Tag Archives: Colbert King

Black Votes Matter — A LOT!

Posted on by under Election 2024, Global Issues, Law and justice, Political commentary, voting rights

Although next year’s election is 346 days away, it is on all of our minds and is likely to be the hot topic in the news for the duration of that time.  Never before in our lifetime has so much hinged on the outcome of one single election.  I wish it weren’t so, I wish we could set it aside until late September of next year, but the reality is we cannot afford to.  Colbert King wrote a good analysis of it in The Washington Post yesterday that I’d like to share with you.  Pay particular attention to his analysis of how Black votes would have likely changed the outcome of the 2016 election.

Trump won’t need more Black votes. He just needs Black voters to stay home again.

By Colbert King

24 November 2023

When we sat down for dinner Thursday, I silently gave thanks that Donald Trump is not president of the United States.

My Thanksgiving Day invocation was inspired by remembrance of Trump’s dreadful presidency. But also by all the mean and ugly things he has said and done — along with his democracy-threatening actions — since his rejection by voters in the 2020 presidential election. (I think attempting to overturn a presidential election qualifies as antidemocratic.)

As a fourth-generation Washingtonian, I’m especially thankful that Trump isn’t in the White House. A vengeful Trump has called for a federal takeover of the District, which he regards as a “dirty, crime-ridden death trap.”

Why else am I thankful Trump’s not in the White House? He has publicly disclosed that if elected, he would consider weaponizing the federal government against those who would oppose his reign. He’s also made it known that he wants to strip career federal employees of civil service protections, to abolish the Education Department and to see more teachers trained to carry concealed weapons.

Trump’s thoughts on the NATO alliance and aid to Ukraine are life preservers to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

There are good and sufficient reasons to be thankful that Trump is running only his mouth, and not the government.

But where will we be in our Thanksgiving Day thoughts next year?

Will we be lifting prayers of thanks because Trump’s current bid for the presidency ultimately failed? Or will we be glumly staring at our plates, bemoaning the fate that awaits us after he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2025?

In whose hands rests the answer? The best place to start is with those most responsible for deciding next year’s presidential election.

President Biden is a seasoned politician, but he might be sizing up the Trump situation all wrong.

Criticizing Trump for bragging on the stump about killing Roe v. Wade, Biden said: “Let’s be clear: The only reason a fundamental right has been stripped away from the American people for the first time in American history is because of Trump.”

Not accurate.

Trump was able to nominate the conservative Supreme Court justices who took a knife to Roe, and also struck down affirmative action programs a year later, because turnout among key Democratic voting blocs fell in the 2016 election, dooming Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the electoral college. Voters who skipped the balloting helped Trump make good on his word.

Trump did as president what he signaled as candidate. I wrote in a September 2016 column, less than two months before Election Day, “Examine [Trump’s] frightening list of right-wing court nominees. Install a Trump White House and say farewell to civil liberties, voting rights, consumer rights and reproductive rights.”

Numbers tell the story.

In 2016, the Black voter turnout rate in a presidential election declined for the first time in 20 years. At 59.6 percent, it was seven percentage points below the 2012 level, the largest decline on record for Black voters. But note well, Barack Obama was on the ballot in 2012 and 2008.

Obama got the turnout. In 2016, Clinton got the shoulder.

She did roll up, as expected, majorities in Black strongholds across the country. But Black voter turnout wasn’t there for her in states where it mattered most.

Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes. But 277,000 eligible Black people didn’t vote. He won Wisconsin by 23,000 votes, but 93,000 eligible Black voters did not cast ballots. Trump’s 200,000-vote win in Georgia was helped when 530,000 eligible Black voters did not vote. Trump slipped by in North Carolina by a margin of 173,000 votes, while 233,000 Black voters stayed home. Much the same in Pennsylvania, which Trump won by 44,000 votes.

Who knew that better than Trump? Being Trump, he couldn’t just accept the unwarranted help and keep his mouth shut. He attended a mostly White victory rally in Hershey, Pa., in December 2016 and taunted: “They didn’t come out to vote for Hillary. They didn’t come out. And that was a big — so thank you to the African American community.”

Now, Trump’s 2016 campaign was helped by the heaps of negative ads about Clinton targeted to Black Americans by both his campaign and Russian interference in the election — well documented by the Mueller report.

That bit of history gets us back to the question: In whose hands rests the answer to the outcome of next year’s presidential election?

The voters, of course. But as with previous elections, Black voters in important battleground states are a key voting bloc and essential to the Democratic ticket.

