Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Big week looms for Republican Party

BN-NZ909_noonan_partyoftrump_20160512180839

I’m not yet sure how much of the Republican National Convention I’m going to watch.

Keynote speech? Sure. Except I don’t know who’s giving it.

Presidential nominee acceptance speech? Absolutely, if only to see if Donald J. Trump veers too wildly off script.

This I do know: The Party of Lincoln/Reagan is going to become the Party of Trump.

God help ’em.

I’m still trying to figure out how the Republican Party establishment plans to speak glowingly of the man they’re about to nominate for the presidency of the United States. He has spent the bulk of the primary season hurling insults in every direction, including at the Republican Party brass! Political memories often become surprisingly short, but they also have this way of retaining insults for an amazingly long time.

Which leads me to believe that the establishment types are going to have little time on the podium during the four-day event in Cleveland.

It’ll be left to the assorted celebrities who’ve lined up behind Trump’s insurgent candidacy. He’s been crowing all along how he doesn’t “need” the power brokers who run the GOP. We’re about to learn whether his boasting will come true.

Just suppose, too, that absent any public service record that the Trumpkins can tout, what will be left for them to say from the convention podium.

Oh! I think I know. They’re going to unsheathe the long knives and plunge them into the Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She will be portrayed as the daughter of Satan. They’re plan — in the words of the late GOP chairman Lee Atwater — “peel the bark” off the Democrats’ presidential candidate.

Yes, indeed. Given that the Republicans are going first in this year’s political nominating convention cycle, they’ll get to set the tone for the campaign for the White House.

Rest assured, Democrats have their own burdens to bear with Clinton. So, they’ll be loaded to the teeth when they convene their convention in Philadelphia right after the Republicans adjourn their convention in Cleveland.

Get ready, folks, for a heck of a wild ride beginning next week.

Newt calls for Muslim ‘test’

newt

Newt Gingrich must be making a last-ditch pitch to become Donald J. Trump’s running mate.

Or … he’s feeling frisky now that he appears to be out of the running to join the Republican presidential ticket led by the presumptive nominee.

Whatever the case, the former U.S. House speaker has gone ballistic — and flown off the rails — in the wake of the terrible attack yesterday in Nice, France, in which someone plowed his truck through crowds of people in an apparent terrorist attack.

Eighty-four people are dead. Yes, it is a horrible, despicable act. The group responsible for it must be punished with extreme prejudice.

What is Newt’s response? He wants to apply a “test” to every single Muslim living in the United States of America. If they pass the test, they’re welcome to stay. If they fail, out they go. Deported. Sent to their country of origin.

The basis for Newt’s test is whether these Muslims believe in Sharia law, which he said is “incompatible” with western civilization. Oh, and he wants to “monitor” mosques to see if they’re being used to recruit jihadists.

Holy moly, Mr. Speaker.

My third thought about Newt’s post-Nice rant is that he’s trying to show off his own anti-Muslim credentials to Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gingrich-calls-for-muslim-test-says-trump-veep-is-probably-pence/ar-BBumw4I?li=BBnb7Kz

A few questions come to mind.

One concerns the logistics involved. How do we identify every single Muslim currently in this country? How do we pay for this endeavor? How does the country enlist enough security agents to fan out across more than 3.6 million square miles of American real estate to search for these individuals?

How do we devise this test? How do we establish whether its results prove beyond a doubt that someone is a Sharia-believer?

Has the ex-speaker decided that U.S. citizens who also are Muslim also should be tested in this manner? If so, well, then we have another fairly significant issue to ponder: the U.S. Constitution. That silly ol’ First Amendment says something about religious freedom and guarantees every American the right to worship as they please without government interference.

Moreover, I recall President Bush saying right after the 9/11 attacks that we weren’t going to war against Islam, which his successor, President Obama, has reiterated. Our enemies are the radical Islamists who have perverted a religious faith for political gain.

Of course Americans ought to be outraged over what has happened in Nice. Someone said last night that this attack that occurred while France was celebrating Bastille Day appears to be the costliest attack in terms of lives lost ever committed by a single terrorist. French police shot the driver of the truck to death and then apparently discovered his vehicle contained other munitions, suggesting he was operating as part of an organization.

Is it the Islamic State? Or al-Qaeda? Or some other group?

French intelligence officials are pretty good at rooting out bad guys. And they’ll have plenty of help from U.S., British, German, Israeli and other international law enforcement agencies as they seek to combat this latest attack.

As for Newt Gingrich’s proposal to go after every living Muslim in the U.S. of A., let’s not allow fear and panic to overtake us.

