Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Let’s make it a three-way race for POTUS

johnson

It’s official.

Americans are going to have three — count ’em, three — legitimate candidates for president and vice president of the United States to consider.

You may now count me as among the millions of Americans who are going to ponder the third path to the White House.

The Libertarian Party has nominated two accomplished former governors as its ticket to ride: Republicans Gary Johnson of New Mexico for president and William Weld of Massachusetts for vice president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/libertarians-johnson-weld-trump-gary-william-223703

Here’s my dilemma.

I’ve told you already that I’ve voted exclusively for Democrats for president/VP since I started voting back in 1972. I’ve split my down-ballot ticket, though, over the years; I’ve voted for many Republicans for U.S. Senate and House, and for state and local offices in the two states where I’ve lived.

I do not yet know how I’m going to vote this year for president and vice president.

Under no circumstances would I vote for the likely GOP nominee Donald J. Trump and whoever he picks as his running mate. That’s a given.

The likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is presenting some potentially serious concerns for me. They center on that “trust” thing that’s dogging her. Am I ready to forsake her? No, but I am ready now to look carefully at what the third-party ticket of Johnson-Weld has to offer.

Both of these gentlemen were moderate Republicans when they governed their respective states. Today’s version of hard-core Republicanism would call them RINOs, RepublicansĀ In Name Only. Johnson is most well-known for advocating the legalization of marijuana. He also did a creditable job running New Mexico. I know a whole lot less about Weld.

Both are men of substantial financial means … although I don’t hear either of them brag about it the way Trump boasts of his y-u-u-u-g-e fortune.

Given that I understand that voting preference is a private matter, I’m not likely to reveal who will get my vote. That might become evident as I continue to comment on matters as the campaign progresses.

OK, you already know who won’t get it.

I suppose, then, that my choices now are just two — which is what they’ve always been in the past.

Whatever.

I now declare myself ready and willing to examine a ticket other than one from either of the two major political parties.

That’s a big step. AtĀ least it is for me.

 

So much to challenge in Trump’s message

90

WhateverĀ rhetorical concoctionĀ Donald J. Trump is peddling to those who’ve swilled it has been lost on me.

I’m trying to sort through the myriad reasons I detest the Republicans’ presumptive presidential nominee.

I’ve come up with a clear “winner.” It’s that ball cap he wears that bears the message “Make America Great Again.”

You’ve heard the mantra. The United States of America is a loser. Other countries are beating us up on trade. The people who run our government are incompetent. The nation is no longer great. Foreign leaders laugh at us. Our enemies no longer fear us.

Let’s process that for a moment.

Of all the interest groups that Trump has offended with his insults — Hispanics, African-Americans, women, veterans, disabled peopleĀ — can there be a larger group than, say, the entire nation of 300-plus million citizens?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-donald-rolling-thunder-veterans-223701

Just think about this. What the Republicans’ next presidential nominee is saying is that we no longer are a great nation. Haven’t the president’s foes — chiefly Republicans — chided him because he allegedly believes we aren’t an “exceptional nation”? Now their next nominee for president is saying essentially that that — and more. He’s proclaiming that we no longer are a great nation.

My wife, brother-in-law and I attended an air show this weekend at Cannon Air Force Base in Clovis, N.M. I realize a single public address announcer doesn’t speak for a nation, but the young man trumpeting the Air Force Thunderbirds aerial team kept referring to the Air Force as the world’s world greatest military force … and that it is part of a larger establishment that contributes to our national greatness.

At every level I can imagine, I consider the United States to be a great nation. As a patriot and a loyal American, I consider my country to be the greatest nation on Earth.

Trump’s ball cap says precisely the opposite.

Tell me again: Why isn’t every American offended by the message this guy is peddling?

 

Really … a Sanders-Trump debate a bad idea

Negative

I feel compelled to make an admission.

I was kidding when I sent out tweetsĀ that cheered the thought ofĀ a potential debate between Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and presumptive Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Yeah, I know. I shouldn’t kid about such serious matters.

One of these guys will be nominated by his party to run for president. It won’t be Sen. Sanders. It’s going to be the showman/carnival barker/rumor monger Trump.

The very idea of one guy who won’t be nominated debating the other guy who will is frankly preposterous — were you to ask me for my opinion.

Trump backed out, if you believe one version of how it came unraveled. He supposedly wanted Sanders to pay several million bucks up front. I’m not sure who would have gotten the dough.

But these debates ought to be reserved now — at this point in the campaign — for the individuals who’ll be nominated by the major parties. And, yes, if a third-party candidate gets enough public support, then invite that individual to take part, too.

So many conventional rules have been broken during this primary campaign. They start with the fact that Trump has survived this far into the GOP primary, given his unending string of insults, innuendo, lies and hourly flip-flops on controversial public policy statements.

The Republican and Democratic debates have been watched by the public not so much for the information one can glean from them, but for the entertainment value they bring to the serious process of nominating a presidential candidate.

Trump now has enough delegates in his pocket to be nominated in Cleveland. Clinton will have enough in her pocket very soon to get her party’s nomination in Philly.

