Tag Archives: Donald Trump

national news, political news

Third-party bid emerging from … GOP?

romneymitt_110512gn8

I’m always willing to admit to being a little slow on the uptake at times.

Here’s an example of something I’m having trouble connecting.

Mitt Romney is recruiting members from within the Republican Party to run as “third-party” candidates for president in 2016.

Yes, that Mitt Romney. The Republicans’ 2012 presidential nominee. Mr. Establishment Republican himself.

Here’s what’s puzzling. At least two of the names he’s recruiting belong to other mainstream Republicans. Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279926-report-romney-met-with-kasich-sasse-about-third-party

These two fellows have at least one thing in common: They both despise Donald J. Trump, the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee.

For that matter, you can add Mitt to the list of Trump foes.

Let’s play this out for a second or two.

What happens if, say, Kasich or Sasse decide to take Mitt’s bait? They run for president as a “third party candidate.” What in the world do they call this “third party”? Would it be Republican 2.0? How about the Real Republican Party? Or, Your Grandpa’s GOP?

Trump’s brand of Republican Party politics bears virtually no resemblance to the kind of platform on which Mitt ran in 2012, or on which Kasich ran this year until he suspended his campaign just a few weeks ago.

I don’t know much about Sen. Sasse, other than he’s been a vocal Trump critic ever since Trump decided to run for the party’s presidential nomination.

I guess you have to go way back to 1912 to find such a serious schism within the Republican Party. That was when former President Theodore Roosevelt broke away from the GOP to form a progressive party, the Bull Moose Party. That split guaranteed the election that year of Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

I’m guessing no one needs to remind Mitt that history does have a way of repeating itself.

 

national news, political news

No, Ivanka … Dad hasn’t ‘elevated’ the debate

trump_050316getty

Ivanka Trump’s love for her father is a beautiful thing to see.

Most of the time.

It becomes a bit less beautiful when she says things about the “contribution” dear ol’ Dad has made to the level of discourse in this year’s campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Donald J. Trump — Ivanka’s father — has “elevated (the debate) — he’s created dialogue around issues. It’s a powerful thing,” she said.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279838-ivanka-trump-my-father-has-elevated-the-dialogue

I don’t believe that’s the case.

Trump has come under intense criticism from leaders in both major political parties for, let’s see, doing the precise opposite of what Ivanka Trump says he has done.

He has lowered the level of discourse. He has taken it to depths not seen in at least two generations.

Daddy Trump’s insults of other candidates have topped the charts.

He has ridiculed other candidates’ physical appearance, their eating habits, their level of “energy.” He has hurtful things about a journalist’s physical disability. Trump has said amazingly crass things about the alleged reasons another journalist asked him tough and pointed questions at a televised debate.

Ivanka Trump also disregards the lies Trump has told all along the way as he moves closer to becoming the Republican Party’s presidential nominee.

One stands out: Donald Trump said he watched “thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attacks. He’s also said the Mexican government is sending rapists, drug dealers and murderers to commit mayhem and misery on this side of the countries’ common border.

This is how his daughter — by all accounts an accomplished young woman — describes as “elevating” the level of discourse during the campaign for president.

She said her father is “honest.” He says what’s on his mind at the moment, Ivanka said.

There’s something to be said — although I don’t know what that would be — for that brand of “honesty.” Let us not, though, suggest that it elevates the quality of what has passed so far for political debate.

 

 

national news, political news

Trump denies an impersonation?

2 Comments

trump

Can this campaign for the presidency get any stranger than it has gotten in the past few hours?

Yeah. It can. More than likely it will.

Donald J. Trump’s unbelievable march to the Republican Party presidential nomination has been hit with another bizarre tale. It involves a Washington Post report that in 1991, Trump impersonated someone named “John Miller” while extolling the virtues of — yep, that’s right — Donald Trump.

“Miller” was talking up Trump’s virtues in an effort to stave off reportedly negative publicity about his divorce. Those who’ve heard the recording insist it’s Trump’s voice.

Here’s where it gets weirder in the extreme. Trump this morning denied it was him.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-denies-impersonating-spokesman-223158

What’s utterly insane is that even an untrained voice analyst can detect speech patterns and sentence structure that sound identical to what the real Donald Trump uses today.

