Last night’s election was a referendum on the leadership of our government for the past 25 years. All of our democrat and republican leaders during that period, George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Barack Obama, supported Donald Trump’s opponent in this race. Many other prominent GOP leaders currently serving in Congress, as well as many 2016 GOP presidential contenders who pledged support for the GOP nominee did not ultimately support him. The vast majority of the newspapers and media outlets in our country supported Donald Trump’s opponent. The vast majority of money spent in this campaign supported his opponent. The vast majority of the supposedly empirical predictive models predicted he would lose, and some predicted a landslide loss. In fact, the vast majority of all the experts predicted he would lose. Thank heaven the electorate showed the good sense to filter out all of that nonsense and voted for a new path, one with tremendous potential to save America.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
FBI Unwillingness to Charge Hillary in Email Case is Dubious at Best
The FBI’s major reason for not bringing charges against Mrs. Clinton is that it could not prove she “intended” to violate the laws she swore to uphold, even though it found a ton of evidence that in fact she had been “extremely careless” in her handling of State Department classified information. A second reason was that there was no precedent for bringing charges on similar cases in the past without proving “intent.”
Most of America is wondering why “intent” is so important when the statute clearly indicates that “gross negligence” is another equally important standard that could have been used to bring charges, and, for that matter, how such a repeated and according to the FBI “extremely careless” pattern of behavior doesn’t meet the test of “intended” behavior.
Even a cursory review of the facts has many Americans wondering why either standard required by the statute, intent or gross negligence, could not be “reasonably” proved. For example:
1. Mrs. Clinton is a Yale-trained attorney, most likely with above average intelligence, a basic understanding of right and wrong, and a working-knowledge of the laws governing the State Department, which she directed.
2. Mrs. Clinton worked on Nixon’s impeachment case back in the 1970s, which charged President Nixon with “an abuse of power and obstruction of justice.” Consequently, it would not seem to be much of a stretch to assume she would have learned first-hand how one is expected to behave as an executive in the Federal Government. But that was a long time ago and apparently didn’t leave a lasting impression on her.
3. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton was charged with the responsibility of securing all State Department intelligence, including her own and from all personnel in her charge. How can violating one of the main responsibilities of her job not be viewed as gross negligence and intentional?
4. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton signed documents requiring her to return all State Department-related documentation when she departed. She not only didn’t return them, she denied having them and subsequently destroyed thousands of work related emails. Isn’t that the quintessence of gross negligence and intent?
6. If all of the foregoing wasn’t enough, Mrs. Clinton completely circumvented standard security measures by using her own unauthorized internet server. That means that all of her work product was unsecured during her entire tenure as Secretary of State. Is that not an intentional dereliction of her duty and responsibility to secure classified information?
7. Over the course of years, Mrs. Clinton has denied ever being in possession of any classified information. Should we assume she didn’t know what she was doing, or that she intentionally destroyed evidence? By the way, doesn’t destroying evidence constitute obstruction of justice?
Adding to the cloud of doubt is the timing of this resolution. Why now and why did it take so long for the FBI to arrive at such a half-baked conclusion? Such questions may never be answered. One thing is for sure: If you or I had done half of what Mrs. Clinton did, we’d already be in jail!
Most of America is wondering why “intent” is so important when the statute clearly indicates that “gross negligence” is another equally important standard that could have been used to bring charges, and, for that matter, how such a repeated and according to the FBI “extremely careless” pattern of behavior doesn’t meet the test of “intended” behavior.
Even a cursory review of the facts has many Americans wondering why either standard required by the statute, intent or gross negligence, could not be “reasonably” proved. For example:
1. Mrs. Clinton is a Yale-trained attorney, most likely with above average intelligence, a basic understanding of right and wrong, and a working-knowledge of the laws governing the State Department, which she directed.
2. Mrs. Clinton worked on Nixon’s impeachment case back in the 1970s, which charged President Nixon with “an abuse of power and obstruction of justice.” Consequently, it would not seem to be much of a stretch to assume she would have learned first-hand how one is expected to behave as an executive in the Federal Government. But that was a long time ago and apparently didn’t leave a lasting impression on her.
3. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton was charged with the responsibility of securing all State Department intelligence, including her own and from all personnel in her charge. How can violating one of the main responsibilities of her job not be viewed as gross negligence and intentional?
4. As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton signed documents requiring her to return all State Department-related documentation when she departed. She not only didn’t return them, she denied having them and subsequently destroyed thousands of work related emails. Isn’t that the quintessence of gross negligence and intent?
6. If all of the foregoing wasn’t enough, Mrs. Clinton completely circumvented standard security measures by using her own unauthorized internet server. That means that all of her work product was unsecured during her entire tenure as Secretary of State. Is that not an intentional dereliction of her duty and responsibility to secure classified information?
7. Over the course of years, Mrs. Clinton has denied ever being in possession of any classified information. Should we assume she didn’t know what she was doing, or that she intentionally destroyed evidence? By the way, doesn’t destroying evidence constitute obstruction of justice?
Adding to the cloud of doubt is the timing of this resolution. Why now and why did it take so long for the FBI to arrive at such a half-baked conclusion? Such questions may never be answered. One thing is for sure: If you or I had done half of what Mrs. Clinton did, we’d already be in jail!
