Category Archives: political news

Shooter committed a ‘hate crime’

obama

The lunatic who opened fire on Dallas police officers this past week committed a “hate crime.”

So said President Barack Obama in a meeting today with police officials. He added that if the shooter had survived the rampage — in which he killed five policemen — he would have been prosecuted for committing a crime on the basis of his hatred for white police officers.

The thought occurs to me: Why do Obama critics keep insisting in light of this tragic event that he’s somehow “anti-police”?

I am having trouble processing this particular criticism. The president has spoken about the “vicious, despicable and calculated” act of violence against the officers. He has said such attacks on law enforcement is never justified. He has offered words of condolence to family members of the fallen officers and to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

But the criticism persists.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-dallas-police-shooting-hate-225390

Now he has referred to the shooter’s crime as of being of the “hate” variety. He compared the Dallas gunman’s act to the dastardly deed committed by the individual who killed those nine Charleston church members; those victims were black, the young man accused of that crime is white.

Sure, the president had his well-publicized “beer summit” after police wrongly accused an African-American academic of trying to burglarize his own home. Obama did accuse the police of acting “stupidly.” Those remarks seem to have stuck far more than the repeated statements in support of law enforcement that the president has made.

Well, the president will get another chance Tuesday to restate his support of the many thousands of police officers who perform their sworn duties with honor and distinction. He’ll speak in Dallas at an interfaith memorial service to honor the slain police officers.

Will those remarks quell the unfounded criticism? Hardly. He still needs to make them.

Yes, Justice Ginsburg crossed that ‘line’

ginsburg

When judges get appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, they usually follow a set of certain practices.

One of them is to keep their partisan political views to themselves.

Sure, their judicial philosophy often reveals their political leanings, but that’s for others to assume.

With that said, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has crossed a line separating the judicial branch from the rest of the federal government structure.

She said the following: “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told the New York Times’s Adam Liptak. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-bashing-donald-trump-some-say-ruth-bader-ginsburg-just-crossed-a-very-important-line/ar-BBucVZt?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Ginsburg’s reference is to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Very bad call, Mme. Justice.

It’s OK for justices to think certain things about politicians. It’s quite inappropriate for them to say it out loud. Judicial decorum dictates that they stay above the political fray. These individuals aren’t politicians. Presidents nominate them and the Senate confirms them on the basis of how they determine the constitutionality of federal law.

Justice Ginsburg, selected for the high court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, would seem to have an axe to grind given her statements criticizing Trump’s candidacy. Trump, after all, is running against the wife of the man who selected her to the Supreme Court.

Don’t misunderstand me on this point: I have trouble contemplating a Trump presidency, too.

I, though, am not a member of the highest court in the nation. I can say these things out loud. Justice Ginsburg needed to keep her mouth shut.

Partisan political debate will wait just a bit longer

dallas tribute

I don’t know about you, but I’m still trying to process the gravity of the events that took place last week.

Which means that I’m not yet ready to rejoin the political debate.

The “Main Event,” if you want to call it that, was the shooting in Dallas that killed five police officers, stunned a great American city and the nation and has — for the most part — brought many Americans together in the search for national healing.

The gunman is dead as the result of a totally justifiable use of force by the Dallas Police Department. Demonstrators in two other cities — where two young black men died in police-related shootings — have continued to march.

They’re all connected.

In precisely one week, Republicans will gather in Cleveland to nominate their presidential candidate. It’s likely going to be Donald J. Trump. I’ll have plenty to say about him and about his certain Democratic Party foe, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But as this week begins, I intend to focus instead on the interfaith memorial service set for Tuesday in Dallas. There will be some luminaries present to pay tribute to the fallen men.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are two of them. A third one is former President George W. Bush.

I haven’t heard as of this very moment whether either Clinton or Trump will attend. Wouldn’t it be a remarkable sight to see the two nominees sitting side by side, heads bowed in prayer, perhaps holding hands in the spirit of unity?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

We’ll get the political stuff fired up in due course.

