Tag Archives: Jimmy Carter

‘I did not say a negative word about Donald Trump’

578133554-ted-cruz-GOP-convention

Ted Cruz did not endorse Donald J. Trump when he spoke to the Republican National Convention delegates.

No. The junior U.S. senator from Texas spoke about conservative principles, the Constitution and faithfulness to principle.

But he didn’t “say a negative word about Donald Trump.”

Thus, Cruz said this morning in remarks to the Texas convention delegation, he is comfortable with the theme of his speech.

I am scratching my head this morning. I’m trying to shake the cobwebs loose.

I watched most of Sen. Cruz’s speech Wednesday night. I waited for the “Therefore, I intend to endorse …” moment. It didn’t come.

And when Cruz finished his speech, the hoots and jeers from the convention floor drowned out whatever cheers were coming from the floor.

My question this morning centers on this issue: If you’re a presidential nominee and you are in charge of the convention agenda, don’t you want to be sure that if your chief challenger is going to speak to the convention — during prime TV time — that the challenger endorses your candidacy?

So, this morning the punditry across the country isn’t talking about vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence’s remarks at the end of the evening. We’re talking instead about what Ted Cruz didn’t say.

I get that this isn’t the first example of challengers failing to endorse their party’s nominee at the convention. Ronald Reagan’s speech at the1976 GOP convention didn’t exactly offer a ringing endorsement of President Ford; Nelson Rockefeller was booed during his entire speech by Barry Goldwater delegates at the 1964 GOP gathering; Ted Kennedy finished his 1980 speech at the Democratic convention without endorsing President Carter and then was chased around the stage as Carter sought to raise his hand in that symbolic pose.

Trump has campaigned on his take-charge, can-do approach to everything.

He hasn’t taken charge of the political convention that has nominated him to run for president of the United States.

Cruz’s ‘dream’ still burns brightly

cruz-trump_jpg_800x1000_q100

So much for the anticipation of an endorsement from one of Donald J. Trump’s chief Republican rivals.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz strode to the microphone this evening to speak to GOP convention delegates. Many of them expected — or at least hoped — that the Texas lawmaker would endorse the man of the hour, Trump.

He didn’t.

Cruz mentioned the party presidential nominee’s one time. He did it early in his remarks … and then tore into a riff about the fight for freedom, liberty and working men and women.

He spoke to the strong conservative principles that helped fuel his own presidential candidacy. Cruz said he’ll continue to fight for those principles during this campaign and into the future.

I haven’t heard anyone say it just yet, but to my ears Sen. Cruz seemed to echo an earlier speech given by the “liberal lion of the Senate,” the late Ted Kennedy.

It was Kennedy in 1980 who fought President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. That campaign was bitter, as was this year’s GOP campaign.

Did Kennedy endorse Carter during his time on the podium? Oh, no.

Instead, he spoke to the progressive principles that fueled his failed presidential campaign, concluding his stem winder with “the dream shall never die!”

Yes, I saw some symmetry in those two speeches.

I should note that Carter went on that year to lose h-u-u-u-u-g-e to Republican Ronald Reagan.

Is the No. 2 GOP primary finisher’s non-endorsement speech a harbinger of what’s going to happen this fall?

Let’s all stay tuned.

Cruz endorsement might not arrive

Trump-Cruz-Cleveland-620x342

The question of the night for political junkies from coast to coast … to coast.

Will U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz endorse Donald J. Trump when he stands in front of the Republican National Convention crowd?

If I could predict anything, I’d say ain’t no way, no how, no never mind.

Cruz has called Trump everything but the Devil Himself.

Pathologist liar; narcissist “the likes of which I’ve never seen”; a whole plethora of nasty names.

He challenged Trump’s courage after the GOP frontrunner put a tweet out there that poked malicious fun at Heidi Cruz, for crying out loud.

Having declared that by any reasonable measure, Cruz wouldn’t ever endorse Donald Trump, we have the following:

Rick Perry endorsed Trump after calling him a “cancer on conservatism; Chris Christie endorsed Trump after saying he is “unfit” to become president; Marco Rubio has all but endorsed Trump after calling him a “con man.”

Cruz’s speech tonight is ginning up a bunch of speculation. Some sources say there might be an endorsement forthcoming; others say there won’t be an endorsement, but that he’ll express “support” for the nominee and for the party.

Still others have suggested that given Cruz’s fervent support among many of the convention delegates that he might deliver a “Dream Shall Never Die” sort of message, a la the kind of speech Ted Kennedy gave during the 1980 Democratic convention after losing that fight to President Carter.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/rnc-2016-ted-cruz-donald-trump-endorsement-225850

Some conservatives want Cruz to endorse Trump.