Monday, July 4, 2016
Trump or Clinton? This Thought Experiment Might Help Voters Choose
Can’t decide who should be the next President? Most Americans are approaching this year’s election feeling they have been given Sophie’s choice, a choice between two bad candidates. Many Americans believe it’s worse than that, in fact Hobson’s choice: the freedom to choose with no real choice, i.e., there’s only one candidate. Answering the following three hypothetical questions might lead you to the same conclusion:
1. Who would you rather be: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? For example, would you prefer to be someone who speaks their mind or someone with a proven history of political expediency? Someone comfortable in their own skin enough to meet constituents in all sorts of friendly and hostile settings, planned or spontaneous, or someone who avoids most public forums because they invoke feelings of nervousness and anxiety? Someone whose life is an open book with nothing to hide, or someone who arguably breaks the law to keep secrets? Someone with a long track record of success and accomplishment and a reputation for getting things done, or someone with no meaningful accomplishments after supposedly a lifetime of dedication to public service? Someone who amassed great wealth working within the same capitalist system that made our country great, or someone whose entire fortune is the result of peddling government influence and the public’s trust for personal gain? Which attributes are closest to those you would want to possess?
2. What would you seek to accomplish if you were elected President? Would you seek to continue along the same path that has brought our country to the brink of disaster, or would you seek to change that political inertia by changing the way our government gets things done? Would your priorities include the elimination of illegal immigration, confronting global terrorism with immediacy and alacrity, and defending American economic interests in the global economy? Or, would they instead focus on gun control, domestic racial, ethnic, and gender issues, and on curbing environmental pollution? Part of being the chief executive of our country is deciding where your time is best spent to serve the most people.
3. If you were stranded on a desert island and given a choice of permanently relocating to two identical, if unknown, places, one headed by Trump, the other by Clinton, which would you choose? This is not as far-fetched an idea as it appears, considering America’s present is increasingly precarious and its future is necessarily unknown, and one or the other is going to be our President. Put yourself in the moment, and be honest with yourself. Remember, once you choose your decision is irrevocable for you and your family.
Your answers to these questions (and acknowledging which candidate’s traits and positions are most consistent with yours) should clarify your selection of a President.
1. Who would you rather be: Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton? For example, would you prefer to be someone who speaks their mind or someone with a proven history of political expediency? Someone comfortable in their own skin enough to meet constituents in all sorts of friendly and hostile settings, planned or spontaneous, or someone who avoids most public forums because they invoke feelings of nervousness and anxiety? Someone whose life is an open book with nothing to hide, or someone who arguably breaks the law to keep secrets? Someone with a long track record of success and accomplishment and a reputation for getting things done, or someone with no meaningful accomplishments after supposedly a lifetime of dedication to public service? Someone who amassed great wealth working within the same capitalist system that made our country great, or someone whose entire fortune is the result of peddling government influence and the public’s trust for personal gain? Which attributes are closest to those you would want to possess?
2. What would you seek to accomplish if you were elected President? Would you seek to continue along the same path that has brought our country to the brink of disaster, or would you seek to change that political inertia by changing the way our government gets things done? Would your priorities include the elimination of illegal immigration, confronting global terrorism with immediacy and alacrity, and defending American economic interests in the global economy? Or, would they instead focus on gun control, domestic racial, ethnic, and gender issues, and on curbing environmental pollution? Part of being the chief executive of our country is deciding where your time is best spent to serve the most people.
3. If you were stranded on a desert island and given a choice of permanently relocating to two identical, if unknown, places, one headed by Trump, the other by Clinton, which would you choose? This is not as far-fetched an idea as it appears, considering America’s present is increasingly precarious and its future is necessarily unknown, and one or the other is going to be our President. Put yourself in the moment, and be honest with yourself. Remember, once you choose your decision is irrevocable for you and your family.
Your answers to these questions (and acknowledging which candidate’s traits and positions are most consistent with yours) should clarify your selection of a President.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
2016 NBA Finals Gives Credence to Hoax Theory
Did the Cleveland Cavaliers win this year’s NBA Championship fair and square, or was it a hoax? Some believe the outcome of NBA Finals have been rigged for quite some time to maximize audience ratings. I must say that I have never been one to abide conspiracy theories, but this latest contest had me scratching my head wondering.
This isn’t about being a sore loser or favoring one team or another. In fact, I was not rooting for either and actually like both teams, and am glad LeBron James has finally redeemed himself with Cleveland fans, a group that unfairly vilified him for leaving them for greener pastures years ago. For LeBron’s sake and given the questionable nature of this series win, I’m glad he punctuated his terrific personal performance and that game 7 win with one of the most spectacular defensive plays (blocked shot) ever seen in the sport, a feat whose authenticity can never be questioned.
It’s not just the fact that the Cavaliers pulled off the statistically improbable by winning the series after trailing 3 games to 1 (which had never been done before), or the improbability of a road team winning a game 7 (road teams lose 80% of the time), or even the fact that these unlikely events took place against the team with the most season wins in NBA history (Golden State Warriors broke the record by winning 73 this season).
It’s actually the way it was done that makes one question its authenticity, and the fact that Golden State had to nearly collapse for Cleveland to win. The Warriors blew away the Cavaliers at home in games 1 and 2, and then stumbled badly in game 3 by scoring only 16 pts in the fourth quarter. Giving Cleveland the benefit of doubt, Cleveland had home court advantage and it was a must-win game for them. In Game 4 the Warriors beat Cleveland handily again, reasserting their series dominance. The balance of the series then turned really incredible: the Warriors’ game 5 fourth quarter amounted to 13 measly points before a cheering home crowd; game 6 in Cleveland continued the scoring drought, with the Warriors scoring a season low 11 pts in the first quarter; game 7, with the championship on the line, the Warriors again choked in the fourth quarter and scored a paltry 13 pts. THE WARRIORS AVERAGED 28 PTS PER QUARTER LAST SEASON!
It’s not just the numbers, it’s the attitude. The team’s star and regular season MVP, Stephen Curry, fouled out of game 6 (itself a rare event) and because of personal antics was almost barred from game 7. In game 7, no one, including its star, seemed to demonstrate the urgency of their pending historic loss, right to the end. For his part, in the closing minutes of the series, Curry made an errant, if not reckless, behind-the-back pass out of bounds, and minutes later launched a 35 ft shot that missed the rim entirely. Is that what a star does when his team is about to lose the most important game of the season?
