Donald Trump: 45th President of the United States

By Mary Claire Kendall

On the morning of Wednesday, November 9th, after all the ballots have been cast, and counting done, we will wake up to learn that billionaire businessman Donald J. Trump has been elected 45th President of the United States of America.Or maybe not.

The liberal/media elite wants us to believe that the presidential race is essentially over, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the 45^th president, and, with that glass ceiling cracked, America’s troubles are over.

Clinton has consistently led in national polls. Her current Real Clear Politics Average shows her besting Trump by 5.1% in the head-to-head match-up, and 5.4% in the 4-way race.

Forget the outlier polls: LA Times Daily Tracking, Rasmussen, Investor’s Business Daily and others.

Forget the fact that, now, the margin of error for polls is plus or minus 7%, not 3%.

Forget that President Barack Obama has been a human wrecking ball, as evidenced by his:

·         Unaffordable “Affordable Care Act”;

·         Disastrous Middle East policy—the tragedy in Aleppo being compared to the Holocaust;

·         Paltry job creation record, except when it comes to secretarial, retail, food service and social worker jobs;

·         $20,000,000,000,000 debt; and

·         Some 2.5 million illegal immigrants crossing the Southern border since 2009… to name just a few salient examples.

And, forget that Hillary Clinton would represent a third term for Obama, and that over 60% of U.S. citizens believe America is on the wrong track.

Forget all this.

Hillary Clinton will win (has won) an historic landslide victory, possibly bringing along a newly Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

But, seriously, what’s a voter to believe?

Reality.   

In which regard, consider that:

·         Trump consistently beat his Real Clear Politics Average during the primaries.  In New York, he won by 7% more than the polls suggested; Pennsylvania, 10%; Rhode Island, 11%; Connecticut, 5%; Maryland, 9%; and Indiana, 11%.

·         Conventional wisdom suggests that voters are loath to admit they are voting for Trump.

·         WikiLeaks—regrettably the biggest “news” source this presidential election season—exposes inflated polls in its latest Podesta Emails release (10/23/16) in which Podesta is quoted suggesting “oversamples for polling” to “maximize what we get out of our media polling.”

·         Emerson reported on October 13 (tables tab, “Presidential Expect”) that African American support for Trump in Virginia is 41.8%; Ohio, 30.3%; and North Carolina, 23.7%; with another poll pegging their support in Florida at 20%—which would suggest a huge Trump win. 

·         Republicans are far outperforming Democrats in Florida, Michigan, and Iowa, according to early voting indicators culled by www.L2political.com.

·         Trump represents change, as most recently reflected in his 100 Day Plan to Make America Great Again presented in Gettysburg on Saturday, October 22, coincidentally the feast of Pope St. John Paul II.

Bottom Line: Ignore the national polls signaling the race is over and vote for the candidate who you think will take America in the right direction.  Hint: ‘Yes, America is heading in the wrong direction’ is winning in polls by a landslide now, which makes this year’s presidential vote essentially an IQ test.

Mary Claire Kendall is a Washington-based writer and author of Oasis: Conversion Stories of Hollywood Legends. She served four years in the George H.W. Bush Administration.

*******

This article was published in Daily Caller on Tuesday, October 25^th, two weeks before the presidential election. 

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/25/donald-trump-45th-president-of-the-united-states/

Trump: On the way to a ‘10’

With some advice, the Donald can be a knockout candidate

Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times 

By Mary Claire Kendall - - Tuesday, May 10, 2016

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

In the wake of Donald Trump’s huge win in Indiana, the shotgun wedding is complete. Republicans are hitched to “the Donald.” The honeymoon has now begun.

Well, not exactly.

The more apt analogy would be the runaway bride representing much of the Republican establishment — including, notably, former Presidents George H.W. and George W. Bush, Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mitt Romney, the latter two the party’s 2008 and 2012 presidential nominees, respectively; and, now House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Admittedly, Mr. Trump is not exactly a “10.”

