Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Perry heading for the exit?

perry

It isn’t supposed to end this way, but that’s where it’s headed.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the one-time TEA Party darling and conservative firebrand, is — shall we say — in a critical flameout.

The former U.S. Air Force pilot knows of what I speak. His campaign “engine” has stalled and he cannot get it to reignite.

I am not crying crocodile tears over this. Honestly, I was hoping he’d do better in this presidential campaign than he did in the previous one that was punctuated by the infamous “oops” moment.

Perry campaign on the ropes

Perry pulled the plug on his 2012 Republican presidential campaign, came back to Texas to finish his stint as the state’s governor; he rested up, cracked the books and studied the issues; then he returned to the campaign hoping to redeem himself.

Being that I prefer political redemption over condemnation in almost all cases, I was pulling for Perry to do better.

He’s not. He has run into the buzzsaw aka Donald Trump. The TEA Party faithful have turned to others, such as Trump, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina … oh, I could go on, but you get the point.

Perry has quit paying his campaign staff. He’ giving up on New Hampshire. Still, he calls the race a “marathon” and insists he’s in it for the duration.

Well, it now appears that the duration has arrived.

 

One view of Trump … from Down Under

Donald_Trump_hair

I took the liberty the other day of reaching to the other side of the planet for an opinion on Donald Trump.

A fellow I met 15 years ago is a smart and savvy political observer and commentator. Peter Adams used to work as a broadcast journalist and he’s been an astute observer of American politics for many years. He lives in Adelaide, Australia with his wife and children. He remains keenly interested in happenings in this country and we have stayed in touch over the years.

So, I asked Peter: What’s the word on the street in a major city Down Under about Trump’s Republican nomination candidacy? He responded with this:

“Much of the TV coverage is devoted to his rather strident rhetoric, while the press/online coverage is already looking at why he won’t get the formal nomination.

“As indicated, we won’t switch on until the primaries next year …  so in the meantime we’re enjoying Trump as some sort of political comic relief.

“The fact that he’s even dishing out on Fox News hosts means he adheres to the concept of equal opportunity …  i.e. he’ll offend everyone!

“If the political process and media scrutiny don’t get him, satire will. Someone will rise to harpoon him much like Tina Fey did to Sarah Palin.

“A disaster was averted and the world got a bloody good laugh along the way.

” …Trump should be given every legitimate avenue the Republican Party allows to make it abundantly clear to its electoral colleges and the American people why he would be a domestic and foreign policy disaster and would reduce the US to an international laughingstock. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, they’ll eventually do the right thing … once every other option is exhausted. The Democrats will be licking their lips with delight at all of this. Hillary brings enough political baggage with her to fill a jumbo jet, but The Donald may well provide the lucky break that helps turn her career.

“But from there, I can only imagine the weapons-grade political conniving she’ll bring to the Oval Office.”

Strange, isn’t it, how the view from so far away looks so much — to my way of thinking, at least — like the view from right here?

 

Fiorina: GOP’s anti-Trump secret weapon

carly

Carly Fiorina has scored a huge political victory … possibly.

The result may produce a victory for the Republican Party establishment that cringes at the prospect of Donald J. Trump becoming the party’ 2016 presidential nominee.

CNN is playing host to the second GOP debate in two weeks. It re-did its ground rules for who will appear on the “first team” debate stage. It apparently gives Fiorina a legitimate shot at joining the other leading Republican presidential candidates. The change involves the polling strategy that CNN is using to determine which of the candidates deserve a shot at appearing in its top-tier debate.

This is a big deal on at least two levels.

First, Fiorina — who took part in the “happy hour debate” sponsored last month by Fox News — killed it in that encounter with six other second-tier candidates. For my money — and in the eyes of many observers — Fiorina outmaneuvered the other candidates and acquitted herself quite nicely in that encounter.

Fiorina wins big

Meanwhile, the Fox News main event, featuring Donald Trump and nine other challengers, provided an amazing sideshow that continues to this day, with Trump feuding with Fox and with the network’s anchor Megyn Kelly over the tone and nature of a question Kelly posed about Trump’s record of anti-women rhetoric.

Which brings me to the second level of Fiorina’s victory.

She is likely now to be on the same stage with Trump at the CNN joint appearance. I’m salivating at the notion of Fiorina possibly baiting Trump into saying something profoundly crass about women, or about Fiorina in particular — and seeing whether Fiorina blows him out of the water with her own quick wit and sharp tongue.

Do you think the Republican establishment is waiting with bated breath to see whether Trump finally implodes?

If he does, the party brass may have to thank Carly Fiorina for lighting the fuse.

 

Kinky had it right about a wall

Kinbky Friedman - 1

I found a blog post I’d written in July 2010.