It’s not just Stephen Curry’s behavior that was lacking. Where was Coach Steve Kerr while this helter-skelter play was taking place? Where was he during the closing minutes of the game, when a coach typically slows down the opposing team’s momentum and offers some last minute strategy? Nowhere. Apparently, this coach had no advice for his team at this all important moment. Making matters worse, the team seemed to take in stride its imminent defeat and ignominious place in NBA history as the only team to ever blow a 3 game lead in the Finals.
Was it all a hoax designed to give Cleveland its first sports championship in more than 50 years or just the worst time for the most successful team in NBA history to go into a fatal slump? One indisputable fact is that this game 7 drew the highest television rating for an NBA Finals game since Michael Jordan’s last championship game. Interesting…
This isn’t about being a sore loser or favoring one team or another. In fact, I was not rooting for either and actually like both teams, and am glad LeBron James has finally redeemed himself with Cleveland fans, a group that unfairly vilified him for leaving them for greener pastures years ago. For LeBron’s sake and given the questionable nature of this series win, I’m glad he punctuated his terrific personal performance and that game 7 win with one of the most spectacular defensive plays (blocked shot) ever seen in the sport, a feat whose authenticity can never be questioned.
It’s not just the fact that the Cavaliers pulled off the statistically improbable by winning the series after trailing 3 games to 1 (which had never been done before), or the improbability of a road team winning a game 7 (road teams lose 80% of the time), or even the fact that these unlikely events took place against the team with the most season wins in NBA history (Golden State Warriors broke the record by winning 73 this season).
It’s actually the way it was done that makes one question its authenticity, and the fact that Golden State had to nearly collapse for Cleveland to win. The Warriors blew away the Cavaliers at home in games 1 and 2, and then stumbled badly in game 3 by scoring only 16 pts in the fourth quarter. Giving Cleveland the benefit of doubt, Cleveland had home court advantage and it was a must-win game for them. In Game 4 the Warriors beat Cleveland handily again, reasserting their series dominance. The balance of the series then turned really incredible: the Warriors’ game 5 fourth quarter amounted to 13 measly points before a cheering home crowd; game 6 in Cleveland continued the scoring drought, with the Warriors scoring a season low 11 pts in the first quarter; game 7, with the championship on the line, the Warriors again choked in the fourth quarter and scored a paltry 13 pts. THE WARRIORS AVERAGED 28 PTS PER QUARTER LAST SEASON!
It’s not just the numbers, it’s the attitude. The team’s star and regular season MVP, Stephen Curry, fouled out of game 6 (itself a rare event) and because of personal antics was almost barred from game 7. In game 7, no one, including its star, seemed to demonstrate the urgency of their pending historic loss, right to the end. For his part, in the closing minutes of the series, Curry made an errant, if not reckless, behind-the-back pass out of bounds, and minutes later launched a 35 ft shot that missed the rim entirely. Is that what a star does when his team is about to lose the most important game of the season?
It’s not just Stephen Curry’s behavior that was lacking. Where was Coach Steve Kerr while this helter-skelter play was taking place? Where was he during the closing minutes of the game, when a coach typically slows down the opposing team’s momentum and offers some last minute strategy? Nowhere. Apparently, this coach had no advice for his team at this all important moment. Making matters worse, the team seemed to take in stride its imminent defeat and ignominious place in NBA history as the only team to ever blow a 3 game lead in the Finals.
Was it all a hoax designed to give Cleveland its first sports championship in more than 50 years or just the worst time for the most successful team in NBA history to go into a fatal slump? One indisputable fact is that this game 7 drew the highest television rating for an NBA Finals game since Michael Jordan’s last championship game. Interesting…
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Ted Cruz, GOP vs. Trump: Is the Pot Calling the Kettle Black?
Donald Trump is depicted by many in the GOP and its de facto chief spokesman, Ted Cruz, as an inveterate “dealmaker” who will compromise conservative principles by “cutting deals” with Congress if elected President.
Let’s put aside the fact that “making deals” is actually viewed positively by many Americans fed up with a Congress and President that have been unable for the past seven years to address the many urgent domestic and foreign challenges facing our country. Someone should inform Ted Cruz that standing up for principles and not accomplishing anything does little to help the plights of struggling Americans.
Instead, let’s focus on the fact that Ted Cruz, who lost to Trump in the Louisiana primary, has been busy “working behind closed doors” to win more delegates from party bosses in that state. The “anti-Trump” faction spins the story that Cruz is displaying his shrewd political savvy in seizing an opportunity to win delegates he actually hasn’t earned from Louisiana voters. One can only wonder how Trump would have been portrayed had he seized that same opportunity. Why isn’t anyone asking what kind of “deal” Cruz is making with the Louisiana powers that be in order to secure their support?
Moreover, what is Cruz offering all his new supporters who until very recently publicly expressed disdain for him? Why are Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina and many others suddenly supporting him? Perhaps they view Cruz as the lesser of two evils, but one really must wonder why such strong-minded, “principled” individuals would roll over so easily.
We will probably never know what “horse trading” is occurring at this very moment among GOP bigwigs at all levels of government to undermine Trump’s candidacy in upcoming primaries and ultimately at the convention this summer.
As if the blatant hypocrisy of the foregoing isn’t shameful enough, Trump’s critics suggest that maybe the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest dealmaker” isn’t as great as he thinks precisely because he has avoided those sneaky and underhanded tactics to acquire more delegates, concentrating instead on garnering the support of “we the people” to propel his campaign forward.
The hypocrisy goes well beyond those examples. Donald Trump has been accused of feeding off fear and negative sentiment to win voters, but Ted Cruz’ most compelling plea so far has been to persuade Americans that the prospect of Trump or Clinton becoming President would be a disaster for our country.