But, oh no. Trump said it’s not him.

In the grand scheme of things, this likely shouldn’t count as a big deal. Except that we’re talking now about the man who’s poised to become a major-party presidential nominee. All he had to say when asked about the recorded phone conversation was, “Yes, I did it. I like to promote myself. I was just having a little fun.”

The reporter who covered the conversation initially for People magazine has said just in the past day that Trump actually called her at the time to apologize for impersonating this “John Miller” character.

Given this candidate’s astonishing record of getting away with utterly outrageous behavior on the campaign trail, do not look for this latest incident to put much of a dent in his upcoming nomination.

We can, I suppose, just add it to the lengthy list of bizarre behavior that has been the hallmark of his business and personal life.

To think he’s going to try to sell that record to a country that in just a few months will be electing its next head of state.

 

national news, political news

Tax matters become our business

2 Comments

13firstdraft-trump1-tmagArticle

You’re running for president of the United States.

It’s a grueling event. It has required candidates to do things they dislike doing, but they do them anyway.

One of those things is to reveal to the public they intend to govern how much they pay in taxes to the federal government. Presidential candidates have been doing it since 1976. It’s not required by law; candidates just do it. Some do so more willingly than others.

So, when a media representative asks the candidate about his or her tax rate, how much they pay in taxes, how is the candidate supposed to respond?

Donald J. Trump got that question this morning from George Stephanopoulos on ABC-TV’s “Good Morning America.” Trump’s response? “It’s none of your business.”

Well, actually it is.

The man now presumed to be the Republican Party’s next presidential nominee is throwing out tax plans left and right. He’s back-tracking, switching his views, telling us what he intends to do — before he changes his mind — about how much money he wants the rest of us to pay in taxes.

Trump has been less-than-forthcoming on his tax returns. He won’t release them for public review, contending that the Internal Revenue Service is in the midst of an audit. IRS officials respond with, “So what?” He still can release the returns.

Trump won’t do it.

Then he tells a network news anchor that the information is “none of your business.”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/13/donald-trump-on-his-tax-rate-its-none-of-your-business/?_r=0

It is absolutely our business to know how much a man who wants to be president pays in taxes to the government — our government, the one financed by American taxpayers.

Of course, the president doesn’t set tax policy by himself — or herself. Tax legislation originates in the House of Representatives. As the saying goes, “The president proposes, Congress disposes.”

Still, if a president is going to propose tax policy to Congress — which might then become law that has a direct impact on every American’s household income — then the public has a right to know whether the presidential candidate is paying his or her fair share.

Who determines what is fair? We do.

 

International news, military news, national news

Listen to this man’s sensible argument on fighting terror

kurdish fighters

David Petraeus is a retired U.S. Army general — the four-star variety. He served in combat and commanded troops in the fight against international terrorists.

He served for a time as the nation’s spook in chief, aka the director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

He’s written a compelling essay for the Washington Post in which he argues forcefully against those — that would include you, Donald J. Trump — who propose to ban visitors to this country based solely on their religion.

Here’s the crux of what Gen. Petraeus is trying to convey:

“I have grown increasingly concerned about inflammatory political discourse that has become far too common both at home and abroad against Muslims and Islam, including proposals from various quarters for blanket discrimination against people on the basis of their religion.

“Some justify these measures as necessary to keep us safe — dismissing any criticism as ‘political correctness.’ Others play down such divisive rhetoric as the excesses of political campaigns here and in Europe, which will fade away after the elections are over…

“As policy, these concepts are totally counterproductive: Rather than making our country safer, they will compound the already grave terrorist danger to our citizens. As ideas, they are toxic and, indeed, non-biodegradable — a kind of poison that, once released into our body politic, is not easily expunged.

“Setting aside moral considerations, those who flirt with hate speech against Muslims should realize they are playing directly into the hands of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. The terrorists’ explicit hope has been to try to provoke a clash of civilizations — telling Muslims that the United States is at war with them and their religion. When Western politicians propose blanket discrimination against Islam, they bolster the terrorists’ propaganda.”

