Tag Archives: Donald Trump

JFK becomes part of this campaign?

ted-cruz-father-jfk-assassination-f

Chris Matthews is a well-known liberal commentator with a reputation of talking over anyone he’s interviewing.

When the MSNBC pundit gets his dander up, he’s quite capable of delivering profound analysis of all things political.

Consider this: Matthews is incensed at Donald J. Trump’s assertion that Ted Cruz’s father somehow was complicit in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Matthews’ point? It is that Trump has crossed yet another boundary of good taste as he campaigns for the Republican Party presidential nomination. This time he has invoked a tragic memory that has burned itself indelibly into the minds of Americans old enough to remember the Nov. 22, 1963 murder of a president.

And for what purpose? Matthews called it cheap politics. Trump has cheapened Americans’ heartbreak by using the JFK murder as a political cudgel with which he seeks to beat a political opponent.

Trump remembers that day, just like the rest of us who were old enough to recall it.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Matthews’ belief that Trump once again has displayed an utter and absolute lack of respect for historical context.

Matthews also believes Trump’s preposterous assertion about Cruz’s father’s relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald is going to “matter.”

I’m not sure about that.

I do believe, though, that Trump lacks a fundamental trait necessary to become the head of state of the world’s greatest nation.

It is decency.

 

Don’t look for these rivals to make up

cruz-trump_jpg_800x1000_q100

Recent political history is full of examples of how rivals for the presidency have said means and occasionally disgusting things to and about each other … and then hooked up as allies.

In 1960, U.S. Sens. John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson fought each other for the Democratic presidential nomination. JFK was nominated and then picked LBJ to run with him. They won the election and the rest is, well, history.

Twenty years later, former Gov. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush battled for the 1980 Republican nomination, with Bush labeling Reagan’s tax plan as “voodoo economics.” Reagan won the GOP nod and then picked Bush to run alongside him as vice president.

In 2008, the combatants were Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden fighting for the Democratic nomination. Biden dropped out, Obama won the nomination and picked Biden to run with him. President-elect Obama then turned to another campaign rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and selected her to be secretary of state.

In 2016, well, matters are quite a bit different.

The battlers this time are Donald J. Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz. They are fighting for the Republican nomination.

The gloves are off. The brass knuckles are on. The men loathe each other. Trump calls Cruz “Lyin’ Ted.” Cruz is now responding with attacks on Trump, referring to him as a “pathological liar” and a “serial philanderer.”

Trump now says that Cruz’s father might have been a principal — are you ready for this one? — in the assassination of President Kennedy. Cruz’s response was classic: “Let’s be clear: This is nuts. This is not a reasonable position. This is kooky,” Cruz said in Evansville, Ind. “While I’m at it, I should go ahead and admit yes, my dad killed JFK, he is secretly Elvis and Jimmy Hoffa is buried in his backyard.”

Cruz is likely to get battered badly in today’s Indiana GOP primary. He’s going all-out against Trump. The men seem to truly despise each other.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/03/bracing-indiana-loss-cruz-unloads-trump/

Trying to predict any outcome in this year’s wacky presidential contest is a dicey proposition at best.

I feel comfortable, though, in asserting that Trump and Cruz will not team up for the fall campaign.

Time to handicap the fall election

103477256-trumphillary2rr.530x298

This isn’t the first comment written on the upcoming general election for president of the United States.

Having stipulated that I’m a little late stepping into this muck, I’ll now offer what I believe is shaping up for the fall campaign.

Hillary vs. Donald will be the most miserable campaign in most people’s memories.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is now almost assuredly going to face Donald J. Trump in the race for the White House.

As I look at the Electoral College map and read all that polling data, I am left with an inescapable conclusion. It is that unless Clinton gets indicted a month before the election on some made-up charge by a federal grand jury involving the use of her personal email account, she is going to become the second history-making president in a row.

Just as Barack Obama was the first African-American to become president, Hillary Clinton will become … oh, you know.

Not only that, in my humble view she very well could make history in another fashion. She could score the largest electoral landslide perhaps since Ronald Reagan’s re-election victory in 1984. President Reagan won 49 states and 525 electoral votes.

All that’s left, thus, for Clinton is to score a 50-state sweep. I believe it’s possible.

How do I know that? Well, I don’t know it.

Polling data, though, suggest that Trump’s huge gender gap is too big to overcome. Women have something like a 70-plus percent unfavorable view of Trump. Women also comprise about 53 percent of the population; the percentage is even greater among likely voters. Women tend to vote more than men.

That’s one key demographic working against Trump.

Let’s try another one: Latinos.

Trump’s opening gambit during the campaign was to label illegal Mexican immigrants as rapists, murderers and drug dealers, while adding he was “sure there are some good ones, too.”

