How Sore Loser Trump is Hurting our Country

Image: The Independent

Since 2016 our intelligence agencies determined that Russia has and will interfere in our elections to benefit Donald Trump. These findings were confirmed by the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III and his team. Despite all the drama stemming from this past election especially the unprecedented aftermath in which Trump has refused to concede, we have not heard much about Russia meddling despite warnings.

Even with Trump’s clear loss, however, Russia got what it wanted: chaos and discord in the United States.

Trump’s disgraced and incompetent lawyers are haphazardly filing lawsuits in several states without success to this point claiming without a shred of evidence widespread voter fraud and ballot counting irregularities. This myth led by Trump himself is allowing the country to deepen its already profound schisms. For his part, President-Elect Joe Biden is moving towards hitting the ground running as soon as his inauguration on January 20, 2021.

These legal maneuvers to overturn an election in which Biden won by over 5 million votes are akin to throwing darts towards a target wearing a blindfold after spinning around three times. It’s not going to hit the bull’s eye.

The effort to postpone the inevitable is being undertaken to satisfy one person, and we all know who that is.  Donald Trump is a sore loser to the nth degree. He cannot bring himself to accept losing especially to “Sleepy” Joe Biden. His rallies whereby tens of thousands of adoring followers risked their lives at these covid super-spreader events presented him with the false impression that the country loves him. Seventy-seven million voters thought otherwise.

Yet, more important than that, Trump actually deems there was widespread voter fraud. He could never lose the election unless it was rigged and fraudulent. He believes it at his core.

Trump also cannot accept the fact the Republicans’ efforts to suppress votes fell short, and (gasp!) African Americans wound up turning out to vote in high numbers. This was a significant factor in urban and suburban areas (yes, Mr. Trump, the suburbs are not only comprised of white housewives).

Trump’s toddler-like sore loser antics, temper tantrums, and made-up b.s. are disgusting and embarrassing to be sure. But it’s also harming our country. The head of the General Services Administration typically issues an “ascertainment” when the outcome of a presidential election is clear.

Without her “ascertainment,” which the AP says “green lights” the federal government to prepare for the transfer of power, Biden’s transition team doesn’t have access to government office space or government funding, which is usually made available for the president-elect. Moreover, without that determination, the Biden team does not have access to the Presidential Daily Briefing that highlights key national security matters.

Trump appointee Emily Murphy is the GSA Administrator, and she has not released this important ascertainment. The stalling could be damaging to our national security as well as the Biden effort to tackle the pandemic.

Image by @NICK_VENTURE

While Republican senators and members of Congress are too terrified of Trump to talk him down from his fishing expedition in the courts, some have gained a bit off spine by grudgingly agreeing that the Biden team be given access to the PDB while insisting Trump has the right to pursue all legal avenues.

Recall how in 2016 the GOP accused Democrats of being sore losers. Hillary Clinton conceded the day after the election and President Obama invited Trump to the White house two days after the election.

Some pundits believe that the stalling tactics are designed to keep Trump’s supporters activated and engaged sufficiently to help with the two Georgia Senate run-off elections on January 5. Should the Democrats fail to sweep the doubleheader, Moscow Mitch McConnell can remain the Senate Majority Leader so that he can sabotage Biden’s term setting up a resumption of power in 2024 either by Trump himself, his son Donnie, Pence, Nikki Haley, Marco or some other character.

Please don’t ever call these cowards patriots. They would sooner destroy our democracy and our country as a whole to satisfy their unquenchable thirst for power and greed. How better way to demonstrate patriotism and the love of our country than to accelerate its failure by destroying our economy, make us vulnerable to malign foreign actors, and allow the pandemic to annihilate hundreds of thousands of Americans? Oh, but they hug the flag. That’s all that matters to them.

For their part, the Democrats need to nationalize the Georgia races and use Trump’s sore loser behavior and the Republicans’ acquiescence as a central theme.

Sore loser Trump will never concede the election. He will never recognize Biden as the legitimate president. He won’t invite him to the White House.

Petty and petulant Trump won’t attend the inauguration. Instead, let Obama take that front row seat at the Capitol during the ceremony—the most recent honest, mature and competent president we had and the one with the largest inauguration crowd.  

                                                  

The Resume Myth

History has shown that for recent presidential races, experience is overrated.

Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar  Photo: pbs.org

During the December 19 Democratic Presidential Debate, Sen. Amy Klobuchar chided South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg on his lack of experience.  She attacked him for “mocking the 100 years of experience” on the debate stage when he contrasted his own time outside of Washington. She said Buttigieg “should respect our experience when you look at how you evaluate someone.” The Indiana mayor, highlighting his military service, responded, “That is my experience, and it may not be the same as yours, but it counts, Senator. It counts.”

To be sure, voters tend to want their presidential candidates to possess significant “experience” if they should find themselves in the White House as the country’s chief executive and commander-in-chief. Moreover, the candidates do not hesitate to present their gaudy resumes on campaign literature and ads, and they prominently display their bios on their respective websites. They believe that is what impresses voters. And opponents will likely pounce, as Sen, Klobuchar did, on those whom they perceive as thin in the resume department.

But it takes more than a jaw-dropping resume to be a successful candidate and ultimately a successful president.

History has taught us that the winner of the presidential election often has a lighter resume than his opponent’s.  Nixon boasted much more substantive experience including being vice president for two terms than JFK but the latter eked out a victory in 1960.  