I’ll tune in later tonight to see if Cruz prefers to stand by a nominee he cannot stand or will stand by the “conservative principles” that mean nothing to the guy who’s going to lead the party into the election campaign.

Republicans are looking like … uh … Democrats!

A woman checks out a tee shirt at a merchandise booth outside Quicken Loans Arena during first day of the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Monday, July 18, 2016. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

The first day of the Republican Party’s presidential nominating convention has gotten off to a start no one might have seen coming.

Those stodgy, staid, stuffy Republicans are looking like Democrats.

More to the point, they’re looking like Democrats of Yesteryear, back when the Democrats used to fight among themselves, convention delegates walking off the floor.

The GOP started its Donald J. Trump nominating convention by having a knock-down floor fight initiated by the anti-Trump forces. They wanted to change the rules to allow a roll-call vote that could have allowed delegates to abandon their obligation to voting for the frontrunner.

They didn’t clear the hurdle. The convention chair declared the voice vote to have gone to the Trumpkins, and the move died at the scene.

Democrats in 1968 and again in 1972 used to fight like that. Republicans, meanwhile, conducted orderly conventions those years … and went on to win the presidential election. The 1980 Democratic convention had its share of drama, too, with Ted Kennedy’s forces fighting to change the rules, only to lose that fight to the Jimmy Carter juggernaut. That election turned out badly for Democrats, too.

This year, Democrats are going to be mild-mannered. Republicans are going to fight among themselves.

What does any of this portend for the fall election?

I am not going there. I’ve tried to predict political outcomes for too long without success.

I’ll just sit back and watch the theatrics.

So much grist on which to comment this election year

trump

I ran into a former colleague of mine at the grocery store in southwest Amarillo this afternoon.

We exchanged pleasantries, talked a little about how he’s doing at the Amarillo Globe-News, where I toiled along with him for a number of years; he offered me a glimpse of the pressure he’s feeling in this new era of daily print journalism, as he’s wearing multiple hats these days.

My friend then paid me what I took as a compliment when he said, “I enjoy reading your blog … especially the stuff you’re writing about the election.”

Ah, yes. I took a breath. “God bless Donald Trump,” I told him. “He’s giving me so much material.”

Indeed, it never seems to end with Trump as he marches toward the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.

I told my friend that my confidence in an early prediction I made about a Hillary Clinton landslide was shaken a bit as Trump closed in on the magic number of delegates he needed to secure the GOP nomination. He seemed to pick up some momentum.

However, as I mentioned to my young friend, that confidence is being restored a bit by the unrest and unease being expressed by Republicans about the man they are about to nominate. Their angst is brought forward by the manner in which Trump has responded to recent crises and the continuing barrage of insults and innuendo he’s leveling at his critics.

Just so you know, I pay hardly zero attention to what the Democrats are saying about the prospect of running against Trump. I’ll just remind my Democratic friends out there what the Democratic moguls were saying back in 1980 when that cowboy former California governor/movie actor, Ronald Reagan, decided to run for president. Why, they couldn’t wait to run against The Gipper.

Bring him on! they crowed. We’ll make mincemeat of him.

It didn’t work out too well for President Carter, as he won a grand total of six states and lost by 10 percentage points in a serious landslide.

Republicans that year were brimming with confidence. This year it’s a different story, with Trump set to mount his steed while carrying the GOP banner into battle against Clinton and the Democrats.

My trouble with this blog that I write is that I’m having trouble focusing on things other than the myriad negatives that Trump is bringing to this campaign. I feel almost as though I need an intervention.

I’m going to try to do a better job from this point forward in finding some positive policy topics on which to comment. I can project with decent certainty that Trump won’t provide them.

I’ll have to look elsewhere.

When I find those topics, you’ll be the first to know.

Five years ago, the war on terror shifted

heres-the-story-behind-one-of-the-most-iconic-photos-from-the-bin-laden-raid.png

Five years ago, my wife and I were watching TV.

Then we noticed one of those crawls scrolling across the bottom of the screen. It announced that President Obama was going to make a special announcement about a national security issue.

It was a Sunday night. The president never goes on national TV to tell us something about national security unless it was something really, really huge.

I turned to my wife and said, “I think they got bin Laden.” Yes, I said that. You can ask her if you wish.

It was right around midnight when Barack Obama strode to a microphone in the White House to say that U.S. Special Forces had carried out a mission that killed Osama bin Laden.

The forces took bin Laden’s body to an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean, where sailors aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson “buried him at sea.” I prefer to think they just tossed his corpse into the drink.

Americans cheered. I cheered, too. We all were glad to see the 9/11 mastermind and head of al-Qaeda pay the price for his dastardly history.

Of course, in the days and weeks that followed, Obama’s critics all said much the same thing. The president was taking “too much credit” for issuing the order to take out bin Laden. Big deal, those critics said. He didn’t board the helicopters, fly into Pakistan with no lights at night. All he did was issue the order.

