Category Archives: national news

Lynch finally confirmed as AG

The vote was 56-43.

The only reason the full U.S. Senate didn’t vote on this key appointment was that Republican Ted Cruz of Texas didn’t cast a vote. He didn’t like the nominee being considered for attorney general.

Welcome to the U.S. Justice Department, Loretta Lynch.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/239878-senate-votes-to-confirm-lynch-as-attorney-general

A number of Republicans voted to confirm Lynch, whose nomination should have been decided weeks ago. It was bogged down by the Senate Republican leadership’s insistence that it deal first with a bill that had nothing to do with Lynch’s nomination.

But she’s in. That’s good. She’s qualified and she deserved long ago to get a vote by senators on her nomination.

But here’s a curious element to the vote. One of the “no” votes came from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who said this:  “The question for me from the start has been whether Ms. Lynch will make a clean break from (President Obama’s) policies and take the department in a new direction.”

So, the chairman wants the new attorney general to break away from the policies of the president who appointed her. When has that ever happened? When has a Cabinet official ever promised to go against the individual who selected him or her?

The bogeyman for Grassley and other Republicans was Obama’s executive order on immigration that delays deportation for an estimated 5 million undocumented immigrants. He wanted her to say she opposed the order. Good luck with that one, Mr. Chairman.

But what the heck. She waited longer than any other recent Cabinet appointment to get confirmed.

Let’s hope her new job will have been worth the wait.

 

Secret Service fails ex-president

The hits just keep on coming at the Secret Service department.

Now this: It took the agency charged with protecting presidents and former presidents more than a year to repair a faulty alarm system at the Houston home of former President George H.W. Bush.

Let’s see. We’ve had agents frolicking with hookers in South America, a man busting through security at the White House, someone crashing a small helicopter on the White House lawn — and now reports of a failure to respond in a timely manner to concerns about an alarm system at the home of the 41st president of the United States.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/agents-took-13-months-to-fix-alarm-at-ex-president%e2%80%99s-home/ar-AAbxl7P

There’s more, too.

Vice President Joe Biden’s home in Delaware had its alarm system shut off indefinitely by the Secret Service because it, too, wasn’t working properly.

This is getting increasingly difficult to understand, let alone justify.

The Secret Service is charged with protecting the highest government officials in the land, namely the president and the vice president. It also protects former presidents and their families. The one notable recent exception to that was the late former President Richard Nixon, who resigned from office in August 1974 and who then hired private security officers to protect him in his family in his post-presidency years.

The rest of them, though, get — and deserve — protection from the Secret Service.

That the agency wouldn’t repair former President Bush’s home security immediately after its malfunction became known is unconscionable. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and new Secret Service director Joseph Clancy have declared security upgrades for those under the agency’s protection to be a top priority item.

Do you think?

 

Now it's Freddie Gray

The roster of African-American men whose death involving police activity keeps growing.

When does it stop? How do communities learn to deal with these crises? Have we reached a tipping point?

The latest man to die in police custody is a young fellow, Freddie Gray, whose spine was snapped while he was being held by Baltimore police.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/justice-freddie-gray-185610991.html

And the outrage has begun. As it should.

How does someone get their spine broken by police? What in the world is happening when these officers arrest someone?

* Eric Garner was choked to death by a Staten Island police officer. A grand jury decided to no-bill the officer.

* Michael Brown was shot to death by a Ferguson, Mo., officer. A grand jury there decided against an indictment.

* Trayvon Martin was killed by a neighborhood security officer, who then was acquitted of murder in a Sanford, Fla., trial.

* Walter Scott was shot to death in the back as he fled from a North Charleston, S.C., police officer, who’s now been charged with murder.

I am acutely aware that there are circumstances associated with some of these deaths, such as with Michael Brown’s conduct.

Still, we can add Freddie Gray to the list of individuals who’ve died because of police activity. And once again, parents, siblings and spouses of African-American men are going to express alarm that more men just like those who have died already will become victims of similar actions by police officers in their communities.

We’ve heard already about the need for a “national conversation” about police relations with African-American communities across the country.

Let’s keep having that conversation. Shall we?

 

Benghazi report timing is, um, dubious

This shouldn’t surprise anyone.

The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi will release its report to the world sometime in, that’s correct, 2016. That’s right smack in the midst of a presidential campaign featuring the No. 1 principal in that investigation, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who — by the way — will be running for president of the United States.