The same could be said for Gerald Ford bowing to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Carter, for his part, had executive experience as the governor of Georgia but Ford’s experience, was longer as a vice president (for a partial term) and congressman. Ford’s pardoning of Nixon was arguably the key factor in the contest.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan steamrolled over Carter but the resume was a non-factor. The election, instead, was a referendum on Carter’s presidency and the economy at the time.

It seems nobody had a more impressive resume than 41, George H. W. Bush. Though he lost the Republican nomination in 1980 to the upstart Reagan, his experience did not help him much.  Bush did manage to soundly defeat Michel Dukakis in 1988 but any Republican would have beaten the weak Democratic candidate.

However, 1992 was telling, and it bolsters my argument about how the resume is overrated. Bill Clinton emerged as the Democratic standard bearer. The draft-dodging, pot-smoking, skirt chasing governor of the “small state” of Arkansas as Republicans often ascribed to him clearly did not have the broad experience of Mr. Bush.

But the entrance into the race by third party candidate Ross Perot doomed Bush’s bid for a second term. That plus violating the “read my lips, no new taxes” mantra by Bush, which turned off his own party, sealed Bush’s fate. The resume may have well been thrown out the window.

In 1996 Clinton who was under investigation by Kenneth Starr on a dubious land deal, which ultimately led to the president’s impeachment for lying under oath over an extramarital affair, managed to defeat the beloved war hero Sen. Robert Dole. Clinton avoided military service during the Vietnam War but triumphed over the Purple Heart recipient Dole. Again, the resume did not matter.

Former Texas Rangers executive and Governor of Texas George W. Bush had what seemed like a solid resume. He took on former two-term Vice President and former Senator Al Gore in 2000.  It would appear to be a draw in the resume department though Gore was in government much longer. Bush prevailed with the help of another third party candidate Ralph Nader and the U.S. Supreme Court. Their respective resumes turned out to be immaterial.

The pattern continued in 2008 when a little-known Senator from Illinois with a funny name as he put it, Barack Obama, defeated the iconic long-time Senator and war hero John McCain.

Then came 2016. Hillary Clinton, a former First Lady for 8 years, a U.S. Senator and ultimately Secretary of State took on the only presidential candidate in history that did not include public service or a military record on his resume. His only credentials he brought to his candidacy was his so-called business acumen. That reputation persuaded enough voters to win though it was revealed Donald Trump’s expertise in business consisted of 6 bankruptcies including casinos of all things and questionable sources of money when U.S. banks declined to grant further loans.

My point is that there is no experience that prepares one to be president because of the uniqueness of the job. It has been and will always be on-the-job training.

As Elaine Karmack in Fortune magazine wrote, “The federal government today is so big and so complex that presidents – even ones with extensive political experience, but especially those with limited experience – have trouble figuring it out.” 

Good judgment, intelligence, a commitment to American values, a strong economy, a vision for the future, and solid advisors and a penchant to listen to them will contribute to the success of the chief executive.

Of course, it is helpful that a candidate possesses executive experience or a legislative background to at least demonstrate that the candidate is knowledgeable of how government works. 

But it's not an end-all.

Pete Buttigieg has been criticized that being the mayor of a small city is insufficient to tout executive experience. Yet, Michael Bloomberg had been mayor of a city 80 times the population of South Bend and Cory Booker was mayor Newark, the largest city in the nation's most densely populated state but Buttigieg is polling higher than these two.  Moreover, take a look at the 2016 Republican presidential field with governors Christie, Bush and Kasich--all exiting the race as voters preferred Trump. 

There are, however, other factors will determine the outcome of an election, such as likability, the state of the economy, the direction of the country as perceived by voters, a candidate's political skills, ideology, whether or not the country is engaged in a military conflict, and the record and character of the opponent (and the candidate him/herself).

As for a glossy resume leading to an election, history tells us, not so much.

What Morici misses about Trump and the GOP

Letter to the Baltimore Sun

Three things are striking from Peter Morici’s commentary :

 First, he never mentioned Russia once throughout your piece as if that cloud suddenly disappeared.  The Russian meddling in our election and Trump’s at best indifference to it or at worst involvement in it will detrimentally affect the GOP more than the Republican’s sabotaging of Obamacare or the other issues he cited.

Second, his lecturing the Democratic minority leaders for not legitimizing the Trump presidency is laughable.  Where has he been the previous eight years when Republican leaders (and the GOP Congressional caucus) not only not legitimizing President Obama in ways too numerous and too sickening to list here, they literally deprived him of his Constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

Third, he mentioned Betsy DeVos and “sound ideas” in the same sentence.

Steve Charing
Clarksville

Published letter here.

How Obama Can Unify Dems: Sue Trump

Courtesy of slate.com

The recent election for DNC Chair exposed a continued divide between establishment Democrats and progressives.  In an attempt to bring the factions together, Mr. Perez asked Rep. Ellison to be his deputy.  However, such a chasm, should it remain, will do little to alter the Democrats’ minority power in most state governments and the federal branches. #hocopolitics

Rallying against President Trump could be cathartic if not unifying. Would that alone be sufficient to win back the Senate, or House, or some of the governors’ mansions in 2017 or 2018?  The answer is no.

Aside from enunciating a rationale to unseat Republicans based on policy and connecting better with voters overall, the Democrats need to set aside their habitual in-fighting, get fired up emotionally, and increase voter turnout—something they historically have not done too well—in off-year elections. 

A catalyst for that to take place could lie in the actions taken by former President Barack Obama who remains the de facto leader of the Democratic Party and still commands enormous popularity.   