Now, if you’re a Latino American, do you believe this individual really cares about you? Are you going to buy into his notion that he just “loves Hispanics” because “so many of them work for me”?

Therein lies another gold mine for Team Clinton.

I also will posit this notion: Trump’s hideous standing among Latinos is going to make states such as Texas and Arizona highly competitive for Clinton and the Democrats. New Mexico will vote for Clinton anyway, along with Colorado, Nevada and California.

You want another towering obstacle for Trump? How about those “traditional Republicans” who don’t trust Trump as far as they can throw him. The evangelical voters who comprise so much of the Deep South aren’t likely to stampede willingly to Clinton’s side. Instead, they just might sit this election out, denying Trump the cushion he would need to defeat Clinton throughout Dixie.

The Rust Belt is a goner for Trump. The Great Lakes, the Northeast and New England all are locked in for Clinton.

The Farm Belt? What in the world has Trump done to woo voters who live in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, except “tell it like it is”? These states also are full of those traditional Republicans who dislike Trump’s garish lifestyle and his less-than-stellar personal conduct over the years.

The Pacific Northwest will stand firm behind Clinton. Hawaii is for Hillary. Alaska, too.

OK, I’ve just spent a lot of energy in the past few minutes bashing Donald Trump.

What does Hillary Clinton bring to the table? What would commend her?

I get that she’s got a lot of negatives, too. She doesn’t appear to be the most trustworthy candidate in the history of the Republic.

However, she is tough. She is seasoned. She knows how government works. Say what you want about her playing the “woman card,” her gender will work in her favor.

This campaign will not be waged on the high ground. It will be fought in the trenches. Trump will take it there, just as he has done throughout the Republican Party primary. Those who have watched the Clinton organization up close, though, know that Hillary Clinton has surrounded herself with seasoned, battle-tested pros who know how to respond quickly and with maximum effectiveness.

Having said all this, I am the first to acknowledge that I am wrong more than I am right.

On this one,  though, my gut tells me I am more right than wrong.

One final caveat. This election campaign to date has turned every conventional political theory on its ear.

We shall see.

Cruz channels Newt by blaming the media

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz speaks during the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at the National Rifle Association's 142 Annual Meetings and Exhibits in the George R. Brown Convention Center Friday, May 3, 2013, in Houston.  The 2013 NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits runs from Friday, May 3, through Sunday, May 5.  More than 70,000 are expected to attend the event with more than 500 exhibitors represented. The convention will features training and education demos, the Antiques Guns and Gold Showcase, book signings, speakers including Glenn Beck, Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin as well as NRA Youth Day on Sunday ( Johnny Hanson / Houston Chronicle )

Ted Cruz is likely to get beat Tuesday in Indiana.

With a probable win in the Hoosier State’s Republican presidential primary, Donald J. Trump  will be standing as the presumptive GOP nominee.

So, who’s Ted Cruz blaming for the flameout his campaign suddenly is experiencing? The media.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/01/chuck_todd_to_ted_cruz_republican_voters_are_the_ones_rejecting_you_this_is_not_a_media_conspiracy.html

It’s not going to work for the junior U.S. senator from Texas any more than it worked for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich four years ago when he sought to blame the messenger for reporting negative things about his campaign.

“Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd tried in vain Sunday to get Cruz to answer a simple declarative question: Will you support Trump if he’s the nominee?

Cruz didn’t answer. He then sought to blame the media, which he said are controlled by liberal Democrats.

“That’s what people hate about politics and the media,” Todd answered. “The broad brush.”

Yes, Cruz was painting the media with the broadest of brushes. Gingrich sought to do the same thing in 2012 with his broadsides against the “mainstream media.”

I just feel compelled to remind all of those who keep insisting the media speak with one voice that the “mainstream media” also comprise a large number of conservative voices. Fox News Channel? The bevy of radio talk-show hosts? All the right-leaning publications around the country — The Weekly Standard, The National Review? They, too, are part of the mainstream.

And let’s not ignore the torrent of online outlets that give the conservatives — even the “true conservatives,” such as Sen. Cruz — plenty of opportunities to air their views.

As Todd told Cruz on Sunday, Republican voters — not the media — are rejecting his message.

TEA Party redefines GOP

no_more_rinos_button-r97538a5782bf4c0ab20814f2a24f2ddf_x7j3i_8byvr_324

One of the more fascinating dynamics of the current political climate has been the realigning — in the minds of some folks — of the Republican Party.

I actually have laughed out loud at the TEA Party faction of the GOP that has taken to referring to “mainstream Republicans” as RINOs: Republicans in Name Only.

TEA Party, of course, actually is an acronym that stands for Taxed Enough Already. They comprise the harsher wing of the once-great party. They also have dominated the debate within the Republican Party and are seeking to dominate the debate across the nation.

