Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Clinton within shouting distance of Trump in Texas

ClintonTrump-Split_jpg_800x1000_q100

Take heart, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A University of Texas poll says you’re trailing Donald J. Trump. But, hey, it’s only by 8 points. The previous Democratic presidential candidate — Barack Obama — lost the Texas vote to John McCain and Mitt Romney by double digits in 2008 and 2012, respectively.

A part of me, though, is a bit surprised that Trump has even an 8-point lead over Clinton in Texas.

I don’t know who University of Texas/Texas Political Projects Poll surveyed to come up with an 8-point gap. I wonder if it included the requisite number of Latino voters who comprise such a significant minority of Texans.

We all know how Trump — the presumptive Republican nominee for president — has gone out of his way to offend Latinos. He started with his plan to “build a beautiful wall” along our southern border; then he intimated that all Mexican illegal immigrants were “rapists, drug dealers and murderers”; then came the assertion that  an Indiana-born federal judge was biased against him because the judge’s parents were Mexican immigrants.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/27/poll-trump-leads-clinton-8-texas/

I’m well aware that public opinion surveys only serve as “snapshots.” They don’t predict the future.

However, some political thinkers believe Clinton has a legitimate chance of winning Texas this fall. Others, though, believe the state is too deeply Republican to change now and that Clinton isn’t the type of Democrat who can repaint the reliably red state into a blue one.

If the Democratic nominee is to have a chance of capturing Texas’s huge trove of electoral votes, she’ll need to get Latinos to the polls. History is not on her side.

Then again, we’ve all talked about how “conventional wisdom” has been tossed aside during this election season.

McConnell balks at Trump’s ‘qualifications’ to be POTUS

mitch

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sounds like someone with some serious political regret.

The regret concerns a fellow Republican, presumptive presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

The question came to McConnell today on ABC News’s “This Week.”

Is Donald Trump qualified to be president?

He said he would “leave that for the American people to decide.”

Huh? Simple question, Mr. Majority Leader. He didn’t answer it. He could have said “no,” and made a lot of news this morning by rescinding his endorsement of his party’s presidential nominee. Or, he could have said “yes” and then be forced to look himself in the mirror while his conscience struggles with whether Trump really is qualified.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/mitch-mcconnell-trump-224809

McConnell is not alone, of course, in facing this struggle. Other members of Congress and leading political operatives are having second and third thoughts about the man who’s about to lead his party in the fall campaign against Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

McConnell keeps talking up the party’s conservative principles while agreeing that “our nominee” might not agree with them.

I keep thinking of previous party nominees who had sufficient intraparty opposition prior to launching their fall campaigns.

Republican Barry Goldwater had to vanquish moderates within his party before facing President Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Democrat George McGovern had the same struggle with moderates within his party as he faced off against President Richard Nixon in 1972.

They both lost … h-u-u-u-u-g-e!

Joe Biden for VP … one more time?

th

I’ll admit this isn’t an original thought.

Others have said it, so I’m just joining an “amen!” chorus of sorts.

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that limits the president to two elected terms in office is silent on the vice presidency. The words “vice president” or “vice presidency” aren’t mentioned in the amendment, which was ratified in 1951 after Congress approved it in 1947.

My point? Why not nominate the current vice president, Joseph Biden, to serve another four years in a Clinton administration?

Stop laughing for just a moment and ponder this thought.

President Obama put the vice president in charge of what’s been called a “moon shot” program aimed at finding a cure for cancer. Vice President Biden lost his beloved son, Beau, to brain cancer, a loss that many believe kept him from running for the presidency in 2016.

My thought then, when Obama made the proposal during his final State of the Union speech earlier this year, was this: Is there enough time for Biden to get anything accomplished before he leaves office in January 2017?

I find it hard to imagine how the government could achieve what the president said he wanted — a cancer cure — in such a short span of time.

All this talk about who Clinton should pick as her running mate has provided some interesting chatter across the country, along with the chatter about who Republican nominee Donald J. Trump should select as his running mate.

Clinton has a ready-made, battle-tested, house-broken vice president already on the job. He’s a bona fide foreign-policy expert and he still has a tremendous working relationship and personal friendship with many congressional Republicans who’ve battled Barack Obama over every step the president has sought to make during his two terms in office.

The vice president also has a huge job that remains unfinished.

Why not, then, give him another four years to see this “moon shot” effort though?

Just a thought. I doubt seriously the Democratic nominee is going to heed this bit of advice.

But it’s out there, Mme. Secretary.

Polls could drive GOP nomination? Really?

don trump

I’m almost laughing out loud at the notion that Republican National Convention delegates might revolt this summer and nominate someone other than Donald J. Trump if his poll numbers continue to tank.

If history is our guide, it won’t happen based on that criterion.

In 1964, Republicans gathered in San Francisco to nominate Arizona U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater to run against President Lyndon Johnson. He trailed badly at the convention. He continued to trail badly throughout the campaign. The president won election by 23 percentage points.