I know. You just can’t believe the timing of it all, right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/house-benghazi-report-release-2016-117231.html?hp=r3_4

The panel’s chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, had wanted to release the report no later than the end of the current year. Legal staffers, though, said they needed more time to assimilate everything and compile into a comprehensive report on what happened on Sept. 11, 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Libya.

What did happen? Some terrorists launched an attack on the consulate, a fire fight ensued and four Americans were killed, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. Clinton’s State Department has been accused of covering up key elements relating to what they knew and when they knew it. Previous findings have concluded there has been no deliberate cover-up. But the Republican-led House launched a select committee probe anyway.

This is certain to muddy Clinton’s presidential campaign, particularly if it produces a proverbial “smoking gun.”

What did she know? When did she know it? Did the secretary deliberately mislead Americans?

I’ve long thought this congressional panel already had pre-determined culpability, but was looking for the path that would reach that conclusion. Then again, I’m not in the hearts and minds of those who are conducting this investigation.

I’ll accept Chairman Gowdy’s assertion that he wanted to release the report prior to the election year.

My hope now is that we can choose the next president on the merits of their full public record, their campaign rhetoric and their pledges to lead the country toward an even brighter future.

My fear is that the Benghazi report is going to plow all of that noble intent into the ground.

 

Oops … congressman caught with assault rifle

Ken Buck is a Colorado member of Congress who, I guess, likes to be photographed with high-powered weapons.

He needs to take care where he records these events.

The Republican lawmaker was photographed recently packing an AR-15 assault rifle. He was posing with fellow GOP U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-congressman-who-posed-with-gun-in-office-could-face-probe/ar-AAbsBnC

What’s the problem?

The District of Columbia prohibits these kinds of weapons. Thus, Buck may have broken the federal district’s gun laws.

Buck calls the rifle a “beautiful, patriotic paperweight.” It’s pained red, white and blue.

Local laws are to be followed, correct? So, if the District of Columbia bans ownership of these firearms, does it prosecute a member of Congress for breaking the law?

Let’s all stay tuned to this one.

 

Why bother with a congressional has been?

The last time I commented on former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s blatherings, some of my lefty friends asked: Why pay her no never mind? She’s out of office, irrelevant, she doesn’t matter any longer.

Allow this brief explanation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/michele-bachmann-the-rapture-is-coming-and-its-obamas-fault/ar-AAboZhG

I chose to comment on Bachmann blaming the coming Rapture on President Obama because — believe it or not — a lot of Americans actually take her seriously.

I am not one of them.

Bachmann served a few terms in the House of Representatives. She became a favorite of the TEA party wing of the Republican Party. She ran for president in 2012 and for one brief moment during the GOP primary, she actually rose to near the top tier of the class of clowns running for the party nomination. For the record, I do not include eventual nominee Mitt Romney in that gaggle of goofballs.

Bachmann then decided to step down from public office in 2014, but she hasn’t stepped down from public life or from the public’s attention.

She remains relevant in some people’s minds, although for the life of me I cannot understand why.

So, when she says, as she did the other day on a right-wing radio talk show, that the Rapture is imminent, some folks listen to her. “We in our lifetimes potentially could see Jesus Christ returning to earth and the rapture of the church,” Bachmann said. “We see the destruction, but this was a destruction that was foretold.”

She said more. “We are literally watching, month by month, the speed move up to a level we’ve never seen before with these events,” Bachmann said. “Barack Obama is intent. It is his number one goal to ensure that Iran has a nuclear weapon.”

Sigh.

I never know whether to laugh or laugh harder when Bachmann opens her mouth.

She is giving folks like me plenty of commentary grist.

That’s why she remains relevant.

No diversity on Democratic bench? C'mon!

The Hill newspaper has a headline that shouts that actual and potential Democratic candidates for president lack “diversity.”

The Democratic “bench” is too, um, bland … or some such thing.

Hold on here.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/239460-democrats-have-no-bench-and-no-diversity-in

The trio of mug shots that accompany the news story attached here tell me something quite different.

* Hillary Rodham Clinton is, quite obviously, a woman. She was first lady for eight years from 1993 until 2001. She served in the U.S. Senate and then as secretary of state. Enough said there.

* Jim Webb is a former U.S. senator from Virginia. He’s a Vietnam War veteran. He saw combat as a Marine. He served in the Reagan administration, not exactly a bastion of progressive principles.

* Bernie Sanders is an independent U.S. senator from Vermont. He’s a card-carrying, say-it-loud-and-proud socialist. He makes no bones about his share-the-wealth philosophy.

I won’t mention Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who keeps saying she isn’t running.

Oops. I just did.

Those three individuals look pretty diverse to me. They each bring a different set of governing principles to a presidential campaign.

