Tag Archives: Bernie Sanders

national news, political news

Sanders is right: Trump is a liar

Bernie Sanders is correct: The president of the United States is a liar. He might even be a pathological liar.

He has lied continually. He does it on purpose, which defines someone who lies.

Donald J. Trump needs to produce evidence to back up his latest lie, which is that “it is a fact” that Barack Obama ordered the wiretap of the president’s offices in Trump Tower.

He hasn’t done so. He didn’t produce any evidence of his previous lies. Not the Muslims cheering the Twin Towers collapsing on 9/11; or that Ted Cruz’s father might have been complicit in President Kennedy’s assassination; or the millions of illegal immigrants voting for Hillary Clinton.

He has lied every time he has said those things.

To “lie” is to willingly, knowingly tell a falsehood.

That’s what Sen. Sanders, I-Vt., has said. He stands by his statement. He is right. Trump is a liar.

And this is the guy who got elected president of the United States of America?

Spare me, please, the rejoinder that “all politicians lie.” Trump’s troops kept telling us that their guy “tells it like it is.” That’s different, presumably, from pure lies.

And also you may spare me the red herring that Bill Clinton “lied” about his affair with the intern, which got him impeached by the House of Representatives. I know that he lied under oath to the grand jury; I also know that was the ostensible reason for his impeachment. He paid his dues for lying.

Trump, though, hasn’t paid anything for these lies he has told. He got elected even as he lied his way all along the campaign trail.

He is lying now by suggesting that Barack Obama ordered the wiretaps.

And for that reason, Bernie Sanders should stand his ground.

national news, political news

Big crowds don’t necessarily equal big votes

Unfiltered-Voices-From-Donald-Trumps-Crowds

I’m enjoying listening to and reading comments from Donald J. Trump’s fans — some of whom are friends of mine — boast about the size of the rallies he is attracting.

The Republican candidate for president’s rallies, they keep saying, are far bigger than those who listen to Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That’s proof, they say, that Trump is making a comeback. That he’ll win in the end and be elected the 45th president of the United States.

I feel the need to remind them all of this indisputable fact … which is that big crowds don’t necessarily translate into big vote totals.

* George McGovern drew big crowds in 1972. They were loud, boisterous, enthusiastic and dedicated to their man. I know. I was among them. He lost the election that year by 23 percentage points to President Nixon.

* Gary Hart drew big crowds, too, in 1984 as he campaigned for the Democratic nomination. His fans were zealous. He didn’t even get nominated. The Democrat who did, Walter Mondale, lost “bigly” to President Reagan.

* Twenty years earlier, Barry Goldwater had the fervent support of the GOP’s conservative movement. They packed auditoriums and stadiums to hear their guy. Goldwater lost the 1964 election to President Johnson; yep, that was a landslide, too.

* Bernie Sanders just this year was drawing huge crowds. The crowds loved him. Did he win the nomination? No. Clinton did.

This election will decided by which candidate has the better “ground game.” Who between them has an organization ready to mobilize voters? Who is better equipped to target voting blocs? Which of them is going to develop the better ad campaign?

Crowd size? Sure, it’s nice to speak to more than just family and friends. The size of the crowds or the decibel level of their cheers, though, do not guarantee a thing on Election Day.

national news, political news

What a difference a day makes

BBuRyjq

Let’s see … today is Tuesday.

Democrats opened their presidential nominating convention a day earlier. They had been rocked and rolled by allegations that their lame-duck national party chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had sought to rig their nominating process in favor of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Schultz quit the chairmanship. Democrats opened their convention amid signs of open rebellion by delegates loyal to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who battled Clinton throughout the primary process.

Then came those rousing speeches by first lady Michelle Obama, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker and, oh yeah, Sen. Sanders.

What happened to that dissension? What happened to the insurrection?

Well, today is a new day. And Democrats proceeded to make some history by nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton as their candidate for president of the United States.

What’s more, the roll call of votes cast on the convention floor ended with Sanders himself calling for a “suspension of the rules,” which the convention chair interpreted as a call for nominating Clinton by acclamation.

The delegates cheered loudly as they endorsed the acclamation vote.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-wins-historic-nomination-%E2%80%94-with-a-boost-from-sanders/ar-BBuSbWh?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Just as the party made history eight years ago by nominating the first African-American to run for president, it did so again today by sending its first woman nominee into political combat against the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Will the anger subside over the shenanigans of the former DNC chair? Oh, probably not. Republicans will make sure to keep it roiling along with the dedicated Sanders supporters who might have to be dragged kicking and screaming to vote for Clinton this fall.

Former President Bill Clinton is going to speak tonight.

This is just a hunch, but my gut tells me he’s going to bring the house down, just as he did in 2012 when he lit up the convention hall in Charlotte to exhort the delegates to fight for Barack Obama’s re-election.

It’s been said many times that “a week is a lifetime in politics.”

