Category Archives: political news

Sen. Moran stands up for integrity

jerrymoran

I’m now going to salute a Republican member of used to be considered — maybe some folks still think it is — the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body.

Stand up, U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas. Take a bow.

You, sir, are standing on a critical principle, which is that Kansans sent you to the Senate to do your job and you are insisting that your senatorial leadership follows your lead.

Good luck with that.

Moran told a town hall gathering earlier this week that he wants the Senate to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court. He is bucking the edict handed down by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who says the Senate should wait until after the election this November to consider an appointment made by the next president of the United States.

Moran, a conservative Republican representing a blood-red Republican state, is in no serious danger of losing his Senate seat this fall. Still, to hear him say that his party’s Senate leader is wrong is, well, uplifting.

Moran isn’t endorsing Garland’s nomination. He told the town hall group that he cannot imagine President Obama ever nominating someone to his liking.

But he said he is obligated to do his job as a U.S. senator.  “I think the process ought to go forward,” he said.

He said it’s better for his constituents to tell him he “voted wrong on nominating  somebody than saying I’m not doing my job.”

Moran joins two other GOP senators

It’s one thing for a senator such as Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire or Mark Kirk of Illinois — who also have called for hearings and a confirmation vote — to say they’ll meet with Garland and want to consider his nomination.

It’s quite another for someone representing a safe Republican state — whose re-election this fall is a virtual certainty — to weigh in on the side of senatorial responsibility.

If only the obstructionist who leads the Senate would follow suit.

Ryan: We’re heading for ‘divisiveness’ as a nation

90

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Ryan is partially correct when he says the nation “is becoming divisive.”

I believe we’re already there, Mr. Speaker.

It’s not a condition that has just developed overnight, or certainly during the current election cycle.

It seems to my reckoning to have its roots in the 2000 election season, when a candidate for president was elected by the narrowest margin imaginable — and under circumstances that to this day hasn’t been accepted by many millions of Americans.

George W. Bush won the presidency after the Supreme Court stopped the recounting of ballots in Florida. The Texas governor had 537 more votes than Al Gore in that state. He won that state’s electoral votes, giving him the election — even though Gore had amassed more popular votes nationally than Bush.

For the record, I’ve never doubted the legitimacy of Bush’s election as president. The constitutional system worked.

But …

The spillover through the next several elections has seen a palpable division among Americans.

The current campaign has delivered an intense ratcheting up of the division that’s been there for some time now.

I’m not a fan of the speaker, but I do applaud him for speaking to our national idealism. He clearly was taking dead aim at the tone being delivered on the campaign trail by Donald J. Trump, who he didn’t mention by name. Everyone in the congressional conference room who heard Ryan knew of whom he was speaking.

As Politico described Ryan’s remarks: “He decried identity politics, criticizing those who pit groups of Americans against each other. He said the nation’s political system doesn’t need to be this bad. He accused both parties of staying comfortably in their corners, only talking to those who agree with them.”

Ain’t that the truth?

There once was a time when members of Congress — from both parties — talked openly with each other about how to legislate for the good of their states or the country. The Texas congressional delegation was known to have bipartisan breakfasts weekly, with House members breaking bread with each other and talking about issues that needed attention.

It doesn’t happen these days.

Instead, we’re seeing and hearing candidates and their rhetoric demonizing “the other side.” The No. 1 instigator of this campaign-trail anger is the GOP’s leading presidential candidate — Trump.

Ryan’s message will not resonate with the segment of the population that has bought into the Us vs. Them mantra that Trump and others are promoting. Ryan is now seen as a member of the hated “establishment.”

Ryan said: “What really bothers me the most about politics these days is this notion of identity politics. That we’re going to win election by dividing people. That we’re going to win by talking to people in ways that divide them and separate them from other people. Rather than inspiring people on our common humanity, on our common ideals, on our common culture, on things that should unify us.”

Is his message too sunny, too optimistic, too idealistic?

For the sake of our political future, I hope not.

If only the VP hadn’t said what he said …

Supreme-Court-blue-sky

Vice President Joe Biden delivered a stern message today to some university students and faculty members

about the obstruction occurring in the U.S. Senate.

It’s threatening the core of our republic, he said. Senate Republicans must not obstruct President Obama’s effort to fill a Supreme Court vacancy; they must allow nominee Merrick Garland to have a hearing, then they must debate the merits of his nomination and they must then vote on it.

True enough, Mr. Vice President.