I said then that “I miss Kinky Friedman.” Why? Because despite his seemingly unserious bid to become Texas governor in 2006, the Texas humorist, musician and gadfly actually made sense.

Here’s the blog post: Kinky’s rant

He opposed the idea of building a wall along our southern border. He said that with the trouble brewing five years ago in the United States, Americans might want out — and a wall would make it more difficult for us to escape.

I mention Kinky today because the current crop of Republican presidential primary candidates is sounding quite ridiculous, particularly as they seek to outflank the GOP front runner, Donald Trump, on this immigration matter.

Trump says he’ll build a “beautiful wall.” Not to be outdone, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he’d consider building a wall between the United States and Canada.

Let’s get serious here. Or else, let’s draft Kinky Friedman to run for president.

About those walls …

falls

As long as we’re talking about building walls to keep illegal immigrants from streaming into our country, let us ponder some things.

My wife wondered recently about the proposed Trump Wall along our southern border. “What does Donald Trump propose to do about those who would tunnel under the wall?” she asked.

Good question, Girl of My Dreams.

What does Trump propose for the wall and how deeply does he want to sink it into the dirt along our 1,900-mile-long border with Mexico? Ten feet, 20 feet, 30 feet … 100 feet!

Has he heard about how the infamous drug kingpin El Chapo dug his way out of that maximum-security prison in Mexico?

OK, so Trump has been joined in the Build-a-Wall chorus by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who said over the weekend it’s worth considering a wall between the United States and Canada.

That one would be roughly double the length of the Trump Wall.

Remember that we have a significant border with the Canadians along our Alaska state line.

So, not only would a U.S.-Canada wall stretch 3,000-plus miles along our countries’ east-west border, it would go another 1,200 or so miles north and south from the southern tip of the finger of Alaska that deeps south to, um, the Arctic Ocean — wa-a-a-ay up yonder.

And while we’re on the subject of the northern border, Gov. Walker, what are you going to do about some shared attractions?

Niagara Falls — which my wife and I visited in 2011 — comes to mind immediately.

This wall-building rhetoric is easy to throw out there. It gets applause and cheers from the Republican Party faithful.

However, this nonsense requires some serious thought … which we have not yet heard from any of the people who want to be president of the United States.

 

 

Let’s wall off entire U.S. … not!

First bricks of new house. Brick wall foundation isolated 3l illustration

The wall that Donald Trump keeps yapping about might get a bit longer.

The Republican presidential primary front runner wants to build a “beautiful” wall along our southern border. He says he can do it because he’s “good at building things.” It’ll run 1,900 or so miles.

Now comes Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, one of the thundering herd of challengers seeking to catch Trump. He wants to out-Trump The Donald. How? He says he’s “open to the idea” of building a wall across our northern border, the one that separates the United States from Canada. It’s been the longest unsecured border in the world since, oh I guess maybe forever.

He said this on “Meet the Press”: “Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire. They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago … I think we need to secure borders in general.”

Here’s more from Walker

While we’re at it, let’s build underwater obstructions along the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coasts. You know, the kind of things the Nazis erected along Normandy as they sought to fight off the D-Day invaders in June 1944?

We’d need to keep shipping lanes open, of course. But if we’re going to “secure our borders in general,” as Walker suggested, then by golly, let’s go all in.

The last thing we ought to do is sand blast that inscription from the base of the Statue of Liberty, which says to other nations they are welcome to “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free … ”

 

Why not debate … in Amarillo?

APTOPIX_Presidential_Debate-0bf0c-7089

I’ve noted before in previous election cycles that the major political parties need to think beyond the norm when planning for debates between their presidential nominees.

The norm in the past has been to select cities with large media markets. Sometimes the parties put these debates in cities and states where the race is competitive.

Here’s a revolutionary thought: Why not stage one of these events right here, in little ol’ Amarillo, Texas?

Hey, I know it’s a long shot. A pipe dream. I know it won’t happen. Then again, in this strange, goofy, unpredictable, topsy-turvy primary campaign — which on the Republican side is being driven by Donald J. Trump — well, anything seems possible.

Look at it this way, Amarillo is a significant city in a significant state. One of Amarillo’s state lawmakers, Republican Four Price, said the other day that Texas’s economy all by itself is the 12th largest in the world. That by itself makes us a player.

What might be the theme of a debate held in Amarillo? Energy policy ought to be front and center. I doubt, of course, that debate planners would build a two-hour televised event around energy policy by itself.

But it does tie into the nation’s economy. How about foreign policy, given that we’re weaning ourselves of foreign oil? We’re becoming something of a trend-setter in the development of wind energy, one of those alternatives that gets some of the credit for the plunging oil prices around the world.

We’ve got venues for such an event. The Civic Center is one. The performing arts center across the street is another. Why not look at the West Texas A&M University event center in Canyon?

