Is it me or does anyone else wonder what’s become of Dick Cheney?
The former vice president — from 2001 to 2009 — has been so very quick since leaving office to jump back into the political fray. He’s been critical of President Obama’s foreign policy, of Vice President Joe Biden, and oh yes, of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Well, the Republicans have their nominee. Donald J. Trump — who appears to be a classic Republican In Name Only — is now doing political battle with Democratic nominee Clinton.
But wait a sec, man? Cheney’s been nowhere.
I think I might have a clue. It’s because two of his former bosses, President George W. Bush and President George H.W. Bush — whom Cheney served as defense secretary — can’t stomach Trump’s candidacy. They despise the man for the way he’s run for the presidency, not to mention for the way he brutalized John Ellis “Jeb” Bush — W’s brother and Poppy’s son — during the 2016 GOP primary.
Whatever, the Bush family’s loathing of Trump seems to have silenced a loyal Bush guy.
Don’t misunderstand me here. I don’t necessarily want to hear from the former vice president. It’s not that I find his political world view all that appealing.
I guess I’m just miffed thatĀ Dick Cheney’sĀ silence had robbed me of some material on which to respond.
This is an element of this vice-presidential selection process I find distasteful.
Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia has been a strong supporter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal favored by President Obama and others within the Democratic Party.
Now, though, Kaine is about to perform a 180-degree switcheroo and will oppose the TPP as a sop to Democratic Party progressives who might be unhappy with Hillary Clinton’s selection of Kaine as her running mate.
So, which is it, Sen. Kaine? Are you for the deal or against it … on principle?
What changed in the TPP treaty that caused him to turn himself inside out?
Politicians do this kind of so-called “pivot” all the time. My favorite example has been George H.W. Bush flipping from pro-choice on abortion to pro-life the instant he agreed to run in 1980 with Ronald Reagan.
Kaine is about to become another politician who seems willing to demonstrate that principle — on many issues — matters less than political expediency.
Many Republican luminaries are staying away from the Republican Party’s national presidential nominating convention.
But not all of them.
A serious man attended today’s opening of the convention in Cleveland.
He is former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole, the Kansas Republican who represented his state and served our country with tremendous honor.
Sen. Dole was there to support presumptive presidential nominee Donald J. Trump. That’s what party loyalists do, whether they’re Democrat or Republican. Dole is a loyalist to the core.
He also represents another time in this country when Republicans and Democrats could be political adversaries, not enemies.
MSNBC commentators took note of Dole’s distinguished career in public life. They brought up his years in the Senate. They mentioned how, in 1976, President Ford selected him as his running mate to assuage conservatives’ concerns. They talked also of Dole’s conservative principles as he ran for president in 1988 against fellow RepublicanĀ George H.W. Bush.
Of course, they mentioned his losing 1996 presidential campaign against President Clinton.
Here’s another element of Dole’s service they mentioned: They talked about his heroic service in the Army during World War II, in which he suffered grievous injury while fighting the Nazis in Italy.
It was right after coming home from the battlefield that young Bob Dole would meet another young American with whom he would undergo rehabilitation. The forged a friendship in the rehab hospital that would last a lifetime.
The other young man was Daniel Inouye, who would become a U.S. senator from Hawaii, and who was as loyal to his Democratic Party as Dole is to the GOP.
Inouye also suffered near-mortal wounds during World War II. He would receive the Medal of Honor for his battlefield heroics.
“Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd took particular note today of when Sen. Inouye died and his friend Bob Dole stood in front of Inouye’s casket to salute him. He told the honor guard that his “good friend Danny wouldn’t want to see me sitting here” in a wheelchair, Todd said.
Dole represented a time when senators could disagree, but maintain personal affection and friendship.
I was gratified to see this member of the “greatest generation” one more time.
If only his political descendants — on both sides of the partisan divide — would follow the example of collegiality that he and his “good friend Danny” set for politicians all across the land.
