Tag Archives: LBJ

national news, political news

Race mattered in ’64, but LBJ and Goldwater kept it on ice

lbj and goldwater

Donald J. Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton are engaging in a most extraordinary political fire fight.

Republican presidential nominee Trump and Democratic nominee Clinton are accusing each other of racial bigotry.

Race is an issue in this campaign? It must be so.

It also was an issue back in 1964. The major-party candidates then, though, took a different course.

President Lyndon Johnson and his Republican Party challenger, Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona, decided to keep race out of the campaign.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/goldwater-lbj-racism-campaign-trump-bigotry-214191

The two men met at the White House in July 1964 and agreed that they wouldn’t interject the highly charged issue of race relations into their quest for the White House.

Sen. Goldwater was never known to curb his own tongue. He was a fiery conservative who was prone to making provocative statements. He opposed the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.

President Johnson, the Texan known for his excesses and his occasional crudeness, had taken office amid profound national tragedy the previous November. He decided it was time to move his party away from its segregationist past, a decision that would cost the party dearly throughout the South.

As Politico reports:

“In 2016, many observers have suggested similarities between Trump and Senator Goldwater. In some ways, they are analogous: Both were outsiders who won the nomination of a deeply divided Republican Party after defeating the preferred, more moderate candidates of the GOP establishment. And Goldwater, like Trump, had a habit of impolitic comments, as in his clarion call that ‘extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.’ It was a central part of Goldwater’s appeal: He tells it like it is, political correctness be damned—’In your heart, you know he’s right,’ just like his campaign slogan said.

“But there’s a big difference between the quixotic campaign of Goldwater and the spectacularly flawed campaign of Trump: Goldwater abhorred racist rhetoric, whereas Trump may have sealed his fate with it in two major turning points. First came Trump’s assertion that U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not fairly rule in the Trump University case because the Indiana-born Curiel is of Mexican ancestry while Trump has pledged to build a wall on the Mexican border. Then, Trump’s attack on Ghazala and Khizr Khan, the Muslim-American Gold Star parents who appeared at the Democratic National Convention. Trump insinuated that Ghazala Khan, who stood silently by as her husband spoke, was ‘not allowed’ to speak due to their Islamic religion.”

It’s not that we should sweep the race issue away, pretend it doesn’t exist. My concern in 2016 is that the invective has poisoned reasonable, rational and responsible discussion.

President Johnson and Sen. Goldwater perhaps had the same fear 52 years ago when they decided to keep their hands off a live political grenade.

national news, political news, religious news

Utah up for grabs in race for president? Seriously?

trump-temple-hammer-copy

We’ve been “treated,” if that’s the right word for it, to the most unconventional presidential election campaign in memory.

Let’s ponder this bit of intelligence from the campaign trail.

Utah might become one of those “battleground states.”

Yes, that well might be happening as Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump battles Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

You see, Trump has said some things that offend Utahans.

Big deal, you say? He’s offended lots of folks all along the way. Veterans, people with disabilities, Latinos, women, Muslims.

Oh, yes, about those Muslims who have been singled out by Trump. That’s where the Utah story starts to take root.

Mormons comprise a large majority of Utah residents. They understand — and recognize — religious bigotry when they see it. Their forebears went through lots of discrimination and persecution when they settled in Utah. Indeed, there remain remnants of it to this very day.

Trump, of course, has proposed banning Muslims from entering the country. He is fostering a fever-pitch fear of terrorists by injecting an element of religious profiling. How do you think that plays with a key Republican voting bloc that knows a thing or two about such profiling?

Utah also hasn’t voted for a Democrat for president since 1964, when President Lyndon Johnson was elected in that historic landslide. That’s 12 presidential elections.

Mormon culture also fosters an overwhelmingly pro-family environment. Devoted Mormons embrace conservative lifestyles. They aren’t likely too keen on the flamboyance and opulence that Trump flaunts as he traipses across the country.

You want an unconventional election result? The bizarre nature of this campaign would be buttoned up quite nicely if Donald Trump were to actually lose Utah to Clinton.