Let’s focus now on how these two individuals are going to prep for what promises to be a series of barn burner debates.

 

Obama might be HRC’s secret weapon

obama_hillary_getty

There’s a hilarious moment during the 2008 presidential campaign featuring U.S. Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee for president.

Sen. McCain joined then-Sen. Barack Obama at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner in New York City. McCain had joked about a “pet name” he had used to describe Obama; it was the moment during a televised debate when he referred to the Democratic presidential nominee as “that one.”

“He even has a pet name for me,” McCain said.Ā “George Bush.”

He brought down theĀ  house with that crack. It also illustrated how the Obama team used President Bush’s low standing in the polls at the time to tar McCain’s chances at becoming elected president that year.

Don’t expect Republicans to employ that tactic against Hillary Rodham Clinton this year … if recent presidential approval ratings are an indicator.

President Obama’s standing has been climbing steadily for the past year. He’s now at roughly 50 percent approval among Americans. It’s not great — but it’s a heck of a lot better than it was shortly after he won re-election in 2012.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281575-hillary-clintons-ace-in-the-hole-obama

The “conventional wisdom” has been that if the president’s approval rating stands at 50 percent or greater, it helps the nominee of his party’s chance at the next election. I put the term “conventional wisdom” in quotes because this year’s campaign has relegated almost all such wisdom to be moot.

Witness the rise of Donald J. Trump as the GOP’s next presumptive nominee for president.

He has tossed decorum out the window; criticism doesn’t seem to stick to him; the absence of any public service record has given him license to say whatever the hell pops into his head … and his supporters don’t care that he either lies or doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Go figure.

However, with Obama scoring relatively well in public opinion surveys, it figures that Hillary Clinton is going to rely on him more as the campaign progresses.

Who could’ve seen that coming?

 

Yes, Donald, there’s a drought in California

460x

Donald J. Trump has declared there to be no drought in California.

It doesn’t exist, he said. There’s so much water way out west, he said, they’re sending it into the sea.

Let’s see.

That part of the country has seen record low snowpack. The rain has tailed off dramatically in many parts of the state. Residential, commercial and industrial development has continued at a frantic pace, forcing the consumption of water.

No drought?

Trump is mistaken. Again!

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/fea527c86dfe42c78609619c5ce7fd59/trump-vows-solve-californias-water-crisis

Trump’s reference to sending water into the ocean appears to deal with a dispute inside the state. According to the Associated Press:

“Trump appeared to be referring to disputes over water that runs from the Sacramento River to the San Francisco Bay and then to the ocean. Some farmers want more of that flow captured and diverted to them.

“Politically influential rural water districts and well-off corporate farmers in and around California’s Central Valley have been pushing back against longstanding federal laws protecting endangered fish and other species, saying federal efforts to make sure endangered native fish have enough water is short-changing farmers of the water they want and need for crops.”

Sure, there’s always longstanding disputes in California between environmentalists and agricultural producers. That appears to be the norm there. I won’t argue the point.

However, there really and truly is a drought occurring in California. It’s just not that difficult to realize that diminishing moisture and continued consumption of water puts strains on that priceless resource.

Yes, we have a drought in California.

Trump’s new ‘friends’ signal hateful campaign

donald

No doubt about it: This year’s presidential campaign will be decided on negativity with extreme prejudice.

Consider what’s going on here with the Republican Party’s coalescing behind presumptive nominee Donald J. Trump, the guy the party establishment once loathed to the point of wanting to dump him at the GOP convention this summer.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie calls Trump “unfit” to be president; then he endorses him. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry describes Trump as a “cancer on conservatism”; then he endorses him. House Speaker Paul Ryan calls Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims as “not a conservative value” and “un-American”; now he’s considering an endorsement. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio labels Trump a “con man”; now he’s about to lend his endorsement to the guy who dubbed him Little Marco.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rubio-signals-support-for-trump/ar-BBtyUXN?li=BBnb7Kz

What do all these pols have in common? A loathing of Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ probable nominee.

Make no mistake on this: Clinton is going pretty damn negative on Trump already.

The GOP establishment, though, now appears set to back the guy they once detested because they it cannot stomach the idea of another Clinton taking office in the White House.

What does that portend for the quality of this campaign?

I’d wager some serious dough it’s going to be the Mother, Father, Aunt, Uncle and Second Cousin of Negative Campaigns.

Yeah, some of you are going to argue, “Hey, man, it’s just politics.”

Actually, it need not be “just politics.” This ought to be a campaign of ideas, pitting one candidate’s philosophy, ideology and grand world view against the other one.

There’s only element missing: All of the above as they pertain to Donald Trump.

How do you campaign against a moving target?

donald-trump-gag-big

So much about this presidential campaign is a puzzle and I’m having trouble finding the pieces to complete it.

I’ll start and finish with Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee.

He has tossed every single bit of conventional wisdom into the Dumpster. Trump has no public service experience; he has demonstrated zero understanding of how government works; he has blustered, bullied and bloviated his way to this point in the campaign; his insults and innuendo should have doomed his candidacy months ago; his personal history is, well, checkered.