Gov. Pence is Trump’s go-to guy

pence_122_072811

They’ve spilled the beans.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence will be announced as Donald J. Trump’s running mate on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

Inspiring choice? Not really. Trump has gone the “safe” route. Meaning he has selected someone who poses zero threat of upstaging the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. He is solidly conservative. He’s a former member of Congress who reportedly has a lot of friends on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill.

Trump might win Indiana this fall, which until the 2008 election — when Barack Obama won the state over John McCain — has been one of the most reliably Republican states north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Pence, though, doesn’t represent anything resembling a “new direction” for his party.

Let’s remember that as governor, Pence signed a bill into law that allows businesses to discriminate against gay people. He called it a “religious freedom bill.” He vowed to “fix” the bill, but in reality he did hardly anything to change it.

That’s how the Republican Party wants to present itself, as the party that sanctions discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.

Of course, no one knows precisely what Trump believes about such things. His mind seems to change almost hourly. I guess now he opposes equal rights for gay people. What, though, will be his response to tough questions about the issue as they arise during the fall election campaign?

Trump had planned to announce his selection of Pence on Friday morning. He delayed the announcement in light of the terror attack tonight in Nice, France.

Whenever it comes, perhaps over the weekend or quite early next week, do not expect a huge roar of approval — even from hard-core Republicans. You see, Pence’s role in the campaign likely hasn’t yet been defined.

Something tells me that Gov. Pence’s campaign role will depend on that h-u-u-u-u-g-e ego that belongs to the man at the top of the GOP ticket.

Justice Ginsburg seeks to make it right

BBuiRBp

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg now says she regrets those negative things she said about Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

Does she no longer believe what she said? Hardly. She just regrets saying those things out loud.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-apologizes-for-trump-remarks/ar-BBukt9C?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

I’m going to give the Supreme Court justice high marks for saying she plans to be “more circumspect” in the future.

She had said Trump’s election as president would be disastrous for the country and joked she might move to New Zealand if Trump is elected.

I am one of those who have said she shouldn’t have made those statements. It is true that there’s nothing written or codified about what Supreme Court justices can say. It’s been a long-standing tradition that justices steer clear of partisan politics.

Ginsburg lost control of her verbal steering wheel when she popped off about Trump, who not surprisingly responded in his typically crude manner, suggesting the justice had lost some of her mental acuity. He demanded her resignation.

As Reuters reported: “On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” she said in a statement issued by the court. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect,” Ginsburg added.

That’s good enough for me. Is it good enough for her critics? I’m thinking umm … no.

VP picks don’t matter … really

here-are-the-top-vice-president-picks-for-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton_1

Donald J. Trump is getting set to have the most important day of his presidential campaign.

He’s going to announce his selection as a vice-presidential running mate.

No need for a show of hands — if you get my drift. But does anyone out there in Blog World really think Trump’s selection is going to matter, that it’s going to sway anyone’s vote, that it’s going to be determinative of this election?

For that matter, do you think Hillary Rodham Clinton’s choice is going to matter, either?

The only way these picks might determine anything is if they select absolute dogs, losers, Fruit Loops. I don’t expect that to happen Friday or a week from Friday.

Recent political history is full of questionable VP picks. Richard Nixon selected Spiro Agnew in 1968; the Republicans won a squeaker that year and rolled to a historic landslide four years later. George H.W. Bush picked Dan Quayle in 1988 and then piled up a huge victory.

I guess you could make the case that John McCain’s hail-Mary selection of Sarah Palin in 2008 might have turned off some voters, but I believe McCain would have lost anyway.

One of the more interesting selections — to my way of thinking — was Lloyd Bentsen, the Texan who ran with presidential nominee Michael Dukakis in 1988. More than a few Democrats were grousing that year that Bentsen and Dukakis should have traded positions on the ticket.

But this year’s focus has been solely — and not entirely in a flattering way — focused on Republican Trump and Democrat Clinton.

These are two of the most polarizing figures ever to be nominated by the major parties. So, whoever they select will be relegated to the shadows.

I agree, though, that Trump’s selection is drawing the most attention, mostly because the pool of potential GOP stars is so shallow. The word is that he’s leaning toward former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

However, given Trump’s mercurial behavior, there’s a part of me that wonders if he’s going to stun us all with someone no one ever saw coming.

Sure, we’ll then chatter about it for a time.

Then it’ll be Trump being Trump … and the insults will fly.

Let’s stop the ‘consequences’ talk

ginsburgruth_012814getty

How about settling down just a bit, Republican members of Congress?

They’re all up in arms over remarks Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made about presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, about how she cannot imagine a country with Trump as president.

