Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Bernie wins while losing

sandersclinton_040116getty

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has lost the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

However, he’s also won the argument within the Democratic Party.

How? By pulling presumptive nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton closer to his end of the political spectrum than she was at the beginning of this campaign.

Sanders is expected eventually to end his campaign. He’ll throw his support behind Clinton. He’ll join President Obama and other party dignitaries in campaigning hard for Clinton against Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Sure, he still says he’ll fight “all the way to the convention” in Philadelphia. That’s what they all say. Ted Cruz said it the day before he dropped out of the GOP race. So did John Kasich. It’s just brave talk.

Sen. Sanders will take away from this campaign the satisfaction that he’s not got Clinton talking about income inequality, corruption on Wall Street and stricter international trade policies.

Do not expect Clinton to declare herself a “democratic socialist,” which Sanders proclaimed throughout his campaign with great pride

What the defeated Democratic presidential candidate cannot determine, though, is whether a President Clinton would carry that message forward once she takes the oath in January.

As of today, though, he’s changed the dialogue within the Democratic Party.

That, folks, is no small victory.

 

What they didn’t say is most instructive

Horserace

I wish I could take credit for making this observation, but I cannot.

I’ll give credit to Chuck Todd, moderator of “Meet the Press” and NBC News’s chief political correspondent.

Last night, after their big victories in their respective presidential primaries, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton spoke to their faithful followers.

Todd noted a great unspoken from both of them: They didn’t “congratulate each other” for becoming their parties’ presumptive presidential nominees.

Todd noted that going back to the 2000 election season, candidates have reached across to offer a word of thanks to their opponents for reaching an important and hard-fought milestone.

Al Gore congratulated George W. Bush in 2000; President Bush did the same in 2004 when John Kerry crossed the “presumptive” threshold; John McCain offered kudos to Barack Obama in 2008; and President Obama did the same when Mitt Romney became his party’s presumptive nominee in 2012.

This year? Nothing. Not a word of congratulations from either Trump the Republican or Clinton the Democrat.

Surprised at that? Me, neither.

Trump has labeled Clinton as “Crooked Hillary”; Clinton has said that Trump is “temperamentally unfit to be commander in chief.”

Todd has reason to worry now about what lies ahead as Clinton and Trump battle each other for the presidency.

If the absence of anything approaching a kind word about the opposition in their moments of triumph is any indication, we’re in for an extremely rough and uncivil campaign.

Might the impossible happen … again?

donald-trump

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham has issued an extraordinary statement.

The one-time Republican Party presidential candidate is urging Republican officeholders who have endorsed the party’s presumptive nominee, Donald J. Trump, to take back their endorsement.

Then what do you suppose happened? Fellow GOP Sen. Mark Kirk did exactly that. He said he cannot vote for someone who has made blatantly racist comments, which some have said Trump has made regarding a federal judge.

Trump said Gonzalo Curiel cannot judge a case involving Trump University fairly because he’s “a Mexican.” Well, Judge Curiel is an American. Sure, he is of Mexican heritage but the man was born in Indiana and has served as a federal prosecutor in California.

Trump seems to believe that because of Curiel’s heritage, he “hates” the candidate because of a proposal to build a wall from one end of the U.S. border with Mexico to the other.

The furor won’t die down.

Graham’s call for other Republicans to pull back their endorsement might not take hold across the nation. Then again, it might. I cannot predict how it would go.

However, we are starting to hear some chatter among political observers that Trump’s “presumed” nomination might not be so “presumptive” after all.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, who’s endorsed Trump, has labeled his anti-Curiel statement to be racist in nature. Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus has condemned the statement as well. Other Republican leaders have chimed in with similar statements of disgust and disdain.

So, here’s what a few of the talking heads are saying out loud: They are suggesting that Trump’s nomination could be taken away at the convention. How that might happen is anyone’s guess. It’s virtually unprecedented.

No one is suggesting it will happen, only that they wouldn’t be surprised if it does.

Therefore, one seemingly impossible scenario — the notion of someone so totally unfit to become president actually being nominated by a major political party — is being replaced by another even more impossible outcome.

The party could snatch the nomination away from the candidate.

It cannot happen? Well, who would have thought that Donald Trump — of all people — would be on the verge of being nominated to run for the presidency of the United States?

Trump winnows the judicial field

checks balance

This business of Donald J. Trump’s comments on a judge’s racial heritage is getting a little out of hand.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee remains in some seriously hot water over comments he made about a judge who’s presiding over litigation involving the defunct Trump University. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel is an American-born jurist whose parents are Mexican immigrants.

Trump railed against the judge, saying he’s “a Mexican” who has been “very unfair to me” because of Trump’s proposal to “build a wall” across the southern border with Mexico.