Take a look at the complete essay:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-petraeus-anti-muslim-bigotry-aids-islamist-terrorists/2016/05/12/5ab50740-16aa-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

How about returning sanity — and intelligence — to this issue of protecting ourselves against those who seek to do us harm?

 

 

national news, political news

Trump, GOP draw closer … still have a long way to go

90

Now we hear that Donald J. Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan have closed the rift between them.

Fine, if you’re a Republican. I guess.

Are they anywhere near closing the deal in the wake of their 45-minute meeting in Washington, D.C.?

Let’s see:

— Trump won’t touch entitlement spending, but he vows to erase the budget deficit quickly.

— Trump opposes trade agreements that allow for freer trade between the United States and our international partners.

— Trump wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

— Trump says he’s fine with Japan and South Korea developing nuclear arsenals.

— Trump says President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in a deliberate deception to start a war with Iraq.

— Trump wants foreign governments to pay us back for the assistance we give them.

— Trump is open to the United States withdrawing from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

— Trump says rich people should pay more in taxes.

I’m pretty sure that Speaker Ryan disagrees fundamentally with all those views. The presumptive presidential nominee’s view on tax policy and trade run completely counter to standard conservative Republican orthodoxy.

I know I’m missing a few examples. Those are the ones that come to mind immediately.

Trump has said “party unity” is overrated. Now he’s all in favor of it.

I will await the outcome of this run-up to the GOP convention in Cleveland along with the rest of the nation.

If Trump caves in to GOP policy, he risks ticking off his ardent followers.

If the “GOP establishment” surrenders to Trump, then the true-blue Republican faithful will be left standing in the rain.

Ryan today talked about standing firm on “core principles,” which I believe he possesses. Trump’s principles? I’m still waiting for him to reveal them.

 

local news, national news, political news, State news

‘No’ never really means no for VP hopefuls

Rob Portman Pictures12

U.S. Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio said “no” when NBC News asked him if he’d consider running as Donald J. Trump’s vice-presidential nominee this year.

Does that mean he would refuse to run with Trump if he asks him to do so? Does it mean the Republican will have none of it … ever?

Hardly.

It means only that he intends — at this moment — to seek re-election to the Senate.

How many times have these politicians  said “no” only to change their minds when the phone rings? A zillion?

I’m going to flash back for a moment to a conversation my colleagues and I had in Beaumont with the late, great U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen.

It was 1988. The Democratic senator was running for re-election. He visited us at the Beaumont Enterprise to talk about that campaign. The presidential primary campaign was winding down. Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis was pondering a VP pick. Bentsen’s name was being kicked around.

So … I asked him: Would you run for vice president if Dukakis asked?

I don’t recall precisely how Sen. Bentsen answered, but I do recall he said “no,” or words to that effect. He said he was focused only on his re-election campaign against Republican nominee U.S. Rep. Beau Boulter of Amarillo.

About a week later, his phone rang. It was Gov. Dukakis. The governor asked Bentsen to run with him on the Democratic ticket. His “no” turned to “yes.”

My memory of that conversation makes it difficult for me to accept a “no” at face value when the subject of running for vice president comes up.

In this election cycle, though, it strikes me as plausible that saying “no” to a presidential nominee as weird and unpredictable as Donald Trump actually might carry more weight.

 

business news, national news, political news

Release the tax returns already!

tax-return-form

Here’s how you give birth to rumor.

You refuse to do something that others in your position have done for decades. You then offer lame excuses for the refusal, which then start to breed gossip around the country about the alleged real reasons for the refusal.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump is refusing to release his tax returns. He says the Internal Revenue Service is in the midst of an audit; the IRS responds that an audit does not preclude someone from releasing the returns.

Other candidates for the presidency have routinely released their returns for public review. It’s part of the examination process to which the public is entitled as they consider who should become the nation’s head of state and government and commander in chief.

Trump should release the returns. Now.

I am not going to weigh in on what’s been said by those who think Trump might be hiding something. Such allegations have come from, say, 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

This might seem like a diversion. It really isn’t.

The refusal to comply what’s been customary among presidential candidates speaks to the character of the candidate.