Rep. Randy Weber of Texas said Ginsburg ought to resign. Trump said the same thing. As the Hill reported: “The recent comments of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg on Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump are the antithesis of Lady Justice and in direct violation for what the highest court in the land stands,” he said. “Justice Ginsburg’s actions must be met with consequences. I agree with Donald Trump that she should resign.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/287537-house-republican-ginsburgs-actions-must-be-met-with-consequences

While I agree that Ginsburg crossed a line, violated an unwritten rule about justices getting too politically partisan, let’s take heed of what the framers did when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

They created an independent branch of government called the “judicial branch.” Judges get lifetime appointments to their posts. The idea was to enable them to be free of political pressure brought by the executive or legislative branches of government.

The founders got it right.

Ginsburg didn’t need to pop off as she did about Trump. But she isn’t the first justice to get involved in politics. In the earliest years of the Republic, justices ran for political office while sitting on the Supreme Court.

That kind of overt politicking, of course, hasn’t occurred in many years.

I don’t expect the Supreme Court to hear cases involving Trump while Ginsburg is sitting on that bench. However, I don’t doubt the justice’s ability to judge any case involving Trump fairly.

Although the framers had the right idea when they created an independent judiciary, they could not possibly remove politics from its actions.

I bring you Bush v. Gore in 2000, in which five Republican-appointed justices stopped the ballot-counting in Florida with GOP candidate George W. Bush leading Democratic opponent Al Gore by 537 votes out of more than 5 million cast in that state. Bush won Florida’s electoral votes and became president by the narrowest of margins.

Do you think politics played any role in that decision?

Well, that’s how the system worked.

As for the present-day dustup over Justice Ginsburg’s remarks, she made them, but let’s quell the talk about “consequences.”

Ginsburg was entitled to say what she said.

Gov. Pence waiting in the wings

pence_122_072811

The speculation around who Donald J. Trump will select as his Republican Party running mate seems to be focusing on Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

Honestly, I have trouble believing anyone Trump picks is going to be decisive, that the individual will spell the difference between victory and defeat for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. VP nominees usually don’t sway elections. I say “usually,” because we do have evidence that Lyndon Johnson’s presence on the Democratic ticket in 1960 helped John Kennedy win the Lone Star State on his way to a narrow victory over Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge.

But as long as we’re talking about Pence, let’s look briefly at a couple of aspects of this fellow’s record.

He’s a former congressman. He’s been governor of Indiana for a while. Thus, he has Capitol Hill and executive governing experience. That’s a plus, given Trump’s “record” of hosting a reality TV show, slapping his name on garish hotels and casinos, not to mention his various failed business ventures.

Pence also is a social conservative. He opposes a woman’s right to obtain an abortion; he opposes same-sex marriage.

The question anyone Trump picks as a running mate, though, is this: Will the presidential nominee actually heed whatever political advice the VP candidate gives him?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/donald-trump-ultimate-outsider-turned-insider-mike-pence-indiana-republican-congress?utm_content=buffer03d8b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Until this very moment, Trump is exhibiting a go-it-alone approach to just about everything as he runs for the presidency. He isn’t showing — as far as I can see — any tendency to seek advice from political pros. After all, he’s the ultimate “outsider,” so he doesn’t need any stinkin’ advice from those who he has said all along are part of whatever problems are afflicting the federal government.

Pence doesn’t strike me as someone who’ll be able to change Trump’s modus operandi while he continues his campaign for the presidency.

Suppose it is Pence. Suppose, too, that Pence gets assurances that he’ll be taken seriously as a key member of Trump’s campaign team.

Has the GOP’s presidential nominee exhibited a commitment to keeping his word? Is he totally trustworthy?

Well, I’m guessing Pence — or whomever gets the call from Trump — will have to weigh all of that, too, before deciding whether to hoist the nominee’s hand at the convention in Cleveland.

Well, let’s see what happens Friday. Trump will let us all know who gets the call.

Litmus test for VP hopefuls? You bet

The-Litmus-Test-ICON-v3

Politicians all sing in unison when the question involves “litmus tests.”

They “never” apply such tests, politicians say. They don’t “believe in litmus tests.”

They all are lying.

I mention litmus tests because both major-party presidential nominees-to-be are about to select their vice-presidential running mates. Should Republican Donald J. Trump and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton require their VP picks to pass these litmus tests?

Sure they should.

In reality, though, there really is just one question that presidential nominees should always ask their VP choices: Are you ready to become president in the event something happens to me?