Eight years later, Democrats faced a similar dilemma. They nominated South Dakota U.S. Sen. George McGovern at their convention in Miami; McGovern was far behind in the polls. The convention was one of the most chaotic ever witnessed. McGovern delivered his “Come home, America” acceptance speech in the wee hours. He went on to lose big in 1972 to President Richard Nixon, also by 23 points.

In 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush was trailing Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis by 17 percentage points when the GOP convened in New Orleans. The vice president stood before the throng and vowed a “kinder, gentler nation.” He was elected by 8 percentage points.

The polls aren’t going to determine whether Trump is nominated.

My own view is that the presumptive GOP nominee, by virtue of his collecting more votes than any of other candidates and winning the vast majority of state primaries and caucuses has earned the party nomination.

Let the delegates stand by their man. Send him off to campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Take your chances, GOP. Trump is your guy.

Reaction to ‘Brexit’ vote is most revealing

trump-scotland

What am I missing here?

President Barack Obama is dismayed at the results of the British referendum that means that the United Kingdom is going to leave the European Union.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is saddened, too, by the outcome.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who staked his reputation on keeping his country in the EU, announced his resignation.

Meanwhile, Russia has applauded the result.

So has the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Here’s the best one yet: Donald J. Trump has joined Russia and Iran in cheering the referendum result.

Yes, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is now in league with Russia and Iran.

Aren’t these countries two of our more fearsome adversaries?

Oh, I almost forgot. Trump says Russian strongman Vladimir Putin is a “strong leader.” He’s also endorsed the ham-fisted tactics of other totalitarian regimes, such as Iran, for their firmness.

Ready to be VP? Not just yet, probably

7C2A7036_jpg_800x1000_q100

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been saying what presidential nominees — and presumed nominees — always say when asked about who to select as a vice-presidential running mate.

She wants someone who is prepared from Day One to become president. That’s what they all say, right? Sure it is.

That brings us to a young man who’s apparently on Clinton’s short list of candidates. Stand up and take a bow, Julian Castro.

Now he’d better sit back down.

Castro in many ways would make an attractive candidate for vice president. He’s young; he’s “telegenic,” meaning he’s handsome; he’s a Latino American with a compelling life story; he’s a former mayor of a major American city; he hails from Texas.

But he’s got less than two years of experience in the federal government. Castro is serving as housing secretary.

Castro once appealed to me greatly as a potential running mate for whoever would be the Democratic presidential nominee. Not so much now.

As the Texas Tribune reports, he is woefully short on the experience and seasoning needed to assume the presidency if necessity demanded it.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/julian-castro-experienced-enough-be-vp/

As the Tribune reported: “Fiercely protective of his legacy, Castro’s supporters chafe at the suggestion he is not qualified to be vice president. They acknowledge the obvious — he has little to no foreign policy experience — but argue he is the living, breathing embodiment of an American Dream that transcends mere lines on a resume.”

Another Texan, John Nance Garner, once said the vice presidency isn’t “worth a bucket of warm p***.” He was one of President Roosevelt’s vice presidents. Let it be said that he earned the nickname of “Cactus Jack.”

Well, the vice presidency has changed dramatically since the era when the VP’s main job was to attend funerals abroad. Many of them dating back to, oh, the days of Walter Mondale (1977-1981), have become major policy partners standing shoulder to shoulder with the president.

Julian Castro is a fine young man. Is he ready just yet to stand in the on-deck circle in the next president’s administration.

Umm. I don’t think so. Not just yet.

Brits please conservatives on this side of The Pond

Brexit

Great Britain has voted to leave the European Union.

The reaction in the former British colony — now known as the United States of America — has been sharply divided.

Conservatives are hailing the decision; progressives are bemoaning it. Donald J. Trump, the upcoming Republican nominee for president, said he’s glad the Brits have voted to end their EU membership; his foe this fall, Hillary Clinton, is decidedly not glad.

Me? Well, I align more with the progressives. I don’t have a particular feeling about the Brits’ decision to bail out of the EU. I’m more concerned with the money I lost today from my retirement account. It’s that “enlightened self-interest” thing that drives me these days.

However, I am alarmed at the tone of the cheers I’m hearing from this side of the Atlantic. There’s an element of fear in it.

They’re hailing the Brits’ escape from the EU because of what they say are concerns about who’s coming into Europe from, say, the Middle East. You might have heard Trump say that the fear of many in this country mirrors the sentiment that was expressed by the “Brexit” vote in Britain.

Therein lies where Trump might seek to gain some political advantage over Clinton.

Fear and loathing.

The economic implications of the British exit from the EU are yet to be determined. Some economists believe this vote might trigger more national movements in other EU countries, that the Brits are the first of many EU members to bolt.

More economic mayhem is sure to follow if that’s the case.

Someone will have to explain to me: Why is that a good thing?