Only one of them, Clinton, has declared her candidacy. Webb has formed an exploratory committee, while Sanders is keeping his options open.

I get what The Hill means, though, about the lack of “diversity.” It refers to the Republican field that so far has two Hispanic candidates — Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. There well might be a woman, Carly Fiorina, in the mix as well. An African-American, Ben Carson, is likely to run.

Let us not dismiss the potential Democratic primary field as being bland and one-note boring.

Among the possible field of three — Clinton, Webb and Sanders — one can find plenty of ideological diversity.

'91 percent chance' Graham will run

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Sunday today there’s a “91 percent chance” he’s going to run for the Republican presidential nomination next year.

Ninety-one percent chance. Not 90. Not 95. The odds are now at 91 percent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/19/lindsey-graham-president-2016_n_7095360.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

Surely I’m not the only American wondering where the senator came up with 91 percent.

It’s usual for politicians to round these numbers off to the nearest zero or to the nearest 5. Isn’t that how it goes?

Sen. Graham, an Air Force reservist and lawyer when he’s not legislating in the U.S. Senate, must be from some school that suggests you should be as precise as possible when using numbers of any stripe.

I guess that includes numbers that set hypothetical odds on whether you’re running for president.

There’s also a 91 percent chance, therefore, that he’ll have to answer to critics within his own party that he’s too, um, “moderate” to suit their taste. He’s declared climate change to be the real thing and actually favors comprehensive immigration reform, according to the Huffington Post.

This might be the deal breaker among the hard-core GOP base: He’s actually endorsing some of President Obama’s Cabinet nominees and judicial appointees.

The chances of the hard right wing of his party forgiving him for those views? Zero.

 

Why do media keep referring to 'Hillary'?

I don’t intend to belabor this point, but it’s worth noting nevertheless.

The media seem quite comfortable referring to the presume favorite for the Democratic Party presidential nomination only by her first name.

It’s “Hillary says” such and such, or “Hillary need to explain” this or that, or “Hillary has hit the road.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-election-media-strategy-117118.html?hp=t4_r

Is it a sexist thing? Or is it just that the former first lady, U.S. senator, secretary of state and 2008 presidential candidate has become so familiar that only a first name is needed. Or are media representatives seeking to knock her down a peg or two by using the first-name-only reference?

Athletes often ascend to that status: Wilt, Arnie, Magic, Julius, Mickey and Reggie come to mind.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has achieved some kind of mysterious air of familiarity with the media.

The task ahead of her, though, is to build some familiarity with average Americans. Folks like you and me.

I dislike referring to the first declared 2016 Democratic presidential candidate by her first name. I continue to believe that to treat her the same way one should treat all the men who will run for president, it’s good to refer to her in precisely the same manner we do those men.

But think about this for a moment. Republicans might have a female candidate of their own to consider during the primaries. That would be Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett/Packard and one-time GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate in California.

Is she going to become “Carly”?

Somehow, the ring of familiarity just isn’t there as it is with Hillary.

 

President, Congress head for rocky stretch run

There ought to be little doubt left that President Barack Obama’s final laps at the White House are going to be full of bitter quarrels with another “co-equal branch of government,” the U.S. Congress.

It didn’t need to come to this. But it has.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/barack-obama-delaying-loretta-lynch-vote-embarrassing-gop-117081.html?hp=b1_r1

The president took particular umbrage the other day at the Senate’s inexcusable delays in confirming Loretta Lynch to become the next attorney general.

“Nobody can describe a reason for it beyond political gamesmanship in the Senate,” Obama said during a news conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. “I have to say that there are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it.”

As Politico reports, part of the reason for this dysfunction appears to be that the previous Congress opted out of deciding Lynch’s nomination, preferring to hand the job over to the current Congress. I’ll admit to supporting that view, given that the 113th Congress was leaving office. I put some measure of faith in the 114th Congress being able to do right by Lynch, the president and the cause of ensuring that we have a fully functioning Justice Department.

I guess I should have known better. My bad.

The delay now has nothing to do with her qualifications, which are superlative. It has everything to do with side issues that Senate Republicans have concocted as a pretext.

And the president calls it an “embarrassment.” Do you think? I do.

And get this, also from Politico: “Lynch was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 26, so her nomination has lingered on the Senate floor for 50 days. That is longer than the previous seven attorneys general had to wait from committee approval to floor confirmation vote — combined.”

No wonder the president is angry.

It’s not going to get any better, Mr. President. Bet on a rough ride until the end of your presidency.