Trump is now apparently ready to choose between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. Both of those fellows no doubt would answer “yes” to the Big Question. The task for the campaign, though, is to persuade a majority of voters that they would be able to step into the job on a moment’s notice.

Clinton is facing a similar decision. Her field of hopefuls is much deeper than Trump’s. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia? Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts? Hey, how about the guy who’s got the job now, Joe Biden? All of them surely would answer “yes” to the litmus test question.

Another possible Clinton choice has been rumored to be Julian Castro, the current housing secretary and former mayor of San Antonio. He’d answer “yes,” too, but some of us wonder whether he truly would be able to step into the box.

But when presidents are looking for people to fill key positions, you can damn sure bet that they have a set of policies and principles they demand of those they are considering.

Does that constitute a litmus test? Of course it does.

Consider the test that Ronald Reagan put his VP hopefuls through in 1980. Were they pro-life or pro-choice on abortion? That appeared to be a major question the hopefuls needed to answer correctly. Reagan settled on George H.W. Bush who, during his time in Congress, had been nicknamed “Rubbers” because of his strong voting record in support of organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Bush became an ardent pro-life candidate the instant he said “yes” to the Gipper.

Do you think Ronald Reagan had a “litmus test” that Bush had to pass? Absolutely!

So it will be this time around, just as it always has been.

If politicians say they don’t have “litmus tests,” they’re lying.

Get ready for record low turnout … possibly

jeb-bush-donkey-hotey

John Ellis Bush likely spoke for a lot of Americans over the weekend.

He doesn’t like Donald J. Trump and he won’t vote for him for president. Nor does he trust Hillary Rodham Clinton, so she won’t get his vote, either.

Bush — aka “Jeb” — is quite likely going to leave the top of his ballot blank when the time comes for him to vote.

He said it “breaks my heart” that he cannot support the Republican Party nominee, Trump. But he and the presumptive GOP nominee have some history that Bush cannot set aside.

Bush told MSBNC’s Nicolle Wallace — a former communications director for President George W.  Bush — that Trump has conducted what amounts to a successful mutiny of the Republican Party. He praises the real estate mogul/TV celebrity for winning the party nomination fair and square. Trump, though, did it by tapping into a voter sentiment that none of the other GOP candidates — including Jeb Bush — could locate.

This makes me think my earlier prediction of a potentially record-low-turnout election might not be too far off the mark.

The current record belongs to the 1996 contest that saw President Bill Clinton re-elected over Bob Dole and Ross Perot with just a 49 percent turnout of eligible voters.

Now we have polling data that tell us Hillary Clinton and Trump are profoundly disliked by most voters. FBI Director James Comey’s stunning critique of Clinton’s handling of classified information on her personal e-mail server has only heightened voters’ mistrust of her … and to think that the director then said he wouldn’t recommend criminal charges be brought against her!

As for Trump, well, I won’t weigh in here. You know how much I despise that guy.

Jeb Bush won’t attend the GOP convention. Neither will his brother and father — two former presidents. Nor will Mitt Romney or John McCain, the party’s two most recent presidential nominee.

Oh, and the governor of the state where the convention will take place? Ohio Gov. John Kasich, another former Republican presidential candidate, won’t darken the door at the Cleveland arena where delegates are going to nominate Donald Trump.

Let’s face the daunting reality that a lot of Americans just might follow Jeb’s lead and stay home.

Yes, Justice Ginsburg crossed that ‘line’

ginsburg

When judges get appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, they usually follow a set of certain practices.

One of them is to keep their partisan political views to themselves.

Sure, their judicial philosophy often reveals their political leanings, but that’s for others to assume.

With that said, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has crossed a line separating the judicial branch from the rest of the federal government structure.

She said the following: “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told the New York Times’s Adam Liptak. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-bashing-donald-trump-some-say-ruth-bader-ginsburg-just-crossed-a-very-important-line/ar-BBucVZt?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Ginsburg’s reference is to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Very bad call, Mme. Justice.

It’s OK for justices to think certain things about politicians. It’s quite inappropriate for them to say it out loud. Judicial decorum dictates that they stay above the political fray. These individuals aren’t politicians. Presidents nominate them and the Senate confirms them on the basis of how they determine the constitutionality of federal law.

Justice Ginsburg, selected for the high court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, would seem to have an axe to grind given her statements criticizing Trump’s candidacy. Trump, after all, is running against the wife of the man who selected her to the Supreme Court.

Don’t misunderstand me on this point: I have trouble contemplating a Trump presidency, too.

I, though, am not a member of the highest court in the nation. I can say these things out loud. Justice Ginsburg needed to keep her mouth shut.