But neither are his rivals in the GOP.

It’s time to recognize the moment for what it is — a great opportunity for all of us in the Republican Party to come together and see what we can do differently to be at our best.

This Thursday, our prospective presidential nominee will have a sit-down meeting in Washington. Here is some of what the establishment should tell him.

The way you warmly embrace your audiences as you did in West Virginia in your first campaign stop after Indiana, where the scene was set by John Denver’s “Country Roads,” is awe-inspiring. And your earnest pledge to “make America great again” puts a bounce in our steps.

But we need to talk about how all of that good is sometimes undermined by your habit of talking in less-than-flattering terms about certain groups of people and individuals. Sure, it’s all part of your schtick as a larger-than-life New York business mogul and reality TV star. And a certain amount of candor is refreshing.

However, it’s a new day. You’re on the path to the presidency, and certain things must change.

For starters, you need to speak more inclusively about women. They’re about 54 percent of the electorate. We have no doubt you “love women.” But your words and deeds must align so that they feel the love.

Hispanics and Muslims, too. Building a wall the entire length of the southern border to keep out the former and indiscriminately banning entry to our great country vis-a-vis the latter, are nonstarters.

And you should think about reaching out and building a bridge to Pope Francis — the word “pontiff” means “bridge builder.” Calling His Holiness a “disgrace” in the lead-up to the South Carolina primary and Super Tuesday based on incorrect reporting, while perhaps good politics, is no way to heal religious and sectarian divides.

Regarding Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and their relationship to tackling the deficit and corollary gaping debt, we agree. Our Dudley Do-Right approach might need some retooling. Nonetheless, please acknowledge the reality that, in preserving those programs, we also need to ensure our nation’s fiscal health is restored.

And do not threaten NATO. We need NATO now more than ever.

Also, regarding tax policy, your constantly shifting positions are unhelpful. If you want to be Reaganesque, stake out a position and stick with it.

We know you can be a “10” and we’ll do our part, as well. Together, under your leadership, Americans will build a brighter, more secure future.

Mary Claire Kendall, a Washington-based writer, is author of Oasis: Conversion Stories of Hollywood. She served in the George H.W. Bush administration.

 ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE WASHINGTON TIMES.

It’s Not Whether You Win or Lose…

By Mary Claire Kendall 

This piece was originally published in The Daily Caller on May 2, 2016 at 4:19 PM EST. Since then, Senator Ted Cruz has lost in Indiana and suspended his campaign. 

Donald Trump’s trouncing in the Acela primary — including in the bluer than blue liberal bastions of Pennsylvania, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Delaware, with 58.1, 56.5, 59, 64.7 and 62.6 percent of the vote, respectively — does not a nomination make.

It’s going to be a liberal-conservative smack-down in the state of Indiana this coming Tuesday as Republican voters try and make heads or tails of this dizzying race.

As if to underscore the point, in the wake of his Acela losses, Ted Cruz, winner of 9 states to Trump’s 27, picked conservative businesswoman Carly Fiorina as his Vice Presidential running mate.

A Cruz-Fiorina Indiana win would give the delegates the power to decide, at the convention, which candidate would be strongest against, presumably, Hillary Clinton in the fall. (The answer is not obvious. Trump, while engaging and guided by common sense, would, polls suggest, get clobbered by Hillary. Cruz, while young, brash and loathed by the establishment, is as brilliant as Abe Lincoln, and as skilled a debater.)

It’s as the founders intended it.

Wisely, our forebears built protections into the system to guard against someone ascending to power who does not quite have the qualities needed to steer the ship of state deftly.

Initially, the protections were seal-tight. Presidential candidates of national parties were chosen by Members of Congress. Period.

Then, in 1831, the era of conventions began when the small Anti-Masonic Party held the first such gathering.

