Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Fiery rhetoric producing violent reaction

protest

I believe it was Tonto who once provided a bit of sidekick wisdom to the Lone Ranger when he said, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

We’re seeing violence erupting at Donald J. Trump’s political rallies. It seemed to come to a full boil today in San Jose, Calif., when protestors attacked Trump supporters at the Republican presidential nominee-to-be’s rally.

It is utterly disgraceful for those who disagree with a political candidate to attack the candidate’s supporters, which is what happened in San Jose.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-campaign-violence-223893

That was the second wrong. The first one has been the candidate’s fiery rhetoric all along the campaign trail that has been inciting the violence.

Look, the violence we’re seeing at these rallies is absolutely uncalled-for. It’s un-American to deny people the right to exercise their right of political expression.

Oh sure, we’re hearing from those who say the protesters/hooligans are exercising their First Amendment rights of political expression. How? By chasing down Trump supporters and attacking them with fists and feet?

Have these demonstrators ever heard of “peaceful assembly”? Are they unaware of that provision?

Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is partly to blame for what has been transpiring at his rallies. The bulk of the blame, though, belongs to those who act on that rhetoric with violence.

It is long past time for the candidate, Trump, to condemn this violence and to tamp down his own incendiary comments.

Moreover, it also is long past time for those who feel the need to protest at these rallies to realize that there is a right way to do so and a wrong way.

What happened today in San Jose was wrong … in the extreme.

What does former GOP chief really think … of Trump?

Fort Worth, Texas USA Feb. 26, 2016: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gets the endorsement of former candidate New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie during a rally at the Fort Worth Convention Center. Texas is the big prize in the upcoming Super Tuesday primary on March 2. (Bob Daemmrich/Polaris)

I don’t get to talk much these days with my old pal, former Texas Republican Party Chairman Tom Pauken.

He lives in Dallas; I’m way up yonder in Amarillo. Pauken has had business dealings in Amarillo, but I sense he’s backing away from them, as he would call whenever he came to town.

Here’s what I know about him.

He is a true-blue conservative. He’s the real thing. He doesn’t think much of the “neo-cons” who advised President George W. Bush; he also doesn’t think much of the former president, for that matter.

Pauken served as an Army intelligence officer in Vietnam and he believes the Iraq War was a mistake. He believes in low taxes, less government spending and he is fervently pro-life on abortion.

He’s also penned an essay in which he declares his belief that the Texas Republican National Convention delegation will line up to support the party’s eventual nominee Donald J. Trump, even though most voters endorsed U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in the Texas GOP primary this past March.

https://www.tribtalk.org/2016/06/03/trumps-in-charge-but-he-shouldnt-take-it-for-granted/

What I didn’t read in Pauken’s essay is a personal endorsement from him for the man who’s about to become the GOP’s presidential nominee. I attached the link to this blog, so you can see for yourself. Pauken seems strangely detached from Trump — which has become sort of the norm for many of the party’s elder statesmen and women.

What goes around ...

Trump is getting a lot of endorsements, to be sure. U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan announced his intention to back him, but one could not escape the feeling that the speaker was swallowing real hard before he uttered his words of endorsement.

My trick knee is acting up again. It’s telling me that former Texas GOP chairman Pauken is getting a lump in his own throat as he ponders his party ‘s nomination of someone such as Donald Trump.

 

Judge Curiel: hard-charging American lawyer

trump

Gonzalo Curiel was born in Indiana to parents who came to this country from Mexico.

He graduated from high school, went off to college, got his law degree and became an aggressive prosecutor.

He’s now a federal district judge. He’s an all-American guy, from what I know of him.

That, however, hasn’t stopped the Republicans’ presumptive presidential nominee, one Donald J. Trump, from launching a scurrilous attack on Judge Curiel. The reason for his attack? Trump called Curiel “a Mexican.” He called him a “disgrace,” and said other judges need to examine Judge Curiel.

Curiel, of course, is not “a Mexican.” He’s as American as Trump, whose own mother also was an immigrant.

That didn’t stop Trump from shouting from a campaign podium that Curiel needs to recuse himself from a case he is hearing involving the now-defunct Trump University. It seems that Curiel’s ethnicity disqualifies him from hearing the case because, according to Trump, he “hates” the nominee-to-be because of Trump’s inflammatory statements about Mexican immigrants.

Y’all, this is the latest in an interminable line of insults and provocation that have poured out of Trump’s pie hole ever since he announced his intention to seek the GOP presidential nomination.

