Category Archives: political news

national news, political news

George Will to GOP: think strategically

1407859219000-Election-3-

George Will can turn a phrase with the best of them.

The noted columnist and television commentator is well-known for a lot of things, which include: his ardent political conservatism and his equally ardent love for baseball.

I’ll set aside the baseball expertise for a moment and focus on what he has said about the presumptive Republican Party candidate for president of the United States.

Will has given up on his Republican Party because of Trump’s emergence as the standard bearer in this fall’s campaign for the White House.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/284908-george-will-leaves-gop-this-is-not-my-party

He has registered in Maryland, where he lives, as an “unaffiliated” voter. He no longer is a registered Republican.

Actually, this isn’t huge news. It’s important only because of Will’s standing among the conservative intelligentsia.

Even tough Will’s abandonment of his party isn’t a huge surprise, it stands to reason, given that the presumptive nominee has zero public record on which to run. Moreover, many of the positions he has taken in the past — such as being against free trade, being pro-choice on abortion — run directly counter to traditional Republican political orthodoxy.

Frankly, I prefer the Texas method of registering voters. We don’t declare party affiliation when we get our voter registration card. We vote in whichever primary we want and our card might — or might not — get stamped by the polling place judge at the time we vote.

Will’s best advice this year to Republicans?

Suck it up. Prepare yourselves to lose the White House and then work like hell to win it back in 2020.

medical news, national news, political news

Joe Biden for VP … one more time?

th

I’ll admit this isn’t an original thought.

Others have said it, so I’m just joining an “amen!” chorus of sorts.

The 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that limits the president to two elected terms in office is silent on the vice presidency. The words “vice president” or “vice presidency” aren’t mentioned in the amendment, which was ratified in 1951 after Congress approved it in 1947.

My point? Why not nominate the current vice president, Joseph Biden, to serve another four years in a Clinton administration?

Stop laughing for just a moment and ponder this thought.

President Obama put the vice president in charge of what’s been called a “moon shot” program aimed at finding a cure for cancer. Vice President Biden lost his beloved son, Beau, to brain cancer, a loss that many believe kept him from running for the presidency in 2016.

My thought then, when Obama made the proposal during his final State of the Union speech earlier this year, was this: Is there enough time for Biden to get anything accomplished before he leaves office in January 2017?

I find it hard to imagine how the government could achieve what the president said he wanted — a cancer cure — in such a short span of time.

All this talk about who Clinton should pick as her running mate has provided some interesting chatter across the country, along with the chatter about who Republican nominee Donald J. Trump should select as his running mate.

Clinton has a ready-made, battle-tested, house-broken vice president already on the job. He’s a bona fide foreign-policy expert and he still has a tremendous working relationship and personal friendship with many congressional Republicans who’ve battled Barack Obama over every step the president has sought to make during his two terms in office.

The vice president also has a huge job that remains unfinished.

Why not, then, give him another four years to see this “moon shot” effort though?

Just a thought. I doubt seriously the Democratic nominee is going to heed this bit of advice.

But it’s out there, Mme. Secretary.

national news, political news

Polls could drive GOP nomination? Really?

don trump

I’m almost laughing out loud at the notion that Republican National Convention delegates might revolt this summer and nominate someone other than Donald J. Trump if his poll numbers continue to tank.

If history is our guide, it won’t happen based on that criterion.

In 1964, Republicans gathered in San Francisco to nominate Arizona U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater to run against President Lyndon Johnson. He trailed badly at the convention. He continued to trail badly throughout the campaign. The president won election by 23 percentage points.

Eight years later, Democrats faced a similar dilemma. They nominated South Dakota U.S. Sen. George McGovern at their convention in Miami; McGovern was far behind in the polls. The convention was one of the most chaotic ever witnessed. McGovern delivered his “Come home, America” acceptance speech in the wee hours. He went on to lose big in 1972 to President Richard Nixon, also by 23 points.