Trump’s critics also say he changes his views on a whim to conform to prevailing public sentiment. Is that any more egregious than the GOP establishment contemplating changing their rules for nominating their candidate in order to load the odds in favor their choice?
Time will tell whether the aggressive, politically incorrect iconic businessman can be trumped by the self-indulgent, ruthless tactics of professional politicians.
Let’s put aside the fact that “making deals” is actually viewed positively by many Americans fed up with a Congress and President that have been unable for the past seven years to address the many urgent domestic and foreign challenges facing our country. Someone should inform Ted Cruz that standing up for principles and not accomplishing anything does little to help the plights of struggling Americans.
Instead, let’s focus on the fact that Ted Cruz, who lost to Trump in the Louisiana primary, has been busy “working behind closed doors” to win more delegates from party bosses in that state. The “anti-Trump” faction spins the story that Cruz is displaying his shrewd political savvy in seizing an opportunity to win delegates he actually hasn’t earned from Louisiana voters. One can only wonder how Trump would have been portrayed had he seized that same opportunity. Why isn’t anyone asking what kind of “deal” Cruz is making with the Louisiana powers that be in order to secure their support?
Moreover, what is Cruz offering all his new supporters who until very recently publicly expressed disdain for him? Why are Lindsey Graham, Carly Fiorina and many others suddenly supporting him? Perhaps they view Cruz as the lesser of two evils, but one really must wonder why such strong-minded, “principled” individuals would roll over so easily.
We will probably never know what “horse trading” is occurring at this very moment among GOP bigwigs at all levels of government to undermine Trump’s candidacy in upcoming primaries and ultimately at the convention this summer.
As if the blatant hypocrisy of the foregoing isn’t shameful enough, Trump’s critics suggest that maybe the self-proclaimed “world’s greatest dealmaker” isn’t as great as he thinks precisely because he has avoided those sneaky and underhanded tactics to acquire more delegates, concentrating instead on garnering the support of “we the people” to propel his campaign forward.
The hypocrisy goes well beyond those examples. Donald Trump has been accused of feeding off fear and negative sentiment to win voters, but Ted Cruz’ most compelling plea so far has been to persuade Americans that the prospect of Trump or Clinton becoming President would be a disaster for our country.
Trump’s critics also say he changes his views on a whim to conform to prevailing public sentiment. Is that any more egregious than the GOP establishment contemplating changing their rules for nominating their candidate in order to load the odds in favor their choice?
Time will tell whether the aggressive, politically incorrect iconic businessman can be trumped by the self-indulgent, ruthless tactics of professional politicians.
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Ted Cruz has Two Chances to Become President: Slim and None
Many GOP pundits are expending great effort (and jeopardizing their credibility) to support Ted Cruz’ long-shot campaign to compete successfully against GOP front-runner Donald Trump. The entire effort is based on conjecture and counterfactual analysis to find a path for Ted Cruz to win the GOP nomination for President in 2016. The Pro-Cruz/Anti-Trump effort uses historical precedents, statistical techniques and lots of verbal massaging to persuade its constituency. This article is an attempt to focus on some simple facts to clarify the reality of the situation.
Ted Cruz’ plea for other GOP contenders to abandon their campaigns to give him a clear path to victory is not only arrogant but fanciful. The fact is that to date, even with most other contenders now suspending their campaigns, Cruz’ popularity with voters has barely budged nor is it clear that Cruz would have garnered the majority of votes cast for other contenders in prior primary contests. Moreover, by now it should be obvious that if Marco Rubio had not competed in the Iowa caucuses (and if Ben Carson’s Iowa campaign had not been undermined), Donald Trump might have beaten Cruz in Iowa, and that loss could have snuffed out Cruz’ campaign at inception.
Conservative Ted Cruz is not very popular with anyone, including conservatives in his own party. To date, he has secured slightly more than a quarter (28%) of GOP delegates compared to Trump’s 45%. His appeal even in the most conservative states so far is mixed at best. Although Cruz beat Trump in Idaho, Oklahoma and Utah, he lost to Trump in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi and tied with him in Louisiana. With the exception of Texas, his home state, the remaining Cruz victories to date have been in small, generally peripheral states, including Alaska, Kansas, Maine, Wyoming and Guam territory.
Ted Cruz is either conning us or delusional about his chances for securing the requisite 1,237 delegates needed for outright victory at the GOP convention this summer. Given his standing today, Cruz must win more than 90% of the delegates at stake going forward, compared to Trump’s need to win 60%. That unlikely achievement becomes virtually impossible considering that future contests will occur in states generally unsympathetic to conservatism.
Notwithstanding what polls indicate at this juncture, the idea that Cruz can beat Trump, let alone Hillary Clinton is unrealistic at best. Trump has expanded the field of voters beyond historical norms and has proven support among some Democrats and Independents; Cruz barely gets the support of Republicans and given his strict conservative ideology is unlikely to garner meaningful votes outside his party in a general election. Forty percent of the electorate claims to be independent and the remaining sixty percent is more or less evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. How can Ted Cruz possibly beat Hillary Clinton facing an electorate with that party affiliation split?
There is something fundamentally un-American about the GOP establishment undermining its front-runner and the will of its constituency, especially doing so to support a candidate popular with only a small minority of its Party. The Republican Party has much to lose and not much to gain by betting its very existence by endorsing a candidate that has minimal party support and minimal likelihood of prevailing in the general election next fall.
Ted Cruz’ plea for other GOP contenders to abandon their campaigns to give him a clear path to victory is not only arrogant but fanciful. The fact is that to date, even with most other contenders now suspending their campaigns, Cruz’ popularity with voters has barely budged nor is it clear that Cruz would have garnered the majority of votes cast for other contenders in prior primary contests. Moreover, by now it should be obvious that if Marco Rubio had not competed in the Iowa caucuses (and if Ben Carson’s Iowa campaign had not been undermined), Donald Trump might have beaten Cruz in Iowa, and that loss could have snuffed out Cruz’ campaign at inception.