Judge Curiel’s standing as a federal judge hearing this case is as solid as it gets. Trump’s suggestion that he cannot judge this case fairly is yet another attempt to denigrate someone solely on the basis of his ethnicity.

Trump’s accusations against Curiel are going to remain unchallenged by the target, the judge himself. As the Atlantic magazine noted: “Corrosive personal attacks aren’t new behavior for the presumptive Republican nominee. But unlike other targets of Trump’s ire, Curiel cannot defend himself in any forum. He acknowledged in an order last Friday that Trump had ‘placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue,’ but will almost certainly go no further than that observation. Curiel is bound by the judicial code of ethics, which says that federal judges ‘should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court,’ including their own. The code also says judges ‘should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.’”

Here’s the rest of the article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/donald-trump-gonzalo-curiel/485636/

If only another disgraceful exhibition of intemperance would gain traction among those who keep standing behind this guy. Who’s to say what effect, if any, these latest remarks are going to have?

From my perch in the middle of what’s going to be called Trump Country, it’s just one more example of a presumptive presidential nominee’s unfitness for the job he is seeking.

 

‘Sic federal regulators on his critics’

trust-1

A single line jumped out at me as I looked at the New York Times article on Donald J. Trump’s view of the U.S. Constitution.

Adam Liptak’s story goes through a litany of concerns that constitutional scholars — across the political spectrum — have expressed about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s views.

Then he writes of Trump: “He has threatened to sic federal regulators on his critics.”

That sentence stopped me cold. I froze.

Do you remember what happened to the last president who decided to “sic federal regulators on his critics”?

If you don’t, I’ll remind you.

President Richard Nixon did that very thing, we learned during the congressional investigation of the Watergate constitutional crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

That revelation — along with many others — led the House Judiciary Committee to approve articles of impeachment against the president, who then resigned his office on Aug. 9, 1974, thus ending, in the words of his successor, President Gerald Ford, “our long national nightmare.”

Trump wants to make it easier to sue the media for libel; he wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States; he attacked a federal judge solely on the basis of his ethnicity, calling the American-born jurist “a Mexican” who, according to Trump, “hates me.”

Any one of those occurrences would be a recipe for a top-of-the-line constitutional crisis. I’m trying to imagine what could happen if more than one of those things ever were to occur if a President Trump were to settle in behind that big desk in the Oval Office.

Here’s a comment from a conservative thinker, taken from Liptak’s article: “David Post, a retired law professor who now writes for the Volokh Conspiracy, a conservative-leaning law blog, said those comments had crossed a line.

“’This is how authoritarianism starts, with a president who does not respect the judiciary,’ Mr. Post said. ‘You can criticize the judicial system, you can criticize individual cases, you can criticize individual judges. But the president has to be clear that the law is the law and that he enforces the law. That is his constitutional obligation.’”

I believe this is a major part of what Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday when she described Trump as being “temperamentally unfit” to become president of the United States.

Speaker Ryan’s endorsement seems a bit tenuous

ryan

U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan has “endorsed” Donald J. Trump’s candidacy for president of the United States.

Will it put the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s bid over the top? Will it ensure victory in November?

Consider just how Ryan framed his endorsement.

Ryan acknowledged many differences with Trump on policy; he said he wants Trump to change his campaign tone; he didn’t vow to campaign with Trump; he acknowledged that friends encouraged him to withhold his support.

The speaker is going to vote for Trump. So, the combative GOP nominee-to-be will have Ryan’s ballot box endorsement.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/speaker-paul-ryans-trump-endorsement-comes-with-caveats/ar-BBtOuVh?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump and Ryan have said they barely know each other. They’ve met and had what was called a “cordial” discussion about policy and other political matters.

It’s interesting, though, that Trump’s bluster and bravado seems to at odds with the kind of policy discussion that Ryan seems to want from his party’s presumed presidential nominee.

Do you remember how Trump all but threatened the speaker if Ryan doesn’t treat Trump the right way? I guess no one had yet told Trump that the speaker of the House packs way more political punch than a presidential nominee.

But, hey, shouldn’t the Republicans’ leading candidate for president have known that already?

The Ryan endorsement wasn’t a surprise.

The biggest calculation, though, might be in whether the speaker now will be able to deliver his home state of Wisconsin to the Republican nominee this fall.