But what about those remarks you made in 1992 about whether President George H.W. Bush should be able to nominate someone to the high court in an election year? Today’s Republicans are seeking to block Obama’s pick because this, too, is an election year and they want the next president to make the selection.

The GOP has beaten the vice president over his remarks then.

What they don’t say is that Biden also declared that he would support a “consensus candidate” in an election if one were to be presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which Biden chaired at the time.

Biden told the Georgetown law students and faculty members: “Dysfunction and partisanship are bad enough on Capitol Hill. But we can’t let the Senate spread that dysfunction to another branch of government, to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

It’s fascinating to me that then-Sen. Biden’s remarks now have become known as the “Biden Rule,” which has never existed.

I won’t defend Biden for making his remarks in 1992. He was wrong to suggest that a sitting president shouldn’t be allowed to perform his job if he had been given the chance to do so. President Bush did select a Supreme Court justice in 1991, when he nominated Clarence Thomas to take the seat vacated by the death of Thurgood Marshall.

However, I won’t condemn Biden for holding that view. He did, after all, add the caveat that he would support a consensus candidate for the Supreme Court.

The here and now stands on its own.

The vice president is correct to insist that today’s Senate should stop its obstruction and allow the president to fulfill his constitutional duty — and do its own duty to give an eminently qualified nominee the fair hearing he deserves.

 

Social media have become a campaign curse

[ File # csp7860124, License # 1321135 ] Licensed through http://www.canstockphoto.com in accordance with the End User License Agreement (http://www.canstockphoto.com/legal.php) (c) Can Stock Photo Inc. / Blotty

I think I’ve discovered an undeniable truth.

Social media are to blame for the ghastly decline of intelligent political discourse in this great country of ours.

It’s not a big-time flash. Others likely have drawn similar conclusions and written about it.

I am now going to refer to the Twitter War that’s going on between Donald J. Trump and Rafael Edward Cruz. Donald vs. Ted. It’s getting childish in the extreme and it’s lending nothing whatsoever to any kind of intelligent discussion among Republicans over which of these men should be their party’s nominee for president of the United States.

The crux of the Twitter fight centers on their wives. Melania Trump and Heidi Cruz are now being kicked around like the proverbial footballs that they are not.

It’s sickening me.

A pro-Trump super-PAC put something out there about Mrs. Trump appearing in the nude. Trump tweeted some threats to Cruz about it, threatening to say something mean about Mrs. Cruz.

Ted Cruz denied having anything to do with the ad. Trump ain’t buying it. Now it’s Cruz calling Trump a “coward.”

Back and forth they go.

And voters are supposed to make intelligent decisions — based on this petulant patter — on which of them should carry the GOP banner forward against the Democratic nominee this fall?

Give me a break!

Maybe the mainstream media — and I don’t mean as the conservative epithet the term has come to mean — is responsible. By “mainstream,” I refer to the major broadcast and cable news networks and the print media who keep reporting this stuff.

Heck, bloggers all along the political spectrum have weighed in on it — as this blog is doing at this moment.

So … I’ll accept my share of the blame for this social media craze and its alleged “contribution” to the quality of our national political debate.

I’m not proud of myself.

My only recourse is to ignore this social media sniping.

Therefore, I will.

 

Listen to the VP, senators, about doing your job

biden

Vice President Joe Biden is going to lecture the U.S. Senate on something about which knows a thing or two.

He wants his former colleagues to do the job they took an oath to do, which is vote on whether to approve a nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Biden will deliver his message in remarks at Georgetown University.

At issue is the nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the seat vacated by the death of Antonin Scalia. Senate Republicans — many of them, anyway — are digging in on the nomination. They don’t want to consider a Barack Obama appointment, contending that it’s too late in the president’s second term. He’s a “lame duck,” therefore, the task of appointing a justice should fall on the next president.

That, of course, is pure malarkey.

Barack Obama is president until Jan. 20, 2017. He wants to fulfill his constitutional duty and he’s urging the Senate to do so as well.

Oh sure. The balance of the court is hanging here. Scalia was a devout conservative ideologue — and a brilliant legal scholar. Garland is a judicial moderate; he’s also a scholar; a man viewed widely as supremely qualified.

How does Biden — who served in the Senate for 36 years before being elected vice president — figure in this?

As vice president, he’s the presiding officer of the Senate. Of course, he votes only to break ties. He doesn’t actually run the place. That task falls on the majority leader, who happens to be a Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

It’s been McConnell’s call to obstruct this nomination.