Is such a thing possible?

Consider this: No one ever thought that Donald Trump would be setting the pace in the race for the Republican Party presidential nomination.

I’m just saying that this election is wild and crazy enough for Amarillo to get a serious look if the political parties here want to put together a formal request.

 

 

Now it’s on to the ‘perv’ and ‘sleazebag’

Anthony-Weiner

You must hand it to Donald Trump.

He hits every hot button there is to hit. And he doesn’t miss very often.

His latest target if Huma Abedin, aka Mrs. Anthony Weiner.

Abedin is a close adviser and confidante to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who’s being rocked by these e-mail revelations relating to the time she served as secretary of state.

But it wasn’t so much Abedin who took the brunt of Trump’s latest trash-talking tirade, delivered Friday in Massachusetts. It was Abedin’s husband.

Former U.S. Rep. “Carlos Danger” Weiner, you’ll recall, was outed for sending pictures of his manhood through the Internet to women who aren’t his wife. He quit his congressional seat. He then ran for New York City mayor and lost badly.

He’s out of the public eye. Or at least he was out of it … until now, thanks to Donald Trump. “So now — think of it — Huma is getting classified secrets. She is married to Anthony Weiner, who is a perv,” Trump said. “Now these are confidential documents and guess what happens to Anthony Weiner. A month ago he went to work for a public relations firm. ”

Weiner returns to public spotlight.

Actually, Trump is overstating Weiner’s place in recent political history. He called the ex-lawmaker “one of the great sleazebags of our time.”

I don’t think so. He’s a chump who got his thrills sending dirty pictures to women.

Do not fret, though. Trump has energized a segment of the Republican Party that eats this stuff up.

I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around the words “President Trump.”

 

‘Boxcars’ no more acceptable than ‘ovens’

hillary

Admission time.

I’ve been goaded into saying something about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s remark concerning Donald Trump’s “immigration reform” idea, which is to round up 11 million or so undocumented immigrants and ship back to where they came from.

She said recently that Trump and other Republican candidates intend to ship immigrants back to their homeland in “boxcars.” The remark drew understandable rebuke from those on the right who said the Democratic presidential front runner is invoking images of the Holocaust with that kind of analogy.

Clinton’s campaign has denied any connection.

You decide.

The campaign flacks are mistaken if they do not believe many Americans understood the juxtaposition of “boxcars” and “Holocaust.”

These presidential candidates need to understand that gravity of making such highly offensive comparisons.

Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, you’ll recall, criticized the Iran nuclear deal by declaring President Obama would march Israel to the “oven door” if the deal is approved by the Congress. That remark also drew expected — and deserved — criticism from those on the left.

A critic of this blog reminded me that I had been silent about Clinton’s nasty reference to boxcars. I took the criticism as a challenge to be as vigilant on both sides of the political divide about comments that deserve rebuke.

Clinton, Huckabee and the whole crowd of presidential candidates should declare a moratorium on comparing anything that occurs presently to what happened between 1939 and 1945.

World War II — and all its ghastly consequences — stands alone.

 

 

Refugees or criminals? Which is it?

immigration-9

One of my very best friends in the whole, wide world is a lawyer who lives in California.

I’ve known Tim Lundell since I was in high school. He was my best man and we’ve shared a lot of emotions over many years.

Tim posted this comment today on Facebook.

“Isn’t it funny? In Europe they have ‘desperate migrants, embarking on a perilous journey in search of a better life.’ Here, according to certain politicians, we have ‘illegal immigrants who rape and murder.’ I guess it’s just a matter of humanitarian perspective.”

The target of Tim’s barb, I’m certain, is Donald Trump, who’s gained considerable mileage over his rants about illegal immigrants who come to the United States from points south … meaning Mexico and beyond. Republican primary voters are eating this stuff up, giving Trump a tremendous boost in the current public opinion polling

I do not dispute the notion that some of those who come into this country without the proper documentation come here to do harm, just as Trump has said.

But many others do come here to seek a better life, just as those who are fleeing the Middle East and heading for places such as Greece, Italy, France and Germany are doing.

I’ll also acknowledge that the influx of immigrants into Europe has spawned a considerable backlash from right-wing extremists, who contend that the refugees present a considerable danger to the European way of life.

However, as we keep debating the issue of whether to deport all 11 million illegal immigrants from the United States, shouldn’t we keep in mind that many of them are here for the right reasons and are not here to commit crimes?

The blanket condemnation of illegal immigrants does not square with the reality of why many of them are here in the first place. They are here to make a better life for their families.

I am not suggesting they all should be granted amnesty, or that they shouldn’t be required to start the process of obtaining legal immigrant status.

Let us just try to understand that people come here for a lot of reasons — and many of them have no intention of committing crimes against the country they want to call home.