For now, though, let’s simply honor the men who died while upholding their solemn oath to protect and serve their community.

Time for Clinton to meet the press … head-on

hillary

As one who used to make his living trying to hold politicians accountable for their words and deeds, I am perplexed by Hillary Clinton’s aversion to answer questions from the media.

Politico Magazine calls it her “phobia” of press conferences.

Count me as someone who believes the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee should stand firm in front of microphones and answer the tough questions she knows would come at her during a formal press conference.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clintons-press-conference-phobia-214026

As Politico reports, Clinton hasn’t done so since December 2015. When CNN’s Jake Tapper asked her about that, according to Politico, Clinton “blithely” told him that she’d get around to it eventually.

Mme. Secretary, a lot has transpired since the end of this past year.

We’ve had the House Select Benghazi Committee complete its work. FBI Director James Comey announced just the other day that he won’t recommend bringing criminal charges against her in the e-mail controversy, which effectively ends that tumult. Republicans in Congress, though, plan to look some more into whether the FBI did its due diligence in examining the e-mail matter.

And oh yes, she’s got this presidential campaign and she ought to answer some of the weird insults that GOP candidate Donald J. Trump keeps tossing her way.

I get that politicians of all stripes are skittish when the press starts poking around. But hey, it’s their job to ask difficult questions when they need answers.

It’s also the politicians’ job to answer those questions when the media start asking them.

It’s not as if Hillary Clinton is a stranger to this exercise. She served as Arkansas first lady, then the nation’s first lady, then a U.S. senator from New York (which has a notoriously ferocious media climate) and then secretary of state.

She’s now campaigning for the most important office in the nation — if not the world!

It’s not going to get any easier for her from this moment on.

Inquiring minds, Mme. Secretary, are asking for answers to many serious questions.

Lt. Gov. Patrick reverted to his former self

dallas cops

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s amazing rant — only hours after the gunman cut loose on police officers in Dallas — didn’t sound like it should come from an elected statewide official.

No. It sounded like something that would shoot out of the mouth of, say, a talk-radio blowhard.

Oh, wait! It occurred to me that Lt. Gov. Patrick actually was a talk-radio blowhard before he entered politics as a state senator from Houston.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/a-tragedy-in-dallas/

Politicians of both major-party stripes spoke with calm assurance. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke of the need for national unity. Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump said our children need to be brought up in a safer, better world.

Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott called for unity, prayer and support for our police officers, five of whom died in that Dallas carnage this past week.

Democrats and Republicans sounded — more or less — alike in their statements of sadness and resolve.

Then the Texas lieutenant governor had to pop off as he did on “Fox and Friends.” He said the protesters who fled the gunfire, seeking protection from the police, were “hypocrites.” They were protesting earlier officer-involved shootings in Baton Rouge and near St. Paul. Therefore, they were behaving “hypocritically” by seeking protection from the cops who, by the way, were chumming around with the marchers before all hell broke loose.

He hasn’t taken any of it back. Patrick hasn’t reconsidered the tone of his remarks. He’s right and everyone else is wrong, correct?

Well, that’s the modus operandi of your typical blowhard.

Welcome, Mr. President, but please … no politics

ObamaSelects1928_JPG_800x1000_q100

President Barack Obama isn’t likely to get the message I’m about to deliver — but I’m going to deliver it anyway.

The president is coming to Dallas on Tuesday to attend an interfaith memorial service in honor of the five law enforcement officers who were slain this past week by the gunman who opened fire at the end of a Black Lives Matter-sponsored march downtown.

I want him to steer away from politics. By that I mean I hope the president speaks exclusively about the officers’ lives, their heroism, their dedication to duty and to their community and to the love of their grieving families.

He might be tempted to veer — if only briefly — into the realm of gun violence and the lethality of the weapon used by the shooter. He might be drawn to say something about the need to tighten rules and laws that allow people to obtain these weapons.