I felt compelled at the time — on May 2, 2011 — to remind those critics that another president once ordered a rescue mission into Iran. It was April 1980 when U.S. Army Special Forces ventured to Desert One and where several of them died in the futile attempt to extract those U.S. hostages from the clutches of the Iranian “students” who captured them at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

Did President Carter deserve the “blame” for the mission failure? Sure he did. He ordered it, apparently without agreeing to plans for how to deal with the mechanical failures that resulted in the desert tragedy.

Having said that, President Obama deserved “credit” for ordering the hit job that brought down the world’s most notorious terrorist.

Did the death of one man spell the end of the fight? Not in the least.

It redefined the nature of the fight. It made it possible for the current president to rely on finely tuned intelligence gathering to help our forces bring justice to the monsters who seek to do us harm.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/02/politics/obama-terror-doctrine-bin-laden-raid/index.html

Was the bin Laden raid a lead-pipe cinch to succeed? No on that one, too. The president was concerned that the Navy SEAL team and the Army Special Forces pilots would come up empty when they landed in the compound where they believed bin Laden had been “hiding in plain sight.”

The mission proved to be a success.

The fight against international terrorism goes on. I, though, am willing to give the commander in chief for exhibiting a huge measure of courage in issuing the order that brought about a national cheer.

Believe this, too: Had it gone wrong, President Obama surely would have gotten the blame.

 

How about that? POTUS admits to ‘worst’ error

gadhafi11

I’m going to give President Obama some high praise for doing something one doesn’t often hear from people in high office.

He has acknowledged what he says is his “worst mistake.”

What’s more, he did it in a forum that is considered hostile territory.

The president appeared on “Fox News Sunday” this weekend and told host Chris Wallace the worst mistake of his presidency was failing to plan adequately for the fall of the late Libyan dictator/tyrant/despot Moammar Gadhafi.

When do presidents do such a thing? Did Richard Nixon ever say he erred by recording those conversations in the White House; has Jimmy Carter ever said his biggest mistake was ordering the mission to rescue the Iran hostages; did George W. Bush ever acknowledge the Iraq War was a mistake?

OK, so the president didn’t take the heat for the Libya mess by himself. He heaped some blame in British Prime Minister David Cameron for being distracted at the time of Gadhafi’s downfall.

I do give Obama credit, though, for admitting to a lack of planning as the world watched the chaos unfold in Libya. The so-called “Arab Spring” went into full bloom in Tripoli as rebels took over the government, captured the dictator — and then killed him.

It got worse, of course, as the U.S. consulate in Benghazi came under attack and four Americans died in the melee. Perhaps some adequate planning could have forestalled that event, yes?

The president’s greatest triumph? Without question, he said, it was his decision to jump-start the economy with stimulus packages upon taking office. I won’t argue with him on that. The economy was in free-fall and something needed to be done quickly.

It might be, too, that the president deserves props for telling all this to a broadcast journalist employed by a media outlet known as being patently unfriendly to politicians of Obama’s particular leaning.

I’ll give some to him for that alone.

Sure, there can be some debate on “worst mistakes” of the Obama presidency. Some might rank his failure to act on Syria crossing the “red line” when it used chemical weapons; others might rank the president’s unfortunate description of the Islamic State as the “JV team.”

The Libya coup aftermath, though, surely ranks as a critical error.

It’s just rare to hear a politician actually admit to making such a mistake.

 

Remember when The Gipper was a pushover, too?

GTY_hillary_clinton_donald_trump_split_jt_150912_16x9_992

Let’s play this election season out, theoretically, to the end.

The Democrats will nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as their presidential candidate; the Republicans will select Donald J. Trump as their standard bearer.

Clinton is the one with the experience: a policy-wonk first lady; a twice-elected U.S. senator from New York; a secretary of state. She’s well-schooled on the nuance of foreign and domestic policy. She’s articulate and is a cool customer under fire.

Trump is none of that. He’s a hot-headed reality TV celebrity. He made a fortune in real estate development. He’s married to his third wife. He has boasted about his sexual exploits with women who were married to other men. His campaign has featured little substance and virtually zero political philosophy — but a whole lot of insults and outrageous proclamations.

Clinton’s the favorite. The prohibitive favorite. She’ll win in a landslide while making history as the nation’s first female president.

Hold on a second.

Thirty-six years ago, the Democrats nominated a former one-term Georgia governor. He was a U.S. Naval Academy grad. He was a policy wonk. He was a smart guy, although perhaps a tad self-righteous. Republicans nominated a former movie actor who starred in those films with Bonzo the chimp; and oh yes, he made that film in which he portrayed Notre Dame football player George Gipp. Sure, he was a two-term California governor.