The following year, the two national parties, Whigs and Democrats, adopted this new model and selected, respectively, Henry Clay of Kentucky and Andrew Jackson of Tennessee as their nominees. When all was said and done, Jackson ascended to the presidency bringing with him his mud-caked, unruly, and enthusiastic supporters. It was a great moment for American democracy. But, in fact, his band of followers were not the ones who had actually elected him. Rather, it was the electors, as established in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. And, I quote:

“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.”

Electors sometimes upend the popular vote. Recall that in the year 2000 George W. Bush lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College and became President of the United States — just as John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Benjamin Harrison did in 1824, 1876 and 1888, respectively, dashing the hopes of Jackson, Samuel Tilden and Grover Cleveland, respectively.

For 140 years, nominating conventions elected their party’s respective presidential candidates. There were some quite dramatic moments — perhaps none as dramatic as the 1924 Democratic convention when it took 17 days and 103 ballots for the delegates to finally settle on John W. Davis as their nominee.

In 1972, everything changed.

The contentious 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago, four years earlier, had ushered in democratic reforms and the era of primaries — with hopes of giving voters more say in the choice of president.

Even so, voters were still choosing delegates, who would, in turn, choose their respective party’s presidential candidate at the nominating conventions.

It is those delegates who still have the ultimate say over who will be the party’s nominee. And, the state parties set the rules over their own delegate selection process. The national party weighs in, too. For instance, after the 1972 Democratic primary process produced the disastrous choice of George McGovern, the Democratic Party gradually instituted “Super Delegates” to ensure more electable candidates going forward. McGovern had lost 48 of 50 states, including his own state of South Dakota, while losing the popular vote in the second biggest landslide in American history.

Which brings us to the present primary season and the contest over who will be the next President of the United States.

Problem is, only one can be president. And, as Lee Atwater used to say, those who can be president occupy a little boat and there are only so many in that boat.

Which brings us to Grantland Rice’s famous line.

“It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.”

Now we are playing the biggest game in American politics. As in sports, this game has rules, which those who are truly presidential will follow with grace and class. (Robocalls to delegates threatening their well-being if they do not vote a certain way conjures up the exact opposite image.)

The stakes, in terms of realizing America’s vast potential, while mending the hole in her soul and infrastructure, to say nothing of her fiscal picture, and national security, could not be higher.

Mary Claire Kendall, a Washington-based writer, is author of Oasis: Conversion Stories of Hollywood Legends.  

Replacing the Irreplaceable Justice Antonin Scalia

By Mary Claire Kendall

Following Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death, most Senate Republicans aligned behind the idea that the next president, not President Obama, should nominate someone to fill the vacant seat. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, Pool)

Last week*, the White House, feigning accommodation with the GOP over President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, began vetting Nevada Republican Governor Brian Sandoval. Not surprisingly, Sandoval is liberal on immigration, the pivot of Obama's calculus. His amnesty proposal created a loophole for illegal immigrants to vote in November and if the Supreme Court gives it a pass, game over. (Sandoval has since pulled his name out of consideration.)  

In the wake of Justice Scalia's untimely death on February 13 (or 12), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated forthrightly that President Obama need not nominate anyone because he will not schedule a Senate hearing or vote. The country is too divided, he said, and 'we the people' must first have our say in November on the next president.

Most Republican Senators went along with that.

Then came the second thoughts.

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, though initially on board, said, according to Radio Iowa, "I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions."

Furthermore, Senator Thom Tillis said, "I think we fall into the trap if just simply say sight unseen… " But, he said, "If he puts forth someone… in the mold of President Obama's vision for America, then we'll use every device available to block that nomination." (He was speaking on the Tyler Cralle Show.)

Then Majority Leader McConnell's asserted he would not even meetwith the nominee.

But the meeting with Obama solidified Senator Grassley's stance. Waiting until the next president to fill the open seat, he said, is "a fair and reasonable choice."

It's like watching a tennis match!