Hmmm. Well, Ryan himself — as the party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2012 — couldn’t deliver Wisconsin to the GOP ticket led by Mitt Romney.

This much now appears certain: Ryan endorsement of the GOP nominee likely has sounded the death knell for the “never Trump” movement.

Oh, and what about Mitt Romney? He’s not supporting Trump.

Let’s get on with this campaign.

Texas could be in play — for once

Texas-calendar

Is this the strangest election year you’ve seen since, oh, The Flood?

Consider, then, what just might be coming down the road in Texas, this place where Republicans rule from horizon to horizon and where Democrats seem to have been placed on a witness protection list.

Hillary Rodham Clinton just might — with the help of her probable Republican Party presidential campaign opponent — be able to make this state competitive in the upcoming election.

You can stop laughing now.

Hear me out.

GOP nominee-in-waiting Donald J. Trump appears to be doing everything he can to anger Latino voters. It all started with that hideous campaign launch in which he declared his intention to build a “beautiful wall” along our border with Mexico to keep out the rapists, murderers and drug dealers who, he said, were being sent here by the Mexican government.

Then just the other day he singled out an Indiana-born federal judge who Trump said “hates” him. The judge has a Latino name. Trump called him “a Mexican.” Uhh, no. He’s not. The judge is as American as Trump.

How does this play in Texas? The state’s largest minority group is Latino, who also are the fastest-growing demographic group in the state.

Just suppose the Latino population turns out in massive numbers after hearing the constant barrage of statements that the Republican nominee has made about them. Suppose that Clinton’s campaign team taps into that anger with a concerted effort targeted at reminding that voter bloc of what lies ahead for the country if Trump gets elected president.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/clinton-plans-play/

Granted, history hasn’t been good for Democrats in Texas. The state’s Latino population so far hasn’t turned out to vote in numbers commensurate with its enormous potential impact.

Erica Grieder, writing for Texas Monthly’s Burka Blog, notes: It seems that empirical evidence on campaigning in Texas deserves an asterisk too, because Clinton has now declared her intention to do something no Democrat has attempted recently: compete in a general election in Texas with the goal of winning. Barack Obama didn’t allocate serious time or resources to try to win the state’s electoral votes in 2008 or 2012.

My earlier prediction — such as it was — that Clinton might score an Electoral College sweep this fall is looking less and less possible, given recent polling data showing a tightening race across the nation.

However, consider this: If Clinton does make Texas a competitive state and closes to within spitting distance of Trump, then she’s likely to win those states that now are deemed too close to call.

Therefore, if Texas does flip from R to D, then I suggest we just might see a blowout in the making on Election Day.

And yes, I can hear you laughing now.

Hillary might not win the nomination … really?

hillary

Is it entirely possible that Hillary Rodham Clinton — the one-time candidate of destiny for the Democratic Party — could lose here party’s presidential nomination after all?

Douglas Schoen — a former pollster for President Bill Clinton — thinks it’s possible.

His thesis is simple.

If U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders wins the California primary next Tuesday, the Democratic brass is going to come down with a case of terminal heebie-jeebies at the prospect of nominating a badly damaged candidate for the presidency.

Where would they turn? Who would redeem the party’s political fortunes?

That would be the vice president of the United States of America, Joseph Biden.

The vice president has said repeatedly two seemingly contradictory things about his decision to opt out of running for the presidency.

One is that he believes he made the right call. Two is that he regrets making that decision.

You might ask: Huh?

If you are, I get it. I’ve asked the same thing.

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Doug-Schoen-Pollster-Democrat-Hillary/2016/06/01/id/731649/

Honestly, I don’t know what will happen after Tuesday. Everyone’s expectation is that Clinton will secure enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot when Democrats gather this summer in Philadelphia. In addition to California, voters in the Dakotas and New Jersey are going to the polls.

Clinton cancelled campaign events in Jersey to concentrate on California.

What does all this mean for Biden?

“Mr. Biden would be cast as the white knight rescuing the party, and the nation, from a possible (Donald J.) Trump presidency,” the Democratic pollster said in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal.

I’ve stated already my admiration for the vice president. I wish he would have run. I understand why he stayed out. His son, Beau, had just died. The man is still mourning his son’s death.

In every other political year, though, it would appear that Biden’s decision to stay out of the race would be cast in stone.

As we’ve seen at almost every step along the way in this election season, this ain’t like anything we’ve ever seen.