Conservative Ted Cruz is not very popular with anyone, including conservatives in his own party. To date, he has secured slightly more than a quarter (28%) of GOP delegates compared to Trump’s 45%. His appeal even in the most conservative states so far is mixed at best. Although Cruz beat Trump in Idaho, Oklahoma and Utah, he lost to Trump in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi and tied with him in Louisiana. With the exception of Texas, his home state, the remaining Cruz victories to date have been in small, generally peripheral states, including Alaska, Kansas, Maine, Wyoming and Guam territory.
Ted Cruz is either conning us or delusional about his chances for securing the requisite 1,237 delegates needed for outright victory at the GOP convention this summer. Given his standing today, Cruz must win more than 90% of the delegates at stake going forward, compared to Trump’s need to win 60%. That unlikely achievement becomes virtually impossible considering that future contests will occur in states generally unsympathetic to conservatism.
Notwithstanding what polls indicate at this juncture, the idea that Cruz can beat Trump, let alone Hillary Clinton is unrealistic at best. Trump has expanded the field of voters beyond historical norms and has proven support among some Democrats and Independents; Cruz barely gets the support of Republicans and given his strict conservative ideology is unlikely to garner meaningful votes outside his party in a general election. Forty percent of the electorate claims to be independent and the remaining sixty percent is more or less evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. How can Ted Cruz possibly beat Hillary Clinton facing an electorate with that party affiliation split?
There is something fundamentally un-American about the GOP establishment undermining its front-runner and the will of its constituency, especially doing so to support a candidate popular with only a small minority of its Party. The Republican Party has much to lose and not much to gain by betting its very existence by endorsing a candidate that has minimal party support and minimal likelihood of prevailing in the general election next fall.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Sun-Sentinel Should Be Embarrassed by Clinton Endorsement
South Florida Sun-Sentinel’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president is the best recent example demonstrating the extraordinary liberal media bias that has become commonplace in our nation’s newspapers over the years. It is undoubtedly the main reason no sentient being under the age of 60 would be caught dead reading a newspaper and the reason most seniors subscribe to newspapers for the TV and movie guide, crossword puzzles, to use the newsprint to clean their windshields or to line the bottoms of their bird cages.
The top of the page summarily dismisses the leading Republican candidates with the phrase “Why we can’t endorse Trump, Rubio, Cruz or Kasich.” It says Trump isn’t serious enough, Rubio lacks the experience and work ethic, Cruz is “scary” and although Kasich is most qualified and polling likely to beat Hillary, because he can’t win the Republican nomination, don’t waste your vote on him. Although there are various other “facts” listed for the four, you would never know by reading this editorial that these are four extremely accomplished men, with backgrounds worthy of admiration in many respects.
The endorsement continues with a header “Clinton’s experience and steadiness makes her best choice for president.” But for the fact that the section has a gratuitous photo of Bernie Sanders, the editorial says “nothing” about him. You would never know that Sanders is giving Clinton a run for her money no one can apparently fathom (unless one considers how weak a candidate she is). However, not even the smartest bookies in Las Vegas could have predicted their intense rivalry, mainly because Sanders is not even a Democrat!
The endorsement says Clinton’s resume is impressive and indicates the time she has spent over the years in national politics. The reader can easily infer that Clinton is the Cal Ripken of politics, with an impressive attendance record, with basically no accomplishments that would qualify her for president. The next major point made is that Clinton “also has chosen not to totally distance herself from the record of Barack Obama.” What? Obviously the Sun-Sentinel writers feel they must walk a tightrope here, wanting us to know Clinton supports the failed Obama administration’s policies, but not too much!
It continues with her foreign policy record by describing her opinions and her “support” for certain issues. Wait a minute, wasn’t she Secretary of State? There’s no mention of her accomplishments, which is not too surprising because indeed there are none. Harry Reid, however, wants us to know that “nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it.” That’s an interesting choice of words with the subliminal message that we should really think of this administration’s recent foreign policy in criminal terms. The word “nearly” is a head scratcher; there were no foreign policy victories, so why quibble over which ones Clinton handled?
The closer is priceless: “Clinton would not need training wheels if she were to become the Democratic nominee.” Well that’s nice. It probably means she kept the notes from Bill’s two successful runs for president to which she may refer during her own pathetic race for the presidency.
The top of the page summarily dismisses the leading Republican candidates with the phrase “Why we can’t endorse Trump, Rubio, Cruz or Kasich.” It says Trump isn’t serious enough, Rubio lacks the experience and work ethic, Cruz is “scary” and although Kasich is most qualified and polling likely to beat Hillary, because he can’t win the Republican nomination, don’t waste your vote on him. Although there are various other “facts” listed for the four, you would never know by reading this editorial that these are four extremely accomplished men, with backgrounds worthy of admiration in many respects.
The endorsement continues with a header “Clinton’s experience and steadiness makes her best choice for president.” But for the fact that the section has a gratuitous photo of Bernie Sanders, the editorial says “nothing” about him. You would never know that Sanders is giving Clinton a run for her money no one can apparently fathom (unless one considers how weak a candidate she is). However, not even the smartest bookies in Las Vegas could have predicted their intense rivalry, mainly because Sanders is not even a Democrat!
The endorsement says Clinton’s resume is impressive and indicates the time she has spent over the years in national politics. The reader can easily infer that Clinton is the Cal Ripken of politics, with an impressive attendance record, with basically no accomplishments that would qualify her for president. The next major point made is that Clinton “also has chosen not to totally distance herself from the record of Barack Obama.” What? Obviously the Sun-Sentinel writers feel they must walk a tightrope here, wanting us to know Clinton supports the failed Obama administration’s policies, but not too much!
