Monday, November 21, 2016
Trump's White House transition also aims at party unity, mending fences
President-elect Donald Trump’s White House transition effort is starting to look like a 2016 GOP presidential primary reunion, with former rival Rick Perry scheduled for talks Monday as part of an apparent effort to mend fences and build party unity ahead of Inauguration Day.
On Sunday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a primary rival-turned Trump backer, was part of a parade of officials who visited the president-elect, who moved his transition team's headquarters for the weekend from Manhattan to Trump’s private golf club in Bedminster, N.J.
The most high-profile visit this weekend was the arrival Saturday of former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who during the 2016 campaign called Trump a “fraud” and publically backed several of the other 16 major candidates whom Trump vanquished in the primary.
Trump, a first-time candidate, in turn called Romney a “choke artist” for his failed 2012 White House bid against President Obama. Both men suggested their roughly 90-minute meeting went well. But it remains unlcear whether apologies were exchanged or if Romney is interested in the secretary of state post.
“They did have some private time together, and you can ask either one of them what they talked about,” Vice President-elect Mike Pence told “Fox News Sunday.”
However, Pence did confirm the widely-held assumption that Romney is indeed being considered to run the State Department, as Trump attempts to fill dozens of Cabinet-level posts and other high-level jobs.
He also said that Trump "wants to focus out of the gate" on repealing "ObamaCare" -- a plan that new Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York acquaintance of Trump’s, told “Fox News Sunday” that he’ll strongly oppose.
Other contenders for secretary of state are said to be former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who met with Trump on Thursday.
Trump on Saturday also met with retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, a possible candidate for defense secretary. He later said on Twitter that Mattis was “very impressive” and called him a “true General's General!"
Also Sunday, Trump met with billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, a possible secretary of commerce; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who is also purportedly in the running for secretary of state; and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
Kobach served as an adviser to the Trump campaign on immigration issues and has a background in designing laws cracking down people who are here illegally.
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a finalist in the hard-fought GOP primary, last week visited Trump at Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan.
“I think we had a very good and productive conversation about how we can work together to really deliver on the promises made to people,” Cruz said afterward on Fox News’ “Fox & Friends.”
On Friday, Trump picked Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions for attorney general and Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo to head the CIA, signaling a sharp rightward shift in U.S. security policy as he begins to form his Cabinet.
Trump also named retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn as his national security adviser. A former military intelligence chief, Flynn has accused the Obama administration of being too soft on terrorism and has cast Islam as a "political ideology" and driver of extremism.
Some in the media dig in against 'normalizing' Donald Trump
This is not normal.
Many in the media, mostly on the liberal side, have come up with a verb that captures their disgust at the man who will be America’s 45th president.
It’s a word that clearly signals that they will remain in opposition, in a state of perpetual outrage, that, in truth, they don’t fully accept the results of the election.
Donald Trump, they say, should not be normalized.
To be “normalized” would be to be treated as just another president-elect putting together his Cabinet and White House staff. A normalized process would involve skeptical coverage, aggressive coverage, but would fit within the template of previous transitions.
What those who decry the normalization of Barack Obama’s successor are really saying is Trump is not a legitimate president, and doesn’t deserve to be treated as such.
And the reason I find this troubling is that there’s an echo of what some opponents did to the nation’s first black president. He was unfit, he wasn’t legitimate, he was a Muslim, he wasn’t born here, and we had to “take back our country”—that became a very common rallying cry.
But somehow it’s now okay to say that Trump isn’t normal?
Look, I get that Trump was part of a divisive and polarizing campaign, and that some Hispanics, blacks, Muslims, women and others felt insulted by his candidacy. No one’s saying they suddenly have to love the guy.
But Trump won the election fair and square, despite his sometimes inflammatory tone. Sixty million Americans voted for him. For those who were angry when Mitch McConnell said his top priority was to defeat Obama, doesn’t Trump deserve a shot at a normal presidency? Don’t we all have a stake in his success?
That doesn’t mean refraining from criticizing his policies or personnel picks. But does aggressively covering a president in the same fashion as previous presidents really amount to normalizing him?
Slate is a leader in the non-normalization camp:
“When Donald Trump won the presidency, our vocabularies didn’t bulge to accommodate the reality that this ignorant geyser of hate had ascended to the world’s yugest leadership position. We’re left pressing the same worn-out words into service, paradoxically reminding each other: This is not normal.
