Category Archives: national news

national news

What about the 'Three Rs' in South Carolina?

South Carolina legislators want to teach public school students there a lesson about the Constitution. They want also to require teachers spend three weeks each school year teaching students about the Second Amendment, the one that deals with gun ownership.

Three weeks on one amendment to the nation’s founding document?

And it’s the one dealing with guns?

What kind of craziness is occurring over yonder in the Palmetto State?

South Carolina Law Would Make Kids Study Second Amendment for 3 Weeks Every Year

Take a look at this: “As Ian Millhiser at Think Progress points out, that’s an enormous chunk of the school year, especially given that some South Carolina schools devote just two weeks to slavery and a week and a half to World War II.”

OK, that comes from Mother Jones, a publication not exactly friendly to the issues favored by the National Rifle Association. But Millhiser makes a good point about educational priorities.

Republican South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has an A+ NRA rating. Both legislative chambers are controlled by Republicans. Of course, the Second Amendment is arguably the favorite amendment among the GOP, right along with the 10th, which lays out powers that states can assume when they aren’t covered by the federal government.

South Carolina’s public school students don’t need to be required to study one amendment — even if it’s the one that allows Americans to “keep and bear arms.”

That’s more important than the that guarantees free speech and freedom of religion? Or the one that guarantees all citizens “equal protection” under federal law?

As Mother Jones reports: “‘Even amongst a conservative constituency in South Carolina, I think they can rate that they have more abiding problems than this,’ says Dave Woodard, a political science professor at Clemson University who’s long served as a political consultant to Republican candidates in South Carolina.

“‘Most people are more concerned with math and science, and the fact that historically, South Carolina’s rankings in education have been abysmal. Nobody, I think, would say ‘The best way to improve education is to have a three-week segment on the Second Amendment. Boy, that’ll move us up in the national rankings!'”

The idea is nutty.

 

national news

Huckabee turns into a goofball

Honest to goodness, I never thought of Mike Huckabee as a right-wing goofball — until just a couple of days ago.

Maybe I missed the warning signs. He went wildly off the rails, though, with some kind of weird critique of President and Mrs. Obama’s parenting skills. Former President Carter came to the Obamas’ defense. Huckabee, who left his job at Fox News to explore another run for the Republican presidential nomination, needs an intervention … maybe.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jimmy-carter-defends-obamas-parenting-wake-huckabee-attack

The former Arkansas governor and one-time Baptist preacher said the Obamas deserve criticism because — hold on, now — they let their daughters listen to Beyoncé. President Carter, who also has some credibility as a man of deep religious faith, said the “president is doing a good job” raising his daughters in the fish-bowl environment in which the family is living.

The first daughters, Malia and Sasha, are being poisoned by their exposure to Beyoncé’s raunchy lyrics and her dance moves, which Huckabee says are more appropriate “in the bedroom.”

Huck did offer a tepid disclaimer to the blistering he gave the first couple when he said they are “are excellent and exemplary parents in many ways.” Ah yes, “in many ways.”

That’s like saying, “I love that death, but …” Without fail, whatever comes after the word “but” is going to drop the hammer with a negative assertion of some sort.

The Obama daughters are growing up to be fine young women, just as the Bush twins — Barbara and Jenna — have done and just as virtually all children who come of age while living in the White House have done.

Stick to public policy, Rev. Huckabee, particularly if you’re going to run for president of the United States of America — again.

 

national news, political news

'Spunk' drives Obama's poll spike? Perhaps

Polls are fun to follow. I do so regularly.

The most interesting and authoritative poll is actually a compilation of public opinion surveys. RealClearPolitics.com compiles the results and publishes a running average of all the polls. The key subject of these polls is President Obama’s approval ratings.

Lately, they’re going up … significantly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/14/obamas_new_spunk_lifted_ratings_white_house_says.html

As of this morning, the president has earned a rating of just less than 45 percent of Americans who approve of the way he’s doing his job.

Two quick points about these findings.

(1) They belie the notion that Obama’s poll numbers are “plummeting, skidding, spiraling downward” or whatever nasty verb the right-wing media keep using to describe his standing among Americans.

(2) White House aides believe the polls reflect his newfound “spunk” in dealing with the loyal opposition that now controls both legislative houses of the U.S. Congress. I agree with that, to a point. I think they reflect Americans’ continuing distrust of Congress, whose approval rating is still languishing at around 14 percent, according to RealClearPolitics’ poll average.

Juxtaposed with Congress’s dismal standing among Americans, the president is looking pretty good.