My wish is for the president to save that speech for another time, another venue, another context.

Dallas is hurting. The nation is hurting over the senseless loss of life.

A memorial service by definition is designed to pay tribute to the fallen and, if possible, to celebrate the contributions they brought to this earthly world.

I share the desire to welcome the president to Texas. I’m glad he cut short his NATO summit to come here.

Barack Obama is a wise man who will be guided by his conscience — not to mention by his team of political advisers. I hope they tell him: Mr. President, stick to the matter at hand, which as we see it is to help this community heal its grievous emotional wounds.

Unity, compassion and then … Dan Patrick

Texas-Lt.-Gov.-Dan-Patrick-R-MSNBC-800x430

It’s been a remarkable past few days, hasn’t it?

Two young men were shot to death by police officers; one in Baton Rouge, La., the other in a St. Paul, Minn., suburb. Their deaths prompted demonstrations and marches around the country.

One of those marches occurred in Dallas, where Black Lives Matter organizers managed to stage a peaceful event through the city’s downtown. Police officers were mugging with protestors taking selfies of themselves and the men and women in blue.

Then a sniper opened fire, killing five of those officers. The nation was shattered by the violence.

We heard politicians of all stripes speaking essentially in unison: This has to stop; the killing of police officers is unacceptable; we pray for the officers’ families and for the city has been stricken.

Then came the words from Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick …

He shows up on “Fox and Friends” and says the protestors who fled the shooting were “hypocrites” because they sought protection from the very people whose conduct in those earlier events they were protesting.

Patrick then blamed Black Lives Matter and — of course! — the media for the senseless carnage in Dallas. I guess Patrick doesn’t understand that the shooter’s action were diametrically opposed to the message Black Lives Matter was seeking to convey. Oh, and Black Lives Matter protestors also were being shot at.

I was appalled when Texans elected this guy lieutenant governor in 2014. To hear him spew such garbage in the wake of this national tragedy, when circumstances compel politicians to use good judgment and circumspection in their public remarks, only reinforces my disgust in this individual.

Patrick’s idiotic rant doesn’t diminish the outpouring of good will that has come from around the country toward Texas’s third-largest city. Indeed, Dallas has been through even more profound national tragedy before and I have every confidence it will bounce back. It will recover emotionally. That recovery won’t happen overnight.

Facilitating the city’s return to normal, though, requires the type of political leadership we’ve witnessed from the likes of Gov. Greg Abbott, Dallas Mayor Michael Rawlings, from President Barack Obama, from Dallas Police Chief David Brown, from spiritual leaders of all faiths and from members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle.

The city does not need the kind of lunacy that came out of the mouth of Dan Patrick, who should be ashamed of himself. I do not, however, expect him to exhibit any such shame.

Obama to cut NATO trip short … and will visit Dallas

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 01: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to the media after meeting with House Speaker John Boehner at the White House, March 1, 2013 in Washington, DC. President Obama said that no agreement was reached with Republicans to avoid the sequester that will trigger automatic domestic and defense cuts. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

U.S. Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, whose district covers part of Dallas, today was critical of President Obama because he happened to be absent from the United States when the shooting broke out in Dallas.

“If we are weak at home, we are weak around the world and this is an example of a weakness when our president goes overseas and has a terrible tragedy like this … ”

Yes, Sessions said that, as if the president could predict that a madman would open fire on police officers during a peaceful demonstration in downtown Dallas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ben-carson-dallas-shooting-obama-225278#ixzz4Ds1z5qkL

Well, you know what?

Barack Obama announced today he is cutting short his long-ago-planned trip to Europe to attend a NATO summit. He’s coming back home. And, by golly, he’s going to Dallas.