And we are hearing echoes of the 2016 Clinton disaster. Flagging enthusiasm amid complaints that Democratic standard-bearer Biden, who can’t help it that he’s not Obama, is a bland motivator who has yet to meet all the Black community’s basic needs.

There’s little talk about a president hamstrung by a closely divided Senate, an extremist Republican House and a 24/7 opposition messaging campaign aimed at discouraging voting for someone of Biden’s age and political moderation. And not much serious thought is being given to the reactionary Republican candidates — as was true in 2016.

Will it work again?

We’ll know by next Thanksgiving.

The Irony Of It All …

Posted on by under Political commentary

Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced that Trump is considering revoking security clearances of certain former members of the intelligence community.  Why?  Because they have criticized Trump and his handling of the Helsinki summit.  In other words … awwww, he got his itty bitty feelings hurted.

This whole thing would be funny, except for the principle that Trump is retaliating against political speech, a frightening first sign of a dictatorship in the making.  Laughably, two of the people whose clearances he plans to revoke no longer even retain security clearances, but apparently he didn’t have time to check his facts before opening his mouth, nor did his communications staff.  The clearances he says he plans to revoke are:

  • Former CIA director John O. Brennan
  • Former FBI director James B. Comey
  • Former CIA director Michael V. Hayden
  • Former national security adviser Susan E. Rice
  • Former director of national intelligence James R. Clapper Jr.
  • Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe.

Comey and McCabe lost their security clearances because they were terminated from their positions.  The other four retain security clearances, so that they can be called upon for their expertise and advice.  To revoke the security clearances of these people, all highly knowledgeable and experienced in their fields, seems to me a bit like shooting yourself in the foot.  According to Sanders’ statement …

“The president is exploring the mechanisms to remove security clearance because they politicize and in some cases monetize their public service and security clearances. Making baseless accusations of improper contact with Russia or being influenced by Russia against the president is extremely inappropriate, and the fact that people with security clearances are making these baseless charges provides inappropriate legitimacy to accusations with zero evidence.”

Baseless accusations? Zero evidence?  Did she really say ‘zero evidence’???  Oh My Sainted Aunt!!!  There is overwhelming evidence that there has been highly ‘improper conduct’ with Russia by Trump and his staff!!!  Where have you been keeping yourself, Ms. Sanders?

Security-clearance experts said while Trump probably does have the authority to unilaterally suspend or terminate a security clearance, no president has ever done so. Words and actions protected by the First Amendment aren’t grounds to take a clearance away, they said. “It is completely inappropriate to revoke or withdraw someone’s security clearance based on political differences,” said Mark Zaid, an attorney who represents government employees in security-clearance disputes.  And that is the part I find frightening.

But there’s an irony here, too:  Trump himself would never qualify for even a low-level security clearance!  Taken straight from the State Department’s own website:

“It must be determined that the individual’s personal and professional history indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and a willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information.”laughing-2

Strength of character?  Trustworthiness?  HONESTY???  Sound judgement?  Now, I ask you, folks, just who ought to have his security clearance revoked?

Colbert King, who conducted  background checks for security clearances when he was with the State Department in the 1970s says …

“People with associations with foreign interests, especially large business, financial or property interests in foreign countries or with foreign-owned businesses, would get close scrutiny. That’s particularly true if those associations might subject them to a risk of foreign influence or exploitation.

A background investigation that uncovers questionable judgment, lack of candor or dishonesty draws heightened attention. So, too, the refusal to provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful questions.

Trump’s business bankruptcies, his blackballing by American banks because of his financial dealings and his unwillingness to provide his tax returns might also be grounds for unfavorable clearance action. Personal misconduct or involvement in behavior that cast doubt on judgment and character — say, paying hush money to cover up affairs or being the subject of more than a dozen sexual harassment or assault allegations — would also elevate security concerns.

That Trump, with his disqualifying record, would even consider going after someone’s security clearance is a hoot — if it weren’t so outrageous.”

The six individuals named above have more expertise, more knowledge of foreign policy and relations than Trump will ever have, which is yet one more sign of his immaturity and unfitness for the highest office in the nation.  Even his sycophants are scrambling to explain this one.  Frankly, if Paul Ryan’s explanation is an example, they are not doing a very good job of covering Trump’s rear: “I think he’s trolling people, honestly.”  Trolling people.  How very professional.

This is yet another sign that Trump is so far in over his head that he has to silence his perceived enemies.   The danger is that he doesn’t know where to stop, and that the ‘checks and balances’ are failing, as Congress continues to lick his boots and do his bidding.  What comes next?  Already, a number of agencies and departments are firing or demoting staff that have been critical of Trump.  I find this bone-chilling and keep asking the question:  What comes next?  Think about it.