To my way of thinking, the most confusing element of this campaign is the absence of any philosophical grounding for this individual.

In normal election years, Democrats nominate a candidate who stands for a set of principles; Republicans do the same.

Hillary Clinton is about to become the Democratic nominee. She, too, has switched positions on occasion as she battles Sen. Bernie Sanders for her party’s nomination.

But one gets a general idea of Clinton’s world view: It seems to tilt left, with a more hawkish view of the use of military power than her more progressive political brethren.

Trump? Where does this guy stand? On anything?

He changes his positions almost hourly. Women should face punishment if they obtain an abortion; on second thought, he didn’t mean that. He would ban Muslims from entering the United States; oh, wait, that’s just a “suggestion.” He once was pro-choice on abortion; now he’s pro-life. He once called Hillary Clinton “great”; now he calls her “Crooked Hillary.” He said Mexico is sending drug dealers, rapists and killers into this country: but he says “I love Hispanics.” He has boasted about his philandering; now he seeks to woo the evangelical voters who comprise much of the GOP “base.”

How is Clinton going to campaign against any of that? How is she going to pit her ideas against his ideas, when he doesn’t seem to stand on a single principle — other than furthering his own ambition?

The late Gertrude Stein once said of Oakland, Calif., that “there is no ‘there’ there.”

I’mĀ sensing that Trump lacks a “there.”

‘Low energy’ Jeb to back Trump

Jeb  Bush

This is hilarious.

Donald J. Trump eviscerated a field of 16 fellow Republican presidential contenders with insults and counterattacks.

Remember when he called Jeb Bush a “low energy” candidate? It was a devastating attack on the former Florida governor who once was considered to be the man to beat for he 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

Bush then dropped out of the race.

Now we have Trump saying that Jeb is going to find a burst of “energy” and will endorse the presumptive presidential nominee.

I need to sort this out.

Trump insults Bush with the “low energy” crack. Trump then says Bush will find some “energy” and endorse him?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-jeb-bush-223582

Jeb Bush will endorse the GOP candidate who levels yet another veiled insult?

I do not think that will happen.

 

Targeting a female, Hispanic governor?

Screen-Shot-2016-05-25-at-9.13.48-AM-620x456

You’ve got to hand it to Donald J. Trump.

The man has zero filter. His political antennae have been blown over.

Get a load of this.

HeĀ traveledĀ to Albuquerque, the largest city — by far — in New Mexico and then for no obvious or apparent reason he launches into a rhetorical riff against Gov. Susana Martinez.

What makes this so, um, remarkable is that Trump’s comments seemed gratuitous. They had no foundation, nor did they contribute to whatever point he was trying to make.

He was talking about the increase in food stamps in New Mexico for the past dozen or so years. Then he dragged Martinez’s name into his remarks. The governor “has to do better,” he said.

OK, here’s another remarkable element.

New Mexico Governor Gov. Susana Martinez speaks to the delegation at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, Wednesday, August 29, 2012. (Harry E. Walker/MCT via Getty Images)

Trump is having trouble with two key voting blocs. He is looked at unfavorably among women and, uh, Hispanics. He’ll need both of those groups’ support if he has a prayer of being elected president of the United States.

Susana Martinez embodies both of them. All at once. At the same time.

She’s also a rising Republican Party star who, incidentally, had endorsed Marco Rubio in the GOP presidential primary campaign. She didn’t attend the rally at the Albuquerque assembly hall.

My hunch is that her star has risen a good bit higher in the wake of Trump’s ridiculous criticism.

Let ‘tradition’ stand regarding tax returns

trumpdonald_030116victoryspeech_getty

Call me a traditionalist.

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, wants Congress to enact legislation that requires presidential candidates to release their tax returns for public inspection.

With all due respect to my home boy, I think the bill is an overreach.

Wyden is responding to presumptive Republican presidential frontrunner Donald J. Trump’s refusal to release his returns. Trump contends his returns are under audit by the Internal Revenue Service, to which the IRS has responded “so what?”; an audit doesn’t preclude the release of the returns.

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/281194-dem-senator-offers-bill-to-require-candidates-to-release-tax-returns

The tradition has been for presidential candidates to release their returns. They’ve been doing it since 1976, the first election after the Watergate constitutional crisis that forced President Nixon to resign.

My own sense is that tradition ought to stand.

I believe candidates’ refusal to release those returns give voters a key gauge of their character. It gives voters a chance to determine a candidate’s trustworthiness. It enables voters to use such refusal as a measuring stick as to whether the candidate deserves their ballot-box endorsement.

To be sure, Wyden has a dog in this fight. He has endorsed Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton, who in turn has been blasting Trump to smithereens over his refusal to release his tax returns.

I get Sen. Wyden’s bias.

I also believe “tradition” ought to stand as a de facto rule. Let the presidential candidates decide whether to comply … and thenĀ let voters decide on the correctness of their refusal.