Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Obama and Trump: no longer BFFs

That didn’t last long.

President Barack Obama pledged to do all he could to ensure a “smooth transition” to the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Now we hear that the men are at each other’s throats. They’re sniping from lecture podiums and over social media.

Trump has been sniping at the president over his decision to forgo a U.N. Security Council veto of a resolution that condemns Israel for its construction of settlements on the West Bank. The president, meanwhile, is talking out loud about the dangers of isolating the United States from the rest of the world.

How will all of this — and more — affect the transition? No one can yet determine how the men’s staffs will work together. Indeed, that’s where the transition must occur without a hitch. Chiefs of staff need to talk constructively to each other, along with other White House staffers. National security experts need to talk candidly about the threats to the nation.

Even though I shouldn’t give a damn how this affects the two men’s personal relationship, I feel compelled to recall an anecdotal story I heard some years ago about two earlier presidents.

Harry Truman left the presidency after Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952. The two partisans despised each other. Truman, the Democrat, couldn’t stomach the idea that Eisenhower, the Republican, would occupy the Oval Office. They barely spoke to each other during the transition.

The men reportedly set aside their personal antipathy at the funeral of another president a decade later. President Kennedy was gunned down and Give ‘Em Hell Harry and Ike managed to patch up their personal relations as they joined the rest of the country in bidding farewell to JFK. Did they realize at that time that life, indeed, is too short to harbor grudges? Perhaps.

No one really expects Obama and Trump to become BFFs. Given the mercurial temperament that Trump exhibits — describing his meetings with Obama as “terrific” and “terrible” in the same week — one cannot predict how the president-elect is going to respond.

President Obama has spoken eloquently about the graciousness extended to him and his staff by President George W. Bush’s team in 2009. The transition from President Clinton to Bush in 2001, as we have learned, wasn’t quite so smooth with reports of keyboards missing the letter “W” and other pranks being pulled.

The stakes are much greater, of course, when rocky transitions involve heads of state instructing their staffs to undermine the other guy in this troubling and unsettled time.

Barack Obama and Donald Trump have three more weeks to put this campaign behind them. Let’s get busy, gentlemen.

Quit the U.N.? Sure thing, Sarah

Half-Term Gov. Sarah Palin thinks she’s nailed it with a major foreign policy solution.

The United States should just pull out of the United Nations over the U.N. Security Council’s vote to condemn Israel over its building of settlements along the West Bank, according to Palin.

That’s it, says the one-time Alaska governor. Let’s just quit the U.N. and lose our still-powerful voice on the Security Council. Let’s just leave it to others to make decisions critical to U.S. foreign policy and internal security.

Palin’s foreign policy chops are, shall we say, limited in the extreme … which is to say she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.

http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/sarah-palin-donald-trump-quit-un/2016/12/30/id/766176/

Palin ran for vice president on a Republican ticket led by John McCain in 2008. After the McCain-Palin ticket got trounced by Barack Obama and Joe Biden, she quit her governorship in the middle of her first term.

Now this quitter wants the president-elect to listen to her “advice” on how to handle a vote on the Security Council? She obviously disagrees with the decision by the United States to abstain from the Israel condemnation vote, rather than veto it as we have done in the past.

Well, I disagree with the decision, too.

Does anyone — other than, say, TEA Party members of the GOP — believe we ought to pull out of the U.N. over this single vote? Give me a break.

The United States of America retains a significant voice in the international body. It shouldn’t toss it in the crapper in a fit of pique.

Trump sides with the bad guy?

How is this supposed to go?

President Barack Obama retaliated against Russian over reports that Russian spooks hacked into the U.S. electoral system.

He kicked out about 30 Russian intelligence operatives and set in motion some economic sanctions to punish the Russians.

What is Donald J. Trump’s response as he prepares to become the next president of the United States? He lavishes praise on Russian strongman Vladimir Putin for his decision to withhold any reaction to the president’s punishment.

Trump called Putin a “smart” man.

No expression of support for our own president’s decision to punish the Russians for something a number of key intelligence agencies have concluded: that their hackers sought to meddle in the U.S. presidential election.