"In an essay for the New York Times Magazine, Teju Cole wrote, of the days following Trump’s win, ‘All around were the unmistakable signs of normalization in progress. So many were falling into line without being pushed. It was happening at tremendous speed, like a contagion.’ David Remnick told CNN, ‘We’ve normalized [the results] already. Less than a week after the election is over, suddenly Washington is going about its business talking about who’s going to get what jobs. You would think that Mitt Romney had won. It’s a hallucination.’… ‘He is not normal,’ insisted John Oliver over the weekend. ‘He is abnormal.’ Shouts of ‘normalization’ have become normalized.
“The frame we’re putting around the president-elect emphasizes how freakishly outside the mainstream his views and behavior lie. That’s useful, up to a point. But in appealing to what’s typical rather than what’s right or true, we’re missing an opportunity to make a stronger statement. Trump himself aims to center white men as ‘normal’ and push everyone else to the periphery.”
Ah, now we get to the real agenda: It’s racial. It’s about putting white men back in charge and the hell with everyone else.
Salon is on the same page: “Oprah Winfrey, in an interview with Entertainment Tonight, said Trump’s recent visit to the White House gave her ‘hope’ and suggested he has been ‘humbled’ by the experience. The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins told his readers to ‘calm down’ and that Trump wasn’t the ‘worst thing.’ His college, Nouriel Roubini, insisted the Oval Office will ‘tame’ Trump. People magazine ran a glowing profile of Trump and his wife Melania (though a former People writer accused Trump of sexual assault).
The New York Times’ Nick Kristof dubiously added that we should ‘Grit our teeth and give Trump a chance.’ The mainstays—Washington Post, New York Times and CNN—while frequently critical, are coving Trump’s transition as they would any other. President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have all issued statements recognizing Trump’s legitimacy and pleading we give him a chance.
“Overall there’s a creeping sense that we’re stuck with Trump and we should make it ‘work’ in some type of do-goody liberal appeal to patriotism.
“But this is wrong, both tactically and ethically. Trump isn’t normal and he should never be treated as such, regardless of what President Obama and Clinton and Sanders say.”
Wow. Even saying give the guy a chance is considered a failure. Who appointed Salon as the arbiter of normality?
The Boston Globe’s Renee Graham views Trump more as a vessel:
“Ever since the election that shook up the world, one refrain in columns, commentaries, and social media posts has been incessant: ‘Now that Donald Trump is the president-elect, we cannot allow him to be normalized.’ It’s a defiant, noble stance, but it overlooks a very crucial point: Had racism, bigotry, and sexism not been normalized for centuries, Trump would not be weeks away from becoming the 45th president of the United States.
“Make no mistake: Trump’s election is as disastrous as an Old Testament plague. His election has sparked anger and anxiety, driving thousands nationwide into the streets in protest. Between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. last Wednesday, when Trump’s victory was inevitable, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline recorded a 250 percent spike in calls. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate crimes, has logged more than 200 reports of harassment and intimidation since Election Day.”
And this is Trump’s fault? This is the same kind of circular reasoning that tried to blame Ferguson on Obama.
From the right, National Review's Jonah Goldberg says it's the mainstream media that normalized Trump during the primaries:
"Trump was good for ratings ... The mainstream media and numerous liberal pundits loved Trump’s impact on the GOP for the same reason bored teenagers like to throw lit matches into dumpsters: Garbage fires are fun to watch. The third reason is closely related to the second: The media thought Trump was more likely lose to Hillary Clinton."
How'd that work out for them?
If Donald Trump, with no political experience, rises to the height of the office and can compromise with competing factions, he will be a successful president. If Trump does not, his administration will fail to live up to his promises. That, to my mind, is a more normal outlook than insisting that the country just elected an abnormal businessman.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
Many in the media, mostly on the liberal side, have come up with a verb that captures their disgust at the man who will be America’s 45th president.
It’s a word that clearly signals that they will remain in opposition, in a state of perpetual outrage, that, in truth, they don’t fully accept the results of the election.
Donald Trump, they say, should not be normalized.
To be “normalized” would be to be treated as just another president-elect putting together his Cabinet and White House staff. A normalized process would involve skeptical coverage, aggressive coverage, but would fit within the template of previous transitions.
What those who decry the normalization of Barack Obama’s successor are really saying is Trump is not a legitimate president, and doesn’t deserve to be treated as such.
And the reason I find this troubling is that there’s an echo of what some opponents did to the nation’s first black president. He was unfit, he wasn’t legitimate, he was a Muslim, he wasn’t born here, and we had to “take back our country”—that became a very common rallying cry.
But somehow it’s now okay to say that Trump isn’t normal?