It continues with her foreign policy record by describing her opinions and her “support” for certain issues. Wait a minute, wasn’t she Secretary of State? There’s no mention of her accomplishments, which is not too surprising because indeed there are none. Harry Reid, however, wants us to know that “nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama’s second term has Secretary Clinton’s fingerprints on it.” That’s an interesting choice of words with the subliminal message that we should really think of this administration’s recent foreign policy in criminal terms. The word “nearly” is a head scratcher; there were no foreign policy victories, so why quibble over which ones Clinton handled?
The closer is priceless: “Clinton would not need training wheels if she were to become the Democratic nominee.” Well that’s nice. It probably means she kept the notes from Bill’s two successful runs for president to which she may refer during her own pathetic race for the presidency.
Saturday, March 5, 2016
GOP Battle with Trump May Backfire
It is understandable that mainstream Republicans should hate Donald Trump, and it has little to do with the fact that he is a politically incorrect self-aggrandizing bloviator, that he is not a true conservative, or that he is unlikely to beat Hillary Clinton in this year’s Presidential election. They hate Trump because they know they are unlikely to control him and based on his rhetoric he is someone likely to buck the system. That may be the best reason for “we the people” to consider voting for him.
Trump is a true political outsider and poses a threat to the Washington political class’s clubby way of life, the one that allows them to keep their jobs regardless of poor performance, allows them to enact laws for us that do not apply to them, and even break other laws with apparent impunity.
Trump is also self-funding his campaign, which means that he will not accept funding from lobbyists whose special interests have customarily guided the national political agenda. That means that under a President Trump we might expect congress to enact laws that are popular with the American public and even stand up against the special interests that often work against the needs of ordinary Americans. That, coupled with Trump’s pledge to rid the Federal Government of “waste, fraud and abuse,” must terrify certain members of the establishment and the special interests they serve.
Trump’s straight talk and no nonsense manner are also likely to expose the major shortcomings of the people who currently run the government. His brash aggressive candidacy has already revealed the real people behind the media-created facades of the other candidates in the race and some well known Republican Party stalwarts, and while enlightening it has not been pretty. In their desperate efforts to compete with and derail Trump’s momentum, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have damaged their career images. Trump has even managed to expose the true colors of Mitt Romney, former Presidential nominee. If he gets the chance, we can bet Trump will expose all of Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings.
Heretofore staid and steady Mitt Romney recently came out of his comfort zone in order to trash Trump’s candidacy. Romney raised some legitimate issues but also impaired his own credibility by exaggerating and mischaracterizing Trump’s candidacy. For example, he said Trump’s success was founded on inheriting his family’s business and that he was not a successful businessman. Really Mitt? Nobody is buying that. Romney also misrepresented Trump’s economic policies, especially for trade and immigration. He called him greedy and predatory in his business practices, which ironically was the way he himself had been labeled by critics during his own Presidential bid in 2012. Really Mitt? You knew it was baloney when critics accused you of dirty practices, yet you turn around and accuse Trump of the same thing? It was a vicious speech unprecedented in scope and scale, the type of tough talk that if directed at President Obama four years ago might have propelled Romney to the Presidency in 2012. One can only deduce that Romney sees Trump now as a bigger threat to America than Barack Obama was then; even so much of a threat that Romney is willing to trash Trump and hand an easy victory to Hillary Clinton, who Romney said would make a horrible President. Really Mitt? That makes some of us wonder about your own judgment and temperament to be President.
Romney and others do not seem to understand that a large plurality of Republican voters do not care about conservative principles or the traditions of the Republican party, they want a President with the resolve and even audacity to take the necessary action to shake up the status quo and change the way business does (or doesn’t) get done in Washington.
The Republican Party needs to tread carefully at this juncture. It promised Trump it would support his nomination if he won fair and square, which seems likely if not inevitable at this moment. If it reneges on that promise and attempts to subvert the will of the people by undermining his candidacy, it likely will fracture the party and hand Hillary Clinton a victory in the general election. That would be unfortunate and prove that preserving the conservative integrity of the party (and its feckless approach to governing) is more important than saving our nation from another failed Democrat Administration.
Trump is a true political outsider and poses a threat to the Washington political class’s clubby way of life, the one that allows them to keep their jobs regardless of poor performance, allows them to enact laws for us that do not apply to them, and even break other laws with apparent impunity.
Trump is also self-funding his campaign, which means that he will not accept funding from lobbyists whose special interests have customarily guided the national political agenda. That means that under a President Trump we might expect congress to enact laws that are popular with the American public and even stand up against the special interests that often work against the needs of ordinary Americans. That, coupled with Trump’s pledge to rid the Federal Government of “waste, fraud and abuse,” must terrify certain members of the establishment and the special interests they serve.
Trump’s straight talk and no nonsense manner are also likely to expose the major shortcomings of the people who currently run the government. His brash aggressive candidacy has already revealed the real people behind the media-created facades of the other candidates in the race and some well known Republican Party stalwarts, and while enlightening it has not been pretty. In their desperate efforts to compete with and derail Trump’s momentum, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have damaged their career images. Trump has even managed to expose the true colors of Mitt Romney, former Presidential nominee. If he gets the chance, we can bet Trump will expose all of Hillary Clinton’s shortcomings.
Heretofore staid and steady Mitt Romney recently came out of his comfort zone in order to trash Trump’s candidacy. Romney raised some legitimate issues but also impaired his own credibility by exaggerating and mischaracterizing Trump’s candidacy. For example, he said Trump’s success was founded on inheriting his family’s business and that he was not a successful businessman. Really Mitt? Nobody is buying that. Romney also misrepresented Trump’s economic policies, especially for trade and immigration. He called him greedy and predatory in his business practices, which ironically was the way he himself had been labeled by critics during his own Presidential bid in 2012. Really Mitt? You knew it was baloney when critics accused you of dirty practices, yet you turn around and accuse Trump of the same thing? It was a vicious speech unprecedented in scope and scale, the type of tough talk that if directed at President Obama four years ago might have propelled Romney to the Presidency in 2012. One can only deduce that Romney sees Trump now as a bigger threat to America than Barack Obama was then; even so much of a threat that Romney is willing to trash Trump and hand an easy victory to Hillary Clinton, who Romney said would make a horrible President. Really Mitt? That makes some of us wonder about your own judgment and temperament to be President.