If the president is sincere about wanting to work with Republicans, he should think seriously about nominating someone who was once on President Ronald Reagan's short list for the Supreme Court, who also happens to be a close friend of the late Justice Scalia.

When I spoke with Justice Scalia's grieving friend on Sunday, February 14, he told me the late great justice was his "best friend in the law" and that his death was "the worst thing for the country" at this critical time, given his pre-eminent role in preserving the values that made our country strong. There is no other, he said.

Well, almost no other.

His name is Judge Thomas J. Aquilino, Jr. He serves on the United States Court of International Trade. Born in 1939 in Mount Kisko, New York, he received his B.A. from Drew University and J.D. from Rutgers, before serving in the Army, 1962-65. A former clerk to Judge John M. Cannella, he worked in private practice in New York City and was an adjunct professor of law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

As Justice Scalia's legal soul mate and, at age 76, his peer, he would, quite naturally, be the most logical and smart nominee.

The two men met while working on the "legislative veto," which President Reagan appealed and won in 1982. Since then, their bond was unbreakable and it's safe to say, their friendship was almost like that of brothers. (Scalia was an only child.)

Judge Aquilino holds firmly to the same principles of conservative jurisprudence Justice Scalia fought for his whole life. President Reagan had considered appointing him to the same Supreme Court seat Justice Scalia ultimately filled for thirty years and subsequently nominated him to serve as a Judge on the aforementioned court, which position he held from April 1985 to December 2004, when he assumed "senior status."

On a personal note, I met Judge Aquilino while working, in 2012-13, with many friends of Reagan to save the former president's childhood home in Chicago. We were introduced by our mutual friend, the late Redd Griffin, who had championed the cause. The two had met in Germany while serving in Army intelligence. Judge Aquilino reached out to his friend "Nino," who assured him, vis-à-vis persuading the University of Chicago, where he taught law from 1977-1982, to preserve Reagan's home, that his weighing in would have the exact opposite effect. We did not save the home.

Now, more importantly, we need to save our Republic. Judge Aquilino would play a vital role in this regard, stepping in to fill his friend's seat, while the country takes a much-needed long, deep breath.  

Mary Claire Kendall, a Washington-based writer, is author of Oasis: Conversion Stories of Hollywood Legends. 

*Published in The Washington Examiner on March 3, 2016.

New Hampshire's Jump Ball

By Mary Claire Kendall

On the eve of the GOP New Hampshire primary, the picture is becoming clearer and what is emerging is the lack of a clear GOP presidential front runner, as exemplified by the latest Monmouth poll, showing Trump on top with 30%; Kasich (14%), Rubio (13%), Bush (13%), and Cruz (12%), clustered in the middle; and Christie, Fiorina and Carson, bunched at the bottom with 6, 5 and 4 percent, respectively.

While this one poll is but a snapshot in a constantly changing race, it is instructive to see how the is race tightening, where, at this point, any of the middle tier candidates could surprise by defying expectations and “win” with a second, third, or even fourth place finish. 

“Volatility is the name of the game in 2016’s first primary contest, just as it was in the first caucus state last week,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Polling Institute at Monmouth University. “While Trump’s placement as the top finisher seems fairly secure at this point, the margin of victory and final order of the remaining candidates are still very much up for grabs.”

Marco Rubio beat expectations and came in an unusually strong third in Iowa, as analyzed for Daily Caller. Donald Trump’s decision to skip the Iowa debate was a mistake, as predicted in Town Hall and was, it seems, one of the main contributing factors in Trump’s loss.

But, two days from now in New Hampshire, it seems, a whole new story will be told.

It’s the story of how, finally, the “establishment” candidates – the three governors: Jeb Bush, John Kasich, and Chris Christie – are starting to emerge as real contenders.  Saturday’s ABC debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire was replete with examples of how these candidates are fighting and fighting hard.  Monday’s Emerson poll reinforced this storyline. “Bush and Kasich have the highest favorability ratings among likely GOP primary voters,” the poll reported.  Bush, polling second place at 16% to Trump’s 31%, suggests this son and brother of two former presidents is closing in.