Look, I get that Trump was part of a divisive and polarizing campaign, and that some Hispanics, blacks, Muslims, women and others felt insulted by his candidacy. No one’s saying they suddenly have to love the guy.
But Trump won the election fair and square, despite his sometimes inflammatory tone. Sixty million Americans voted for him. For those who were angry when Mitch McConnell said his top priority was to defeat Obama, doesn’t Trump deserve a shot at a normal presidency? Don’t we all have a stake in his success?
That doesn’t mean refraining from criticizing his policies or personnel picks. But does aggressively covering a president in the same fashion as previous presidents really amount to normalizing him?
Slate is a leader in the non-normalization camp:
“When Donald Trump won the presidency, our vocabularies didn’t bulge to accommodate the reality that this ignorant geyser of hate had ascended to the world’s yugest leadership position. We’re left pressing the same worn-out words into service, paradoxically reminding each other: This is not normal.
"In an essay for the New York Times Magazine, Teju Cole wrote, of the days following Trump’s win, ‘All around were the unmistakable signs of normalization in progress. So many were falling into line without being pushed. It was happening at tremendous speed, like a contagion.’ David Remnick told CNN, ‘We’ve normalized [the results] already. Less than a week after the election is over, suddenly Washington is going about its business talking about who’s going to get what jobs. You would think that Mitt Romney had won. It’s a hallucination.’… ‘He is not normal,’ insisted John Oliver over the weekend. ‘He is abnormal.’ Shouts of ‘normalization’ have become normalized.
“The frame we’re putting around the president-elect emphasizes how freakishly outside the mainstream his views and behavior lie. That’s useful, up to a point. But in appealing to what’s typical rather than what’s right or true, we’re missing an opportunity to make a stronger statement. Trump himself aims to center white men as ‘normal’ and push everyone else to the periphery.”
Ah, now we get to the real agenda: It’s racial. It’s about putting white men back in charge and the hell with everyone else.
Salon is on the same page: “Oprah Winfrey, in an interview with Entertainment Tonight, said Trump’s recent visit to the White House gave her ‘hope’ and suggested he has been ‘humbled’ by the experience. The Guardian’s Simon Jenkins told his readers to ‘calm down’ and that Trump wasn’t the ‘worst thing.’ His college, Nouriel Roubini, insisted the Oval Office will ‘tame’ Trump. People magazine ran a glowing profile of Trump and his wife Melania (though a former People writer accused Trump of sexual assault).
The New York Times’ Nick Kristof dubiously added that we should ‘Grit our teeth and give Trump a chance.’ The mainstays—Washington Post, New York Times and CNN—while frequently critical, are coving Trump’s transition as they would any other. President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have all issued statements recognizing Trump’s legitimacy and pleading we give him a chance.
“Overall there’s a creeping sense that we’re stuck with Trump and we should make it ‘work’ in some type of do-goody liberal appeal to patriotism.
“But this is wrong, both tactically and ethically. Trump isn’t normal and he should never be treated as such, regardless of what President Obama and Clinton and Sanders say.”
Wow. Even saying give the guy a chance is considered a failure. Who appointed Salon as the arbiter of normality?
The Boston Globe’s Renee Graham views Trump more as a vessel:
“Ever since the election that shook up the world, one refrain in columns, commentaries, and social media posts has been incessant: ‘Now that Donald Trump is the president-elect, we cannot allow him to be normalized.’ It’s a defiant, noble stance, but it overlooks a very crucial point: Had racism, bigotry, and sexism not been normalized for centuries, Trump would not be weeks away from becoming the 45th president of the United States.
“Make no mistake: Trump’s election is as disastrous as an Old Testament plague. His election has sparked anger and anxiety, driving thousands nationwide into the streets in protest. Between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. last Wednesday, when Trump’s victory was inevitable, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline recorded a 250 percent spike in calls. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate crimes, has logged more than 200 reports of harassment and intimidation since Election Day.”
And this is Trump’s fault? This is the same kind of circular reasoning that tried to blame Ferguson on Obama.
From the right, National Review's Jonah Goldberg says it's the mainstream media that normalized Trump during the primaries:
"Trump was good for ratings ... The mainstream media and numerous liberal pundits loved Trump’s impact on the GOP for the same reason bored teenagers like to throw lit matches into dumpsters: Garbage fires are fun to watch. The third reason is closely related to the second: The media thought Trump was more likely lose to Hillary Clinton."
How'd that work out for them?