 

Polling put to a new kind of test this election cycle

103477256-trumphillary2rr.530x298

The media obsession with polls, “horse races” and determining who’s up and/or down continues.

The Hill has given us the latest read on how this presidential campaign will turn out.

The conclusion? Polling data may be skewed beyond all recognition because of the high unfavorable ratings of both major-party nominees-to-be.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281910-doubts-creep-into-trump-clinton-polls

The pollsters are having difficulty taking their findings to the bank. Republican presumptive nominee Donald J. Trump’s favorable ratings are in the tank; Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton’s plus-side scores are right behind Trump’s.

Voters’ fickleness puts more guesswork into the polling, according to The Hill.

Will it be a high-turnout or low-turnout election? My own guess is that it’ll be the latter. Voters might decide the choices between the major-party picks are so dismal that they’ll just sit it out. They might not want to consider a third option because that ticket has no chance of winning.

Then again …

Some pollsters think the turnout will be high as voters are motivated to vote against the other candidate.

The anti-Clinton voter bloc will be set to vote for Trump. And vice versa.

All of this seems to be the ingredients tailor-made for a patently miserable campaign.

Hey, hasn’t Trump himself declared he has no intention to “change”?

My fellow Americans … we are in for a rough ride to the finish line.

 

Trump voter offers a reason

donald-trump-speech-promo-getty-491877616

I had a conversation this morning with a friend, who announced to me she’s going to vote for Donald J. Trump this fall for president of the United States.

She is likely among a majority of Texas Panhandle voters who’ll do so. That’s no surprise, given this region’s strong Republican ties and its apparent intense loathing of Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

OK, so the conversation progressed.

I took a deep breath, looked over my friend’s shoulder at the TV screen in the lobby — which always is turned to the Fox News Channel — and said without offering specifics, “But Trump is not fit for the office.”

“Neither is Hillary,” my friend said.

I could feel my eyebrows lift.

“What has she done” to make her unfit for the presidency? I asked.

“I don’t know,” my friend said. “All I know is that I cannot vote for her.” She said she intends to vote for someone for president, it just won’t be Hillary Clinton.

I mentioned Gary Johnson, the recently nominated former New Mexico governor who’s going to run for the second election in a row as a Libertarian candidate for president.

She was unaware of Johnson’s candidacy. I encouraged her to take a look. She said she would.

We then agreed that we won’t talk politics from this day on … until after the election in November.

We’re still friends. I hope she still considers me a friend.

I took a profound feeling of non-acceptance away from that brief conversation this morning. I don’t get the sense that there’s anything in Trump’s alleged “platform” that appeals to my friend. She’s just not going to vote for Clinton because, I presume, she doesn’t trust her.

As for Trump, he’s tapped into some unknown reservoir of something among voters.

I know that he’s reeled in at least one Texas voter who’ll cast her vote for him.

My sense, though, is that the my friend has revealed more about the general electorate’s mood going into this presidential campaign than perhaps she realized.

There’s a lot negative karma in the air.

Media simply ‘afflicting the comfortable’

donald-trump

Journalism has its share of clichés that seek to define its mission.

One of them is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

It doesn’t betray a bias, per se. It simply defines one of the tenets that drives journalists to do their job with thoroughness, while being fair to those they are examining.

Thus, a group of journalists sat before Donald J. Trump on Tuesday and grilled the presumptive Republican presidential nomination on donations he said he made to veterans organizations.

Trump’s response was to throw a tantrum.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/donald-trump-tantrum-media-role-louis/index.html

The issue at hand dealt with whether Trump actually donated the amount of money he said he had donated to veterans organizations.

Washington Post reporters had detected a discrepancy in what Trump had said, that the money went to the organizations many months after he said he made the donation. So, media representatives questioned him about that discrepancy, only to have Trump respond with another round of name-calling and insults.

Trump seems to demonstrate a casual disregard for the facts. He said after the 9/11 attacks that he witnessed “thousands and thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

He didn’t witness anything of the sort.

Some pundits have accused Trump of being a “pathological liar,” defining it as a case in which the candidate tells a lie knowing it to be a lie and understanding full well that others who hear it also know it to be a lie.

It’s the media’s responsibility to ensure that candidates be held accountable for statements they make.

That’s what happened at the news conference Tuesday as the media grilled the candidate on what he said he’d done on behalf of veterans organizations.

Sure, they have “afflicted the comfortable.” It’s their job.