Of all the Republican Party no-shows for this week’s GOP presidential nominating convention, I want to focus on one of them.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich is taking a pass.
He won’t be in the convention hall to welcome the delegates. He won’t speak on behalf of the party’s presumptive nominee. He will be absent from the proceedings.
Kasich has told the media he plans to be in Cleveland, even though his governor’s duties might require him toĀ stay on the job downĀ yonder inĀ Columbus.
He’s not alone, of course. The party’s two living former presidents — George H.W. and George W. Bush — are staying away. The party’s two most recent presidential nominees — John McCain and Mitt Romney — won’t darken the convention hall door. Jeb Bush will be a goner. Several GOP members of Congress facing tough re-election fights won’t be there, either.
None of these folks can stand Donald J. Trump, the party’s nominee.
Kasich’s absence, though, is the most profound.
He was one of the 16 Republicans who ran against Trump. Although he didn’t get tagged with a label — a la “Lyin’ Ted,” “Little Marco,” or “Low Energy Jeb” — Kasich became the target of a Trump barb as the GOP frontrunner poked fun of Kasich’s eating habits, for crying out loud!
It’s a very big deal for the governor of the state that is hosting a political nominating convention to stay away.
Kasich, who was my favorite Republican primary candidate, is a longtime GOP pol with a stellar record as a member of Congress. He had a record on which to run, such as his leadership in helping craft a federal balanced budget while he chaired the House Budget Committee. In a normal election year, that might be enough all by itself to put a presidential candidate over the top.
Oh, wait! This is anything but a normal election year.
I’m glad to see Gov. Kasich refuse to have his good name tainted by an association with a nominee who has parlayed his penchant for insults into a winning campaign formula.
You may choose to believe this if you wish … or you can say I’m full of mule muffins.
I actually have a “favorite vice-presidential selection moment” that I’d like to share with you. I’ll be brief.
I was watching CBS News’s coverage of the 1980 Republican Convention. Ronald Reagan was about to become the GOP nominee for president. Rumors were flying all over the place about some negotiations that were occurring between the former California governor and the 38th president of the United States, Gerald R. Ford.
The gossip was that Gov. Reagan wanted President Ford to become a sort of “co-president” who would run on the GOP ticket as the VP nominee. Obviously, though, Reagan was going to give Ford a whole lot more responsibility than what normally goes to the vice president.
Well, the convention was buzzing with the talk. Will Reagan do it? Will the former president accept this challenge?
CBS put correspondent Leslie Stahl on camera while she was walking through the convention floor. She’s going on and on about prospect of Ford joining Reagan.
Then she stopped for about a second and blurted out, “It’s Bush!”
Yep, it turned out to be George H.W. Bush, one of Reagan’s former GOP primary foes, the author of the term “voodoo economics,” which he used to describe Reagan’s tax plan for the country.
It just goes to show you thatĀ foes can become “friends” when the most politically expedient moment presents itself.
Have I been asleep at the wheel or has the political punditry class been quiet about comparing this election’s billionaire businessman/candidate with the previous guy who fit that description?
Donald J. Trump is about to become — more than likely — the next Republican nominee for president. He will face a candidate named Clinton, as in Hillary.
Twenty-four years ago another billionaire businessman ran for president against the first Clinton, the one named Bill — and against the Republican president, George H.W. Bush.
Yeah, the 1992 campaign had its quirks, such as when Perot quit the race only to re-enter it later. ButĀ it wasn’t nearly as, um, quirky as this one has been so far.
H. Ross Perot ended up winning 19 percent of the popular vote as an independent candidate. Bill Clinton won the presidency with 43 percent of the total, compared to President Bush’s 38 percent. Clinton, though, won the Electoral College vote in a landslide.
I’d like to be one of the few today to say that Perot did not cost Bush the election. Bill Clinton would have won the 1992 race with or without Perot in the mix.
Are there more comparisons to make between Perot and Trump?