In 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush was trailing Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis by 17 percentage points when the GOP convened in New Orleans. The vice president stood before the throng and vowed a “kinder, gentler nation.” He was elected by 8 percentage points.

The polls aren’t going to determine whether Trump is nominated.

My own view is that the presumptive GOP nominee, by virtue of his collecting more votes than any of other candidates and winning the vast majority of state primaries and caucuses has earned the party nomination.

Let the delegates stand by their man. Send him off to campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Take your chances, GOP. Trump is your guy.

business news, International news, political news

Narcissism dictates Trump’s response to ‘Brexit’ vote

image

I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen a more narcissistic candidate for public office than Donald J. Trump.

And to think that the very first elected office this guy wants to occupy is the presidency of the United States of America.

Go figure, man.

I was among those who were utterly stunned as I watched Trump’s behavior on the day that Great Britain decided to bolt from the European Union. Financial markets around the world reacted badly; trillions of dollars in people’s personal wealth disappeared; the EU will lose its second-largest economic power.

But there was Trump — in Scotland, of all places — bragging about his golf course resort at Turnberry.

The presumptive Republican nominee strode to the microphone wearing his trademark “Make America Great Again” ballcap. All he could talk about was how plush the new digs are at Turnberry and how successful the resort is going to become.

Oh, and then someone asked him about the “Brexit” vote. Trump’s response? If the pound continues to collapse, that’ll be good for him because more tourists will come to Turnberry.

Huh?

What the … ?

He then said he supported Britain’s exit from the EU all along. Never mind he chaos it has brought to millions of Americans. He was there to talk about his resort and then he spoke to all the dough he’s going to make when Brits show up to play golf.

Compassion? Concern? Leadership?

They’ve all gone missing from this candidate’s presidential portfolio.

 

national news, political news, State news

Ready to be VP? Not just yet, probably

7C2A7036_jpg_800x1000_q100

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been saying what presidential nominees — and presumed nominees — always say when asked about who to select as a vice-presidential running mate.

She wants someone who is prepared from Day One to become president. That’s what they all say, right? Sure it is.

That brings us to a young man who’s apparently on Clinton’s short list of candidates. Stand up and take a bow, Julian Castro.

Now he’d better sit back down.

Castro in many ways would make an attractive candidate for vice president. He’s young; he’s “telegenic,” meaning he’s handsome; he’s a Latino American with a compelling life story; he’s a former mayor of a major American city; he hails from Texas.

But he’s got less than two years of experience in the federal government. Castro is serving as housing secretary.

Castro once appealed to me greatly as a potential running mate for whoever would be the Democratic presidential nominee. Not so much now.

As the Texas Tribune reports, he is woefully short on the experience and seasoning needed to assume the presidency if necessity demanded it.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/24/julian-castro-experienced-enough-be-vp/

As the Tribune reported: “Fiercely protective of his legacy, Castro’s supporters chafe at the suggestion he is not qualified to be vice president. They acknowledge the obvious — he has little to no foreign policy experience — but argue he is the living, breathing embodiment of an American Dream that transcends mere lines on a resume.”

Another Texan, John Nance Garner, once said the vice presidency isn’t “worth a bucket of warm p***.” He was one of President Roosevelt’s vice presidents. Let it be said that he earned the nickname of “Cactus Jack.”

Well, the vice presidency has changed dramatically since the era when the VP’s main job was to attend funerals abroad. Many of them dating back to, oh, the days of Walter Mondale (1977-1981), have become major policy partners standing shoulder to shoulder with the president.

Julian Castro is a fine young man. Is he ready just yet to stand in the on-deck circle in the next president’s administration.

Umm. I don’t think so. Not just yet.

business news, International news, national news, political news

Brits please conservatives on this side of The Pond

Brexit

Great Britain has voted to leave the European Union.

The reaction in the former British colony — now known as the United States of America — has been sharply divided.

Conservatives are hailing the decision; progressives are bemoaning it. Donald J. Trump, the upcoming Republican nominee for president, said he’s glad the Brits have voted to end their EU membership; his foe this fall, Hillary Clinton, is decidedly not glad.