The impending nomination of Donald J. Trump as the GOP’s next presidential candidate quite possibly is going to trigger a major realignment. The party we’ve come to know and (some of us) loathe might not exist after the November election if Trump gets swept by Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton; by “swept” I mean that Clinton quite possibly could score a historic landslide victory.

My hope for the party is that it reconfigures itself in the mold of, say, Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, Everett Dirksen, George H.W. Bush and — just for good measure — Ronald W. Reagan.

Today’s TEA Party faithful like to compare themselves to Reagan. It’s a false comparison. Why? Reagan knew how to work with Democrats. He was unafraid to reach across to those on the other side when the need arose.

Today’s TEA Party cabal has none of that skill, or willingness.

I keep hearing from my network of friends, acquaintances and former professional colleagues who keep tossing the RINO epithet at today’s Republicans who, in my view, are far more traditionally Republican in their political world view than the zealots who’ve hijacked the party’s once-good name for their own purpose.

Let the realignment continue.

 

What once was impossible has become probable

trump04-2016getty

I never thought it would come to this.

The Republican Party now looks as though it’s about to nominate a certifiably unfit individual for the presidency of the United States of America.

Donald J. Trump is the man.

I’ve had more conversations with fellow political junkies that I am able to count. Some of them are Trumpkins. Most are not.

To those who support Trump, I am no longer able to persuade them that they have made a huge mistake. To those who stand with me in their utter disbelief at what appears set to transpire in Cleveland this summer, I only can say: I feel your pain.

This individual’s political ascent is utterly beyond belief.

At any level imaginable, he is unfit for the office of president.

Let’s start with Trump’s personal history. He is married to his third wife. He divorced his first two wives. He produced a child with the woman who would become his second wife while he was still married to Wife No. 1. He would boast of his extramarital affairs.

His opulent lifestyle is beyond anything that virtually all Americans cannot relate.

Trump’s ignorance of policy take my breath away. He said he wouldn’t stand in the way of Japan and South Korea developing nuclear weapons as a hedge against North Korea. He utterly doesn’t understand or comprehend the reason for NATO’s existence in Europe.

How about this man’s initial statement about women deserving to be punished for obtaining an illegal abortion? Can there be anything more ridiculous than to punish a woman for making this kind of decision?

The insults have become almost too routine to chronicle. I won’t go there. You know what he’s said about his foes, about illegal immigrants, about one noted Vietnam War veteran’s captivity during that horrible conflict, people with physical disabilities.

He doesn’t understand the limits of power contained in the office he seeks. The people who wrote the Constitution built in some limits on the presidency. Trump keeps talking about all the things he intends to do unilaterally: build a wall, bring back jobs, make sure department store employees deliver “Merry Christmas” greetings to customers.

How does this buffoon keep getting support? Why, he “tells it like it is,” his supporters say. He hates “political correctness.”

Well, I never in a zillion years thought we’d get to this point.

What in the world has happened to a once-great political party?

Boehner spills the beans on Cruz

AA88oi6

I guess the proverbial cat is out of the bag regarding Ted Cruz.

His relationships with fellow lawmakers appears to be, well, in shambles.

Former House Speaker John Boehner calls the junior U.S. senator from Texas “Lucifer in the flesh” and the “most miserable S.O.B” he’s ever known.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/boehner-uncorks-on-%e2%80%98lucifer%e2%80%99-cruz-says-he-wouldn%e2%80%99t-back-him-in-fall/ar-BBsnfD6?li=BBnb7Kz

Yep, and to think that Cruz thinks he can work with the legislative branch of government to enact whatever agenda he proposes if he’s elected president of the United States.

I get that Boehner is just one individual. I also get that Boehner left public office in 2015 after serving a tumultuous tenure as the Man of the House. The tumult, though, seemed to come as much from the TEA Party wing of the GOP as it did from Democrats who sat on the other side of the aisle from Republicans who control Capitol Hill.

Frankly, Boehner’s critique of his former legislative colleague isn’t surprising. Others have offered biting commentary about Cruz’s time in the Senate. They are critical of his grandstanding, showmanship and his theatrics.

Perhaps they are annoyed in the extreme at Cruz’s insistence on criticizing the “establishment wing” of the Republican Party — while serving within that very establishment.

The wackiness of this primary campaign is continuing at full throttle.

Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich have formed a non-aggression pact to deny Donald J. Trump the GOP presidential nomination. They’re tag-teaming in this desperate move to clear the paths for each other to take on Trump in selected remaining primary states.

Trump’s standing within the Republican Party is, well, tenuous.

One of the men who seeks to topple Trump is a politician who engenders the kind of spite that a former leading public figure has just revealed.

