Trump faces rare intraparty resistance

trump

History will tell us, I believe, that Barack Obama’s presidency will be deemed a success.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of that well might be that the president’s successful two terms in office will come without Obama ever developing the kind of relationship he needed with members of Congress within his own party.

He’s seemed to have operated as a Lone Ranger.

Not only that, but he has faced open hostility from members of the opposing party, the Republicans on Capitol Hill. Sen. Mitch McConnell once declared famously — or infamously — that his first priority during Obama’s first term was to make him a “one-term president.”

McConnell failed in accomplishing his first priority.

The president’s second term is drawing to a close.

One of the people seeking to succeed him is Republican Donald J. Trump. From my perch, Trump’s potential presidency is looking more remote all the time.

However, just suppose that the sun will rise in the west and Trump manages to win the fall election.

How in the name of reaching across the aisle is Trump going to get anything done?

I ask not just because Democrats are going to fight him every step of the way. He’s going to get plenty of resistance from within his own party. Yes, Republicans in Congress are likely to battle with their own guy in the White House … presuming he ever were to get there.

The resistance Trump continues to get from within the Republican Party simply astounds me. Leading GOP lawmakers, such as McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, issue condemnations of Trump’s statements. They call him a racist over his remarks regarding federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel; they contend his anti-Muslim views are “un-American”; they wonder out loud whether he has any governing principles, let alone principles that comport with anything resembling standard Republican orthodoxy.

Trump keeps telling us he’ll have “great relations” with this or that demographic group — those he has insulted. He tells us Republicans will fall in line because, by golly, he’s the president and they’ll march to the cadence he’ll be calling.

His lack of understanding of government shows itself. You see, he doesn’t get that the presidency is just one “co-equal” branch of government. Trump would call whatever cadence he wishes and his “friends” in Congress would do what they damn well please.

I suspect strongly that the resistance he would encounter would make Barack Obama’s battles look almost quaint.

 

History keeps this tweet up front

same-sex-marriage

If only he hadn’t sent this particular message out when he did.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is still taking some hits from critics who wonder why he posted a certain Bible verse when he did — in the wake of the Orlando, Fla., massacre in which 50 people died.

A fascinating analysis in the Texas Tribune suggests that Patrick’s history makes it hard for him to shake himself loose from the critics.

A shooter gunned down 49 people before being killed by Orlando police. Omar Mateen now owns the record for committing the worst massacre in U.S. history.

The carnage occurred in a gay nightclub.

Then comes a tweet from Lt. Gov. Patrick, a verse from Galatians. “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/13/analysis-reaction-patricks-tweet-based-history-hos/

Critics pounced on the tweet, saying it was an attack on the LGBT community. Were they wrong? According to the Texas Tribune’s Ross Ramsey: “The lieutenant governor has a track record with the LGBT community. They have him marked as an opponent. He seems to have them marked the same way. Whatever else might be said about it, they don’t trust each other.

“No wonder they read his Sunday morning post the way they did, assuming the worst. Their mutual history taught them to expect it.”

Patrick pulled the tweet down not long after it was posted. His spokesman called it a terrible coincidence. He said the tweet had been selected and scheduled for posting long before the madman opened fire in Orlando.

The man has a long-standing opposition to gay rights. He opposes same-sex marriage and asked the state attorney general — in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage — to investigate whether local officials could avoid having to sanction gay marriages.

I am sure Patrick wishes he could take it all back. He likely hopes the backlash against that particular tweet will subside.

I’m afraid it won’t. He’s got that history working against him.

 

How would Tim Russert react to today’s politics?

imrs.wdp

Tim Russert died eight years ago today.

Do I still miss him? You bet I do.

So does Chris Cillizza, a columnist for the Washington Post, who reposted a piece he wrote three years ago to commemorate the fifth anniversary of Russert’s sudden and shocking death from a heart attack.

Here it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/06/13/remembering-tim-russert-5-years-later/?tid=sm_tw_pp&wprss=rss_the-fix

Cillizza wonders what Russert would think of today’s political climate and particularly what he’d think of Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

I think I know the answer.