Me? Well, I align more with the progressives. I don’t have a particular feeling about the Brits’ decision to bail out of the EU. I’m more concerned with the money I lost today from my retirement account. It’s that “enlightened self-interest” thing that drives me these days.

However, I am alarmed at the tone of the cheers I’m hearing from this side of the Atlantic. There’s an element of fear in it.

They’re hailing the Brits’ escape from the EU because of what they say are concerns about who’s coming into Europe from, say, the Middle East. You might have heard Trump say that the fear of many in this country mirrors the sentiment that was expressed by the “Brexit” vote in Britain.

Therein lies where Trump might seek to gain some political advantage over Clinton.

Fear and loathing.

The economic implications of the British exit from the EU are yet to be determined. Some economists believe this vote might trigger more national movements in other EU countries, that the Brits are the first of many EU members to bolt.

More economic mayhem is sure to follow if that’s the case.

Someone will have to explain to me: Why is that a good thing?

business news, International news, national news, political news

Brits to leave EU … and it will hit us hard

brexit

I might remember this day for a while.

I woke up, turned on my computer to catch up with the overnight news and learned that Great Britain voted to leave the European Union, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced his intention to resign, Wall Street took a dive … and a leading American politician who advocated all this mayhem might benefit politically in the United States.

Holy retirement fund, Batman!

The Brits decided they’d had enough of their economic marriage with the rest of Europe. So they bailed. Cameron staked his political reputation on the vote; it went badly for him and so he’s moving out of 10 Downing Street.

My retirement account is going to shed a lot of value today and perhaps for the next good while. Sheesh!

But here’s the element of this story that might underscore perfectly the weirdness of the American presidential election season.

Republican candidate Donald J. Trump — who at this very moment is touring a golf course resort he owns in Scotland — said he wanted the Brits to leave the EU. His Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton — along with President Obama — pitched for the Brits to stay in. Trump argued for nationalism in Britain; Clinton and Obama argued for economic stability.

Who might gain from this chaos? Trump.

“They’re angry over borders. They’re angry over people coming into the country and taking over, and nobody even knows who they are,” Trump told reporters after his helicopter landed in Turnberry, Scotland. “They’re angry about many, many things.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/british-voters-just-unleashed-an-economic-and-political-tsunami-224755#ixzz4CVe9JjLF

Why does that matter here? It matters, according to Trump, because he says he’s angry about the same things. How he connects the EU situation with U.S. domestic policy, though, remains a mystery to me.

He also said that Clinton “misread” the mood of the British, which I guess in Trump’s view is another strike against the Democratic nominee-to-be.

It’s going to take some time for all this sink in. The markets will go wild and retirement accounts — just like those my wife and I are hoping to live on while we enjoy our “Golden Years” — will bleed heavily as investors push every panic button they can find.

Then we’ll get to listen to a major-party presidential candidate take “credit” for being on the winning side of a losing argument.

Crazy, man. Simply crazy.

legal news, national news, political news

Tie goes to the GOP with SCOTUS decision

immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court’s non-decision on President Obama’s executive order regarding illegal immigrants just demonstrates the need to get that ninth seat on the court filled.

OK, the president lost this one. The court came down 4 to 4 to uphold a lower court ruling that had set aside the president’s executive order that granted temporary amnesty to around 5 million undocumented immigrants.

His order would have spared millions of families from the fear of deportation, particularly those families with children who were born in the United States and, thus, were American citizens.

Now, their future is a quite a bit more uncertain.

Everyone knows that the court would have ruled 5-4 had Justice Antonin Scalia had been present to decide. He wasn’t. He’s now deceased. The president has nominated a moderate jurist to replace him. Senate Republicans won’t give Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote because they want the next president to make the selection.