Biden, though, does have a number of friends in both parties who serve in the Senate. Is there any hope that he can get through to them? Probably not, but when you’re vice president of the United States, you have the bully pulpit from which to preach an important message to those who need to hear it.

 

It wasn’t just a ‘war on drugs’

d4b7e386cc6a496090a245c74d94bd6c

I’m still trying to process this bit of news from our nation’s past.

John Ehrlichmann, one of President Nixon’s chief aides, reportedly told an author that the president’s “war on drugs” had a more insidious meaning within the walls of the West Wing.

Erhlichmann supposedly said the drug war was meant as a way to shore up Nixon’s “southern strategy” that curried favor with white voters while targeting African-Americans and hippies who were opposed to the Vietnam War in particular and to Richard Nixon’s presidency in general.

A lot of Americans remember Ehrlichmann. He was the president’s chief domestic adviser and a leading figure in the cover-up of the Watergate scandal that eventually brought down the Nixon presidency.

He died in 1999, so he isn’t around to defend himself against the remarks that are just now being published in Harper’s magazine.

A part of me believes that President Nixon was quite capable of concocting such a nefarious strategy. Another part of me wishes and hopes it isn’t true.

Ehrlichmann’s five children have said the statements attributed to their father are false. They stand behind his character and say they weren’t raised that way.

According to reporter Dan Baum, writing in Harper’s, Erhlichmann said: “You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”

The war on drugs is still being waged. It produced mandatory sentencing policies that federal judges have to follow. It was supposed to get tough on those who produce, buy, sell and consume the hard drugs such as heroin and various hallucinogens.

Has it worked? Well, drug use hasn’t abated in the nearly 50 years since the feds declared war on it. Moreover, I’ve seen the studies that suggest that African-Americans have been imprisoned at far greater rates than the rest of the U.S. population.

As for the motives behind the declaration in the first place, it saddens me beyond belief — if they are true.

The late president’s views on minorities, anti-war protesters and anyone who didn’t support his foreign and domestic policies are well-known to historians. They have been revealed in those infamous recordings of the president speaking to his top aides.

And what about John Erhlichmann’s personal motives? Did he buy into a hideous effort to fight back against the president’s enemies?

My own hunch is that he was loyal to the boss — Richard Nixon. When the boss told him to do something, then he followed orders. Does that make Erhlicmann a racist? We can’t ask him directly, so we’re left to speculate.

This isn’t the first time Americans have heard from officials seeking to atone for their mistakes. The late secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, revealed in the mid-1990s that he thought the Vietnam War was doomed to failure, even as he counseled two presidents to keep escalating the fight.

If only Ehrlichmann was around to clear the air about these revelations …

Many of us who are, sadly, are left to think the worst.

Obama still went to a ballgame …

NC_obama_baseball_07_mm_160322_12x5_1600

President Barack Obama has been second-guessed — big surprise there, right? — about his decision to attend a baseball game in Havana in the aftermath of the terror attacks in Brussels.

Republican presidential candidate John Kasich said if he was president, he would have packed up his gear and returned to D.C. immediately to take charge of the U.S. response.

That’s fine, governor. Except that you aren’t the president. The man who’s in the hot seat now says quite clearly that the terrorists’ aim is to disrupt the lives of everyone in the world — and he would have none of it. As he told ESPN: “The whole premise of terrorism is to try to disrupt people’s ordinary lives … it’s always a challenge when you have a terrorist attack anywhere in the world.”

Indeed, let’s look back at what President Bush said in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Didn’t he say quite the same thing, that we should go about our daily lives without fear? Didn’t say something like, “Go shopping”?

Barack Obama offered the nation’s support to the Belgians who are reeling in the wake of this horrific attack. He has dispatched military and intelligence officials to assist and help coordinate the pursuit of the monsters who did this deed.

As has been noted here and elsewhere, the president of the United States is never disconnected from the world.

So what if he went to a ballgame?

I’m pretty sure the state-of-the-art intelligence apparatus we all pay for is on the job.

 

Now the spouses have become targets

90

When did Melania Trump and  Heidi Cruz become candidates for president of the United States?

Oh, wait! They merely are married to men who are running for the office. Now, though, they’ve become subjects of social media messages fired by one of the Republican presidential candidates.

Let’s hold on for a wild ride, shall we?