Romney and others do not seem to understand that a large plurality of Republican voters do not care about conservative principles or the traditions of the Republican party, they want a President with the resolve and even audacity to take the necessary action to shake up the status quo and change the way business does (or doesn’t) get done in Washington.
The Republican Party needs to tread carefully at this juncture. It promised Trump it would support his nomination if he won fair and square, which seems likely if not inevitable at this moment. If it reneges on that promise and attempts to subvert the will of the people by undermining his candidacy, it likely will fracture the party and hand Hillary Clinton a victory in the general election. That would be unfortunate and prove that preserving the conservative integrity of the party (and its feckless approach to governing) is more important than saving our nation from another failed Democrat Administration.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Donald Trump Should Begin Every Debate Answer with Two Words: Wollman Rink
Many Trump critics watched the GOP debate in Texas last week thinking that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio got the better of Trump, especially because they were much better prepared to outline their policy positions and did so with flowing eloquence. Trump critics probably thought it ridiculous that these two men should be so far behind Trump in most primary contests so far. How could Donald Trump be so popular when he is apparently unable to articulate in any detail what he would actually do as President? It’s a compelling question.
However, I too watched and thought the whole debate was ridiculous too, but from a completely different perspective. The question for me is why would anyone vote for Cruz or Rubio for the most demanding job in the free world, knowing both are freshman senators with barely any accomplishments that would suggest they would be good Presidents? Isn’t that the mistake we just made with Barack Obama?
Everyone should agree that Trump needs to talk a better game if he intends to be President, but should he really be expected to be as fluid on those topics as those senators who by virtue of their careers are professional bloviators who get paid to drill that stuff into their heads day in and day out? There are lots of folks that can talk chapter and verse on a full range of topics and some probably better than those two senators. In addition, let’s not put too much emphasis in those policy positions. With few exceptions, those GOP positions are similar in their broad strokes and it’s likely that whoever wins is going to need to amend them in order to secure congressional approval. Moreover, those policies could be completely overhauled and even abandoned if the country faces another financial crisis or national security catastrophe many experts believe are a virtual certainty in the years ahead.
Quite frankly, the GOP electorate is telling us loud and clear that good policies are great, but what we really want is a leader that can make them happen. As far as I can tell, Trump was the only one on that stage with a long track record of making things happen, albeit in the private sector, but in environments that are at least as hostile as the Washington political scene. Rest assured that being a real estate developer in New York is about as tough as tough gets!
We should also remember that what Trump lacks as a policy wonk he can compensate for by surrounding himself with knowledgeable people. And as a real estate developer Trump is not only comfortable quarterbacking a team of experts in performing their respective roles, but has proven himself adept in the role of making sure it all gets done. On the other hand, the executive experience that Cruz and Rubio sorely lack cannot be so easily acquired. Those guys should be encouraged to become governors of their respective states, Texas and Florida, and return to national politics when we can evaluate their successes and failures in those roles.
At the debate, Cruz made the snide comment that while he was standing up for his principles on the floor of the Senate, Donald Trump was firing Dennis Rodman on celebrity apprentice. Too bad Trump did not respond that while Cruz and Rubio were still in high school, Trump had succeeded in taking on one of the great city government bureaucracies and accomplishing a feat most deemed a hopeless cause, the renovation of the Wollman Ice Skating Rink in New York City.
The Wollman Rink had been closed and languishing for 6 years and had become a $13 million politically charged money pit for the City, when Trump in 1986 convinced the Mayor (he had a history of antagonizing) to allow him to undertake its renovation. The renovation was finished ahead of time and under budget, within year for a total cost of approximately $2 million dollars. Obviously, that achievement does not qualify Trump to be President, but it does serve as a colorful public example of someone who gets things done, even when government is involved. Isn’t that what politics and leadership is all about, getting people to do what you want them to do? By the way, has Cruz or Rubio done anything comparable?
People who can talk are a dime a dozen, especially in Washington DC. People that can get things done are few and far between, and our country desperately needs one at this point in our history.
However, I too watched and thought the whole debate was ridiculous too, but from a completely different perspective. The question for me is why would anyone vote for Cruz or Rubio for the most demanding job in the free world, knowing both are freshman senators with barely any accomplishments that would suggest they would be good Presidents? Isn’t that the mistake we just made with Barack Obama?
Everyone should agree that Trump needs to talk a better game if he intends to be President, but should he really be expected to be as fluid on those topics as those senators who by virtue of their careers are professional bloviators who get paid to drill that stuff into their heads day in and day out? There are lots of folks that can talk chapter and verse on a full range of topics and some probably better than those two senators. In addition, let’s not put too much emphasis in those policy positions. With few exceptions, those GOP positions are similar in their broad strokes and it’s likely that whoever wins is going to need to amend them in order to secure congressional approval. Moreover, those policies could be completely overhauled and even abandoned if the country faces another financial crisis or national security catastrophe many experts believe are a virtual certainty in the years ahead.
Quite frankly, the GOP electorate is telling us loud and clear that good policies are great, but what we really want is a leader that can make them happen. As far as I can tell, Trump was the only one on that stage with a long track record of making things happen, albeit in the private sector, but in environments that are at least as hostile as the Washington political scene. Rest assured that being a real estate developer in New York is about as tough as tough gets!