So, the tie vote means the Republicans win this round.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “I think the Constitution was upheld and this idea that there is a separation of powers — that no one person gets to make up law — was upheld,” Paxton said. “That’s a great thing for America.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/supreme-court-deadlocks-thwarting-obamas-immigration-actions-224720#ixzz4CS8xrwhm

But is it? Is it a great thing for those families that have come here to carve out a new life and for their children who were born here and who have considered themselves Americans for their entire life?

We can’t change the court’s non-decision now that it has acted — although I remain a bit dubious about how a tie vote actually settles anything. It reminds me a little bit of how court cases are decided on “technicalities.”

Obama and presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton both say the permanent answer must rest with Congress. Clinton vowed to seek congressional action if she’s elected president this fall.

Do I — as a layman — like how the court “decided” this case? Not in the least.

But you play the hand you’re dealt.

It does show quite brightly, though, why it’s important to fill that ninth seat on the Supreme Court — and why Merrick Garland deserves a hearing and a vote of the Senate.

national news, political news

Sit-in reminds us of the old days

untitled

Democrats are still protesting on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Republicans, meanwhile, have recessed the chamber and have gone home for the next couple of weeks.

What happens now?

I’ve managed to take away a few thoughts from this extraordinary event.

First, we’ve never seen anything like it in Congress, so we have nothing with which to compare it. Democrats decided to put their collective feet down and demand a vote on gun legislation.

They are led by one of the more iconic figures of this country’s civil-rights movement, U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, who knows a thing or three about sit-ins, civil disobedience and seeking redress of his grievances against the government.

He also knows a thing or three about getting beaten to within an inch of his life by ham-handed cops intent on putting down these protests.

It’s good that nothing like that has happened on the floor of the House. In some government chambers, such a dispute might result in fists and furniture flying. Have you ever seen how, for example, it has gone in Taipei, where the Taiwanese parliament meets?

Also, House Speaker Paul Ryan shouldn’t have shut down the House while the demonstration was occurring. He ordered the cameras turned off, creating a situation where someone on the House floor violated the rules of the body by photographing the protest through ill-gotten means.

It has prompted some in the media to wonder what might be frightening to the speaker, forcing him to seek to silence the debate. Check this out from the Boston Globe:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2016/06/22/paul-ryan-what-are-you-afraid/E5U98g15gZJ21ma03MfzMN/story.html

Lewis and his fellow demonstrators want a vote on whether to enact gun legislation in the wake of the Orlando, Fla., slaughter of 49 people.

They are demanding a vote! Up or down!

House Republicans — failing to follow the lead of their Senate brethren — are refusing to allow a vote.

From where I sit, the seriously outnumbered Democratic congressional minority is making a reasonable request.

Let’s get that vote — and then carry the debate over gun legislation forward!

International news, military news, national news, political news

Another key GOP thinker dumps Trump

brent

Brent Scowcroft isn’t a Republican In Name Only.

He’s been a solid GOP wise man for decades. He also served with distinction in the U.S. Air Force, earning three stars and retiring as a lieutenant general.

Scowcroft today endorsed Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the next president of the United States.

If you place much value in these endorsements, this is a big deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/brent-scowcroft-endorses-hillary-clinton-224677

Scowcroft served as national security adviser to two Republican presidents: Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. He knows war and he understands the value of international alliances.

That’s why he’s backing Clinton over her presumptive Republican rival, Donald J. Trump.

“Secretary Clinton shares my belief that America must remain the world’s indispensable leader,” Scowcroft said in a statement, touting her experience as secretary of state. “She understands that our leadership and engagement beyond our borders makes the world, and therefore the United States, more secure and prosperous. She appreciates that it is essential to maintain our strong military advantage, but that force must only be used as a last resort.”

Trump doesn’t get it.

He wants to build walls. He wants to remove the United States from its most important military/political alliance — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He wants to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

That doesn’t make the world safe, let alone “secure and prosperous.”

I can hear some of my Republican/Trump supporter friends now. They’ll blow off Scowcroft’s endorsement as being “irrelevant.” They’ll laugh it off. Scowcroft’s a has-been, they’ll say.

No. He’s a distinguished American patriot.