He’d be appalled at both things.

Russert came from the political world into the world of broadcast journalism. He worked for U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who during his years in the Senate was many Republicans’ favorite Democrat. He also worked for New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, who didn’t have as many friends in the GOP. But still, Russert knew his way around politicians.

He joined NBC News and stumbled onto the “Meet the Press” moderator gig while filling in one Sunday.

He did so well, proved to be so comfortable, that the NBC News brass made him the permanent moderator.

What set Russert apart from so many of his peers and those who came along after him was his preparation. He knew all there was to know about the people who sat in front of him. Russert was an expert at making politicians account for the very things they said in public.

“You said this, senator,” he would say, “How do you explain that?”

He was an equal-opportunity afflicter. Democrats and Republicans all had to bring their “A game” to a session on “Meet the Press” when facing Tim Russert.

What would he think of Trump? He’d no doubt be aghast, but he’d keep it to himself. One can rest assured, too, that he’d give Hillary Rodham Clinton just as stern a grilling.

 

Can Donald Trump really ‘change’ his ways?

trump

I’m trying to understand an admonition that’s coming from leading Republican officeholders, strategists and assorted loyalist as it pertains to the party’s presumed presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.

They want him to “change.” They dislike the name-calling, the insults, the innuendo, the reckless riffs that pour forth whenever he takes the podium as he campaigns for the presidency.

If he changes, they say, they might be able to endorse him. They might actually campaign for him. They’ll support the candidate more than in name only.

I keep wondering: How does a man who’s nearly 70 years of age do that?

What’s more, how do Americans who’ve heard the astonishing things that he’s said ignore them if — and this remains a y-u-u-u-u-g-e stretch — Trump actually becomes a more presentable candidate for president?

It’s like the judge in a trial who tells a jury to “disregard what you’ve just heard” from a criminal defendant or from a prosecuting attorney. Sure thing, Your Honor. We’ll just blot that out of our memory.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has endorsed Trump, but with reservations. He dislikes intensely the candidate’s racist views on U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel and his assertion that Curiel’s heritage disqualifies him from presiding over a lawsuit brought against Trump over his defunct “university.”

Ryan has called Trump’s assertions “racist” in nature, but he’s going to support him.

A lot of Americans — millions of them, in fact — aren’t going to forget those comments. They won’t forget the insults Trump has hurled at women, or his mocking of a reporter’s physical disability, or his assertion that Sen. John McCain is a war hero “because he got captured” by the North Vietnamese.

They won’t forget his plan to ban all Muslims from entering the United States, or his claim that illegal immigrants are coming here to commit crimes.

And then we have the lies, such as when he said he witnessed “thousands upon thousands of Muslims” cheering when the Twin Towers tumbled down on 9/11.

So, he’s supposed to “change” the way he campaigns to make himself more suitable to voters.

How does that happen?

Mr. President, it’s ‘radical Islamic terrorism’

obama

The debate has flared anew.

Why doesn’t President Obama use terminology that many Americans — most notably his critics — wish he’d use to describe the evil acts of a certain brand of terrorists?

I’ve been thinking about this over the course of the past good bit of time and have concluded that the president is making a mistake by refusing to refer to these acts — committed by those who pervert a great religion — as “radical Islamic terrorists.”

I say this as a supporter of the president, as one who voted twice for his election and as someone who bristles outwardly at the criticism of those who allege that Barack Obama harbors some sick “sympathy” toward those who commit these evil deeds.

Omar Mateen decided over the weekend to open fire at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla. He was as American as you and me, man. His parents came here from Afghanistan. Then he decided to call the 9-1-1 dispatch center in Orlando and proclaimed that he had pledged fealty to the Islamic State.

Mateen went about his dastardly deed before being killed by police. Before the cops killed him, Mateen managed to commit the worst massacre in U.S. history.

I understand that the president doesn’t want to use language that suggests we are “at war with Islam.” President Bush made that very same case in the days immediately after 9/11 and he was faithful to that notion during the two terms he served in the White House.

