boasting about his sexual proclivities.

According to an article published in The Daily Beast, one well-known evangelical preacher, Beth Moore, once was in Trump’s camp. Now she’s out, shocked and horrified at what she heard on that recording.

As The Daily Beast reported: “But something changed for Moore after Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president of the United States, was caught on tape bragging about his ability to sexual assault women. When Trump said, ‘When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything,’ Moore had had enough.”

She’s apparently not alone among women who call themselves evangelical Christians.

Also, from The Beast: “Beth Moore wasn’t alone in her condemnation of Trump. Her comments sent ripples around the evangelical world and were seconded by Christian mega-speaker and author Christine Caine. Sara Groves, the Dove Award-nominated Christian artist, told me, ‘Someone like Beth can go a long way in helping Evangelicals recognize these major blind spots.’”

We hear a lot about hypocrisy during every election cycle. This one is no different. Conservatives accuse liberals of being hypocritical by criticizing Trump’s behavior while being silent about, say, Bill Clinton’s own transgressions.

To my way of thinking, though, the greater hypocrisy occurs among conservatives — notably evangelicals — who continue to support Trump despite the candidate’s known history of behaving in ways and doing things that evangelicals say they detest.

The revelations out of Trump’s own mouth have delivered what ought to be a disqualifier among those who adhere to spiritual values. Beth Moore and other evangelical women are stepping up and declaring that, indeed, they are as disgusted as the rest of us.

Lighten up, Trump; ‘SNL’ goes after Hillary, too

video-alec-baldwin-donald-trump_lncima20161002_0162_3

Donald J. Trump’s feelings are hurt.

He doesn’t like the impressions that Alec Baldwin does of him. He’s told Baldwin and “Saturday Night Live” to knock it off. Why? It’s gotten “personal,” says the Republican nominee for president.

Really. Well, how do you suppose Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton likes being portrayed by Kate McKinnon? Publicly, she’s laughing it off, which is how grown-ups are supposed to react to political satire.

Indeed, “SNL” has proven over many years to be an equal-opportunity jester. It has parodied Al Gore and George W. Bush, Michael Dukakis and George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole and H. Ross Perot.

Oh, and then there’s Sarah Palin.

Let’s go back a ways and recall “SNL’s” treatment of Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford — and of Ronald Reagan.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/snl-takes-jab-at-donald-trump/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=29995717

I’m reminded of a politician I once knew when I worked as editorial page editor of the Beaumont Enterprise. Our paper circulated throughout two congressional districts, the 2nd and the 9th. The 2nd District congressman was the late Charlie Wilson, a conservative, free-spirited Democrat.

We had a cartoonist on our staff, Jerry Byrd, who used to poke fun of politicians of all stripes. Yes, we needled Rep. Wilson on occasion for this or that policy statement.

How do you suppose Wilson responded when we published an editorial cartoon that was critical of him? He wanted the original drawing. He loved it. He took it in good humor and never bitched about it.

Trump’s baptism as a politician has occurred at the highest level possible. He gets poked and prodded by some of the best political satirists in the business.

Dude, it goes with the territory.

First-class passengers above ‘groping’?

rudy

Rudolph Giuliani needs to, um, no longer speak on behalf of Donald J. Trump.

Then again, turn him loose! You go, Rudy!

The former New York mayor said the following about allegations that Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, groped a woman aboard a jetliner:

“Some of these things appear to me appear to me on their face to be kind of untrue,” Giuliani said. “Fifteen minutes of groping in a first-class cabin of an airplane? It doesn’t make sense. I’ve been in first class a lot, fortunately. Since I stopped being mayor, I can afford first class. You know, you see everything that goes on in first class.”

