Category Archives: national news

One more reason to detest Ted Cruz

That settles it: Ted Cruz is my least favorite of the 100 men and women who serve in the U.S. Senate.

Why the additional scorn? Well, the freshman Republican from Texas said this about the Supreme Court’s decision to refuse to review state laws banning same-sex marriage:

“This is judicial activism at its worst.”

OK, he said some other stuff too in criticizing the high court. He accused the justices of “abdicating its duty to uphold the Constitution.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/ted-cruz-supreme-court-gay-marriage-111655.html?hp=l7

Judicial activism, eh?

I think I can come up with at least one greater example of judicial activism perpetrated on this nation by the Roberts Court, one of the more so-called “conservative” courts in the nation’s history. Let’s try the Citizens United case.

Remember that one, Ted? That’s the case that determined that corporations are people, too — to borrow Mitt Romney’s (in)famous phrase during the 2012 presidential campaign. The court decided to let corporations spend all the money they wanted on political campaigns, just like regular folks. It determined that multi-zillion-dollar business interests have as much say in determining who gets elected as poor schleps like me who might want to write a $20 check to the candidate of my choice.

So, if you’re a candidate who then gets elected, who are you going to listen to more intently: the mega corporation or the individual contributor?

That, Sen. Cruz, is how I would define judicial activism.

This label often is used by conservatives to rip apart liberal judicial rulings. These critics, such as Cruz, ignore at their peril their own brand of judicial activism.

The Roberts Court showed it can be as activist as, say, the Warren Court was in the 1950s.

Cruz surely knows this.

A dear friend of mine who visited my wife and me this past weekend served in government and journalism for more than 40 years. He said of Cruz, who he described as “smart as they come”:

“Intelligence is inherited. Wisdom must be earned.”

Ebola becomes political football

Let’s call it the politics of Ebola.

Politico reports that some of the presumptive Republican candidates for president in 2016 are shouting “panic!” at the prospect of the deadly virus infecting the United States of America.

Not all of them, mind you, are saying such things.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry — along with President Obama, if you can believe that — suggests it’s better to stay calm and cool as medical professionals seek to contain the single known case that ended up in Dallas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/gop-republicans-elections-2016-ebola-panic-111597.html?hp=r15

Yes, it’s a concern. A man flew from Liberia to Texas while carrying the Ebola virus. He is in critical condition. But his status has been upgraded a bit to stable. He is undergoing intense medical care at a Dallas hospital, where he is receiving the best care possible.

Meanwhile, GOP politicians are calling for an immediate ban on all flights from West Africa to the United States.

And, of course they’re saying the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to fight the virus. They’re scattering out over right-wing talk radio and TV and proclaiming their intense concern that the president isn’t sounding sufficient alarm over the Ebola case that found its way to Dallas.

There will be more intense airport screening of inbound passengers, the president has assured. There also will be greater vigilance at the outbound end of flights headed for the United States and other countries.

These measures haven’t stopped some of the GOP candidates in waiting. As Politico reports, “Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky declared on ‘The Laura Ingraham Show’ that ‘this could get beyond our control’ and worried, ‘Can you imagine if a whole ship full of our soldiers catch Ebola?’”

How about settling down just a bit?

The next political campaign will get into full swing in due course. Cooler heads think better than those that are overheated with political ambition.

Former candidate might hold Senate key

If the Democrats hold the U.S. Senate — and that remains a huge if — they likely may owe their rescue to a Democrat who wasn’t even on the ballot.

No, I’m not talking about President Barack Obama.

The rescuer might be a fellow named Chad Taylor, a former Democratic candidate for the Senate from, of all places, Kansas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/nbc-poll-senate-democrats-2014-elections-111611.html?hp=r4

Yes, that Kansas, one of the most deeply red states — behind Texas and Utah, perhaps — in the country.

Taylor dropped out of the Senate race against incumbent GOP Sen. Pat Roberts. He left the campaign to a third candidate named Greg Orman, who’s running as an independent but who appears ready to caucus with Senate Democrats if he’s elected.

Orman is holding a double-digit lead over Roberts at the moment and with less than a month to go before Election Day, it’s beginning to look rather grim for the veteran Republican lawmaker.

The RealClearPolitics.com average of polls shows Republicans with a potential seven-pickup in the Senate; they need six to win control of the place. So, Orman’s possible victory isn’t the only race that could keep the Senate in Democratic hands.

Iowa needs to stay Democratic. North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagen is holding a slim lead over her challenger. And former President Clinton has returned to his home state of Arkansas to campaign on behalf of his pal Mark Pryor, who’s trying to keep the seat in Democratic control.

If it boils down, though, to a single race — the one Kansas — Democrats might have to send former candidate Chad Taylor the biggest bouquet of flowers they can find to say “thanks” for bowing out.

Where's the threat to 'traditional marriage'?