Indeed, President Obama’s refusal to recognize openly what the rest of the country already realizes suggests, as conservative thinker John Podhoretz has written, a certain disconnect from reality.

As Podhoretz writes in the New York Post: “He called it ‘terror,’ which it is. But using the word “terror” without a limiting and defining adjective is like a doctor calling a disease ‘cancer’ without making note of the affected area of the body — because if he doesn’t know where the cancer is and what form it takes, he cannot attack it effectively and seek to extirpate it.”

Here’s the entire essay:

http://nypost.com/2016/06/12/obama-says-we-are-to-blame-not-islamic-terrorism-for-orlando-massacre/

I do not intend to belabor the point. I do want to suggest that the definition of “radical Islam” immediately exempts Muslims who do not commit these acts, who live their lives just like every other decent human being, who are peaceful and only want the best for their families and their communities.

There. I’ve made my case the best way I know how.

I continue to support Barack Obama’s efforts to fight these perverted villains.

However, Mr. President, call them what they are: radical Islamic terrorists.

Terrorists always are haters

hate terror

Hate crime or terrorist act?

As investigators sort through the carnage at that Orlando, Fla., nightclub where Omar Mateen opened fire with his AR-15, politicians, police and pundits are wondering whether Mateen committed a hate crime or an act of terror.

I keep asking myself: What is the difference?

Suppose the shooter killed those 50 people at a grocery store, or a shopping mall. Did he hate his victims? Would he have committed a hateful act? Yes.

We’re trying to parse the language a bit too finely, it seems to me.

The massacre occurred at a club called Pulse, a popular hangout for Orlando’s gay community. Mateen supposedly saw two men engaging in a public display of affection. It set him off, according to his father. He hated what he witnessed and was intent on acting on that hatred.

OK. He’s a hater.

What if Mateen, the son of Afghan parents and a Muslim, had declared himself in league with the Islamic State and then committed an act of radical Islamic terrorism? Police say he called 9-1-1 and told the dispatcher he had pledged allegiance to ISIS. He hated his victims just much in that context as he would have hated them merely because of their sexual orientation.

He’s still a hater.

Terrorists are haters. They hate the society against which they are striking out. By extension, they hate the victims they injure and kill.

Whether they target victims for specific causes, or just to terrorize them, they are haters.

I’m still trying to grasp the gravity of what happened early this morning as they were issuing a last-call advisory at that nightclub.

I believe Mateen committed an act of terror. He also was filled with rage and hatred. Let’s avoid separating the motives. They are linked by the level of their evil intent.

 

Sen. Nelson wasn’t an astronaut

nelson

I just listened to a brief interview that I cannot let pass. I put something on Facebook about, but I have to expand it just a bit.

MSNBC anchor Brian Williams was interviewing Florida U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson as part of the on-going coverage of this morning’s horrific massacre in Orlando, Fla.

Williams introduced Nelson to his audience as “an astronaut-turned-politician.” He then referenced Nelson’s “many years at NASA” while commenting on the prospect of extra security in the wake of the shooting.

I now want to set the record straight.

Sen. Nelson is a politician-turned-one-flight-astronaut. He served in Congress when he got picked for a flight aboard the space shuttle Columbia in January 1986.

He served as a payload specialist aboard the shuttle. He flew once, came back to Earth and went back to work in Congress.

What is equally fascinating is that Nelson didn’t correct Williams on either occasion.

—-

Nelson, a Democrat, was the second member of Congress to fly on a shuttle mission. The first was Utah Republican Sen. Jake Garn, who flew aboard the shuttle Discovery a year earlier, in 1985.

Oh, and the third member of Congress to fly? That would be a Democratic senator from Ohio, John Glenn. Yes, that John Glenn, the first American to orbit Earth in February 1962 aboard the Mercury capsule.

I should note here that Sen. Glenn had an advantage that his congressional “astronauts” didn’t have. The crews with which Garn and Nelson worked had to translate the jargon they spoke among themselves, as their rookie crewmen weren’t fluent in “astronaut-speak.”

Glenn needed no translator as he trained to fly aboard Discovery in 1998. He knows the language well. He spoke it himself while training with his six other initial American space travelers back in the 1960s.