He wasn’t there. He has no idea about the circumstances. He is passing judgment — with no knowledge of the facts — on a woman whose accusation of groping fits the M.O. of other alleged incidents involving Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/giuliani-alleged-trump-groping-%e2%80%98couldn%e2%80%99t-possibly-have-happened%e2%80%99-because-it-was-first-class/ar-AAj1cVi?li=BBnb7Kz

It’s fair to point out that Trump opened up this line of so-called political discourse himself by saying what he said to Billy Bush on that “Access Hollywood” tape. The Washington Post obtained it, put it out there for all the world to see.

Now … we’ve got this. A former political hero-turned-attack dog mounting a bizarre defense on behalf of someone who has admitted that he tried to seduce a married woman and has bragged about what his “star” status allows him to do to women.

Hypocrisy? There it is.

‘Rigged election’ talk creates serious concern

trump

It’s been said many times by historians that the United States is the world’s model for peaceful transition of power from president to president, particularly in times of crisis and tragedy.

1963: John F. Kennedy was gunned down and Lyndon Johnson took the oath of office shortly after doctors announced the death of the president. We didn’t skip a beat.

1974: Richard Nixon resigned from office in the midst of a profound constitutional crisis and Gerald Ford became president, declaring “Our long national nightmare is over.” The beat went on.

* 2000: George W. Bush won election by the narrowest margin imaginable over Al Gore. The Supreme Court settled it in accordance with constitutional law. The government continued to function.

Three earlier presidents — Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and William McKinley — were murdered while they were in office; their vice presidents took power, also without incident.

That history of relative tranquility is being threatened in 2016 by an ominous drumbeat from Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, who keeps harping on a “rigged election” determining who will become the next president. He continues to foment anger among his supporters who talk openly about “revolt” against the system if — and/or when — their guy loses to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-rigged-elections-republicans-229846

This is nasty stuff, man.

According to Politico: “Donald Trump is laying the groundwork to lose on Nov. 8, refuse to concede the election, and teeter the country into an unprecedented crisis of faith in government. Republicans and Democrats, in Washington and beyond, fear that the aftermath of the 2016 election will create a festering infection in the already deep and lasting wound that the campaign is leaving on America.”

On top of what he’s been saying about “rigging” the election, he asserts that Clinton should be thrown in jail. Due process? Presumption of innocence? Forget about it!

There’s this, also, from Politico: “And, they say, only Republican leaders who speak up will have any chance of stopping it.”

They’re quiet — so far.

There needs to be a dialing back of this crackpot rhetoric. Trump likely will ignore all pleas to restore some semblance of reason. After all, he said recently he’s been “unshackled” by House Speaker Paul Ryan’s declaration that he no longer can “defend” Trump over the accusations that he assaulted women sexually.

Trump’s foes have declared him to be a demagogue who presents a serious “danger” to the United States of America.

Trump is proving them to be absolutely correct.

Hillary remains mum on Trump’s latest trouble

hillary

Hillary Rodham Clinton likely has a lot to say about Donald J. Trump’s sexual behavior.

Her problem? She cannot say it out loud. The Democratic nominee for president of the United States must rely on surrogates to express their outrage on her behalf.

She happens to have a couple of powerful surrogates: President Barack H. Obama and his wife, Michelle, who have done a masterful job of peeling the bark off the Republican presidential nominee.

Hillary Clinton’s own history — as well as the history of her husband — compel her to remain mum on the subject of those ghastly Trump comments we all heard the other day aboard that “Access Hollywood” bus in 2005.

As the New York Times has reported: “Though Hillary Clinton has stood at the center of feminist debates for more than two decades, she has also been an imperfect messenger for the feminist cause. That has never been more true than now, as her old missteps and her husband’s history have effectively paralyzed her during a moment of widespread outrage.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/missteps-in-hillary-clinton%e2%80%99s-past-leave-her-muted-in-furor-over-donald-trump/ar-AAj00Y1?li=BBnb7Kz

And the outrage hasn’t let up since the video and audio recordings were released to the public.

As for whether any of this damages Hillary Clinton’s political standing, I happen to believe it will not.