President Trump handed the Democrats a gift last Saturday when he launched a tweet storm charging without evidence that as president, Barack Obama had the phones tapped at Trump Tower prior to the election.  One tweet wasn’t enough; four were fired off saying essentially the same thing. 

Mr. Trump was said to have enjoyed how the media were consumed by these tweets rather than focusing on the increasingly sobering connections between Trump and his people have had with Russian officials.  Days later, Trump did not back down from the phone tapping charges and his aides have struggled to answer the barrage of demands for proof of these allegations.

Assuming the charges are not supportable by facts, it is quite possible that President Obama has been defamed.  Stating without equivocation that the former president engaged in a felonious act could cause damage to Mr. Obama’s reputation and degrade his ability to secure a financially beneficial post-president career. 

What Mr. Obama should do is sue Mr. Trump for libel and force the current president to back up the charges with proof.  Mr. Trump brags about the many lawsuits he has engaged in though they have largely not been successful.  He threatens everybody who gets in his way with a lawsuit (recall the women during the campaign who accused him of sexual assault).

 “[Trump is] basically stating that Mr. Obama committed crimes, and to state that somebody has committed a crime when it’s false is clearly defamatory,” said Benjamin Zipursky, who teaches defamation law at Fordham University Law School in New York.

“The question is: Is there enough evidence of serious reckless disregard to send that case to a jury?” Zipursky added. “I don't know what a court would decide on that, but there is some evidence of recklessness.”

A lawsuit for say, $50 million, could and should serve notice to the self-proclaimed billionaire that the amount of lies that Mr. Trump delivers with mind-boggling regularity would have consequences.

It would be a steep climb on several fronts.  Presidents are generally shielded from private lawsuits, but Mr. Trump’s tweet storm can be argued it was not part of the president’s official duties. 

Moreover, Mr. Obama has shown that he doesn’t have a combative temperament to launch such legal action nor would he be inclined to add more division to an already divided country.

That said, there have been reports that Mr. Obama was livid after learning of the tweets.  Keep in mind that despite the fact Mr. Trump accused Mr. Obama of not being a U.S. citizen and, therefore, disqualified from being president and calling him weak and incompetent during the recent campaign, Mr. Obama bent over backwards to help smooth the transition to the new administration.  This expression of gratitude from Mr. Trump in the form of wild, baseless accusations could be enough to piss him off to at least consider a lawsuit.

And think how Democrats would raucously cheer the former president on in such a quest.  It might even unite the Party.

Trump's Real Opponent

Finally, the presidential campaign is nearing its conclusion.  We now can glide to November 8 with only a few questions remaining. By what margin will Hillary Clinton triumph? Can she turn a red state or two blue?  Will the obstructionist Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell become an obstructionist Minority Leader?  Will we ever see Paul Ryan grow a spine?  Will his House flip from Clinton’s coattails?  Will Donald Trump ever concede?  #hocopolitics

The last question is the most telling and symbolizes the person the Republican nominee truly is. Trump refused to declare to the world during the final debate on October 19 that he would automatically accept the will of the people.  He will keep us in suspense, he says. 

Trump has vowed to “make America great again” countless times but he is ready to eschew a centuries-old tradition of conceding a loss in a presidential election and leaving a big question mark on a fundamental tenet of our democracy.  He is also undermining our democracy when he claims without any evidence that the election is rigged.

A concession would be a sign of grace and sportsmanship that had been exemplified by Al Gore.  The Democratic hopeful in 2000 had a reason to be bitter but did the right thing anyway.

Trump cannot likely bring himself to concede because to do so would be an admission that, um, he lost.  Only he (in his own mind) knows how to win; losing is an anathema to him.  “Donald Trump, loser.”  It contradicts the image he tries so hard to project.

Many have said this race was Hillary’s to lose.  She has the experience, the money, the historic nature of being the first woman president, and the apparatus to win a national election. 

I say it was Trump’s to lose, and he will have fulfilled that beautifully.

There has been considerable desire for change in this country.  Trump was the vessel to effect that change.  Those who were down on their luck economically, maintain racial distrust, held a concern that illegal immigrants were stealing jobs, and other grievances, did not favor a third term of the Obama Administration that would be perceived with a Clinton presidency. 

Trump romped over his primary opponents partly as a result of all the free media he received, hoping to catch a moment that records his penchant for outlandish rhetoric. 

He also squashed them because they were all afraid of his insults and they didn’t take him seriously until it was too late.  They wasted their time on the debate stage trashing Obama and Clinton but the one obstacle in their path to nomination, Trump, was hardly attacked with gusto.

Voters saw a man with a message of populist nationalism, a chest-thumping visage who condemned political correctness.  He would say things that other politicians wouldn’t dare to utter but were of the same mindset as Trump.  He had the courage to do so; they didn’t.  And then there’s that unyielding rabid hatred of Hillary.

Trump would shake up Washington and restore pride to our country.  He would close our borders and defeat terrorism.  It was an effective message and one that had a chance to catch on more broadly than with just the disgruntled core of his supporters who were mostly white, rural and non-college educated.  Trump claimed, amusingly, he was one of them—gritty, pro-gun, working class—except a million times richer.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton possesses a resume like no other: a former First Lady whose husband actually produced a budget surplus and kept us out of wars, a two-term U.S. Senator who worked effectively across the aisle, and Secretary of State.  Not insignificantly, she endured a tough primary from Bernie Sanders whose socialist stances forced Clinton to the left in order to keep the peace.