A super PAC not associated with U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s campaign apparently posted an ad that contained a picture of Melania in the nude. Donald J. Trump responded that “Lyin’ Ted” needs to be careful or else Trump would reveal something about Cruz’s wife.

These attacks are getting tiresome, not to mention way, way off topic.

Trump took down the tweet he put out there about Mrs. Cruz. However, as we know, social media’s impact is immediate, as in instantaneous. It’s like trying to unhonk a horn; it cannot be done.

As for the British GQ article and the picture about Mrs. Trump, well, that’s apparently been out there a good while, having been published in 2000.

I’m just one individual living out here in Flyover Country.

I’d like to offer a suggestion to these two men — neither of whom ever would get my vote for president.

How about avoid talking about your wives? You guys — not the women you married — are running for the presidency. It is your views on the issues that interest me and, I presume, millions of other Americans who are paying attention to this campaign.

The rest of this baloney is tawdry and unbecoming of the office you are seeking.

Then again, so are some of the things the actual candidates for president have said about each other.

 

Define whose ‘awful legacy,’ Mr. President

Bubba and The Worst President Evah

Former President Bill Clinton is paying the price for speaking without maximum precision.

So is the presidential campaign of his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The 42nd president, while speaking on his wife’s behalf, asserted it is imperative that voters erase what he called the “awful legacy” of the past eight years.

That’s it. Awful legacy. He didn’t identify whose legacy to which he was referring.

Pundits, politicians and just plain folks were left, therefore, to presume he meant the president’s “awful legacy.”

The borrow a term: Oops!

The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately sought to clarify what he meant, which was the legacy of the Republican-controlled Congress that, according to the campaign, has obstructed President Obama at every turn along the way.

OK, but he didn’t say it. He didn’t say “Congress’s awful legacy.” Then again, neither did he say “Barack Obama’s awful legacy.”

However, since the president is the Main Man in any political discussion, we are left to presume the former president was talking about his successor.

Right?

President Clinton, of course, has gotten into this kind of word-parsing mess before.

Recall his grand jury testimony during the Lewinsky Scandal when he sought to tell the panel, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” That verbal miscue has become embedded in U.S. political lexicon.

I doubt this one will endure quite as long.

Still, for a seasoned politician — which Bill Clinton certainly is — to speak so imprecisely in the heat of a critical campaign really does make some of us wonder: What in the world did he really say — or mean?

Perhaps he can blame it on jet lag.

 

Let’s get real, Sen. Cruz … patrol Muslim neighborhoods?

cruz

Ted Cruz is reacting just like a politician seeking any advantage he can find.

The Texas Republican U.S. senator and a leading candidate for president, responding to the terrorist attacks that killed dozens of people in Brussels, Belgium, has called for law enforcement to “patrol Muslim neighborhoods” in the United States.

He believes “political correctness” and “fear” are preventing U.S. officials from doing enough to prevent terror attacks in this country. It’s time to “utterly destroy” the Islamic State and other terror cells.

No argument on the destruction of ISIS, senator.

But tell us, please: How are we going to define “Muslim neighborhoods”? Are there such enclaves in major American cities? Houston, which it Cruz’s hometown, has the largest Muslim population of any city in Texas. Where are those Muslim neighborhoods?

How about we concentrate fully on another course?

Let’s instead redouble our intelligence and military efforts to destroy ISIS, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and other terror cells abroad. Hasn’t the federal government already declared its intention to “destroy” these murderous cults? Hasn’t the president vowed to protect Americans? Aren’t we killing bad guys each day with air strikes, using manned and unmanned aircraft?

And aren’t we intercepting efforts to bring terror to this country?

We should vow to stand with our allies who are grieving at this moment over the senseless and brutal loss of life in Belgium, just as we have done for allies in Paris and in all places where the terrorists have struck.

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, denounced Cruz’s statement.

“It’s really beyond belief that you have one of the leading presidential candidates calling for law enforcement to target religious communities totally based on the fact that they are of a particular faith,” Hooper told the Washington Post. “In normal times, this would be the sort of thing that would disqualify someone from running for dogcatcher, much less president of the United States.”

Well, Mr. Hooper, here’s a flash. These aren’t “normal times.” We have this presidential campaign going on in the midst of a fearful climate — and candidates for the highest office in the land are likely to say just about anything to get their names in front of the public.

There’s a lot of fear being spread — not just by the terrorists, but also by politicians who think they stand to benefit from it.