Consider, too, that 2012 Republican presidential nominee (and devout Mormon) Mitt Romney — a fairly iconic political figure in Utah — has declared his unwavering opposition to Trump’s candidacy.

If Utah becomes a contested battleground for Trump and Clinton, you likely can bet the farm that the Democratic nominee is going to win this election in a gigantic rout.

national news, political news

Memo to GOP: Let your nominee finish his race

Campaign_2016_Trump-6e9c2.wdp

More and more Republicans are saying it: get rid of our presidential nominee.

Dump Trump. Ditch Donald.

The latest Republican to speak out is talk-show host — and former GOP congressman — Joe Scarborough. He says Donald J. Trump has disqualified himself as a presidential candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/08/09/the-gop-must-dump-trump/?utm_term=.e3ce0dbe3fe2

I believe I must remind Scarborough of the following: Republican Party primary voters had the opportunity all along the way to look to someone else when given the chance.

They chose to go with Donald Trump.

He won the GOP nomination fair and square. He scored a first-ballot win at the Cleveland convention.

Sure, Trump has made a hash of his campaign. His statements have boggled our minds. He is demonstrating time and time again his total unfitness for the job.

How, though, does the party ditch a nominee now?

My own sense is that the party ought to let the man finish what he’s begun. Let him complete the race. Let him continue to embarrass himself.

The party can recover. Political parties have ways to do it. The Republicans rebuilt their conservative coalition after the 1964 disaster when Barry Goldwater got trampled by Lyndon Johnson. Democrats did the same thing after getting battered by Richard Nixon’s landslide win over George McGovern in 1972.

It’s a bit late in the game for the Republican Party to change nominees now.

What’s more, as someone who has no intention of voting for Donald Trump — and who cannot stand the idea of his ever getting anywhere near the Oval Office — I plan to enjoy this supreme narcissist getting his noggin thumped.

political news, State news

Voter ID: a solution in search of a problem

vote fraud

Let’s talk for a moment about voter fraud.

If there’s an overblown, overhyped and overstated problem with the American electoral system, it has to be voter fraud.

Even in Texas, ,which has become somewhat legendary because of one instance of voter fraud. It occurred in 1948 when Duval County in South Texas supposedly recorded more votes than registered voters. The inflated number of votes allegedly pushed a young political candidate, Democrat Lyndon Johnson, over the top in his party primary runoff contest for the U.S. Senate.

How many instances of ballot-box chicanery have occurred in Texas since then? Damn few.

Republicans, though, have seized on voter fraud as a compelling national political problem. They keep insisting that Americans must prove they are eligible to vote by showing photo ID documents when they go to the polls.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/the-integrity-of-our-elections/

I don’t necessarily object personally to showing photo ID when I go vote. I am able to present a valid driver’s license. A lot of Americans, though, do not drive; they don’t own passports; they don’t have licenses to carry concealed weapons. They’re out of luck.

Some courts have ruled that voter ID laws, therefore, to be inherently unconstitutional.

The most objectionable element of this discussion, though, has been the canard put forward that the electoral system is corrupt. Fear mongers — now led by Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump — keep insisting that illegal immigrants are voting by the thousands to elect Democrats to public office.

As Erica Grieder writes in her blog for Texas Monthly: “It’s true that voter fraud is real. It’s even true that there have been recorded instances of people passing themselves off as someone else in order to cast a fraudulent vote, which is the specific form of fraud that laws requiring photo ID might prevent. But that crime is not even remotely common, nor do Americans have any real cause to worry about elections being stolen in the most labor-intensive way imaginable.”

Trump is now predicting that the presidential election will be “rigged.” How does he know this to be true? He just says it.

Those who are following his futile efforts to change the subject away from his abject ignorance about anything relating to government and public policy, are buying into it.

national news, political news

What has happened to the Grand Old Party?

Republican_Party1

I miss Jacob Javits, Everett Dirksen, Nelson Rockefeller, Charles Percy, Mark Hatfield, Howard Baker and even Ronald Reagan.