But she had a reputation—an unwelcome one—whereby Clinton had been cast as untrustworthy at best and a criminal at worst from her own actions as well as decades-old propaganda spewed by the extreme right who would never let facts get in the way of their conspiracy theories. 

Courtesy: Jum Urquhartt/Reuters

Hillary has her liabilities, and she has been able to slither out of trouble when the rocks were falling from the cliffs. There was her use of a personal server while Secretary of State and its missing emails, an FBI investigation that did not lead to a criminal indictment but castigated her for being “extremely careless” with her emails, awkward WikiLeaks email disclosures, and a barrage of baseless charges promulgated by Trump Nation and in particular the right-wing Alt-Right, whose leader Stephen Bannon of Breitbart.com fame, eventually oversaw the Trump campaign and its messaging.   

The race between Trump and Clinton—two of the most disliked presidential candidates in history—was underway in full force to the consternation of the country’s voters. Trump was the hero of this disgruntled segment of the GOP regardless of his crass, egotistical personality and his scant knowledge of policy. Clinton was laden by her baggage and was indeed vulnerable despite her strengths.  But as it has turned out, the contest was really between Trump and Trump.

Any non-lunatic Republican—Kasich, Bush or Rubio, for instance, would have defeated Clinton fairly easily given her controversial past and the historical desire on the part of the voters to change the controlling party following two terms in the White House.  But Hillary was carrying a horseshoe in her pocket; she drew Donald J. Trump as her opponent. 

Barring some form of miracle, it is clear that Trump will lose, and he will not be vanquished by Clinton; he will have defeated himself.  While Hillary was under water in the positives-negatives ratio, Trump was even worse.  Never before had two presidential candidates vied for the office with such high negative perceptions from the populace.

There is no need to rehash the myriad well-documented miscues—unforced errors and self-inflicted wounds by Trump—that had undermined his effort to win the election.  Any of these individually could have been detrimental but as an accumulation, they were fatal. 

The key turning point in the campaign that broke open a tight race was undoubtedly his 11 year-old tape recording from Access Hollywood whereby he lewdly bragged about his exploits with women based on his stardom.  His incredulous denial during the second debate that he actually engaged in such activity spawned over 10 women to step forward and chronicle a disturbing pattern of unwanted advances and sexual assault.  This amounts to criminal behavior, but it was Trump who threatened to send Clinton to jail if he was to be elected even though there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on her part.

Likeability is crucial to win any political campaign; both candidates are far from likeable.  But Trump had failed to come close.

For starters he attacked the family of a Muslim casualty of the war in Iraq.  He mocked a disabled journalist.  He calls inner cities “hell.”  He wants to ban Muslims from entering the country. He refers to Mexicans as rapists and criminals and condemned a federal judge for being unfair to him based on his Mexican heritage.  He used anti-Semitic imagery on a tweet.  He stiffed contractors.  He employed undocumented immigrants for his construction projects though he assailed such people for entering the country.

He degraded women even before the tape surfaced.  He won’t reveal his tax returns though now we have learned he hasn’t paid Federal income taxes for some 18 years. He boasts of his business acumen but lost nearly a billion dollars—on casinos no less.  He treats nuclear weapons as toys and is ignorant of the purpose of the Purple Heart.

Trump’s personality doesn’t help matters. He is a pathologically narcissistic buffoon with a wafer-thin grasp of policy and what it takes to govern.  A con artist who lies about everything though his campaign paints Clinton as the liar in the race.  Everything is about him, and this self-centered ego was getting old.

He could have won this race had he been somewhat conventional.  Instead, he has scared voters including many Republicans because of his temperament and the harshness and misplacement of his attacks.  The Clinton campaign has exploited this effectively.

In the final analysis, Clinton will have not sent Trump to defeat.  Trump did.

The Lesson from Orlando: We’re Still Targets

It doesn’t matter if Omar Mateen was a terrorist or an ISIS sympathizer.  It doesn’t matter if he was a closeted gay man who decided to lash out against a community that had shunned him, or that he was outraged over seeing two men kissing as his father explained, or his Muslim faith prohibits homosexuality.  It doesn’t matter if he was a deranged psychopath.  

Hopefully, the victims did not die in vain

What does matter, despite the denials by many who aren’t exactly on the side of LGBT people, this heinous act at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fl. on June 12 was directed specifically to harm members of the LGBT community.

And for those who believe that he was instead carrying out an attack in the name of ISIS consider this: Mateen could have gone anywhere to commit mass murder. 

He traveled 125 miles from Port St. Lucie to Orlando.  He could have shot up any nightclub in his home town.  If Orlando had to be a target, he could have shot up any nightclub there or gone to Disneyworld or another tourist attraction to do his deed. 

Instead, he chose this place at this time and this crowd.  He singled out Pulse since he was familiar with the establishment, and as witnesses reported, he had been there multiple times.  The people who patronized Pulse that night were his targets of choice.

For sure, the anti-gay crowd was relieved to learn that Mateen phoned the police during the massacre saying he pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIS.  To them, this rampage was simply an act of terrorism and, of course, President Obama’s perceived weakness and inability to eradicate the murderous terrorist group. 

It was not an attack against LGBT people who were celebrating Latin night at the Pulse during Gay Pride month, they concluded.  The terms “gay” or “LGBT” were scarcely muttered; there was massive denial.

President Obama set the record straight as he and Vice President Biden laid down bouquets at a memorial in Orlando.

“This was an act of terrorism but it was also an act of hate,” the President declared. “This was an attack on the LGBT community.”  He’s correct.