If Donald Trump, with no political experience, rises to the height of the office and can compromise with competing factions, he will be a successful president. If Trump does not, his administration will fail to live up to his promises. That, to my mind, is a more normal outlook than insisting that the country just elected an abnormal businessman.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET). He is the author of five books and is based in Washington. Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.
Obama says he'll speak out against Trump if he thinks US ideals are at risk
LIMA, Peru – President Barack Obama said Sunday he doesn't intend to become his successor's constant critic -- but reserved the right to speak out if President-elect Donald Trump or his policies breach certain "values or ideals."
Offering a rare glimpse into his thoughts on his post-presidency, Obama suggested once he was out of office he would uphold the tradition of ex-presidents stepping aside quietly to allow their successors space to govern. He heaped praise on former President George W. Bush, saying he "could not have been more gracious to me when I came in" and said he wanted to give Trump the same chance to pursue his agenda "without somebody popping off" at every turn.
But Obama suggested there may be limits to his silence.
"As an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle or go to core questions about our values and ideals, and if I think that it's necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, I'll examine it when it comes," Obama told reporters.
Obama, who has consistently praised Bush for the way he's handled his ex-presidency, faces a conundrum about how to handle his own. Though he's vowed to ensure a smooth handover of power, Obama is keenly aware he's being replaced by a new president whose views on many issues are antithetical to his own.
The president spoke out vigorously throughout the campaign against Trump's calls for banning Muslim immigrants, deporting millions of people living in the U.S. illegally, reinstituting waterboarding, repealing "Obamacare" and canceling the Paris climate deal, to name a few. Those policy proposals and others like them have stoked fear for many Americans who oppose Trump and are hoping that vehement opposition from Obama and other Democrats might prevent Trump from implementing them.
Yet Obama suggested that while he might not always hold his tongue, his goal wasn't to spend his time publicly disparaging the next president.
"My intention is to, certainly for the next 2 months, just finish my job," Obama said. "And then after that, to take Michelle on vacation, get some rest, spend time with my girls, and do some writing, do some thinking."
Obama's remarks at a news conference in Lima offered some of his most specific indications to date of how he feels Democrats and Trump opponents should handle the next four years. Asked whether Democrats in the Senate should follow Republicans' example of refusing to even consider a Supreme Court nominee, Obama said they should not.
"You give them a hearing," said Obama, whose own Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland, has lingered for more than half a year due to the GOP's insistence that no Obama nominee be considered. Obama said he certainly didn't want Democrats to adopt that tactic spearheaded this year by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
"That's not why the American people send us to Washington, to play those games," Obama said.
He declined to weigh in explicitly on whether House Democrats should stick with Rep. Nancy Pelosi as minority leader, arguing it was improper to meddle in the vote. But he said of the California Democrat, who faces a challenge for the leadership post: "I cannot speak highly enough of Nancy Pelosi."
Obama's remarks came as he concluded his final world tour as president. For Obama, it was the last time he'd take questions on foreign soil, a staple of his overseas trips that his administration has seen as an important symbol of America's commitment to a rigorous free press.
Obama said he'd avoided ethical scandals by trying to follow the spirit, not just the letter, of the law, and suggested Trump would be wise to follow his example about conflicts of interest. Though he declined to explicitly offer Trump advice, Obama said he'd been served well by selling his assets and investing them in Treasury bills.
"It simplified my life," Obama said. "I did not have to worry about the complexities of whether a decision that I made might even inadvertently benefit me."
Good government advocates have criticized Trump's decision not to liquidate his sprawling business interests, but put them in a blind trust entrusted to his children, who are playing major roles in helping him form his administration and are expected to remain involved in one capacity or another.
On his final day in Peru, Obama chatted briefly with Russian President Vladimir Putin about Ukraine and the Syria crisis. The four-minute conversation, likely the leaders' last face-to-face interaction, came amid intense speculation and concern about whether Trump's election might herald a more conciliatory U.S. approach to Russia
Putin, speaking later in Lima, said he and Obama had noted that while their working relationship had been difficult, they'd "always respected each other's positions -- and each other."
"I thanked him for the years of joint work, and said that at any time, if he considers it possible and will have the need and desire, we will be happy to see him in Russia," Putin said later.
Questions about Trump trailed Obama throughout his final overseas trip, as anxious world leaders quizzed him on Trump's stances on key issues like trade, foreign policy and the NATO alliance. Obama sought to reassure Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other leaders gathered in Peru that their longstanding ties with the U.S. wouldn't falter under Trump.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
What's the role of government? To one award-winning academic, it's discrimination according to race. On February 9th, Mic...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...