Where in the world are the new president’s loyalties?

Hmmmm?

 

U.S. hits back at Russia; hands off decision, Mr. President-elect

President Barack Obama has done what he promised to do: strike back at Russia over reports that the Russians hacked into our nation’s presidential election system.

Obama kicked out dozens of Russian intelligence operatives. The official reason for their expulsion was because of harassment of U.S. officials in Russia.

Yeah, sure it is.

The individuals expelled are believed to have been involved in cyberactivity relating to the election.

Obama also leveled economic sanctions against two Russian intelligence organizations.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama-strikes-back-at-russia-for-election-hacking/ar-BBxHoZz?li=BBnbcA1

What effect will this have? How does it prevent future hacking? How much will it deter other nations from trying what U.S. officials believe the Russians did — whatever it was?

I’m not qualified to answer any of that.

However, I will insist — as will others — that the new president keep his hands off the sanctions that the current president has instituted against Russia.

Donald J. Trump, to his discredit, has dismissed the intelligence analysts’ professional opinion that the Russians meddled in the U.S. election process. To whatever extent the interference determined the election outcome remains to be discovered.

Given Trump’s cavalier dismissal of the CIA and other intelligence organizations’ conclusions about Russian involvement, my strongest hope is that he follows through with what his immediate predecessor has done.

Failure to do so could send a disturbing message about the where new president’s loyalties might lie.

No apology for attack, but still a profound promise

As the son of a gallant World War II veteran who jumped into the fight just weeks after a treacherous attack against the United States, I was hoping for an apology.

It didn’t come. Instead, the prime minister of Japan — the nation that yanked us into a global bloodbath — offered something that came pretty close to an apology.

Shinzo Abe visited the USS Arizona Memorial in Honolulu as the guest of President Obama, who is on vacation there with his family. He spoke of the “precious souls” who died during the Japanese air attack on our naval and air forces on Dec. 7, 1941.

He vowed that Japan never again would go to war. Abe offered a statement of condolence that he said, in effect, will never end.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/27/world/asia/shinzo-abe-text-pearl-harbor.html?_r=0

The prime minister also expressed his gratitude for the generosity that Americans have extended to his people in the years since the “date which will live in infamy.”

“On behalf of the Japanese people, I hereby wish to express once again my heartfelt gratitude to the United States and to the world for the tolerance extended to Japan,” Abe said.

An actual apology would have been the best outcome of this first-ever visit to Pearl Harbor by a Japanese head of government.

This American, though, will accept the prime minister’s statement of eternal condolence.

This inquiring mind wants to know: What did Russians do?

I don’t doubt that Russian geeks hacked into our nation’s computer grid somehow and did something to influence the U.S. presidential election.

Unlike the president-elect, I am inclined to believe the analyses put forth by some of the best intelligence minds on the planet.

What I remain unclear about, though, is the nature of what the geeks did. What did they do — and I need a precise, detailed  explanation — to possibly tilt the election in Donald J. Trump’s favor.

* Did they put out fake messages that threatened voters in heavily Democratic precincts, decreasing voter turnout?

* Or, did they somehow make ballots cast for Hillary Clinton be logged as votes for Trump?

* Did the Russians float fake news stories about Hillary, telling voters that she is the child of Satan and that a vote for her would be a vote to send the nation straight on the express track to hell?

President Obama vows retaliation against the Russians. It could come as early as Thursday, according to some actual news reports.

But this inquiring mind — the one in my noggin — is anxious to the max to know what precisely the Russians might have done to influence our vote. Was it decisive?

Did we actually elect the wrong person as our next president?

Oh … wait!

We still have only one POTUS at a time

Decorum matters. So does protocol. Say whatever you wish about a politician’s flouting of them both — whether you agree or disagree with him — they matter greatly in the conduct of foreign policy.

It is that backdrop, then, that compels me to say that Donald J. Trump is acting disgracefully during this transition period as he prepares to become the U.S. head of state and head of government.

The president-elect’s continual carping while President Obama conducts the affairs of state serves only to undermine the one president we have in power.