The Democrat was supposed to win, right?

It didn’t turn out that way. The Republican, Ronald Wilson Reagan, carried 44 states and blew President Jimmy Carter out of the White House.

It’s that history that should tell Democrats to take this upcoming election very seriously if it plays out the way it’s projected to play out.

By any normal measure, Donald Trump should be an easy mark for Democrats. This campaign, however, hasn’t gone according to the form sheet in almost any measure.

Clinton wasn’t supposed to be challenged so seriously from within her party. As for Trump, no one took him seriously when he announced his intention to seek the GOP nomination; his “fellow Republicans” are taking him seriously enough now — so much so that they’re staying up at night trying to concoct ways to derail his political juggernaut.

Both candidates are going to carry a large amount of baggage into a fall campaign, if they are the nominees. They both are packing a lot of negative feeling from within their respective parties.

Of the two, Trump’s negatives — from my perspective — far outweigh Clinton’s.

That doesn’t give the Democratic opposition any reason to fall asleep at the wheel.

The Gipper was supposed to lose big, too.

Quandary awaits on Primary Election Day

1407859219000-Election-3-

I am confused about how I should vote on Texas Primary Election Day.

You know, of course, that I hate early voting. I prefer to wait until Election Day to cast my ballot. This year has proved that practice to be more essential than ever. The wackiness of the Republican primary contest has taken us to places never before seen.

But here’s my quandary.

Texas has an open primary system, meaning that voters aren’t “registered” with a political party. We go to the polling place and choose which primary we want to cast our vote. The polling judge will stamp our voting cards with “Republican” or “Democrat,” some of the time; occasionally they forget to do it.

Our polling place is at a local church. We’ll walk through the door and have to decide: Do I vote Democratic or do I vote Republican? (I won’t speak for my wife. She makes up her own mind on these things.)

My own presidential voting history is straightforward. I’ve voted in every election since 1972 and have voted Democratic every time. I flinched one year: 1976, in the race between President Ford and former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter; I ended up voting for Carter.

Primary elections in this part of Texas, though, limit one’s options. All the local activity is on the Republican side. We have some token Democrats running for statewide office, but in Randall County — the unofficial birthplace of modern Texas Republicanism — all the local offices are decided on the GOP side.

My problem is this: Do I want to vote in the Republican primary to cast a ballot for someone other than Donald J. Trump or Rafael Edward Cruz or do I lean toward my traditional roots and vote for either Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

I’ve declared already that my favorite presidential candidate — of the seven people running in either party — appears to be Ohio Gov. John Kasich. He’s a grownup, a mature public official with an actual record of accomplishment. He’s also got a beating heart that he reveals with great eloquence.

Hillary Clinton also is eminently qualified — on paper — to be the next commander in chief. She’s got a solid public service record. My problem with her? I just don’t trust her completely.

I’m torn. I’m literally undecided on which way to turn when my wife and I walk into the polling place on Tuesday.

My wife wishes we could vote in both primaries; just pick the best candidate either party has to offer — and then decide between whoever wins their parties’ nominations in the fall.

She’s just as torn as I am on what to do next week.

It’s decision time. I might just have to pray about it.

I’m unlikely, though, to say openly who gets my vote. It will become apparent as we move closer toward the general election. Of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

President Carter has more work to do

**FILE**Former President Jimmy Carter takes a question during a conference at The Carter Center in Atlanta, Tuesday, June 7, 2005. An independent panel Wednesday, Aug. 24, 2005 reversed a Pentagon recommendation that the New London submarine base in Connecticut, base be closed. One of the panel members even said a letter from Carter _ the only president to ever serve as a submariner _ pleading the panel to keep the base open was one of the reasons he voted against closure. (AP Photo/Ric Feld, File)

Count me as one American who was thinking dark thoughts when President Carter announced some months ago that his doctors had found cancer in his brain.

There was a certain sound of resignation in the former president’s voice as he told the nation of the diagnosis, while announcing he would proceed with radiation treatment.

Then came news today. It was much better news … at a time when we Americans are looking for a glimmer of hope somewhere in light of recent events in California and the still-simmering aftermath.

President Carter told his Sunday school class he is cancer-free. The cancer is gone. The treatment worked, did its job.

This is an admirable man. He spent four years in the White House and has spent the longest post-presidential period in the nation’s history doing good work around the world. He’s been building houses for poor people; he developed the Carter Center in Atlanta; he has been monitoring elections in countries that never had free and fair elections before; he’s been speaking out on issues of the day.

I was delighted to hear this good news about the former president’s  health.

Yes, he’s an old man. He’s past 90 and he’s lived a full and fabulous life. When it’s his time to leave this world, the president — a deeply devout Christian — will be ready.

I’m glad to know his time among us isn’t up just yet.