Tag Archives: Ronald Reagan

national news, political news

Trump is no Gipper

rrflagwallpaper

I’ve heard some so-called “political experts” make a dubious comparison between Donald Trump and one of the men who preceded him as president of the United States.

I refer, of course, to Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Some pundits have compared Trump’s stunning election to the 1980 election that gave us President Reagan.

Let’s flash back for a moment.

Reagan was caricatured in 1980 as a B-movie actor — Bonzo the Chimp’s co-star, if you will. He was a showman, a reckless movie “cowboy” who couldn’t be trusted with the nuclear codes.

Those who portrayed him in that light left out something else. He also served two terms as California governor. He brought considerable government executive experience to the Oval Office. He knew how to legislate. He also knew about the limits of governmental executive power.

Trump brings none of that. Zeeee-ro.

Until this year, he’d never sought public office. He has many claims to fame. Not a single one of them involves public service. They all involve personal enrichment.

He parlayed a big stake from his father into a real estate business. Trump became involved in commercial development. He tried to start up a few business spin-offs; most of them cratered. Trump was a reality-TV host and he operated a beauty pageant or two.

Did any of that translate to anything resembling public service? Did any of that commend him for the presidency of the United States? No on both counts.

Do not misconstrue anything here. I accept Trump’s election as president, even though I did not vote for him. Therefore, I don’t endorse it. I accepted Ronald Reagan’s election, too, even though I didn’t vote for him either time he ran for the presidency.

We hear a lot these days about “false equivalency.” Those who suggest Donald Trump’s election mirrors Ronald Reagan’s are applying that very concept to two quite different circumstances.

national news, political news

Sessions invokes Reagan … while crowing about Trump

doanld

Jeff Sessions is arguably Donald J. Trump’s best friend in the U.S. Senate.

The Alabama Republican was on board early in Trump’s campaign for the presidency. Now he is upset that members of a big-time GOP family have turned their backs on Trump, the party’s presidential nominee.

Here’s the best part, though, of Sessions’ rant against former Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

He said, according to columnist Byron York: ” … millions of Americans, including this one, worked their hearts out for the Bushes in 1988, 1992, 2000, and 2004. And it wasn’t Bill Clinton that helped the Bushes get elected. It was the same voters, in large part, that elected Ronald Reagan and stand to elect Donald Trump.”

I am amused that Sessions would invoke Reagan’s name, suggesting that today’s Trumpkins mirror those who backed the Gipper all those years ago.

There’s another part of that calculation that needs a bit of scrutiny.

I cannot prove this, but my strong belief is that President Reagan would be aghast at Donald Trump’s ascent to the pinnacle of GOP power.

If only the president were alive today to weigh in.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-sessions-on-bushes-trump-snub-theyve-forgotten-who-elected-them/article/2602526

The former presidents Bush and Jeb Bush haven’t forgotten a thing. They are dedicated Republicans who have seen their party hijacked by a con man/entertainer/hustler/narcissist.

They, too, were loyal Reaganites. Indeed, George H.W. Bush was so loyal to the president that he tossed aside his long-standing pro-choice view on abortion to become a pro-life vice president during the Reagan administration.

Is Trump the true-blue conservative who would have earned the Gipper’s endorsement? Hardly.

He is an ignorant imposter seeking high public office for reasons that remain a mystery. He wants to “make America great again”? He has insulted the very people who continue to maintain America’s greatness in the world.

I refer, of course, to the men and women in uniform who fight every day to protect us.

Ronald Reagan would have nothing to do with this charlatan.

medical news, national news, political news

Hillary’s health? Not an issue

1 Comment

hillary-clinton-health-failing-photo-by-nathania-johnson

All this supposed hubbub over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health has gotten me to recalling a time or two in recent history.

Presidents — and presidential candidates — sometimes get sick.

They’re human — yes? — just like the rest of us. They’re prone to physical ailments, bugs, viruses, runny noses, upset stomachs and, oh, you know.

The Democratic presidential nominee got a bit woozy at a 9/11 event the other day. She had to leave early. Why, how dare she get sick at a 9/11 event? The nerve …

B … F … D!

Well, do you remember the time President George H. W. Bush puked in the lap of the Japanese prime minister while they were sitting on the floor enjoying a meal? Was there concern then that President Bush could serve as commander in chief and leader of the Free World? Umm … no!

Or, how about the time President Ronald Reagan stumbled and bumbled his way through the first televised debate with Walter Mondale? There were questions raised in 1984 about the president’s fitness. How did he respond? With that classic answer to the question about his mental fitness, saying he would not “exploit for political purposes my opponent’s  youth and inexperience.” He brought down the house — and ended the discussion.

OK, so Hillary Clinton was feeling under the weather. Give her a break!