We should also remember that what Trump lacks as a policy wonk he can compensate for by surrounding himself with knowledgeable people. And as a real estate developer Trump is not only comfortable quarterbacking a team of experts in performing their respective roles, but has proven himself adept in the role of making sure it all gets done. On the other hand, the executive experience that Cruz and Rubio sorely lack cannot be so easily acquired. Those guys should be encouraged to become governors of their respective states, Texas and Florida, and return to national politics when we can evaluate their successes and failures in those roles.
At the debate, Cruz made the snide comment that while he was standing up for his principles on the floor of the Senate, Donald Trump was firing Dennis Rodman on celebrity apprentice. Too bad Trump did not respond that while Cruz and Rubio were still in high school, Trump had succeeded in taking on one of the great city government bureaucracies and accomplishing a feat most deemed a hopeless cause, the renovation of the Wollman Ice Skating Rink in New York City.
The Wollman Rink had been closed and languishing for 6 years and had become a $13 million politically charged money pit for the City, when Trump in 1986 convinced the Mayor (he had a history of antagonizing) to allow him to undertake its renovation. The renovation was finished ahead of time and under budget, within year for a total cost of approximately $2 million dollars. Obviously, that achievement does not qualify Trump to be President, but it does serve as a colorful public example of someone who gets things done, even when government is involved. Isn’t that what politics and leadership is all about, getting people to do what you want them to do? By the way, has Cruz or Rubio done anything comparable?
People who can talk are a dime a dozen, especially in Washington DC. People that can get things done are few and far between, and our country desperately needs one at this point in our history.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Why Donald Trump wants to be President
Much has been written about Donald Trump’s popularity with primary voters and whether he would be a good President, but has anyone really thought about why he wants the job? He says he wants to “make America great again,” but there is an even more compelling reason that stems from Trump’s “huge” ego, competitive nature and drive to succeed. Donald Trump sees this job as the culmination of his life’s work and uniquely suited to his skills, experience and personality.
Real estate developer Donald Trump has spent his entire professional life creating world-class assets out of thin air, so imagine how tantalizing the upside potential appears right now of a down (if not out) America with its still bountiful resources and competitive advantages. The fact is the United States of America is the mother of all world-class assets, even if lately it seems to have lost its way. It would not be surprising if Mitt Romney, who spent decades trawling the globe for great companies with lousy management, ripe for picking to unlock their hidden potential, viewed his presidential candidacy in a similar light, as unlocking the hidden potential in America. But America today has even more turn-around potential than it did in 2012.
Trump’s interest in being President should make America optimistic about its future. Guys like Trump don’t usually take on projects unless the odds of success are heavily stacked in their favor. Like him or hate him, does anyone really think Donald Trump would waste his time running for President, let alone risk ruining his reputation if he didn’t think he would not only win the job but succeed at it with flying colors? (For those reasons, it is unlikely that Trump would ever run as an independent candidate with virtual certainty of losing the election!)
Critics caution about Trump’s confidence in his own abilities and point to his failures and bankruptcies as evidence of his fallibility. And while those facts must be taken into consideration, the fact that he nearly lost his empire to financial ruin years ago but managed to reclaim it is worthy of consideration too. Facing financial ruin personally should give Trump a perspective that might serve him well in managing our nation’s own dubious financial condition.
None of Trump’s plans for our economy are uniquely his own but his reputation for making deals and getting things done surely sets him apart from most current contenders for the Presidency. Because he is undaunted by political correctness, unfettered by special interests and through sheer force of will, he feels uniquely suited to reduce if not eliminate government waste, fraud and abuse and to reverse the economically counterproductive policies of the present administration. He believes doing so will likely unleash a period of growth and prosperity unseen in decades.
From Trump’s perspective, the upside for his presidency must be huge. Without considering all his big ideas for improving the nation, merely eliminating and reversing all the nonsense in Washington DC would be enough to assure his success! Donald Trump clearly sees huge upside and minimal downside with being President of the United States, especially for someone with his unique background, skills and personality.
Real estate developer Donald Trump has spent his entire professional life creating world-class assets out of thin air, so imagine how tantalizing the upside potential appears right now of a down (if not out) America with its still bountiful resources and competitive advantages. The fact is the United States of America is the mother of all world-class assets, even if lately it seems to have lost its way. It would not be surprising if Mitt Romney, who spent decades trawling the globe for great companies with lousy management, ripe for picking to unlock their hidden potential, viewed his presidential candidacy in a similar light, as unlocking the hidden potential in America. But America today has even more turn-around potential than it did in 2012.
Trump’s interest in being President should make America optimistic about its future. Guys like Trump don’t usually take on projects unless the odds of success are heavily stacked in their favor. Like him or hate him, does anyone really think Donald Trump would waste his time running for President, let alone risk ruining his reputation if he didn’t think he would not only win the job but succeed at it with flying colors? (For those reasons, it is unlikely that Trump would ever run as an independent candidate with virtual certainty of losing the election!)
Critics caution about Trump’s confidence in his own abilities and point to his failures and bankruptcies as evidence of his fallibility. And while those facts must be taken into consideration, the fact that he nearly lost his empire to financial ruin years ago but managed to reclaim it is worthy of consideration too. Facing financial ruin personally should give Trump a perspective that might serve him well in managing our nation’s own dubious financial condition.
None of Trump’s plans for our economy are uniquely his own but his reputation for making deals and getting things done surely sets him apart from most current contenders for the Presidency. Because he is undaunted by political correctness, unfettered by special interests and through sheer force of will, he feels uniquely suited to reduce if not eliminate government waste, fraud and abuse and to reverse the economically counterproductive policies of the present administration. He believes doing so will likely unleash a period of growth and prosperity unseen in decades.
From Trump’s perspective, the upside for his presidency must be huge. Without considering all his big ideas for improving the nation, merely eliminating and reversing all the nonsense in Washington DC would be enough to assure his success! Donald Trump clearly sees huge upside and minimal downside with being President of the United States, especially for someone with his unique background, skills and personality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)