The aftermath of the shootings revealed America’s darkest side especially when it comes to anti-gay fervor.  It suggests to me that based on this hate, Mateen carried out what some homophobes would love to have done if they could get away with it.

It wasn't a backlash from the victories in marriage equality.  Anti-gay governors and legislatures are acting on that already under the guise of “religious freedom.” 

No, the reactions reflected pure hatred.  Some have cheered the massacre.  “Better that he killed the perverts and not the normal people,” said one a-hole on the Internet.

Less extreme are those straight people who snickered at the news and offered up what they think are clever comments about the tragedy.  Some don’t even mention it anymore, if they ever did, and want the story to disappear unless it’s couched in anti-terrorism terms.

Remember when terrorists attacked Paris and all those straight folks covered their Facebook profile pictures with French flags?  You don't see as much Orlando or gay images this time around from these people.

Others are more direct, such as the burning of a rainbow flag this past week outside a Washington, D.C. restaurant can attest.  Or this recent incident in D.C..

We’ve made considerable—almost unimaginable—progress in recent years and more and more people are supportive of LGBT people and our rights.  However, LGBT individuals, especially transgender people of color, are attacked violently or killed with chilling regularity.  Kids are still mercilessly bullied in schools.  

Yes, we made progress in recent years and some positives will come out of this tragedy so that 49 innocent people’s horrific deaths will not be in vain.  Hopefully, common sense gun reform will be among them.

As I told a reporter during a candlelight vigil in Baltimore, “We can have laws on the books to confer LGBT rights.  We cannot legislate attitudes.  This has always been the challenge in civil rights movements.”

Hate still exists.  Gay bars were supposed to be a “safe” space—a sanctuary—for LGBT people to congregate and socialize without judgment or violence.  Not anymore.  The horror in Orlando and the reaction of the anti-gay haters taught us that we’re still targets.

With Trump, the GOP Got What it Deserved

We’re in the “OMG” phase of the 2016 presidential election cycle.  Nobody thought that Donald Trump was a serious aspirant for the presidency; that it was merely a show to stoke his already oversized ego.  How did virtually everyone get it wrong?

Well, had Trump lost a few early contests he probably would, as a good business man should, cut his losses, call it a day and return to his gilded palaces.  That was not the case as we know. 

In fact, he is steamrolling to the Republican nomination, much to the chagrin of the so-called party establishment, and they are wringing their hands trying to figure out how he can be stopped before or during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in July.  Failing to do so would deprive the Republicans the golden opportunity from re-taking the White House in what could have been a victory against one of two vulnerable Democrats.

How did this uncontrollable monster get created?  The GOP brought it upon themselves, and they deserve what they got.

Since Trump’s announcement to join a large but weak field of Republican candidates, he essentially verbalized what many in the “base” of the party had been thinking all along but felt restrained from doing so.  Trump used the failure to enact immigration reform to throw Mexicans under the bus—literally.  “I’m gonna build a huge wall, a beautiful wall because right now we’re a country without borders and if there are no borders, we don’t have a country,” he repeated over and over.  #hocopolitics

That sparked the heretofore latent xenophobic instincts from many within the party to rally around the man who “tells it like it is”.  He tapped into the misogynist characteristics of Republican voters and those who had never previously voted with his verbal insults hurled against Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina.  Trump lampooned a disabled person and essentially called Vietnam POW Senator McCain a loser for being captured, and that’s just the beginning. 


These missteps alone should have done him in.  The media, the more sensible Republicans and the American people in general should have recognized the seriousness of his candidacy and expressed sufficient outrage to derail his march.  They never saw it coming.

Trump exposed his racist leanings when he spoke harshly against Black Lives Matter demonstrators.  It was his Sister Souljah moment, and the numerous racists in this country floated to the surface like earthworms after springtime rainstorm.  Then there is Trump’s support for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country making religion a test for immigration.

Courtesy of mediamatters.org

They found a home with Trump, and when the Donald encouraged his adoring minions to “rough up” demonstrators—mostly black—at rallies combined with his “I’d like to punch him in the face” comment, it was easy to see how he has incited the more violent nature of these rallies and unfortunately they are likely to escalate.

As I indicated before, the Republicans have nobody to blame but themselves for this phenomenon.  Through dog whistles and other subtle forms of bigotry, the party became a home to racists (“Go back to Africa,” said one at a recent Trump rally) and anti-Semites (“Go back to Auschwitz,” snapped another—both on video).  Trump’s hesitation to disavow the KKK and David Duke in particular reinforced that notion.

As Bill Maher correctly points out, obviously not everyone in the Republican Party is a racist but if you are a racist, you are comfotable in the Republican Party.   They now have cover with Trump, and the candidate has done nothing to tamp down the vitriolic rhetoric. The 2008 campaign between McCain and Obama set the tone for the toxicity that exists today.  Though McCain is not directly responsible for it, he did select the village idiot Sarah Palin to be his running mate. 

At rallies during the campaign, Palin accused Obama of being a terrorist, a socialist and more by dint of his past associations.  The GOP did nothing to quell that incendiary rhetoric.  They also did nothing to counter the Trump-led “birther” movement that claimed Obama was born outside the U.S. and is not eligible to be president.

The negative discourse continued after the rather lopsided 2008 election victory for Obama when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell infamously stated his goal to make Obama a one-time president.  And there was South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson shouting “You lie” during a speech the president made in 2009 to a joint session of Congress.
It had become rather obvious that the loyal opposition was bent de-legitimizing Obama and preventing him from carrying out his agenda.  Had the Democrats acted like this to a Republican sitting president, there would be cries for treason.

They undermined him at every turn including bringing in a head of state (Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu) against Obama’s wishes to speak before Congress to lobby against the Iran deal. Now they want to deny the president the Constitutional responsibility of filling a Supreme Court vacancy.

All this disrespect, all this vitriol planted the seeds for Trump to march through the primaries and vanquish his opponents through personal insults and victories.  Here is a man who has wafer-thin knowledge of policy, little or no understanding of how the government should be run, who publicly said he loves the poorly educated, and convinces himself he can make deals to solve our problems. Trump makes this race all about himself and believes if elected he will be king or a dictator in that  he can do whatever he pleases.  He even admitted recently that he gets his information from the Internet and his advice from himself.

As such, he is poised to damage the Republican Party for years, and all the hand-wringing by conservatives who dislike Trump for his failure to follow conservative orthodoxy and sensible pragmatic Republicans who see defeat being snatched from victory, will unlikely stop this stupid train to November. All they can say now, to paraphrase Trump, is “Get him the hell outta here!”

Nice Guys Finish First

During the heat of an election campaign we hear some people deride an opposing candidate as being a “nice guy” as if that’s a liability. (For the purpose of this post, the term “nice guy” in the vernacular applies to both genders.)  The context being the person has different values, positions and a faulty record, but his being a “nice guy” might carry him through the day. 

It could if history has anything to do with it.

One of the many axioms in politics is not to downplay a candidate’s likability.  This is not to suggest that likability is sufficient to win an election. Stances on specific issues, party affiliation, the current political environment, the opponent, oratory skills, the amount of money raised and spent, endorsements, record, biography, and voter turnout are among those factors in shaping an election.  #hocopolitics

But likability is a major strength especially if voters are not engaged on the issues or are not informed regarding the candidates.  It could be decisive with other factors being equal, and all politicians would be wise to make that an asset for themselves.

Throughout history, likability has frequently been a rationale for voters.  It became more prevalent starting with the Kennedy-Nixon contest in 1960 when television, for the first time, was a major element in the election campaign.  Most pundits opined that the televised debate between those two candidates was the turning point.  Nixon looked nervous, sweaty and pale on black and white television though he was the more experienced politician, while the young John F. Kennedy seemed alert, fresh and vibrant.  Of course, Nixon had been suffering from a cold and eschewed using make-up, but he won the debate on the merits.  Nonetheless, Nixon lost the night because of the optics.    

Voters around the country gave Kennedy a closer look and liked what they saw.  They fell in love with his beautiful, glamorous wife and young daughter, and Kennedy himself possessed strong oratory skills, charisma and was inspirational.  In short, enough of the voters liked him, his personality and his family to hand him a slim margin of victory at the polls.  Nixon, seen as glum, was doomed to falter to the more pleasant Kennedy.

There are exceptions, of course, but other presidential contests demonstrated how likability may have been a determinant.  There was the affable, sunny Ronald Reagan winning over the turgid Jimmy Carter.  Folksy, down-home Bill Clinton defeating the privileged George H.W. Bush (with a little help from Ross Perot).  Jocular George W. Bush losing the votes but winning the Electoral College over the stiff and sighing Al Gore (assisted by Ralph Nader and the Supreme Court).  And Bush again edging another stiff one, John Kerry.

Then you have the historic candidacy of Barack Obama—a far more likable chap than the cranky John McCain and mega-rich snob Mitt Romney—winning two terms.  He even gave a nod to the likability factor as he famously told Hillary Clinton during a primary debate, “You’re likeable enough Hillary.”  But that retort backfired on the political neophyte as it was seen as patronizing.

Those likable candidates mentioned above would have won those elections regardless of likability because there were overriding issues that interested and engaged the electorate. But there is no doubt that favorable trait played a role in their success. 

Any political advisor or consultant worth his or her salt would tell you that it is critical to be likable.  This is especially applicable in local contests when issues typically don’t rise to the level of national security and other broad concerns.  It could be a difference maker. 

The way to deal with that during a campaign is to either drive up the likable opponent’s negatives or improve their own favorability.  Those already holding elected office could look back and note that their likability may have helped put them in those jobs. 

The value of likability should never be underestimated even if elections are rarely won or lost based on that alone.  However, on most occasions it seems that nice guys do finish first.

History Made in the NFL

Michael Sam drafted in the 7^th round; becomes first openly gay player 

As people around the country were tuning in to the National Football League draft extravaganza that took place May 8-10, there was a little more interest than usual in the 2014 version than in previous years.  For in this cycle, there was the possibility (and hope) that an openly gay man, Michael Sam, a defensive end who was a star at the University of Missouri, could have his name called by an NFL team and break the rainbow barrier to become the first ever openly gay man to play in the nation’s most lucrative professional sports league. 



After 248 out of 256 players heard their names called  during the otherwise tedious process that will dramatically change these young men’s lives, hope began to melt into concern and then rationalization as the 7^th and final round was slowly progressing and still no word of Michael Sam, 24, from Hitchcock, Texas.  
 

Will the NFL do the right thing or are the executives still not as progressive on social issues as many of their players?  Is Michael Sam really too slow to be a linebacker and even at 6 foot 2, 260 lbs. too small to be a defensive end in the pros based on a series of physical tests that had taken place at a rigorous audition known as the combine?  Will any team take the risk of having a gay player and potentially cause a distraction in the locker room?  Will the media cause its own distraction?

Analysts at ESPN who dutifully provided all the insight one would want (or could take) during the three-day draft proceedings also speculated on whether or not Sam had the right stuff.  The first-team All-American and 2013 Southeast Conference Co-Defensive Player of the Year did not have the “numbers” or the size or quickness to be a likely draft pick.  Moreover, some team scouts told the media anonymously that when Sam disclosed his sexual orientation in an interview with ESPN in February, his stock had fallen. 

The in-draft analysts on ESPN, nonetheless, effusively praised Sam’s character and work ethic and “motor”.   Sam should be taken in the draft if a team a club needs a special team player or a pass rusher, they opined, and they encouraged his rooters that even if not drafted, he could be invited to a team’s training camp and be signed as an undrafted free agent as 47 did last year.  A development like that could even be more beneficial to him.

Yet something akin to a Hollywood script unfolded.  As the number of available picks was perilously dwindling to a precious few late Saturday afternoon—only eight remained—Michael Sam received the phone call from St. Louis Rams head coach Mike Fisher.  “You are a Ram,” said Fisher. “The wait is finally over.”

Sam was seen on ESPN breaking down and sobbing at the news in real time, barely audibly thanking Fisher. He was in the arms of his boyfriend Vito Cammisano, and then they kissed for several moments—something ESPN did not cut away from as one would have expected not that long ago.

“This is a football decision,” Fisher said. “We are very, very comfortable with everything about him”—high praise indeed.  “We weren't going to miss the opportunity to add an outstanding player to our roster,” he added.

St. Louis is a good fit for Sam as it is only a two-hour drive from Columbia, MO where Sam excelled at the University of Missouri.  People are familiar with him and he is well respected there.

Reactions were mostly positive, and they poured in from everywhere.  The President of the United States weighed in.  “From the playing field to the corporate boardroom, LGBT Americans prove everyday that you should be judged by what you do and not who you are,” Obama said. He also congratulated the NFL and the St. Louis Rams.

The historic breakthrough was not lost on LGBT civil rights leaders.  “We congratulate Michael Sam and the St. Louis Rams on their terrific decision to draft him,” said Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin in a statement. “Today, LGBT young people can look to Sam as proof that being open and proud of who you are doesn’t keep you from achieving your dreams.  Gay people are our neighbors and friends.  They’re our United States Senators and, starting today, they're our professional football stars.”

Although he was drafted by the Rams, Michael Sam is not guaranteed to make the team.  But it is a trail blazing moment as was the signing of out NBA player Jason Collins earlier in the year.  With pressure mounting on the NFL to present a better image and the encouragement from its commissioner Roger Goodell, Sam’s ability and heart plus overwhelming support from fans and the media, Sam should succeed.

Will Next Year Top 2013?

Clearly significant progress was made in 2013 for many in the LGBT communities.  There were some surprises in the mix that added more shine to an already glossy year.  Coming out revelations, the first openly gay candidate elected to the U.S. Senate, increased popular support for marriage equality, and even a Super Bowl trophy for our beloved Baltimore Ravens were part of this intriguing year.

Immediately after midnight on New Year’s Eve, the tone for the rest of 2013 was already set.  Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, already a proven advocate and supporter for LGBT issues, officiated the first legal same-sex marriage ceremony in Baltimore and was among the first in the state where dozens celebrated their nuptials on that glorious day.

Following that historic occasion, hundreds of other couples in Maryland tied the knot throughout the year, and marriage equality, unfathomable just three years ago, became almost routine.  During Pride, the Mayor officiated the first mass same-sex weddings to loud cheers by hundreds of family members, friends and onlookers.  This joy of marriage equality spread across the country as the year closed with 18 states and D.C. legalizing same-sex marriages.

We also celebrated the announced retirement of state delegate Emmett C. Burns, Jr. and the political ruination of fellow homophobe delegate Donald H. Dwyer, Jr. who did little during their terms other than attempt to block progress on LGBT rights.

While delivering the State of the Union Address in January, President Obama became the first president in U.S. history who called for equal rights for gays.  That indicated we had clearly turned the corner in the debate over LGBT rights.  This was followed by a parade of elected and other officials across the country publicly favoring marriage equality.

The biggest news on the marriage front was the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in June that struck down Section 3 of DOMA.  By doing so the Court paved the way for the federal government to recognize legally wed same-sex couples, which would, among a plethora of rights and benefits, entitle couples to file taxes jointly and receive such federal benefits as Social Security and veterans pensions.

The U.S. Senate made history with its bipartisan vote on a trans-inclusive ENDA—the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act.  President Obama already said he would immediately sign the bill into law if the House approves it.

Of course, not everything was so rosy.  By a vote of 6-5, the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee struck down SB 449—a measure that would have provided protections in employment, housing and public accommodations on the basis of gender identity or expression—thus killing the bill for the 2013 legislative session.

All things considered and recognizing there is a ton of work to do in the way of HIV/AIDS prevention, LGBT homelessness, transgender non-discrimination at the state level, bullying, hate crimes and other issues, this was a very good year—particularly for gays and lesbians. 

But will 2014 offer reasons for jubilation?  Sadly, no.

We all like to view any New Year through the lens of unfiltered optimism.  I sure do.  But there is that pesky thing called reality that manages to be the skunk at the picnic.  Some years are better than others, but there is little cause for unbridled optimism in 2014.

On the positive side, we will see several new states join in the marriage equality parade.  New Mexico, Oregon even Pennsylvania and Ohio could legalize same-sex marriage through various means.  Certainly, the Supreme Court ruling has provided clarity and precedence for future discrimination cases brought before lower courts.  This could be a major story.

On the other side of the ledger ENDA most assuredly will not be brought up during 2014, not with elections taking place in November and Republican incumbents fear of being “primaried” for not being more like the Tea Party voters. Still kowtowing to that faction, Speaker John Boehner said he will not allow a vote (even though head counters say it would pass) because there is “no basis or need” for federal employment nondiscrimination protections.

At the state level, transgender non-discrimination legislation is not likely either given that it’s an election year.  This looks like it would have to wait until 2015 when the chances for passage would seem brighter.  With a shift in the make-up of the Judicial Proceedings Committee by Senate President Miller or one of the members changing his/her mind, the bill could get through and pass in both chambers.  A targeted strategy directed towards the JPR and/or Miller is really what’s needed to make the bill a law.  But again, being an election year complicates matters.

The upcoming year should not be totally dismal for LGBT folks because so much could happen either way.  Nonetheless, progress on key issues will be stalled.  There were surprises in 2013 and we could see some more—good or bad—this time around.

One thing I believe will occur is that there will be interesting developments in at least one major LGBT organization in 2014.  Stay tuned, and have a Happy New Year.

The Stench of Racism Fills the Air

Like so many else, I was outraged at the verdict that freed George Zimmerman in the murder of Trayvon Martin.  Though the verdict itself was a heartbreak for all of us who believed that an innocent, unarmed teenager was gunned down by a racial-profiling vigilante and was not punished, I was not surprised at the outcome given Florida’s gun laws and that a second degree murder or manslaughter case could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 

I was also not surprised (but angry nonetheless) that the prosecution gave a less than robust performance in an effort to at least send Zimmerman up the river for manslaughter.  They failed to effectively poke holes in Zimmerman’s story that his using a handgun was in self-defense and that his life was truly in danger.  I’ll never believe it.

But what infuriated me most was the reaction to the verdict that brought out racists who hide behind the anonymity of a keyboard to spew their vitriol all over the blogosphere, social media and elsewhere.  You see, Zimmerman was perfectly justified, in their view, not because he “stood his ground” or that his life was somehow in danger at the hands of an unarmed 17 year-old.  They rejoiced at the acquittal because Trayvon deserved it. 
After all, he was a young black male, wearing a hoodie that fateful evening and seemed suspicious.  They say he was a drug addict because he had previously smoked marijuana; that burglar tools were once found on him along with possessing stolen women’s jewelry.  And that he was a thug.

Translation: Trayvon was black so he must have been guilty of something.  Blame the victim; it’s his fault for appearing “suspicious.” Why are the liberals anguishing over this incident when there is so much black-on-black crime, they reason.  It’s pathetic.

The racists also chomped at the bit to vilify their favorite targets:  Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama.  They’re the villains here, not the white-Hispanic George Zimmerman.  

Then there is Trayvon’s phone pal Rachel Jeantel, whom TIME columnist Joe Klein described as one who stoked “every white racist’s fantasy about the limitations of black people.”

Racism has reared its ugly head once again, and it doesn’t look like it’s going away soon while other forms of bigotry have changed course. 

We have witnessed homophobia lessening over time though it is still dangerously out there.  People have gradually evolved towards acceptance of LGBT folks even on same-sex marriage, the ultimate frontier.  

As an increasing number of LGBT people come out, they become the faces of gay rather than some abstract image. More people now than ever before, according to surveys, know at least one LGBT individual personally.  Family members, co-workers, neighbors, friends—all see LGBT folks in a different light and it’s usually positive. 

Racism is another matter.  You can’t come out as “black” to change ingrained perceptions.  

America has a long, sad history of racism.  With the election of our first African-American president, we all were duped into thinking our country had finally moved forward.  Wrong!  Instead, the opposite occurred.  We took a giant leap backward.

During the 2008 campaign we saw these racists climbing out from under their rocks.  It didn’t improve much in 2012.  “Socialist,” they yelled.  “Terrorist.”  They assumed that Mr. Obama would be taking their money and handing it over to black America.  The obdurate opposition to the Affordable Care Act is based on the same misinformation and prejudice-laden rage: white folks will have to cough over more of their hard earned money so that black people can get health care.

The nauseating endless quest to have the president prove he was born in the U.S. is yet another example.  The constant belittling him over everything—refusing to give him his due credit and blaming him for all of the world’s ills—is largely race-based.  The so-called “patriots” who supposedly love our country would rather it fall into an economic abyss than to make compromises as a component of governance. 

In short, the racists strive to defeat the president at every turn no matter the issue.  They want to ensure that the U.S. should never again make the mistake of electing a black president.  Of course, not all of the opponents of the president are racists but all the racists are opponents of the president.

The Supreme Court’s ruling that gutted a key part of the Voting Rights Act is more evidence of racism.  Immediately, several states moved to toughen their voting laws to make sure blacks and other minorities are disenfranchised. The House Republicans’ removal of the Food Stamps program from the Farm Bill is a further example because to them, only blacks receive the aid. 

Then the trial of George Zimmerman reinforced all the racists fears including the liberal media, the bleeding hearts who ignore crimes committed by African-Americans, you name it.  In the age of online anonymity, they surface and freely say what they truly believe.

Folks, we are moving backward, and the stench of racism is suffocating all of us.  Perhaps Washington Post columnist and MSNBC commentator Jonathan Capehart summed it up best in a tweet related to the aftermath of the verdict:  “Reading these letters is like walking through a sewer with no shoes.”

Racism is not going away.  It’s going to take a new generation of color-blind children to grow up and reverse the course.