Thus, Judge Curiel is disqualified, according to Trump.

Then he told CBS News’s John Dickerson that he might want Muslims disqualified from hearing any cases involving Trump because of his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

Now, get a load of this one.

A Trump spokeswoman said female judges might have to be disqualified because of Trump’s statements denigrating women.

Hmmm. Let’s play this out.

Who else might be unable to serve on the bench to litigate a case involving Trump?

A judge with a physical disability is one. Trump once mocked a disabled New York Times reporter.

A former prisoner of war. Trump once said that U.S. Sen. John McCain is a “war hero” only because he was shot down, captured and held captive for five-plus years. “I like people who weren’t captured, OK?” Trump said.

A judge who’s been married only one time. Trump is on his third marriage and has boasted openly about the affairs he’s had with women other than those to whom he was married.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-judge-attacks_us_57560111e4b0b60682deb6e3

Is it reasonable to assume that in Trump’s mind the only people who could judge a case involving him fairly and without bias are people who are just like him?

If so, then the pool of potential judges appears to have been narrowed considerably.

 

Here’s a ‘Dave’-like solution to picking nominees

National%20Party%20Convention

In the film “Dave,” Kevin Klein portrays the owner of an employment agency who bears this startling resemblance to the president of the United States.

Fate thrusts Dave into the role of filling in for the incapacitated president.

During a Cabinet meeting, the “president” — Dave — must find ways to cut the federal budget sufficiently to pay for some needed programs. He whips out a pencil and tablet and goes through the budget department by department and — presto! — finds the money.

Cabinet officials are stunned.

How might such a seemingly simple approach to problem-solving work in the real world of rough-and-tumble politics?

News organizations Monday night tallied up the delegates that Hillary Rodham Clinton has amassed and declared her to be the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States. She joins Donald J. Trump, who already had become the Republicans’ presumed nominee.

Here, though, is the rub. Sen. Bernie Sanders isn’t going quietly into the night. He vows to continue fighting Clinton for delegates all the way to the party nominating convention.

Why? He doesn’t like the “super delegate” system used by the Democratic Party. The supers are those party big wheels — elected officials, mostly — who get to vote for whomever they wish. Sanders, who only recently joined the party after serving in the Senate as an independent, thinks it’s unfair to count those super delegates prior to the convention. They can change their minds and he intends to persuade enough of them to do exactly that.

The Republicans don’t have that problem. They don’t have super delegates. Frankly, I prefer the GOP method.

What might Dave do?

Let’s try this out.

Call a meeting of the two major political parties’ top brass, GOP boss Reince Priebus and Democratic chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Put them in a room along with their parties’ lawyers and pose the question, “How about making this process a bit more uniform?”

Priebus and Schultz aren’t close. Imagine that, right? They have serious disagreements.

It seems totally within reason, though, for the parties to adopt more uniform delegate-selection processes. To be frank, the super delegate system used by the Democrats seems a bit weird. Sanders is hoping to change enough minds between now and the convention that he could “steal” the nomination from Clinton. I think that, by itself, is unfair and underhanded.

If both parties’ leaders believe in developing fair and even-handed methods of choosing their nominees, is it too much to ask them to hammer out an agreement that works for both sides?

I get that none of this nominating process is prescribed in the U.S. Constitution. It’s strictly a party matter. Heck, the Constitution doesn’t even mention political parties.

I’d even prefer to see the national parties lay down rules simplifying the method of apportioning delegates. Do they prefer to award them on the basis of the candidates’ share of the popular vote? How about winner take all? It makes no never mind to me. Just make it uniform.

The hodge-podge we have now makes me crazy.

Politics need not be this complicated, man.

Here come the conspiracy theories

GTY_hillary_clinton_donald_trump_split_jt_150912_16x9_992

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been deemed the “presumptive presidential nominee” for the Democratic Party.

Wait for it. Here come the conspiracy theories from the supporters of Bernie Sanders, who are saying that the media should have waited to report the news.

Sure thing. I believe that’s one definition of “prior restraint.”

I do not think that’s doable in a society that supposedly prides itself in a media that isn’t controlled, manipulated or coerced into hiding news as it happens.

The Associated Press has tabulated the pledged delegates and the so-called “super delegates” that the Democratic Party uses to nominate its presidential candidates. AP has determined that, yep, Clinton has put the nomination out of reach.

Sen. Sanders has been pledging to take this fight all the way to the party nominating convention this summer in Philadelphia. Fine. That’s his right.

Sanders and his supporters have said the “mainstream media” are in cahoots with the party brass in wanting Clinton nominated.