Her tactic so far has been to change the subject when the talk turns to Trump’s statements about attempting to seduce a married woman, or how his “star” status allows him to grab women in their private areas, or allows him to kiss them aggressively without their consent.

The two of them have one more joint appearance to endure before voters have their final say. It will occur, interestingly, in Las Vegas, Nev., where Trump has some significant business dealing and where — one might presume — he has engaged in some of his untoward behavior with women.

Will any of this come up when the event opens? Uhhh, let me think for a second … yes, it will.

Do not look for Clinton to go there. She’ll likely just let Trump rant like a madman over the former president’s misbehavior.

From where I will be sitting while this event occurs, that will look like a good call.

Then she’ll likely sic Barack and Michelle Obama on him.

Trump’s record ‘too controversial’? Hmmm …

trump-bill-clinton-2-580x344

This is too good to keep to myself.

OK, it’s already out there in the public domain, but I have to share a bit of it here. It involves something Donald J. Trump told columnist/TV commentator Chris Matthews in 1998.

It comes from the Guardian in Australia. A friend of mine sent it to me overnight in an e-mail. To wit:

“During a 1998 appearance on CNBC with host Chris Matthews, current Republican presidential nominee and then simple tycoon Donald Trump declared that if Bill Clinton’s personal peccadillos were enough to prompt impeachment proceedings, his own history with women was more than sufficient to keep him out of the White House.

“‘Can you imagine how controversial I’d be?’ Trump said at the time. ‘You think about him with women. How about me with women? Can you imagine?

“Trump was still confident that ‘his women’ would be better received by the American public. ‘Yeah. They might like my women better, too, you know?'”

Hmm. Well, time will tell — probably around, oh, Nov. 8 — whether Americans like Trump’s women better. My strong hunch tells me the decision voters make — once they get past his utter ignorance of the substance of anything at all — will also be based on Trump’s “own history with women.”

How will the loser concede this election?

republican-presidential-nominee-mitt-romney-embraces-his-wife-ann-as-his-family-look-on-during-his-election-night-rally-in-boston

Allow me to play out what looks like an increasing probable political outcome.

It is that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be elected the 45th president of the United States of America.

The trend is moving rapidly in her favor in the wake of (a) two debate performances against Donald J. Trump and (b) the continuing fallout from Trump’s hideous statements about women.

So, what might we expect when the loser of this miserable election decides to issue a concession statement?

It’s been said that the winner’s victory declaration will set the tone for the next four years. What’s being said with increasing frequency is that the loser’s concession will be equally important.

Trump has waged a campaign of anger, fear, suspicion, innuendo, invective and bigotry. Listen to his supporters yell “Lock her up!” at those rallies. Listen, too, to them complain about alleged conspiracies involving the “liberal mainstream media” and “politically correct special interests” who are teaming up to “rig” an election that produces a desired result.

They are echoing the statements of their guy, Trump.

The candidate has bitched about a “rigged election.”

Tradition holds that the loser concedes once the election is decided and then declares his intention to work with the winner to heal the wounds opened up by months of bitter campaigning. Recall, though, when Al Gore conceded defeat in 2000, only to take it back when the Florida ballot-counting threw the proverbial wrench into the entire election process.

It’s fair to wonder what kind of concession statement Donald Trump would deliver when the time comes for him to call it quits.

Will he lead his ardent Republican “base” voters into lingering bitterness? Will he make an accusation of election-rigging? If that happens, and no one should be surprised if does, then we’re headed for a very difficult transition as the new president prepares to assume the most cherished role in the nation — if not the world.

My hope is that if he loses — and one is compelled to offer that qualifier until one candidate gets the Electoral College majority required to win — that he does so with a modicum of grace, decorum and good will.

However, my fear is that Trump would hold true to the form that enabled him to secure a major-party presidential nomination. It was a butt-ugly process and my concern is that he very well could make it an equally unattractive concession.