It’s also the story of how the first place winner in Iowa, Ted Cruz, who was establishment when establishment was cool during the George W. Bush era, now running hard as an outsider, may lose traction. 

But, more than anything, it’s the story of how long and drawn out the process of choosing a president is.  Before the New Hampshire primary, the 100th anniversary of which we celebrate this year, party bosses overtly picked the candidate in smoke-filled rooms.  No one would argue a return to those days. Just a little more predictability.  Yet, if drama is what you want, Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, like any good movie script, will not be wanting.

February 10, 2016 Postscript 

The above prognostication was fairly accurate. Trump somewhat over-performed his polls, coming in first with 35%, almost half of which came from non-Republicans. Kasich, mirroring election eve polls, had a solid second place showing with 16%. Cruz, as predicted, lost altitude, coming in third with 12%. And, Bush, in the surprise of the evening, finished fourth at 11%, beating out Marco Rubio.  Meanwhile, Carly Fiorina, garnering only 4%, suspended her campaign today. And, Chris Christie went home to New Jersey to take a time out and then announced at 4 PM, he was indeed pulling out of the race.  Needless to say, South Carolina promises even more surprises. 

Mary Claire Kendall, a Washington-based writer, is author of Oasis: Conversion Stories of Hollywood Legends.

A year from today, we will inaugurate...

... God only knows who...

Everybody will be gathered around the West Front of the Capitol, either in person -- the closer, the more important the person -- or hovered around their TV sets or computer screens, as the case may be, to watch the winner of the November 2016 election take the oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution in the process of being sworn in as the next president of the United States of America.

Ronald Wilson Reagan being sworn in as the 40th President of the United States on U.S. Capitol's West Front

Who will he or she be?

Well, I have some clues.

Every year since 1987, I have picked the candidate out of crowded campaign fields who would not only win their respective party's nomination but would go on to win the presidency.

President George H.W. Bush  (June 1987; I started working for him in August 1987.)
President William Jefferson Clinton (January 1992)
President George W. Bush (June 1998)
President Barack Obama (January 2008)

That's a pretty good record.

But, it's far too soon in this particular election cycle to divine this year's winner.

Yet, I will say: For months, I have been sensing it will be Trump. That he is sincere in his desire to "make America great again" and that he could be a good, if not a great president since the dirty little secret in Washington is all you need is good judgement, the ability to communicate and connect with voters, good advisors, whom you trust, and a deep and abiding love of America. (If it is Trump, his VP pick, perhaps the one who places or shows in most primary elections -- or maybe someone like Senator Joni Ernst -- will loom far larger than in previous years.)

But, this year there are far too many wild cards.

If you trust the polls at this point, the Democrat and Republican nominees will be respectively, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  And, Senator Sanders will be elected the 45th president of the United States.

As I say, it's far too soon.

Though, as I look out my window at the lightly snow dusted roads in Washington this evening, I realize it's not too soon to begin thinking about the perfect gown for the Inaugural Ball honoring our next president, who, God willing, will be a great one!

Jacqueline Kennedy's Inaugural Gala Gown. Ivory silk satin evening gown, designed by Oleg Cassini, 1961. Worn by the new First Lady to the Inaugural Gala.

Winning the Present with TR and Civility

Originally published in PJ Media

June 15, 2011

It might seem like an odd pairing, but what the GOP field needs is TR and civility to win the present — and defeat President Barack Obama in 2012.

TR, of course, refers to larger-than-life Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who served as president from 1901-1908, then ran on the Progressive Bull Moose ticket in 1912. While he was a rock-ribbed Republican, when theory ran afoul of doing what’s right by the little guy, he always chose the latter.

His brand of politics is perfect for slaying today’s dragons that have gutted the middle class and precipitated runaway spending.