So, too, it appears is a single day.

national news, political news

FLOTUS gives ’em some tough love at DNC

FILE -- In a Nov. 12, 2011 file photo first lady Michelle Obama listens during a visit to MAÂ’O Organic Farms in Waianae, Hawaii. Michelle Obama cajoled Jay Leno into nibbling on apples, sweet potato fries and a pizza made with eggplant, green peppers and zucchini on the "Tonight Show," Tuesday Jan. 31, 2012. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh/file)

Did you hear what I heard first lady Michelle Obama say to the Democratic National Convention delegates?

I’m pretty sure I heard her deliver a tough-love lecture to the Bernie Sanders supporters who earlier in the day were booing the sound of the name “Hillary Clinton.”

The first lady had the courage to inform them that Clinton did not walk away and sulk after losing the Democratic presidential primary in 2008 to Sen. Barack Obama. She informed them that Clinton joined the team that helped elect the young senator as president.

My hunch as I listened to her speech tonight was that the message was not lost on the Sanders legions who stood in front of her on the convention floor — let alone those at home who might be feeling a bit down and out.

Her message? Get over it.

national news, political news

Schultz gets tossed; the recriminations continue

dem chair

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has violated one of the fundamental tents of running a major political party.

You’re supposed to be neutral while your party seeks to nominate candidates for high office.

She wasn’t. Schultz, as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, has the bad taste to say negative things about Bernie Sanders as he battled Hillary Rodham Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination.

What’s been the impact of that revelation as Democrats have convened their gathering in Philadelphia? It has energized the Sanders supporters. They’ve been booing any mention of Clinton’s name. Even their guy — Bernie himself — has been booed and jeered for encouraging his delegates to rally behind Clinton … as he has done himself.

Then came the amazing mea culpa from the DNC. It has apologized publicly to Sanders, effectively tossing Schultz under the proverbial bus.

She has earned the hoots and jeers she is getting at this convention. Schultz this morning got the bum’s rush from her own home-state delegates in Florida.

Did she rig the primary campaign, greasing it for her friend Clinton? It is beginning to feel that way.

Schultz, though, is gone. Her resignation from the chairmanship is effective at the end of the convention. The reality, though, is that she’s done.

The task for Clinton’s team — and for Sanders — is to bring the delegates together. We’ll see if Schultz’s resignation and the apology from the DNC will be enough to calm the storm.

national news, political news

Let’s toss ‘boring’ out of describing Democrats’ convention

democratic-national-convention

It seems as though Democrats’ wish for a “boring” national presidential nominating convention has been flushed away.

It remains an open question, though, whether the lack of boredom bodes ill for the Democrats as they battle Donald J. Trump and the Republicans for the presidency of the United States.

The raucousness of the GOP convention last week now seems a bit quaint.

Democrats have convened their gathering amid a lot of tumult over some e-mails that included unflattering language from DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her open disdain for Bernie Sanders and his insurgent candidacy for the party nomination.

Someone, I suppose, needed to remind Schultz that party chairs are supposed to at least put on the appearance of neutrality. Not so with the chairwoman, who has quit her job.

Hillary Clinton is going to be nominated this week as the Democratic presidential candidate. Tonight, Sen. Sanders will speak to the delegates. Yeah, he’ll get a lot of cheers. He’ll get some boos, too, when he tells his supporters he intends to back Clinton and will work hard to get her elected.

He’ll endorse Clinton — again tonight. It’s a certainty he won’t draw the kind of boos and jeers that Ted Cruz did when he declined to endorse Trump during his big night at the GOP convention.

This convention, though, won’t be boring.

national news, political news

‘Damn e-mails’ plaguing Clinton once more

Cassidy-Bernie-Sanders-Loud-and-Clear-1200

Do you remember when Sen. Bernie Sanders told Hillary Clinton he was “tired of hearing about those damn e-mails”?

He said so during a Democratic Party primary debate. It drew big laughs and applause as he sought to put to rest  the hubbub over Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as secretary of state.

Well, it turns out that “damn e-mails” of quite another variety are rising up to nip at Clinton as she prepares to become the Democrats’ presidential nominee.

This time they involve Sanders himself. They also involve communication from lame-duck Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz, who apparently really and truly didn’t want Sanders to be nominated by her party.

The e-mails appear to paint a picture of a conspiracy to deny Sanders the nomination. Schultz, after all, is a good friend of Clinton. So, she wanted her pal nominated, as the e-mails suggest.

The chairwoman has tendered her resignation. She won’t gavel the convention open this evening. She’s going to be keeping the lowest of profiles possible for the next four days.

That’s probably a good thing.

But oh brother, the chatter has begun about the “rigged system” that’s going to nominate Clinton. The chatterer in chief is none other than Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, who had his own political rigging to deal with as he sought his party’s nomination.

I’m not going to take the Hillary-colluded-with-Debbie bait. No one has offered any proof that the Clinton campaign was party to what Schultz sought to do, which allegedly was to use skullduggery to deny Sanders the nomination.

Still, Clinton’s got another e-mail matter she must clear up.

I don’t know how she does that. She’s pretty damn smart. My advice to her is to get busy and find a way to get this mess cleaned up.

national news, political news

Party ‘disunity’ surfaces … within the Democrats!

dem chair

It appears that party unity is as elusive a commodity among Democrats as it is among Republicans.