I’m not crazy about this super delegate business. I’d prefer that Democrats followed the Republican model in apportioning convention delegates. The “supers” comprise elected officials or other power party bigwigs who are free to vote for whomever they want. Given that the U.S. Constitution makes no mention of political parties, this process is done strictly at the party level; it’s not written in law anywhere.

This, though, is how the Democrats do it. It’s worked so far.

So now we have a presumptive Democratic nominee to join the presumptive Republican nominee. It’s likely “game over” for Sanders, just as it’s over for all of the 16 Republicans who ran against Donald J. Trump for that party’s nomination.

Let’s dispense with the conspiracy theories.

Now we get to witness Clinton vs. Trump.

Oh, boy! Now, if only we could hope for a dignified and high-minded contest for the presidency of the United States of America.

If only …

 

Texas may prove to be Trump GOP testing ground

TrumpTexas_jpg_800x1000_q100

If Donald J. Trump is having trouble wooing Texas Republicans into his embrace, then he might be having even more trouble everywhere else.

Ross Ramsey’s excellent analysis in the Texas Tribune lays out the problem that the presumptive GOP presidential nominee is having as he tightens the grip on his quest for the White House.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/06/analysis-texas-pols-trying-muster-words-support-tr/

Ramsey hold up Ted Cruz as an example of Trump’s Texas dilemma.

A lot of Texas politicians backed the junior U.S. senator’s bid for the White House. Cruz backed out of the race after the Indiana primary. He’s been mainly silent about Trump’s campaign ever since. Cruz has returned to work in the Senate.

His friends and allies, though, aren’t any more eager to attach themselves to Trump’s train than Cruz has been.

Trump said some pretty spiteful things about Cruz during the campaign. And, no, they didn’t gin up much sympathy from me … as I didn’t want Cruz to be the next president of the United States. If you’re Cruz, though, you should take some of these epithets personally.

And then there was that hideous attack on Heidi Cruz, for crying out loud!

Gov. Greg Abbott is kinda/sorta backing Trump. Ramsey noted that recently Abbott made a speech backing Trump without ever mentioning the candidate’s name. How do you do that?

Then again, Abbott has his own Trump burden to bear, given the state’s investigation into the defunct Trump University and the campaign contribution that showed up immediately after Abbott — while he was Texas attorney general — dropped the state’s legal action.

Hmmm.

Let’s not forget former Gov. Rick Perry, who once called Trump a “cancer on conservatism.” He’s now backing him out loud and proudly. As Ramsey points out, Perry also said he’d accept a vice-presidential invitation if it came from Trump.

Many actual Republicans in Texas accuse Trump of being one of them in name only. You know, a RINO.

But as Texas Republicans have demonstrated time and again since ascending to power in this state, they are willing to put actual qualifications and fitness aside when selecting candidates for high political office. Party labels matter more than anything else.

To be fair, Democrats did much the same thing when they ran the show. We still actually have a smattering of those “Yellow Dog Democrats” out there who’d vote for a yellow dog before they’d vote for a Republican.

Trump’s fight for the love of Texas Republicans remains a daunting task. As Ramsey notes:

“Many others in the GOP seem stuck on the road between their original choices for the Republican presidential nomination and Trump, the apparent winner.  Some will convert. Some will get out and proselytize for the nominee.

“But not yet. That first sale is the hardest one to close.”

Former AG says Trump should challenge judge’s ‘fairness’

gon0-004

Donald J. Trump has gained an interesting ally in his dispute with a federal judge hearing a case involving a “university” that Trump founded some years ago.

The ally is former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who says the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is right to question whether U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel can judge his case fairly and impartially.

I’ll give Gonzales his due in one regard: the Texan argues his point with clarity and nuance, which is something that Trump is incapable of doing.

At issue, according to Gonzales, is Curiel’s association with a group called La Raza of San Diego, which Trump says is affiliated with the National Council of La Raza, a group formed to advocate for Latino issues. The Washington Post, though, has reported that NCLR and the San Diego outfit are unaffiliated.

That hasn’t stopped Trump, who has said that Curiel is “a Mexican,” which makes him unfit to hear the case. Curiel, of course, is an Indiana-born American citizen born to immigrants from Mexico. Trump’s alleged “reasoning” is that Curiel “hates” him because Trump wants to “build a wall, OK?” along our nation’s border with Mexico.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/282222-former-bush-ag-trump-right-to-challenge-judges-fairness

Gonzales, who served as AG during the George W. Bush administration, has said that Curiel’s association even with the San Diego La Raza group should cause questions about his fairness in hearing the Trump University case. Curiel is presiding over three lawsuits brought by former students of the for-profit educational program who contend they were bilked out of money they spent to take courses.