My strong hope and expectation is that the president of the United States is going to do what he has had to do too many times already during his time in office. He’s going to embrace the family members of the slain police officers. He will offer words of support and encouragement to Police Chief David Brown, to Mayor Michael Rawlings, and the rest of a community that’s been shattered by this spasm of violence.

Will that stem the partisan critics?

No. However, the president is going to do what his job description compels him to do.

My other hope, too, is that the president doesn’t politicize his visit to Dallas. The city and the nation need healing, not a lecture.

Huck is right about POTUS’s response to shooting

huck

Hell hasn’t frozen over, but it’s a bit chillier down there this morning.

Why? Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — a man with whom I rarely agree — offered a fascinating critique of President Obama’s immediate response to the Dallas shootings overnight.

The president, said Huckabee — himself a former Republican candidate for the highest office — politicized the event by introducing the topic of gun control during his statement on the killing of five Dallas law enforcement officers.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/mike-huckabee-dallas-shooting-obama-225280

The president, Huck said, needed to be more Reaganesque in his response. Huckabee recalled how President Reagan sought to bring the nation together after the Challenger shuttle tragedy. That, he said, ought to be the model for presidents to follow in this time of national grief.

As Politico reported: “During his statement earlier Friday morning in which he condemned the attack as ‘vicious, calculated and despicable,’ Obama remarked that ‘we also know that when people are armed with powerful weapons, unfortunately it makes it more deadly and more tragic, and in the days ahead we are going to have to consider those realities as well.”‘

Huckabee, of course, focused more on the latter part of that statement rather than the first part. But he does make a valid point about how presidents ought to react publicly to events such as this.

“He doesn’t need to inject the divisive arguments like gun control at a time of great grief for the nation,” Huckabee said. “And he ought to do for us what Ronald Reagan did after the Challenger disaster. And that’s remind us of what we have in common, not what separates us. And that’s why I’m always so frustrated. Barack Obama has such great potential to be a leader.”

The president has labeled the acts in Dallas correctly. They were “despicable,” “vicious” and “calculated.”

My hope now is that the president goes to Dallas and embraces the police department and the families of those who were struck down and offers words of healing to a nation that is stunned.

That, too, is how Ronald Reagan would react — and it’s also what Barack Obama has done many times during his presidency.

Clinton need not be shut out of classified access

BBrGg2n

Let’s settle down just a bit, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan.

The Wisconsin Republican said Wednesday that Hillary Rodham Clinton should be denied access to “classified material” after she becomes the Democratic Party’s nominee for president of the United States.

Why? Because of her handling of the e-mails while she was secretary of state and because, according to the speaker, it “looks like” the FBI gave her preferential treatment in its yearlong investigation into her use of a personal e-mail server while she led the State Department.

It’s been customary for decades to allow presidential and vice-presidential nominees access to national security briefings while they campaign for the White House. Ryan got it when he ran for VP four years ago along with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

I thought the best response to this statement of outrage from Ryan came from famed defense lawyer and constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz. He said on CNN Wednesday that — in light of FBI Director James Comey’s stern tongue-lashing in announcing he would recommend no criminal charges be brought against Clinton — that the former secretary of state would be careful in the extreme in reviewing this classified material.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ryan-block-clintons-access-to-classified-materials/ar-BBu0Vt8?li=BBmkt5R

Ryan, of course, won’t be called off. Quite naturally — and expectedly — he’s angry that the FBI and the Justice Department have decided that Clinton didn’t commit any crimes. He’s going to proceed with a Republican investigation into the FBI probe to determine whether Comey and his staff of career prosecutors did their job fairly, without bias and without outside influence.

It’s quite obvious to me that Ryan’s mind is made up, that the FBI was in the tank for the Democratic presidential candidate. This GOP investigation won’t answer any questions.

For her part, Clinton needs to face the partisan outrage head-on. I hope she does so. Will she be able to quell the partisan anger? No.

In the meantime, Clinton she should be able — as a candidate for president — to receive the national security briefings that has gone to previous nominees.