This health issue is a canard. It’s an insult and an attempt to insert ye another element of innuendo into this campaign.

medical news, national news, political news

Hillary’s health becomes Trump’s trap

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s physical and emotional health has now become a talking point for her opponent in this race for the presidency of the United States.

Republican nominee Donald J. Trump is alleging that the Democratic candidate lacks the stamina to deal with the Islamic State and the myriad world problems that will confront the next president.

Hmmm.

Of course, it’s a phony issue. Then again, Trump’s campaign to date has been based largely on phony issues from top to bottom.

* Crime is rampant? No. The crime rate is at a historic low.

* Our military force is a loser? Hardly. We’re still the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

* The economy is a disaster? Uh, we’ve added 14 million jobs in the past eight years.

Now it’s Hillary Clinton’s health.

I am quite certain Trump’s team will keep talking this up to divert attention away from some other issues with which Trump has to deal.

Perhaps he ought to keep his trap shut on this one. You might remember — I sure do — when President Reagan stumbled badly in that first joint appearance in 1984 with Democratic nominee Walter Mondale. The question came up in the next event about the president’s health. The president was asked if he was up to the job.

“I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” the president said.

Beware, Donald Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-makes-claims-on-clintons-health/ar-BBvIEOW?li=BBnb7Kz

 

national news, political news

Allow this dissent on ‘most qualified’ candidate for POTUS

HOUSTON, TX - DECEMBER 01: President George H.W. Bush waits on the field prior to the start of the game between the New England Patriots and the Houston Texans at Reliant Stadium on December 1, 2013 in Houston, Texas. (Photo by Scott Halleran/Getty Images)

“I can say with confidence there has never been a man or woman — not me, not Bill, nobody — more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

So said the current president, Barack H. Obama, this past week at the Democratic National Convention that nominated Clinton to run for the presidency.

I am going to quibble with the president on this one.

Hillary Clinton probably is more “qualified” on paper than either Obama or her husband to become president. Obama served in the Illinois Senate and then briefly in the U.S. Senate before being elected president in 2008. Bill Clinton served as Arkansas attorney general and as governor of his home state before being elected president in 1992.

Clinton’s wife served in the U.S. Senate and as secretary of state after serving as first lady — while taking an active role in policy decisions made during her husband’s administration.

But is Hillary Clinton the most qualified person ever to seek the office?

For my money, the honor of most qualified candidate — in my lifetime, at least — goes to a Republican.

I give you George Herbert Walker Bush.

You are welcome to argue the point with me if you wish.

But G.H.W. Bush’s pre-presidency credentials are damn impressive.

He flew combat missions in World War II as the Navy’s youngest fighter pilot. Bush then came home, moved to Texas and started an oil company. Then he served in Congress, where he represented the Houston area for a couple of terms before losing a Senate bid to Democrat Lloyd Bentsen.

That wasn’t nearly the end of his public service.

He would later be appointed to serve as head of the CIA, as special envoy to the People’s Republic of China, as chairman of the Republican National Committee, as ambassador to the United Nations — and then he served as two vice president for two terms during Ronald Reagan’s administration.

I get that President Obama wants to cast his party’s nominee in the best possible light. Given that she’s running against someone — Donald J. Trump — who is likely the least qualified candidate for president in U.S. history, the president perhaps can be excused for a bit of embellishment.

But a great man is still with us.

Sure, President Bush lost his bid for re-election to Bill Clinton. That, though, must not diminish the myriad contributions he made in service to our beloved country.

national news, political news

Democrats channel The Gipper

BBuYGTG

I can almost hear the phrase that it’s “morning in America.”

Yes, that well might be the Democrats’ mantra as they plow through the final day of their presidential nominating convention.

“Morning in America.” That was the theme of President Reagan’s re-election campaign in 1984. Democrats sought to paint the country in dark and frightening terms. They failed. Reagan won in a 49-state landslide.

What a change in roles, a reversal of what we’ve seen for so many years.

It’s been Republicans who’ve stood next to The Flag, who’ve spoken to Americans’ basic love of country. This year? That role belongs to the Democrats, who are countering Republican nominee Donald J. Trump’s dark portrait of the country he seeks to lead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-trump-and-clinton-a-partisan-role-reversal-on-the-state-of-the-nation/2016/07/28/2cd6a51e-54de-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html?postshare=9371469750811484&tid=ss_tw

Democrats are about to hear from their presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as they adjourn their convention and hit the campaign trail to wage political battle with Trump and the Republicans.

She’ll speak to her steadiness. She is likely to remind us of some of the statements that have come from Trump — such as how our military is a “disaster,” how our leaders are “stupid,” how the country is lost, desperate, despairing.