 

Cruz-Fiorina: that’s the ticket

fiorinacarly_042716getty

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz wanted to “shake up” the Republican Party presidential primary contest.

So, what does he do?

He selects a former fellow GOP candidate, a failed U.S. Senate candidate and (some would say) a failed business executive as his vice-presidential running mate.

Welcome back to the battle, Carly Fiorina.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/277956-cruz-rolls-dice-with-fiorina

I don’t have a clue how this will catapult Cruz to the GOP nomination at this stage of the primary campaign.

Donald J. Trump scored a five-state sweep Tuesday. He took several big steps toward cinching the party nomination. So, his main rival picks a has-been candidate to shore up his failing bid?

Go figure.

I’m going to give Fiorina some praise. I thought she was the best candidate of all the then-large GOP crowd during that first debate. When was that again? I can’t remember.

She was on the so-called “happy hour” roster of candidates who didn’t fare as well in public opinion polling as the leaders. I thought she killed it with her crisp answers and command of the facts.

I’m still trying to figure out how she gets past her failed effort at being elected senator from California and her forced resignation as head of Hewlett-Packard.

That initial debate performance was her high-water mark, as near as I can tell.

This is the first time in 40 years that a major-party presidential candidate has named a running mate in advance of the party convention. The last one to do so was former California Gov. Ronald Reagan in 1976, when he picked moderate GOP U.S. Sen. Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania. Reagan still fell short in his effort to topple President Ford in his bid for election that year.

I cannot fathom how this derails Trump.

At least Cruz has enlisted a fearless and ferocious critic of Hillary Clinton.

Come to think of it, that might be Cruz’s strategy: soften up Hillary for Trump.

Before you think that’s an utterly preposterous notion, then consider that Donald J. Trump is about to become the presidential nominee of a once-great American political party.

 

Hell freezes over for one Republican

rs_1024x759-150709052426-1024.Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-JR-70915_copy

It’s official: Hell has frozen over.

A friend called me today. He lives in Gray County, Texas. He’s a long-standing Republican. He then warned me about what was about to come out of his mouth.

“I’m going to vote for Hillary,” he said.

To say I was taken aback would be to commit a profound understatement.

He’s getting ahead of himself just a little bit. My friend presumes that Donald J. Trump will be the Republican Party’s presidential nominee and that Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s choice.

He doesn’t like Clinton. My friend said she lies too much and that he doesn’t trust her.

Still, according to my friend, she remains preferable to who he believes — and so do I — is the probable GOP nominee.

“I am not a Trump guy,” my pal said.

There was another element that drove my friend over to the other side. It was the non-aggression pact agreed to by Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich. My friend doesn’t think much of Kasich and he said he voted for Cruz in the Texas GOP primary at the beginning of March. He said he liked Cruz’s claim of being an “outsider.”

Then Cruz struck the deal with Kasich in this last-chance bid to derail Trump. To my friend, that smacked of “establishment politics.” So, his support for Cruz disappeared when he teamed up with Kasich in this stop-Trump gamble.

At one level, his acknowledgement surprises me. At another level, my friend seems to symbolize the national mood about the upcoming contest for the presidency.

He vowed to vote for one of the major-party nominees. He said he didn’t want to “waste my vote” on a fringe candidate; he also said he didn’t want to sit this election out.

Trump’s candidacy has produced this kind of impact with Republicans all over the country. They don’t buy his newfound “conservative values.” They don’t trust him. They are horrified at the things that he has uttered along the campaign trail.

With that, Hillary Rodham Clinton has gained at least one vote from someone in the Texas Panhandle where she likely never thought she would.

Go figure.

‘Tag team’ gangs up against Trump

cruz and kasich

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio have formed a tag team.

The want to stop Donald J. Trump’s march to the Republican Party’s presidential nomination so badly they’re willing to forget the mean things they’ve said about each other.

Will it work? I am not holding my breath for this strategy to cause the sky to crash down on Trump’s campaign.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/ted-cruz-john-kasich-team-up-222377

It is an interesting alliance and an interesting strategy.

Kasich is going to bow out of campaigning actively for the Indiana GOP primary in two weeks, intending to leave the field more open to Cruz. Meanwhile, Cruz said he’s going to cede the anti-Trump vote in Oregon and New Mexico to Kasich.

What does this to — or for — Trump? It gives him some ammo to fire in his effort to suggest the GOP primary nomination selection process is “rigged” against him.

Yep, it’s going to fire up those devoted Trumpsters — or should I call them Trumpkins? — who are standing by their man through thick and thin.

My nagging question, though, is this: Suppose this strategy works. Who between the tag-team partners is going to emerge as the top dog in this fight for the party’s presidential nomination?