Donald Trump's Delaying Problem is Troubling

At this point Trump seems to have a lock on the Republican party presidential nomination. He's a great showman, businessman, and has large sweeping ideas. The problem is that he paints with a broad brush. He has yet to indicate how he will implement those plans. Thoughtful voters want to see substance, not delaying tactics.

And there's the rub. When questioned on almost any issue his typical response is something like, "We're working on it." Or, "I'm not ready to release that information but trust me, it's going to be HUGE."

One might remember from a previous campaign long ago in 1984 when Walter Mondale used the phrase, "Where's the beef?" in a challenge of substance against rival candidate Gary Hart. Some of the more skeptical voters would like to ask that of The Donald. It's that time in the campaign to reveal some real substance.

There are some things that voters expect from candidates, such as the release of medical records, education records, and tax returns. After all, when you get down to brass tacks, an election campaign is essentially an extended job interview. The voters sit in the hiring seat.

Trump has been declining to reveal his tax returns. "Either he's not as anywhere near as wealthy as he says he is or he hasn't been paying the kind of taxes we would expect him to pay, or perhaps he hasn't been giving money to the vets or to the disabled like he's been telling us he's been doing," Mitt Romney said on Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto."

This is troubling because if elected he will have a large say in how tax money is spent, even though spending originates from the House. All we know at this point is that he has indulged himself in bankruptcies to protect his interests from failing business interests.

According to Newsmax.com, "Earlier this month, Trump told John Dickerson on CBS' Face the Nation that he plans on releasing his tax returns "over the next three, four months." The problem with that is by that time the hiring process will be locked down. Convenient.

Where's the beef, Donald?

Is Louis Farrakhan the Ultimate Bigot?

There are a number of purveyors of racial hate or as they are often referred to as "poverty pimps." They include such notable figures as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. However, Louis Farrakhan (his real name was Louis Eugene Wolcott) may be the most damaging of all.

He recently called for the black citizens of Detroit to redevelop the city. Note that he only calls on blacks to participate, not whites. He says he wants the city to become the "new Mecca." Not only is he divisive about race, but also on religion. It sounds like only black Muslims are invited to participate in his urban renewal plan.

He goes on to disrespect professional basketball players, comparing them to slaves. It is hard to see how a talented, hard-working athlete who pulled himself up by his bootstraps and is finally making a huge salary through hard work is a slave. But this is the professional hate mantra; pull down the high achievers.

If this man truly has leadership qualities in areas other than fund-raising, he should commit them to uniting the races and encouraging successful lives, not the opposite.

Madeleine Albright's and Gloria Steinem's Comments don't Help Hillary

Hillary Clinton's campaign for president has been losing steam even as contender Bernie Sanders has been picking up steam. There are many factors involved but two recent ones are statements made by her feminist supporters.

Take Madeleine Albright, for example. Albright was the first female Secretary of state under President Bill Clinton in December of 1996 and was confirmed the following January.

At a recent rally, Albright said, “We can tell our story of how we climbed the ladder, and a lot of you younger women think it’s done,” Ms. Albright said of the broader fight for women’s equality. “It’s not done. There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other!”

At the time, Hillary hooted in appreciation with the rest of the crowd, but must have been advised by her team later how wrong that was to do because she is now trying to walk it back. She later said, “I think what she was trying to do, what she’s done in every setting I’ve ever seen her in going back 20-plus years, was to remind young women, particularly, that you know, this struggle, which many of us have been part of, is not over.”

That's a logical explanation for another scenario but in this context and setting it just doesn't work. This was a presidential candidate rally. The credentials for the office of president don't include gender and inferring that women who don't vote for Hillary are going to hell is, well, just a bit creepy. The actual credentials are who is most qualified for the job; it's really not based on the difference between Hillary's and Bernie's physical characteristics. But to infer that it is is not resonating with young women voters.



Gloria Steinem's comments on the other hand on the Bill Maher show were, "When you're young, you're thinking, 'Where are the boys?' The boys are with Bernie," seeming to imply, as reported at www.nydailynews.com that "young women are supporting Democratic presidential wannabe Bernie Sanders for only one reason — to meet boys."

While that may be true in some cases, making a blanket statement like that trivializes young women and is likely to drive them away from Hillary.

The bottom line is that although Hillary is making her own problems and trying to suppress old ones, a campaign based on feminism is not helped by outspoken feminists adding fuel to the fire. If she wants to keep her base and her message she needs to find some way to rein them in.