So …

The Supreme Court has refused to review challenges to same-sex marriage laws in several states. “Marriage equality” proponents have proclaimed that as a victory, that it shows the highest court in the nation is comfortable with states allowing same-sex unions.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-declines-to-review-same-sex-marriage-cases/ar-BB7QehZ

I’ve commented already today on the shifting tide in favor of same-sex marriage.

No doubt we’re going to hear commentary from those who perceive some “threat” to traditional marriage by the expansion of the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Allow me this brief look at the so-called threat.

There isn’t any.

I’ve stated already that my wife and I — and I feel comfortable speaking for her on this matter — are quite comfortable with our own union. We sealed it 43 years ago and we’re going quite strong. At no point ever in all those years have we felt threatened by those who choose to bond with others of the same sex. The gay couples we have known have their own lives and we have ours. End of story.

No, the threat to traditional marriage covers a lot more ground than this single issue. It rests with society at large, with laws that make it arguably too easy for couples to end marriages.

My own values are deeply held and are personal in the extreme. They won’t be shaken loose by those of different orientations.

I could bet real American money that I am not alone in believing that same-sex unions pose zero threat by themselves to “traditional marriage.”

Obama is 'deporter in chief'?

Well, what do you know about this?

The Obama administration has broken its own record for the number of illegal immigrants deported in a single year. To think that critics believe President Obama is “soft” on illegal immigration.

http://www.panhandlepbs.org/blogs/state-news/2014/10/03/obama-administration-breaks-own-deportation-record/

Soft squishiness has produced angry protests from the Latino community who want the president to act on immigration reform.

I happen to agree that there should be some action — executive action, if necessary — to further the case for reforming national immigration policy. However, to suggest that the administration has looked the other way while people flood across our “porous” southern border is to resort to demagoguery.

In 2013, the Immigration and Naturalization Service deported 438,421 illegal — or undocumented — immigrants. That beats the former record set the previous year. What’s more, the deportations include 198,400 immigrants with criminal records. How is it, then, that critics keep harping on the feds’ inattention to the crime wave that’s sweeping into the country from Mexico and points south? I guess it’s because they’ve gotten quite good at distorting these issues for their own gain.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “The statistics are not likely to draw praise from Republican lawmakers. Despite the administration’s record-breaking deportations over the past several years, conservative lawmakers have criticized the president for what they consider his lax enforcement policies, which they say lure illegal crossers.”

Whatever. I’ll consider the deportation push to be a poke in the eye of those very critics.

I’ll also consider it time for the president to act where he can legally to start fixing the immigration problem. If Congress won’t act, then it falls on the president to, as the Tribune reported, “to expand relief to more of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally.”

Affleck vs. Maher on Islam

Almost never do I take anything that Bill Maher says seriously.

He’s a comedian who, for my taste, isn’t all that funny. He’s morphing into some sort of political commentator of late. Now he’s taking on Islam, calling it a “Mafia-like” organization.

OK. So we’ve heard from him on that.

Enter another entertainer. Ben Affleck, an actor of some acclaim, has challenged Maher’s assertion that Islam is what he says it is. I don’t usually listen to actors’ views on politics and religion, either.

However …

In this case, Affleck makes the more salient point.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/10/04/3576082/batman-stands-up-for-muslims/

Affleck took part in a testy exchange on “Real Time” in which he tried to take down Maher’s assertion about Islam. Affleck criticized Maher’s “gross” and “racist” portrayal of Islam. He said Islam should not be judged based on the conduct of sociopathic murderers, such as the Islamic State — which has hijacked the Islamic name, for crying out loud, while committing utterly unspeakable acts of barbarism. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof sided with Affleck, contending that Maher’s description of Islam and Muslims is “incomplete.”

Maher used terms like “vast numbers of Muslims” wanting non-believers of their religion to die. Vast numbers? How many is that? And what percentage do those numbers comprise among the 1.5 billion or so practicing Muslims around the world?

I simply am not going to condemn a religion on the basis of what crazed fanatics do in that religion’s name.

Nor should a second-rate comedian such as Bill Maher.

Foes team up for security reform

It turns out that two leading members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee aren’t enemies for life after all.

Republican Chairman Darrell Issa and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings are on the same page regarding the Secret Service. They want a broad investigation that examines the culture that seems to pervade the agency charged with protecting the president of the United States.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/secret-service-probe-darrell-issa-elijah-cummings-111587.html?hp=l5

Their concern is legit. The Secret Service has been pounded in the media and on Capitol Hill for the horrendous security lapses that have placed the president in potential peril. The agency’s director, Julia Pierson, has resigned. Issa and Cummings have sent Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson a letter asking to examine a full range of issues that have resulted in what they call “embarrassing security mistakes.”

We’ve had the fence-jumper who ran through the front door of the White House. That incident came after an armed convicted felon got into an elevator with President Obama in Atlanta, standing only a few feet from the head of state.

The Secret Service is in trouble. It needs fixing. Congress has been justifiably outraged over these embarrassing matters.

Issa and Cummings have had their differences over their committee’s handling of the IRS matter and the Benghazi controversy.

On this one, they’ve locked arms and are demanding answers.