The recent decision by the United States to decline to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel over its building of settlements in the West Bank is the No. 1 example of how Trump doesn’t come close to understanding the meaning of protocol and decorum.

He launches routinely into his Twitter tirades, blasting the president’s decision, saying that Israel will have a true friend when the Trump administration takes over.

Consider, too, that another president-elect, Barack H. Obama, called a press conference shortly after being elected in 2008 to declare his intention to let President Bush conduct his policies the way he saw fit. President-elect Obama said he would wait until Jan. 20, 2009, the day he would take office, before weighing in with his own policy pronouncements. Indeed, presidents-elect going back many decades have honored that tradition.

What about that kind of behavior is lost on Trump? Why doesn’t this guy get it? Why can’t he resist the temptation to meddle in foreign policy before it’s his turn?

Trump has less than a month to go before he takes his oath of office, bids goodbye to his predecessor and then settles into the big chair in the Oval Office. This tweet storm he keeps launching is unbecoming of the office he is about to assume — and it damn sure is disrespectful of the man he is about to succeed.

Decorum and protocol, Mr. President-elect? You’ll learn soon enough how much it really matters.

That’s some non-apology, Carl

I’ve read phony apologies many times over the years.

They usually include the phrase “If I offended anyone ,,.”

Carl Palodino, the New York Republican operative/activist and former GOP candidate for governor, has taken the non-apology to a new level.

He said he wished President Obama would die in the coming year of mad cow disease and said Michelle Obama is really a dude who should live with gorillas in Africa.

Palodino’s explanation? What he said to an alternative newspaper in Buffalo, N.Y., was meant only for his “friends.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carl-paladino-email-apology_us_58629a35e4b0d9a5945920ff?section=politics

What? Huh? Are you kidding me?

This guy has said these kinds of things before. If this latest diatribe isn’t drenched in racist intent, then I have been living in some parallel universe for the past 67 years.

Palodino is a strong ally of Donald J. Trump. To its credit, the president-elect’s transition team has issued a strong statement of condemnation of Palodino’s hate-filled comment, calling it “reprehensible.”

As for this notion that he intended these hideous remarks only for his “friends,” how in the name of all that is holy does this guy’s non-apology make anything right?

What about a ‘consensus candidate’ for high court, GOP?

Americans are going to get a good look — probably fairly soon — at just how duplicitous many of our politicians can be.

Let’s consider the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly early this year while vacationing in Texas. President Obama then had to find someone to nominate to replace the longtime conservative icon. He found a centrist in Federal Judge Merrick Garland.

Republicans said before Garland got the nod that they would block anyone the president nominated. No hearing. No testimony. No vote. Nothing, man.

Throughout the president’s two terms in office, GOP senators had insisted that the Democratic president nominate “consensus” jurists to the nation’s highest court. He managed to get two justices confirmed: Sonja Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Garland was confirmable — had he been given the chance to make his case. Except for one thing: Confirming a centrist such as Garland would change the political balance of power on the Supreme Court, which held a slim conservative majority with Scalia.

A Republican now has been elected president. Will the new man, Donald J. Trump, nominate a “consensus” jurist for the high court? Will he find someone who splits the difference between liberals and conservatives?

Something tells me he’s going to tack to the far right as a sop to those who stood by him on the campaign trail.

Consensus? Who needs consensus when you and your political party control the White House and the Senate.

The upcoming Supreme Court appointment process is going to get ugly. Real ugly.

Will the next president replicate this show of unity, grace?

This is an amazing video I felt like sharing on this blog.

It shows how one president can honor a predecessor with class and grace and how that predecessor can speak with amazing self-deprecating humor.

At some point during his presidential term, Donald J. Trump will get to invite his predecessor, Barack Obama, back to the White House for the unveiling of two portraits: of the president and the first lady, Michelle Obama.

President Obama and the first lady did that very thing when the portraits of President Bush and first lady Laura Bush.

This video presents a wonderful study in collegiality and comity.

I do hope the next president and the current president can set aside their intense personal and political differences when the Obamas return to the White House to unveil their own portraits.