Brits to leave EU … and it will hit us hard

brexit

I might remember this day for a while.

I woke up, turned on my computer to catch up with the overnight news and learned that Great Britain voted to leave the European Union, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced his intention to resign, Wall Street took a dive … and a leading American politician who advocated all this mayhem might benefit politically in the United States.

Holy retirement fund, Batman!

The Brits decided they’d had enough of their economic marriage with the rest of Europe. So they bailed. Cameron staked his political reputation on the vote; it went badly for him and so he’s moving out of 10 Downing Street.

My retirement account is going to shed a lot of value today and perhaps for the next good while. Sheesh!

But here’s the element of this story that might underscore perfectly the weirdness of the American presidential election season.

Republican candidate Donald J. Trump — who at this very moment is touring a golf course resort he owns in Scotland — said he wanted the Brits to leave the EU. His Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton — along with President Obama — pitched for the Brits to stay in. Trump argued for nationalism in Britain; Clinton and Obama argued for economic stability.

Who might gain from this chaos? Trump.

“They’re angry over borders. They’re angry over people coming into the country and taking over, and nobody even knows who they are,” Trump told reporters after his helicopter landed in Turnberry, Scotland. “They’re angry about many, many things.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/british-voters-just-unleashed-an-economic-and-political-tsunami-224755#ixzz4CVe9JjLF

Why does that matter here? It matters, according to Trump, because he says he’s angry about the same things. How he connects the EU situation with U.S. domestic policy, though, remains a mystery to me.

He also said that Clinton “misread” the mood of the British, which I guess in Trump’s view is another strike against the Democratic nominee-to-be.

It’s going to take some time for all this sink in. The markets will go wild and retirement accounts — just like those my wife and I are hoping to live on while we enjoy our “Golden Years” — will bleed heavily as investors push every panic button they can find.

Then we’ll get to listen to a major-party presidential candidate take “credit” for being on the winning side of a losing argument.

Crazy, man. Simply crazy.

Another key GOP thinker dumps Trump

brent

Brent Scowcroft isn’t a Republican In Name Only.

He’s been a solid GOP wise man for decades. He also served with distinction in the U.S. Air Force, earning three stars and retiring as a lieutenant general.

Scowcroft today endorsed Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the next president of the United States.

If you place much value in these endorsements, this is a big deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/brent-scowcroft-endorses-hillary-clinton-224677

Scowcroft served as national security adviser to two Republican presidents: Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. He knows war and he understands the value of international alliances.

That’s why he’s backing Clinton over her presumptive Republican rival, Donald J. Trump.

“Secretary Clinton shares my belief that America must remain the world’s indispensable leader,” Scowcroft said in a statement, touting her experience as secretary of state. “She understands that our leadership and engagement beyond our borders makes the world, and therefore the United States, more secure and prosperous. She appreciates that it is essential to maintain our strong military advantage, but that force must only be used as a last resort.”

Trump doesn’t get it.

He wants to build walls. He wants to remove the United States from its most important military/political alliance — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

That doesn’t make the world safe, let alone “secure and prosperous.”

I can hear some of my Republican/Trump supporter friends now. They’ll blow off Scowcroft’s endorsement as being “irrelevant.” They’ll laugh it off. Scowcroft’s a has-been, they’ll say.

No. He’s a distinguished American patriot.

 

Oh, and then there’s Merrick Garland

garlandmerrick_031716hj3

Merrick Garland has kind of slipped off the media radar.

You’ll recall this fellow. He is the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who’s been nominated to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. President Obama selected him to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

I’ve got an idea for the probable next president of the United States to consider: In case the U.S. Senate continues to obstruct Garland’s appointment, don’t toss his nomination over once you take the oath of office.

I’m talking to you, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Garland’s nomination ran into a buzzsaw when Obama selected him. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, declared within hours of Scalia’s death that no Obama appointment would get confirmed. They wanted to wait for the next president to take office.

They accused the president — and this just slays me — of “playing politics” with the appointment by demanding a Senate hearing and a vote on Garland’s nomination.

Kettle, meet pot.

Garland is an eminently qualified jurist. He’s been left — to borrow a phrase — to “twist in the wind” while the Senate dawdles and blocks the president from fulfilling his constitutional duties.

I’m going to suggest that Clinton will win the presidency when the votes are tallied this fall.

If that’s the case, then the Senate GOP leadership might yell “Uncle!” and have the hearing and vote it should have had all along.

But if not, then it would seem appropriate for the president-elect to carry this nomination forward. By everyone’s reckoning, Garland is a judicial moderate, a thoughtful man who was confirmed to the lower court with overwhelming Republican support.

Sure, the next president has the chance to pick someone of her choosing.

But if the Democratic candidate for the highest office is going to talk about fair and humane treatment of people, it would seem quite fair and humane to move Merrick Garland’s nomination forward for the next Senate to consider.