Political animosity appears to come and go, according to the issue of the moment.

I’m OK with that.

Who's going to jump in '16?

It’s getting fun watching the prospective candidates for president in 2016 start hedging whether they’re actually going to make the plunge.

The latest apparently is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, who might run for the Republican nomination in two years.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/219692-rubio-decision-to-run-in-2016-wont-depend-on-bush

Rubio says his decision won’t depend on whether former Florida Gov.Jeb Bush decides to run. Rubio says he hasn’t talked to the former governor, but the fact that he’s talking about it at all suggests — to me, at least — that he’s got Jeb on his radar.

So, let’s ponder these other possibilities:

* U.S. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan says he likely won’t run if his 2012 Republican presidential nominee running mate Mitt Romney jumps in. No word from Romney what he plans to do if Ryan goes ahead with a run.

* Vice President Joe Biden likely will consider backing out of the Democratic contest if former senator, former secretary of state and former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton decides to go for it.

* Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas wants to seek the GOP nomination, but will he go if another talkative Texan, lame-duck Gov. Rick Perry jumps into the race?

* And is Perry going to make the leap if Cruz decides it’s his time to run?

Of all the fascinating what-ifs to ponder, I’m interested mostly in the Texas two-step that might play out between Perry and Cruz.

Perry’s been to the well once already. He flamed out badly before the first primary took place in New Hampshire. He’s trying to re-craft his brand. Cruz is the still-quite-new junior senator from Texas who entered the upper congressional chamber in January 2013 with his mouth blazing away. He hasn’t shut his trap since.

Both of these guys have never seen a TV camera they didn’t like. Cruz is especially enamored of the sound of his voice and the appearance of his face on TV.

It’s going to be tough for both of them to run for president, each trying to outflank the other on the right wing of their already-extreme right-wing party.

Who will jump in first? And will the other one back away?

And what about Ryan and Romney, Biden and Clinton, and Rubio and Bush?

This is going to get tense.

'Originalist' view is mistaken

Count me as among those who acknowledge that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is brilliant.

The man knows the law. Does he know the U.S. Constitution? Well, sure he does. He was selected by President Reagan in 1986 to interpret the nation’s founding document and he’s still on the job.

OK, I’ve acknowledged the obvious.

Now I wish to take issue with his view that the document isn’t a living one that should adapt to change in society.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/antonin-scalia-says-constitution-permits-court-to-favor-religion-over-non-religion/ar-BB75vV4

Scalia said recently that it’s OK for the courts to favor religion over non-religion. He said the founders were religious men who meant for God to play a role in government. He said the Constitution guarantees “freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”

We’re fine, so far.

Then he said he prefers to look at the Constitution in its original form, as the drafters of it intended — in the 18th century.

He doesn’t like the “living Constitution” view, saying that only “idiots” believe such a thing.

Well.

Can’t the Constitution be adapted to the present day while preserving the principles laid out by the nation’s founders? Sure it can. The Second Amendment, the awkwardly written passage that guarantees the right to “keep and bear arms,” is an example.

Could the framers have envisioned the type of weaponry that has been developed since the Second Amendment was drafted and ratified? Could they have foreseen assault weapons that can kill, oh, 10 or so individuals in a matter of a few seconds? I’m betting they didn’t sit around and wonder: “All right, gentlemen, before we finalize this amendment, should we set aside a provision for the time when gang members will outgun the police on city streets teeming with drugs?” No, they couldn’t predict the future.

But the future has arrived and the “next future” is right around the corner. It’s left, then, for those who live in the here and now to wonder if the Constitution — as written — still is relevant to today’s circumstance.

It isn’t in some instances.

I still honor and respect Justice Scalia’s intellect and knowledge. I just dispute his interpretation of what he knows so well.

Silence on job growth is quite telling

That silence you hear from the Republican side of the political divide is quite instructive as the nation digests the latest job-growth numbers.

The Labor Department today reported that 248,000 jobs were added in September and that the jobless rate fell to less than 6 percent for the first time since 2008.

No cheers. No backslapping. No “congrats, you guys” are coming from the GOP gang.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/september-2014-unemployment-numbers-111583.html?hp=l1

Indeed, this morning — just before the jobs figures came out — Ari Fleischer, who served as press secretary during the George W. Bush administration, disputed President Obama’s claim the other day that we’re better off now than when he took office in January 2009. Fleischer told Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe” that Obama inherited a “100-foot hole” but still has a “95-foot hole” from which the country must emerge.

What utter bunk!

The economy is growing. Every independent analyst I’ve read suggests the nation has turned the corner from where we were six years ago.

Of course, the task now is to keep marching forward and to keep the momentum going.

Today’s job numbers suggest we’re continuing to make progress.

I get that politics requires muzzles when the “other side” has good news to report. That’s the way the game is played. Democrats do it, too, when the news involved a Republican administration.

Rest assured that if the next job report isn’t as glowing as this one, the loyal opposition will awaken quickly from its silent slumber.