I miss the old-guard Republicans who used to see their political opponents as “adversaries” and not “enemies.”

These are the guys who used to work with Lyndon Johnson, George McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Sam Rayburn and other Democrats to seek a way forward for the nation.

These days we hear talk of doing away with the “enemy.” It’s all over the air and in print coming out of the Republican National Convention, which concludes tonight in Cleveland.

Where did this “enemy” talk come from?

I cannot answer that with great precision, although I do remember a quote attributed to the former speaker of the House, Newton Leroy Gingrich, who led a GOP “revolution” back in 1994.

It was Newt who spoke to his minions of the need to characterize Democrats as “the enemy of normal Americans.”

Let that sink in for a moment.

There. Now let’s ponder whether the “enemy” characterization has worked well for the nation.

A New Hampshire delegate to the GOP convention has said Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton should be “shot for treason.”

Yes. Shot! The Secret Service is examining whether this fellow presents a clear and present danger to a leading American politician. Clinton hasn’t been charged with a crime, let along convicted of one. That doesn’t matter to this fellow.

Yes, we’ve gotten more than a bit testy these days.

To think that this once-great political party, where politicians used to take pride in their ability to work with the other side, has devolved to this point.

Is the other side innocent of this kind of division? No. They, too, have their share of loudmouthed demagogues. But in the halls of Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, we see the majority party using language that seeks to drive a wedge between men and women on both sides of the aisle.

It’s all coming to bear this week in Cleveland and the Grand Old Party sends its nominee off to campaign against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

I’m usually not one to harken back to the old days. I wouldn’t want to be a teenager ever again.

In this instance, though, I am left to wish for a return — in the words of another grand old-school Republican, George H.W. Bush — to a “kinder, gentler” time.

national news, political news

Gov. Pence waiting in the wings

pence_122_072811

The speculation around who Donald J. Trump will select as his Republican Party running mate seems to be focusing on Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

Honestly, I have trouble believing anyone Trump picks is going to be decisive, that the individual will spell the difference between victory and defeat for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. VP nominees usually don’t sway elections. I say “usually,” because we do have evidence that Lyndon Johnson’s presence on the Democratic ticket in 1960 helped John Kennedy win the Lone Star State on his way to a narrow victory over Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge.

But as long as we’re talking about Pence, let’s look briefly at a couple of aspects of this fellow’s record.

He’s a former congressman. He’s been governor of Indiana for a while. Thus, he has Capitol Hill and executive governing experience. That’s a plus, given Trump’s “record” of hosting a reality TV show, slapping his name on garish hotels and casinos, not to mention his various failed business ventures.

Pence also is a social conservative. He opposes a woman’s right to obtain an abortion; he opposes same-sex marriage.

The question anyone Trump picks as a running mate, though, is this: Will the presidential nominee actually heed whatever political advice the VP candidate gives him?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/donald-trump-ultimate-outsider-turned-insider-mike-pence-indiana-republican-congress?utm_content=buffer03d8b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Until this very moment, Trump is exhibiting a go-it-alone approach to just about everything as he runs for the presidency. He isn’t showing — as far as I can see — any tendency to seek advice from political pros. After all, he’s the ultimate “outsider,” so he doesn’t need any stinkin’ advice from those who he has said all along are part of whatever problems are afflicting the federal government.

Pence doesn’t strike me as someone who’ll be able to change Trump’s modus operandi while he continues his campaign for the presidency.

Suppose it is Pence. Suppose, too, that Pence gets assurances that he’ll be taken seriously as a key member of Trump’s campaign team.

Has the GOP’s presidential nominee exhibited a commitment to keeping his word? Is he totally trustworthy?

Well, I’m guessing Pence — or whomever gets the call from Trump — will have to weigh all of that, too, before deciding whether to hoist the nominee’s hand at the convention in Cleveland.

Well, let’s see what happens Friday. Trump will let us all know who gets the call.

national news, political news

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.