What does all this mean for the future? My strong hunch is that it means Congress needs to govern more and obstruct less. Believe it or not, view is that Americans actually want their federal government to work for them. It takes cooperation between the two governing branches — the White House and Capitol Hill.

Pay attention, folks.

 

national news, political news

GOP plays with fire over immigration

When you play with fire, the saying goes, you’re going to get burned.

So, what has the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives done right out of the chute? It has voted to defund President Obama’s executive order that seeks to reform the nation’s immigration policy.

Which voting bloc is most interested in this activity? Why, I do believe it’s the Hispanic voter, the very folks that Republicans say they need if they have any hope of winning the White House in the 2016 election.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/229469-house-votes-to-defund-obamas-immigration-orders

Why, then, the interest among those Americans? Well, the immigration-related executive order seeks to delay the deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants. No, they can’t vote. But they have a lot of supporters among Hispanic American citizens who do vote and those individuals are likely to remember what the House of Representatives and the Senate — which also is in GOP hands — will seek to do to Obama’s order.

The GOP has done a two-fer. They defunded the deportation plan. In a second vote, they decided to take the teeth out of the DACA provision. DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and it sought to delay deportation of children who came here illegally, either by their parents or those who were part of that mass migration across our southern border.

There well might be hell to pay if Republicans insist on these tough measures.

Is the president going soft on illegal immigration? Of course not. The Obama administration has set deportation records left and right for the past six years. The president, though, intends to start improving the system while allowing those who are here illegally some time to apply for legal resident status or become U.S. citizens.

Republicans are having none of it.

It will cost them.

Dearly.

 

 

national news, political news, Uncategorized

Mitt now aims to fight poverty

Chris Matthews is loud, abrasive and occasionally rude on his TV talk show.

He’s also smart, shrewd and insightful when he delivers political commentary.

Matthews cannot believe that Mitt Romney can run for president a third time as an advocate for poor Americans, noting that in 2012 Romney was a champion for the “1 percent” of richest Americans while saying that the 47 percent, the poor folks, “are takers.”

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/romney-to-focus-on-fighting-poverty-383924291861?CID=SM_FB

He wonders how Mitt can change his tune so dramatically and rapidly from his previous presidential campaign and get away with it. Will it sell to voters who remember the self-deportation talk, the spontaneous offer to wager a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, references to “the illegals”?

I’ve got a name for Matthews to ponder: George H.W. Bush.

Let’s flash back to 1980. Former Gov. Ronald Reagan had sewn up the Republican presidential nomination. He began looking around for a running mate. He toyed with the idea of picking former President Ford to be on his ticket; the former president said “no.” Then he turned to George Bush, who ran against Reagan in the GOP primaries.

One little problem, though. Bush was a noted supporter of organizations such as Planned Parenthood. He voted routinely, while a member of Congress in the 1960s, for legislation that funded contraception and other family planning programs. His nickname in the House of Representatives was “Rubbers.”

But the GOP nominee in 1980 needed to run on a strong pro-life platform. Would “Rubbers” agree to switch his view on abortion if he ran? You bet he would. And he did.

George Bush took the phone call from Ronald Reagan. He got the offer to run. He said “yes,” and transformed immediately — as in right then and there — from a pro-choice Republican to a pro-life Republican.

The Reagan-Bush ticket won in a historic landslide.

Can Mitt make a similar switcheroo? Absolutely.

 

military news, national news, political news

Apology accepted, congressman; now promise: never again

Congressman Randy Weber has done the right thing by apologizing for a hideous reference to Adolf Hitler while criticizing President Obama’s absence from the unity rally in Paris.

The Republican who represents Southeast Texas in the House of Representatives had sent out a tweet that noted Hitler had gone to Paris in 1940 “for the wrong reasons” but Obama couldn’t go this past week “for the right reasons.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congressman-randy-weber-apologizes-tweet-comparing-president-obama/story?id=28200320

It was a ghastly reference that has no bearing on anything other than to morph the president of the United States into some kind of comparison with the 20th century’s most despicable despot.

Oh, but Weber said that wasn’t his intention. He intended only to use the Hitler reference to illustrate the evil that lurks in today’s world.

OK, whatever.

I’m glad Weber apologized to “all those offended by my tweet.” Yep. That would be me, among many others.

His explanation of what he intended, though, seems a bit dubious.

It’s my hope that he and others who are inclined to toss Adolf Hitler’s name around to make some political points will cease doing so … forever.

national news, political news

Mitt is turning 'mushy,' according to Cruz

Mitt Romney hasn’t even said he’s running for president a third time in 2016 and already he’s taking barbs from his right flank.