Just as the Democratic Party is set to convene its presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia, the party chair — Debbie Wasserman Schultz — submitted her resignation effective at the end of the convention.

Eh? What? You mean … ?

Schultz, it turned out, doesn’t think much of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief primary foe, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. Some e-mails got leaked in which she refers to Sanders as an “ASS” and not a real Democrat.

As they say … oops!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/wasserman-schultz-wont-preside-over-dnc-convention-226088

Will this blow over? I reckon so — to the extent that Republicans led by GOP nominee Donald J. Trump will allow it.

I’m quite sure Trump and his followers will take to social media to let us all know about the “rigged” system that allowed Clinton to be nominated this week for president. They’ll remind us that Sanders got the shaft. They will possibly concoct conspiracies where none exist.

Party chairs don’t usually resign on the eve of these big events. Thus, the timing of Schultz’s resignation all by itself makes it a big story.

It was so interesting to me that during his acceptance speech the other night, Trump took a few moments to extol the virtues of part of Sanders’s message, the part about income inequality and Wall Street influence.

So, in that moment, “the enemy of my enemy” became “my friend,” in Trump’s view.

Donna Brazile will take over the party chairmanship; she’ll have to give up her gig as a CNN “contributor.” But, as a one-time Republican operative who “contributes” to ABC News, Matthew Dowd, noted this morning, Republicans might rue the day they wished for Schultz’s resignation. Brazile will take charge — immediately! — and will reorganize the party apparatus quickly.

In the meantime, the hunt for “party unity” will continue. So, you see, Democrats and Republicans have something in common after all.

national news, political news

Bernie’s out … but not entirely

SandersSecurity0011466195770.wdp

Bernie Sanders’ campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination is over.

He won’t be nominated at the party convention in Philadelphia. Hillary Rodham Clinton will get the nod and will march off to campaign against Republican nominee, who at this moment appears to be Donald J. Trump.

But …

Why does Sen. Sanders still have all those Secret Service agents shadowing him as he returns to work in the U.S. Senate?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/an-expensive-reminder-that-sanders-still-hasnt-dropped-out-his-secret-service-detail/2016/06/19/a3f717c6-3555-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

I get that the Secret Service protection won’t break the federal bank. It does seem a bit “lavish,” though, for him to continue to have the protection.

Sure, he’s entitled to it. President Lyndon Johnson issued an executive order back in 1968 that provides this protection for presidential candidates. He acted in the wake of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy’s murder in Los Angeles on the night he won the California Democratic primary.

Sanders has sought to portray himself as a common man, someone who eschews big-money speaking fees.

But the presence of the Secret Service and all the bells and whistles the protection brings tells a bit of a different story.

According to the Washington Post: “There’s no denying that some of the accoutrements that come with campaigns can be intoxicating,” said Jim Manley, a longtime Democratic operative who is supporting Clinton.

Sanders won’t “suspend” his campaign because he still wants to have a say at the party convention this summer. I understand the reason for his staying in … even though his candidacy has been reduced to symbolism.

Does he still need the Secret Service protection? Really?

I think not.

It’s over, Sen. Sanders.

national news, political news, State news

A vote is not an ‘endorsement’ … Hmmm

004_Flores_jpg_800x1000_q100

Can we split this hair any more finely than this?

Put this another way: How can a vote for a candidate be seen anything other than endorsement?

U.S. Rep. Bill Flores is a Republican from Bryan, Texas, who says he’s going to vote for Donald J. Trump for president of the United States … but he isn’t going to “endorse” him.

While I scratch my head over that one, I’ll just ask out loud: Didn’t he just endorse the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee?

Flores is angry at Trump over the candidate’s suggestion that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel cannot preside over a case involving Trump University because of his Mexican heritage.

As the Texas Tribune reported: “I was incredibly angry to see Mr. Trump question a judge’s motives because of his ethnicity,” (Flores) added. “Like tens of millions of Americans, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton and desire to vote for a bold, conservative leader. Mr. Trump can be that leader, and we are ready to help him when he focuses on vision instead of inappropriate attacks.”

But … no endorsement, right?

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/08/texas-republican-congressman-refuses-endorse-donal/

The Republican Party political class is facing this difficulty across the nation. A lot of pols seem willing to acknowledge they’ll vote for Trump, but they won’t endorse him.

I guess that means they won’t stand on a campaign stage and hoist their presidential nominee’s hand in the air. They won’t introduce him to crowds with glowing praise.

Is it interesting to anyone — other than yours truly — that the Democrats don’t appear to have this problem with their presumed presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton? Are we hearing Democratic politicians say things that Rep. Flores is saying, that they’ll vote for Clinton but won’t endorse her?

Yes, I’ve seen the polls that suggest a lot of Democrats who currently support Bernie Sanders will defect to Trump if Clinton gets the party nomination.

We’ll see, though, whether that defection rate holds up as the general election campaign moves forward.

Meantime, I’ll be watching other Republican political leaders try to explain how a commitment to vote for Donald Trump isn’t an endorsement of his presidential candidacy.