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

Obama lacks GOP go-to pal in Congress

Valerie-Jarrett

Valerie Jarrett gave a stellar defense Sunday night of her boss and long-time friend President Barack Obama.

Her appearance on “60 Minutes” was notable in her defense as well of her role — in addition to senior adviser — as friend, confidante and her easy access to the Leader of the Free World.

But she pushed back when CBS News correspondent Nora O’Donnell asked her about the president’s continuing prickly relationship with congressional Republicans. She said Obama has done all he could do to reach out.

O’Donnell, though, asked — but did get an answer — about the lack of a leading Republican in either the Senate or the House to whom the president could turn to fight for his legislative agenda.

It brought to mind the kind of relationship that previous presidents have cultivated with members of the “loyal opposition.” President Lyndon Baines Johnson could turn to GOP Sen. Everett Dirksen in a pinch; President Ronald Reagan had a fabulous after-hours friendship with Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill; GOP President George W. Bush relied on help from Sen. Ted Kennedy to push through education reform.

Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have that kind of personal friendship with members of the other side. He relies on his own instincts, his own circle of friends — such as Jarrett — and the vice president, Joe Biden, who to this day retains close friendships with Senate Republicans.

It’s that lack of kinship that has troubled many of us who want the president to succeed. I recall having this discussion once with retired Amarillo College president Paul Matney, who lamented that Obama had not developed the legislative know-how that LBJ brought to the presidency.

LBJ had served as Senate majority leader before his one-time foe John F. Kennedy asked him to be his running mate in 1960. Ol’ Lyndon knew how the Senate worked and he was able to parlay that knowledge — along with tremendous national good will after JFK’s assassination in 1963 — into landmark legislation.

Barack Obama has been forced to struggle, to battle relentlessly, to get anything past a Republican-led Congress intent on blocking every major initiative he has sought.

The reasons behind the ultra-fierce resistance will be debated long after President Obama leaves office.

He seems, though, to have lacked one essential ingredient to move his agenda forward: a good friend and dependable ally on the other side of the aisle who could run interference for him.

 

International news, military news, national news, political news

Yes, he got the Nobel Peace Prize

obama nobel

The New York Times has posted a story that bestows a dubious legacy on President Barack Obama.

He’s about to exit the presidency after serving two full terms with the country at war.

His time in office will include more time at war than FDR, Richard Nixon, LBJ or Abraham Lincoln, the Times reports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/obama-as-wartime-president-has-wrestled-with-protecting-nation-and-troops.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

I doubt very much that President Obama is going to tout this legacy, particularly as he starts serious planning for his presidential library.

It brings to mind something I brought up in this blog a while back, which is his receiving the Nobel Peace Prize during the first year of his presidency.

He’ll never give it back. I’m not suggesting he should, although I did write a blog that said I wouldn’t be all that upset if he did.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/11/11478/

The Nobel committee honored the then-brand-new president as a rebuke, or so it has been speculated, to his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush. The Nobel panel thought little of President Bush’s decision to go to war with Iraq and many analysts suggested that awarding Obama the Peace Prize was meant to stick it in Bush’s ear over the Iraq War.

The official reason was that the Nobel Prize committee felt Obama had the promise of bringing the world to a new era of peace.

It hasn’t happened.

Is it the president’s fault? Does he shoulder the burden of continuing conflict around the world? No.

We’re still killing terrorists. We’ve been fighting a virtual all-out war with the Islamic State, which emerged from the rubble of the Iraq War as that country established a Shiite Muslim government, which is anathema to the Sunni Muslims comprising the Islamic State.

It’s clear that Obama delivered on his pledge to end our active combat role in Iraq. The Afghan War rages on as well, with troops remaining in that theater well past the time the president had hoped to bring them home.

I remain a supporter of Barack Obama. I believe he did a masterful job of infusing aid to shore up an economy in free fall. I also believe he’s done well in developing alliances around the world.

This wartime presidential legacy, though, is one that shouldn’t make any of us proud … least of all the man whose time as leader of the Free World is about to end.