Recall that Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders balked initially at releasing his returns, and he faced questions from an inquiring public. He said his wife prepared them and he described the findings as “boring.” He finally did.

Trump has been bellowing for decades about his immense wealth. He’s boasted about what a “world-class businessman” he’s been.

Well, OK. Let’s open up the books and let the public see for itself.

The world is chock full of equally world-class certified public accountants and tax lawyers who can parse the details for us.

 

 

 

national news, political news

Unity? It’s not necessary, according to Trump

12TRUMPMANDATE-master768

There once was a time when political unity spelled success for candidates who traded on it.

In 1968 and again in 1972, Democrats nominated candidates for president who sought to win with their party in shambles.

In 1976, Republicans nominated an incumbent president who had to fight for his political survival against an insurgent.

In every case mentioned here, the disunited party lost the election.

Is that going to happen in 2016? Those of us who’ve been proven wrong at almost every turn about the Republican primary campaign should hold our thoughts to ourselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Donald J. Trump says unity isn’t a prerequisite for him winning the election this fall. The Republican Party is ripping itself into pieces over this individual’s pending nomination for president.

Big deal, says Trump. He has a “mandate” to keep doing what he’s been doing, Trump says. According to the New York Times:

“Mr. Trump, in a telephone interview, compared his candidacy to hit Broadway shows and championship baseball teams, saying that success begot success and that he would be foolish to change his behavior now.

“’You win the pennant and now you’re in the World Series — you gonna change?’ Mr. Trump said. ‘People like the way I’m doing.’”

Still, he’s going to meet Thursday with House Speaker Paul Ryan and some other leading Republicans to talk about, oh, unifying the party.

I’ve become more of a political traditionalist as I’ve gotten older. I once worked real hard to elect the late Sen. George McGovern in 1972. It didn’t work out for us.

I now believe unity is better for the candidate than disunity.

Trump needs virtually all Republicans — and a lot of Democrats and independents — to vote for him if he intends to take the presidential oath next January. My own sense is that he’s still got a gigantic hill ahead of him.

Far more women view him unfavorably than favorably; same with Hispanics and African-Americans. He’ll need far more of them if he has a prayer against the Democratic nominee, who likely will be Hillary Clinton.

Does he obtain majorities with those key voting blocs by leading a divided, disjointed and dysfunctional Republican Party?

For the life of me, I don’t know how he does that.

Then again, I don’t know how this clown finds himself on the doorstep of a major-party presidential nomination.

 

national news, political news

When did political spouses deserve the blame?

kennedys

A picture showed up on my Facebook feed with the caption: No one blamed Jackie for what Jack did.

Hmm. Interesting, yes?

Now we’re getting a lot of blame being tossed around at the wife of another president.

Times really have changed.

President John F. Kennedy was a seriously unfaithful husband. During the time he was president — from January 1961 until November 1963 — his transgressions went unreported by the media that knew about it, but kept it secret through an understanding: If it doesn’t affect his performance as president, it doesn’t matter.

Years later, long after JFK had been buried and his wife had remarried, the world knew of what he had done behind his wife’s back.

Have we blamed Jackie for what the president did?

No. Today, the calculus is different.

Republican candidate for president Donald J. Trump is now blaming Hillary Rodham Clinton for being an “enabler.” That’s a reason to vote against her for president, said Trump. Why? Because she was mean to other women who accused her husband, Bill Clinton, of being unfaithful to her.

The House of Representatives impeached President Clinton for lying under oath about his relationship with a young White House intern. The Senate acquitted him in the trail that ensued.

Does any of that have an impact on how Hillary Rodham Clinton would govern the country if she’s elected president this fall? No.

In fact, I saw another social media post that suggested that Hillary Clinton’s response to her husband’s transgression should be saluted, not condemned. The Clinton family stayed together. They worked through their anger and heartbreak.

Of course, none of us knows what they have said to each other in private. Nor should we know. It’s their business exclusively.

Perhaps the most ironic twist of all in this game of blaming a political spouse for her husband’s behavior is the reputation of the individual who’s leveling the blame.

Given his own highly publicized history of marital infidelity, Donald Trump has no standing — zero! — to challenge the moral rectitude of any other human being in public life.