I am pretty sure we’re going to hear something quite different tonight from Clinton, who’ll echo the sentiments expressed for the past three days from those who’ve said that America is “still the greatest nation the world has ever known.”

Don’t you remember when Democrats bemoaned our future? Don’t you recall the Republican rejoinder? It was that the nation’s “best days are ahead.” Well, this campaign is going demonstrate how the roles have switched.

Democrats can thank Donald Trump for their resurgence and uninhibited joy they now are able to express about their country.

I guess the question that we’ll get answered once this year’s ballots are counted is whether Americans see their country as a dark place of doom we heard from Republicans or whether they have embraced the optimism and hope we’re hearing from Democrats.

national news, political news

Only now, Kaine opposes TPP

clinton-appears-alongside-safe-vp-pick-sen-tim-kaine-at-virginia-campaign-stop_1

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?

Oh, nothing! Politics got in the way.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288971-kaine-will-come-out-against-tpp-report

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.

national news, political news

‘I did not say a negative word about Donald Trump’

578133554-ted-cruz-GOP-convention

Ted Cruz did not endorse Donald J. Trump when he spoke to the Republican National Convention delegates.

No. The junior U.S. senator from Texas spoke about conservative principles, the Constitution and faithfulness to principle.

But he didn’t “say a negative word about Donald Trump.”

Thus, Cruz said this morning in remarks to the Texas convention delegation, he is comfortable with the theme of his speech.

I am scratching my head this morning. I’m trying to shake the cobwebs loose.

I watched most of Sen. Cruz’s speech Wednesday night. I waited for the “Therefore, I intend to endorse …” moment. It didn’t come.

And when Cruz finished his speech, the hoots and jeers from the convention floor drowned out whatever cheers were coming from the floor.

My question this morning centers on this issue: If you’re a presidential nominee and you are in charge of the convention agenda, don’t you want to be sure that if your chief challenger is going to speak to the convention — during prime TV time — that the challenger endorses your candidacy?

So, this morning the punditry across the country isn’t talking about vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence’s remarks at the end of the evening. We’re talking instead about what Ted Cruz didn’t say.

I get that this isn’t the first example of challengers failing to endorse their party’s nominee at the convention. Ronald Reagan’s speech at the1976 GOP convention didn’t exactly offer a ringing endorsement of President Ford; Nelson Rockefeller was booed during his entire speech by Barry Goldwater delegates at the 1964 GOP gathering; Ted Kennedy finished his 1980 speech at the Democratic convention without endorsing President Carter and then was chased around the stage as Carter sought to raise his hand in that symbolic pose.

Trump has campaigned on his take-charge, can-do approach to everything.

He hasn’t taken charge of the political convention that has nominated him to run for president of the United States.

national news, political news

There can be drama associated with VP pick

reaganbush2

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 that foes can become “friends” when the most politically expedient moment presents itself.

national news, political news

Litmus test for VP hopefuls? You bet

The-Litmus-Test-ICON-v3

Politicians all sing in unison when the question involves “litmus tests.”

They “never” apply such tests, politicians say. They don’t “believe in litmus tests.”

They all are lying.

I mention litmus tests because both major-party presidential nominees-to-be are about to select their vice-presidential running mates. Should Republican Donald J. Trump and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton require their VP picks to pass these litmus tests?

Sure they should.

In reality, though, there really is just one question that presidential nominees should always ask their VP choices: Are you ready to become president in the event something happens to me?

Trump is now apparently ready to choose between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. Both of those fellows no doubt would answer “yes” to the Big Question. The task for the campaign, though, is to persuade a majority of voters that they would be able to step into the job on a moment’s notice.

Clinton is facing a similar decision. Her field of hopefuls is much deeper than Trump’s. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia? Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts? Hey, how about the guy who’s got the job now, Joe Biden? All of them surely would answer “yes” to the litmus test question.

Another possible Clinton choice has been rumored to be Julian Castro, the current housing secretary and former mayor of San Antonio. He’d answer “yes,” too, but some of us wonder whether he truly would be able to step into the box.

But when presidents are looking for people to fill key positions, you can damn sure bet that they have a set of policies and principles they demand of those they are considering.

Does that constitute a litmus test? Of course it does.

Consider the test that Ronald Reagan put his VP hopefuls through in 1980. Were they pro-life or pro-choice on abortion? That appeared to be a major question the hopefuls needed to answer correctly. Reagan settled on George H.W. Bush who, during his time in Congress, had been nicknamed “Rubbers” because of his strong voting record in support of organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Bush became an ardent pro-life candidate the instant he said “yes” to the Gipper.

Do you think Ronald Reagan had a “litmus test” that Bush had to pass? Absolutely!

So it will be this time around, just as it always has been.

If politicians say they don’t have “litmus tests,” they’re lying.