Check out this video of that shuttle mission.

 

 

 

Lt. Gov. deletes tweet, but the damage is done

verse

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has demonstrated for the world just how immediate social media posts can become and how indelible they are once they are posted.

Patrick decided in the early hours after the Orlando, Fla., massacre to post something on Twitter that enraged some folks. It was New Testament passage, from Galatians 6:7 that declares: “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.”

Why the anger over the post?

Well, the massacre occurred at a night club called Pulse, which is a popular hangout for Orlando’s gay community. The madman/shooter killed 50 people before he was killed by the police.

Omar Mateen was an American who reportedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State before committing the horrifying act of carnage.

However, Patrick’s tweet seemed aimed at the victims. Fifty innocent victims were gunned down and he chose that particular verse to post on social media.

He took it down shortly afterward.

However, the damage was done. That’s what happens with these social media posts. They get posted and then are sent around the world many times instantaneously. As a friend used to tell me, “You cannot unhonk a horn.” Same with these social media posts.

Patrick’s spokesman said the tweet had been planned this past week. Patrick posts comments from Twitter weekly, the spokesman said. The passage from Galatians had no relation to the tragedy at Pulse.

I don’t know what to believe here.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Texas-Lt-Governor-Dan-Patrick-tweets-reap-what-8076147.php

At minimum, we have a terrible coincidence at work. Patrick’s social media message just happened to sound to many folks like a crass criticism in the wake of a horrific national tragedy.

Talk about terrible timing.

I’m glad he took the message down. However, I think it would be best if the lieutenant governor himself — not through a spokesman — would stand before us to explain how it happened in the first place.

 

Yes, call it an ‘act of terror’

terror

It doesn’t matter to me in the least — in this moment of profound grief and shock — what precisely motivated Omar Mateen to do what he did early this morning in Orlando, Fla.

He committed a terrorist act.

Was he motivated by some perversion of Islam? Was he motivated by hatred of the LGBT community? Was he just pissed off at the world in general?

Mateen was a 29-year-old American who decided to open fire with an AR-15 at a gay night club in Orlando. Fifty people are dead — so far; several of the injured are in critical condition. This madman committed the worst such mass murder in American history.

He has terrorized an entire city. Orlando has been shaken to its core. Mateen died in the melee, which of course deprives authorities of the chance to question the perp about why he committed this dastardly act.

Mateen has completed successfully a singular mission, which was to frighten a community. That, by itself, is the definition of a terrorist.

We’ll get to the truth eventually as to what motivated this monster. He reportedly proclaimed some allegiance the Islamic State; he might have been an ISIS agent, or he might have what’s been called a “lone wolf.”

Perhaps the biggest puzzle to solve will be this: How did this guy, who was on an FBI/Homeland Security “watch list” manage to continue to move about freely — and arm himself with an AR-15?

We’ll get these answers in due course.

Meantime, let’s all say it together: An American community has been struck by an act of terrorism.

Trying to comprehend the incomprehensible

AAgWqqi

At this moment the nation’s heart is broken. Its head is spinning.

Fifty people are dead after a massacre early this morning at an Orlando, Fla., nightclub. One of the dead is the shooter, an American whose parents were Afghan immigrants.

Omar Mateen opened fire with an AR-15 assault rifle. His father said his son was apparently enraged when he saw two men kissing, so he walked into the gay nightclub and killed all those innocent victims.

Did he commit an anti-gay hate crime?

Not so fast.

Now we’re getting word of a pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State.

Was this an act of an Islamic terrorist?

Mateen’s father said “religion had nothing to do” with what his son did.

Then we have the Texas lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, sending out a tweet — which he has since deleted — that quoted a Biblical passage from Galatians that said men will “reap what they sow.” Hmmm. Of all the passages he could have picked, he perhaps could have looked at Mark’s Gospel, which instructs us to love our brothers.

This was an act of terror, no matter how you choose to define it.

The nation is sickened by what has happened.

Let us pray now for the families of those who died and let us pray for the people charged with answering the key question.

Why?

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience