John Broesamle is Emeritus Professor of History at California State University, Northridge. His books on American politics and society include Reform and Reaction in Twentieth Century American Politics, Twelve Great Clashes that Shaped Modern America: From Geronimo to George W. Bush (with Anthony Arthur), and, most recently, How American Presidents Succeed and Why They Fail: From Richard Nixon[…]
As nearly everyone on the planet knows by now, when President Trump met with legislative leaders last Thursday to discuss immigration, he referred to immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as immigrants from “shithole countries.” He singled out Haiti specifically, saying “Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out.” And lest anyone[…]
Asked on April 21 by the Associated Press whether he would sign a bill without border funding, Trump replied: “I don’t know yet. People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall. My base really wants it.” In what passes for good news, it now appears that a Continuing Resolution (CR), necessary[…]
Last weekend, beginning on Friday, provided ample opportunity for Trump watching. For many, however, Trump’s demagoguery, insufferable self-absorption and indifference to the truth made it a painful experience. The inaugural address was a demagogic tour de force, exaggerating in almost a single breath both the magnitude of the country’s problems and the new President’s capacity[…]
There has been an avalanche of commentary on the debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump reflecting a range of differing views. Hence, there seems to be little need for extensive analysis here, but we cannot resist making a few observations. In general, we agree with the media consensus: that Clinton outpointed Trump, in substance and demeanor, but failed to land any “knockout” punches. Indeed, it is hard to imagine what it would take, given the peculiar support Trump enjoys, to constitute a knockout. […]
If anyone here remembers the Fourth GOP Debate with Fox Business News on November 10, please raise your hand. Ah, that’s what we thought.
Given the passage of time, the intervening events of Islamic terrorism in Paris and Mali, the debate over refugees and the almost daily embarrassments from Donald Trump, it was inevitable the Fourth Debate would not have a lengthy shelf-life. Nevertheless, the issues raised at the debate, and the candidates’ approaches to them will continue to hover over the campaign. So perhaps it is useful to refresh some recollections to better appreciate the next debate (scheduled for December 15 in Las Vegas and to be sponsored by CNN and Salem Radio). […]
In our last blog, we were critical of the format and the performance of the moderators at the debate conducted by CNBC. Since that time there has been extensive discussion and “debate about the debate.” While numerous suggestions have been made by the candidates and various observers, most of them have been little more than tweaking. We have something a bit more radical (or “modest” in the Swiftian sense). […]
In a previous Special Bulletin, we briefly addressed the proposal made by Donald Trump (and supported in varying degrees by some other Republican candidates) to eliminate “birthright citizenship.” Birthright citizenship, as everyone must know by now refers to citizenship conferred on anyone who is born in this country without regard to the citizenship or status of his or her parents.
As noted in Blog 74, Part II, we are about to depart on vacation with plans to return in August, Before leaving, however, we wanted to say a word about Donald Trump.
We like to think that we take a realistic view of the world but we have to admit that we have been in denial on the subject of Donald Trump. We have not mentioned his candidacy in the naïve hope that it would disappear on its own. It is now clear that is not going to happen. We still believe that it is highly unlikely that Trump will become the Republican nominee, but there is an increasingly serious question as to how much embarrassment and damage he will do to the Republican Party along the way. Our answer is, too much. […]
The Senate Republicans have once again contrived to tie themselves into knots from which there appears to be no graceful escape. The nomination of Loretta Lynch, has long been held up, and is now being further delayed while the Senate struggles to resolve a debate over an anti-abortion provision in an otherwise uncontroversial bill on human trafficking—a knot within a knot.