Sure. Both men have huge egos. Perot, though, has been married to the same woman for a very long time; Trump is married to Wife No. 3. Perot’s wealth is of the self-made variety; Trump got a y-u-u-u-g-e head start from his dad’s estate.
Here’s another point to make, one that I’d like to concentrate on for just a moment. Trump has zero public service experience; Perot has one significant public service chapter in his lengthy life saga.
In 1983, then-Texas Gov. Mark White appointed Perot to lead a blue-ribbon commission to reform the state’s public education system. Gov. White tapped Perot after the Dallas technology tycoon popped off about how Texas was more interested in producing blue-chip athletes than it was in producing blue-chip scholars.
Perot set about the task of leading the panel to produce some recommendations he hoped would improve student academic performance.
I arrived in Texas in 1984 and as luck would have it, Perot unveiled his commission’s plan for education reform about that time. He then went on a statewide barnstorming tour to pitch his idea to Texans.
He came to Beaumont and that’s where I laid eyes on him for the first time. Perot stood at the podium in a roomful of business executives and sold his formula for academic success. Take it from me, the diminutive dynamo could command a room.
Several of us in the media met later that day with Perot for a question-and-answer session at Lamar University. Believe this, too: The man was in complete command of his facts, details and the process that awaited him.
The Texas Legislature convened a special session later that year and produced House Bill 72. Its record has been mixed. HB 72 mandated standardized testing for students and other reforms.
The point here is that Perot at least delivered the goods while being challenged by the state’s top elected official.
Trump’s public record? It involves a reality TV show, lots of buildings with his name on them, beauty pageants and assorted failed business ventures.
His public service record to date has brought us a string of insults, innuendo and invective.
The similarities? They’re both rich and full of themselves.
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.
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.
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 worldās 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.
Try to imagine a letter of this quality being left by a president of one party to a successor from the other party.
This letter came from the 41st president, George H.W. Bush, who left it for the 42nd, Bill Clinton. It’s gone viral.
The letter is fascinating in the generous tone that President Bush took toward the man who beat him in that brutal 1992 election campaign. Bush told Clinton that the new president would be “our” president and told him that any personal success he enjoys will be the country’s success.
Presidents leave theseĀ notes to their successors as a matter of tradition. Rarely do they become public, as this one has become.
Incoming presidents usually don’t reveal the contents of the letter left by their immediate predecessor.
It just makes me wonder whether this kind of letter could be written by President Obama in the highly unlikely event his successor happens to be Donald J. Trump.
The political climate in Washington — and throughout much of the nation — has become so toxic it makes this kind of good will seem virtually impossible if the presidency changes partisan hands.
Something tells me, though, that Barack Obama will have no difficulty leaving this kind of message for the woman who will succeed him in the White House.
His two terms as president of the United States will be judged ultimately as a success, no matter what his critics keep harping at today with statements of his alleged “failed presidency.”
Thus, I accept his endorsement today of Hillary Rodham Clinton as a potentially decisive event in the upcoming election.
He called his fellow Democrat Clinton the “most qualified” person ever to seek the presidency.
Right there, Mr. President, I will beg to differ.
The most qualified individual ever to seek — and hold — the office is a Republican … in my humble view.
That would be George H.W. Bush, the 41st president.
I’ve taken note before about President Bush’s sparkling pre-presidency credentials: Navy combat aviator during World War II; successful businessman; member of Congress; special envoy to China; CIA director; Republican Party chairman; U.N. ambassador; vice president of the United States.
I don’t want to quibble too much with the president over this. Indeed, Hillary Clinton is supremely qualified to be president and commander in chief. Her resume includes first lady of the United States, U.S. senator and secretary of state.
“Most qualified,” though, is a stretch. Her record is stellar, but not as stellar as the one compiled by President Bush.
Partisan politics being what it is, though, a Democratic president isn’t going to offer credit to someone from the other party while endorsing a member of his own party to become the next president.
The credit that extends across the aisleĀ is left to be handed out by those of us out here in the proverbial peanut gallery.