It’s important to note what Gonzales wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post: “As someone whose own ancestors came to the United States from Mexico, I know ethnicity alone cannot pose a conflict of interests. But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable.”

Here’s Gonzales’ essay:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/04/alberto-r-gonzales-trump-has-a-right-to-question-whether-hes-getting-a-fair-trial/

You see, that is what Trump did when he challenged Judge Curiel’s ability to adjudicate this matter. He laid it solely on the man’s ethnicity. What’s more, he did so with utter disregard for the fact that the judge is no more “a Mexican” than Trump himself is “a Scotsman,” given that Trump’s mother emigrated to the United States from Scotland.

So, let’s have this discussion about whether a judge can preside with impartiality and fairness over a controversial case … but let’s leave the judge’s ethnicity out of it.

 

A summation of Trump’s unfitness

Donald-Trump_3372655b

Erica Grieder writes a blog for Texas Monthly.

She is highly opinionated, which is why I enjoy reading her blog. She doesn’t hide her disdain for Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

She writes: “My contempt for Donald Trump is admittedly sincere and abiding, but I suspect that even observers who take a more temperate view of the man might agree that the Republican Party’s decision to accept him as their presidential nominee is a calculation that could haunt them for years.

Here is more of what she wrote about Trump’s candidacy: “Trump is GOP nominee for president. His opponent, in the general election, will almost certainly be Hillary Clinton. He is technically qualified to hold the office, should he win 270 electoral votes, as he was born in the United States and is over the age of 35. At the same time, Trump is an uninformed and emotionally unstable plague who has, over 70 years of life, proven himself incapable of wielding any form of power without immediately looking for some ham-fisted way he can leverage it to serve his profoundly fragile ego.”

Here’s the entire blog posted on the Burka Blog website:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/greg-abbotts-trump-problem/

She writes that Gov. Greg Abbott is backing Trump even though he knows Trump is a phony and a fraud.

Back to one of the points in her paragraph that I shared with you here.

Trump’s candidacy is not built on a commitment to public service. It is built solely on his monstrous ego. Listen to what he says about his supposedly immense wealth, about his “world-class business” ventures, about the women in his life, about his singular plans to “make America great.”

Public service? It’s a foreign concept to this guy.

Say what you will about the ills of the nation — which I believe have been grossly overstated by Trump and those who have glommed on to what passes for this fellow’s campaign message.

We must do better than elect an entertainer with zero experience dealing with a government he now proposes to fix. He has no template from which to pattern whatever he intends to do.

If he intends to repair the government, someone needs to explain to me what he intends to produce.

Does this guy have a clue about anything that resembles an understanding of the massive governmental machine he intends to operate?

Has the GOP nominee-to-be finally gone too far?

trump

This might be considered something of a rhetorical question with no answer at least readily available, but I’ll pose it anyway.

Has Donald J. Trump finally issued the nonsensical statement that delivers the message many of us have known all along — that he is temperamentally unfit for the office of president of the United States?

The presumptive Republican nominee is getting shelled not just by Democrats, but by his new “best friend,” House Republican Speaker Paul Ryan, over comments he made about a federal judge.

Trump referred to U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel as “a Mexican” while declaring that the judge is guilty of a conflict of interest in the case he is hearing regarding the defunct Trump University.

Some former students have filed suit against Trump and the “university” he founded, claiming they were bilked out of money they shelled out to attend this online educational program.

Curiel isn’t Mexican. He’s an American. He was born in Indiana. His parents are immigrants from Mexico. He went to California after completing law school and became a hard-charging prosecutor who put many drug lords behind bars.

Now he’s hearing this Trump U case, but Trump says he’s got a conflict because the presidential candidate wants to “build a wall” along our border with Mexico to keep illegal immigrants out. Therefore, according to Trump, Curiel cannot judge this case fairly because of his heritage.

The blowback on this comment has been intense and sustained.

Ryan, who just 24 hours before Trump made the “Mexican” comment had endorsed Trump’s candidacy, criticized the candidate’s “left-field” assertion.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-attacks-223898

And, of course, the comment has drawn relentless fire from Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton, who said: “If our president doesn’t believe in the rule of law, doesn’t believe in our constitution with a separation of power with an independent judiciary, that is one of the most dangerous signals that we are dealing with somebody who is a demagogue.”

She added, “If we start disqualifying people because of who their parents and grandparents might be and where they came from,” Clinton continued. “That would be running counter to everything we believe in.”

I am leery of predicting that Trump has finally uttered the politically fatal campaign gaffe. He’s had so many such moments along the way that — in a normal election season –Trump’s candidacy would have been tossed aside long ago.

I am an optimist by nature. My optimism has been dealt a boost once again by the Republican candidate’s loud and uncontrollable mouth.