The slinger is Sen. Ted Cruz, who says the Republican Party shouldn’t nominate someone from the “mushy middle.” The party needs someone who is, well, a stark conservative like … oh, let me think, Cruz?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/ted-cruz-mitt-romney-2016-elections-114194.html?hp=l2_3

But didn’t Mitt say he governed Massachusetts as a “severe conservative” while he was running for president two years ago? Didn’t Mitt try to establish his conservative credentials with the base of his party?

OK, he lost the election in 2012 to President Obama.

I’m still pulling for him to run. I’m also pulling for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to run for president.

Mitt says he’s interested in running; Jeb has formed an exploratory committee and has resigned from every non-profit board on which he’s served.

Mitt vs. Jeb would set up an interesting battle, don’t you think?

Jeb has been critical of Mitt’s myriad business interests. Mitt has been critical of Jeb’s moderate stance on immigration.

Meanwhile, the righties in the party are standing by. Cruz of Texas, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas could make an interesting two-state scramble for the GOP nomination, given that all four of those TEA party favorites hail from either Texas or Florida.

Oh boy! This upcoming Republican campaign looks like a doozy.

I can’t wait to watch it unfold.

 

national news, political news

Is Ted Cruz anti-NASA?

Ted Cruz worked tirelessly in 2013 to shut the federal government down, shuttering agencies throughout the vast federal bureaucracy for 16 days.

One of them was the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Well, talk about bad karma.

The freshman Texas Republican senator is going to chair a subcommittee with oversight of NASA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/12/ted-cruz-nasa_n_6456270.html?

This will be fun to watch. It might be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s way of placating the TEA party wing of the GOP, of which The Cruz Missile is one of the team co-captains.

Cruz will chair the subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness. The chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will be Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.

It’s going to be a new day in the Senate for the next two years, maybe longer.

Cruz isn’t known to be friendly to science, let alone to NASA. His insistence on shutting the government down to make some kind of political point likely didn’t go over well with the dedicated employees at the space agency.

He’s also shown a bit of nerve in blaming the Obama administration for cutting funds for NASA, suggesting that the president is de-emphasizing space travel.

I’m going to reserve judgment on the young senator’s stewardship of this panel. I’ll need to await some actual legislation that passes before his eyes for review.

Suffice to say that I am not hopeful for a good result.

 

International news, national news

'We should have sent someone' to Paris rally

Think long and hard about this one.

When was the last time the White House admitted openly that it made a mistake. My best recollection goes back to, oh, around 1987 when President Reagan said as much about selling arms to rebel fighters in Nicaragua.

Still, the White House press spokesman, Josh Earnest, made a startling announcement today in declaring that the Obama administration erred in not sending a higher profile emissary to join the massive Paris “unity rally” in the wake of the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo magazine offices.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/229217-white-house-we-were-wrong-on-paris

Secretary of State John Kerry said today as well that the U.S.-France relationship goes far beyond a single event, such as the Paris rally. President Obama has noted that France is our “oldest ally,” dating back to the American Revolution.

But yes, the White House made a mistake. I’m glad the administration is acknowledging it.

The current war on international terror began on Sept. 11, 2001 when terrorists conducted the cold-blooded, premeditated attack on the United States. We issued a call to arms and enlisted the aid of nations around the world.

The United States has been the main player in the world’s fight against the monsters who seek to terrorize the rest of the world.

There should have been a high-profile U.S. delegation at the unity rally, which featured the presence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

That does not diminish our leading role in the global war. Indeed, today’s White House admission well might enhance it.

 

national news

Major attack possible in U.S.? Do ya think?

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein says now is the time for “vigilance” after the massacre at the offices of a Paris satirical magazine.

Well, what do you know? The former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee is demonstrating an impressive command of the obvious.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/229145-dem-senator-major-attack-in-the-realm-of-possibility

Feinstein, a California Democrat, is trying to alert Americans to the possibility of a “major” terrorist attack on U.S. soil. I would argue that we’ve been on high alert ever since 9/11. And we should be on alert, possibly for as long as terrorists exist in the world.

The shootout at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris has stunned the world. Twelve people died in the melee. Three of the assassins were killed by French commandos; a fourth remains on the lam.

The Paris mayhem has brought to the fore once again that terrorists will do whatever it takes to strike fear in the world. We’ve known this all along, even before 9/11.

But we let our guard down and on that Tuesday morning 13 years ago we paid a terrible price.

I appreciate Sen. Feinstein’s word of extreme caution.

However, I hope she’s preaching to the proverbial choir.  We damn sure ought to be on high alert already.