Take, for example, housing prices. The Case-Shiller index recently revealed they’ve declined more steeply than during the Great Depression. The fact that 75% of consumers can’t even get loans to purchase a home, let alone refinance, is a big reason why.

Investment banker Christopher Whalen, whose father served in Ronald Reagan’s “kitchen cabinet,” says the way around this problem is to raise the FHA loan cap and help small and medium size banks increase lending. This would mean giving more power and money to community banks. Obama prefers letting Wall Street call the shots — in spite of its role in precipitating the 2007-08 housing meltdown — while the little guy gets slammed.

But, Republicans, Whalen says, should out-progressive Democrats and do what is right, which is TR writ large. TR basically stared down Wall Street, thus saving it from itself; so should today’s Republicans.

One hundred years after TR’s Bull Moose gambit, many in the GOP field seem well-positioned to take up his mantle.

For instance, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty emphasizes Main Street production over Wall Street consumption. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann has that “can do” spirit. And Texas Governor Rick Perry shares TR’s tough-as-nails persona.

Then there’s Mitt Romney, who, like TR, favors universal health care as the key to economic stability, signing it into law as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007).

Many conservatives deride the 2006 Massachusetts law as ObamaCare’s twin and Tea Party poison — a comparison Obama smugly reinforces. But, in fact, ObamaCare and RomneyCare are apples and oranges. Whereas ObamaCare reduces what doctors are paid; RomneyCare ensures that doctors are, in fact, paid when a patient, who could otherwise afford it, lacks insurance.

Also, as Romney underscored in Monday’s CNN debate in Manchester, RomneyCare did not raise taxes, whereas ObamaCare does — to the tune of $500 billion — in addition to shifting $500 billion out of Medicare to fund it.

Sixty-three percent of Massachusetts residents favor the law, according to a recent poll by the Harvard School of Public Health and the Boston Globe, up 10 percentage points in the past two years, with only 21 percent opposed.

And what of the “individual mandate” that makes people think RomneyCare isObamaCare?  Well, considering there’s already a federal mandate to provide ER care to anyone regardless of ability to pay, it’s pretty important to make sure docs get paid, unless you want to drive them out of business a la ObamaCare.

Where it gets tricky is that an insurance mandate only make sense if, as in the case of automobiles, having coverage doesn’t encourage crashes, whereas standard health insurance increases utilization. Also, RomneyCare does not encourage medical savings accounts and streamlined, just-the-basics insurance.

But, as Romney is at pains to say, the Massachusetts law was a state solution to a state problem. He vows to rescind cost-prohibitive, one-size-fits-all ObamaCare if elected president — granting a waiver to all 50 states on Day One.

Meanwhile, Republicans have come up with a way to obviate a “mandate” — since understandably, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea — by assessing a fee on those who don’t buy insurance to hedge against costs incurred should they fall ill or suffer injury.

But, sensing political opportunity, Romney’s Republican opponents have been pouncing on him, with Sarah Palin tut tutting the Massachusetts law in Boston one hour before Romney announced for the presidency. Gov. Pawlenty called out “ObamneyCare” because, he explained in the debate, Obama claimed RomneyCare was his “blueprint.”

The good news, though, is Monday’s debate signaled a truce of sorts.

Indeed, if Republicans hope to win the present, we must nominate a candidate who understands what ails the economy and how to cure it, of which health care is a big part. This means civility — honestly assessing opponents’ positions and presenting your own — will be critically important, lest we destroy ourselves from within. 

So, with eyes on the prize, let the race be guided by the kind of civility our great Republican presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and, yes, even TR, practiced; and inspired by TR’s overflowing common sense in making life better for the little guy, now suffering under the weight of Obamanomics.

*******

Note: I posted this article on this 2016 American Politics blog on November 7, 2012, the day after the presidential election because I thought a piece on the need for civility was in order! As it is today 40 days before the 2016 presidential election, now more than ever! -- Mary Claire Kendall