Category Archives: political news

Gowdy to GOP colleagues: ‘Shut up’ about Benghazi

Trey_Gowdy-1

I love the comment from House Select Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy to his Republican colleagues.

“Shut up” about things about which you know nothing, says the South Carolina Republican.

They know nothing? Or do they know, um, too much?

Hillary Clinton is going to testify this week before the House panel about the fire fight in September 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Four brave Americans died in the melee, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Republicans have been trying like the dickens for more than three years to find enough dirt on Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, to pin something on her. They’ve accused her of covering something up.

They’ve come up empty … so far.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy then popped off about the reason the committee was formed, noting that Clinton’s poll numbers have plunged since the panel began its work; his comments seemed to most observers to suggest the motive for the committee being formed in the first place was to torpedo Clinton’s presidential campaign.

And then came Rep. Richard Hanna, another GOP colleague, to say the same thing that McCarthy said. D’oh! There’s another one: Bradley Podliska, a former GOP staffer — who worked for the Benghazi committee — also said the same thing. He doesn’t know, Mr. Chairman?

Clinton’s testimony could sink her campaign. It could lift it to new heights. As some folks have noted, the Benghazi hearings have gone on longer than the House Watergate hearings and the Warren Commission hearings looking into JFK’s assassination.

One of these days, hopefully before the presidential nominating conventions next year, the Benghazi panel will wrap this up, publish its findings and then we can move on.

 

 

Republican calls out fellow Republicans

conservatives

David Brooks isn’t a squishy liberal.

He’s no fan of progressive political policies. He believes in small government. He is, in my mind, the personification of what could be called a “traditional conservative” thinker.

He writes a column for the New York Times and is a regular panelist on National Public Radio and on the PBS NewsHour — which in the minds of many of today’s new found conservatives would categorize him as a RINO … a Republican In Name Only.

Well, his recent NYT column lays it out there. Conservatives have gone bonkers, Brooks writes.

Here’s a bit of what Brooks writes: “By traditional definitions, conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. Conservatives of this disposition can be dull, but they know how to nurture and run institutions. They also see the nation as one organic whole. Citizens may fall into different classes and political factions, but they are still joined by chains of affection that command ultimate loyalty and love.

“All of this has been overturned in dangerous parts of the Republican Party. Over the past 30 years, or at least since Rush Limbaugh came on the scene, the Republican rhetorical tone has grown ever more bombastic, hyperbolic and imbalanced. Public figures are prisoners of their own prose styles, and Republicans from Newt Gingrich through Ben Carson have become addicted to a crisis mentality. Civilization was always on the brink of collapse. Every setback, like the passage of Obamacare, became the ruination of the republic. Comparisons to Nazi Germany became a staple.”

To be fair, much of what ails the GOP can be laid at the feet of Democrats, who fail to heed the warnings of their own bombast. Each party’s leader feel the need to play to their respective “base.” They seemingly neglect the great unwashed middle, comprising people who aren’t far left or far right, but instead see value in both ideologies.

I believe it was Colin Powell, another fine Republican, who once lamented that the extremes of both parties were talking past those in the middle who want their voices heard, too.

For now, though, the Republicans are controlling both legislative chambers of Congress. They want to take back the White House. They are seeking the clean sweep of the two government branches by bellowing at the top of their lungs that the nation is going to straight to hell and it’s because of the Democrat in the White House, Barack H. Obama.

It is doing no such thing.

Brooks laments the Republican “incompetence.” He writes: “These insurgents are incompetent at governing and unwilling to be governed. But they are not a spontaneous growth. It took a thousand small betrayals of conservatism to get to the dysfunction we see all around.”

Wow!

Time for some candidate ‘culling’

run-web

I know it’s still early and that anything can happen in this 2016 campaign for the presidency.

But that ol’ trick knee of mine is throbbing and I’m sensing it’s time for some serious candidate culling to occur in both the Democratic and Republican primary fields. No, I don’t mean “culling” in the way you “cull” a herd of elk.

But it’s becoming clear that the public is focusing on a select few of these folks seeking to succeed Barack Obama as president.

The Democrats:

Say so long, please, Martin O’Malley, Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb. No one is talking about any of you fellows.

It’s still all about Hillary and Bernie. Hillary Clinton shined at that Democratic joint appearance. Bernie Sanders stumbled a bit, but played to his base. He had ’em standing and cheering in the Las Vegas “debate hall.”

Oh, and what about Vice President Biden? Stay tuned for that announcement — whatever it is.

The Republicans:

Where do I begin?

Chris Christie? You’re toast. Jim Gilmore? You never were in the game. Rand Paul? You had us then you lost us. John Kasich? As much as I like you, hit the road, sir. Bobby Jindal? B’bye. Lindsey Graham? See ya. Mike Huckabee? You, too. Rick Santorum? Your time is up. George Pataki? Pfftt!

Rick Perry and Scott Walker already are gone.

We’re left now with, um, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio and I’ll throw in Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz.

The first three are the “outsiders.” Rubio is a young Senate gun. Bush is, well, a Bush. Cruz is the TEA Party’s current favorite son.

It’s a bit sad, actually, that some of these folks are being ignored by the media — and that means the public. Some of the Republicans running are thoughtful, experienced and nuanced individuals who have a lot to say.

The public, though, is being swept away by the outsider cadre, led — so far — Trump, whose major claims to fame are his wealth, his reality TV gig, his gorgeous wives … and his big mouth.

The rest of the large combined bipartisan field, though, is ready to be thinned out.

 

Biggest loser at Dem debate? The guy who wasn’t there

biden

The pundits, analysts and partisan strategists are right: Vice President Joe Biden likely saw the end of his hopes of ever becoming president while he watched the Democratic candidates’ joint appearance on CNN.

Why? Hillary Rodham Clinton has assumed the role of prohibitive front runner for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

Thus, with a strengthened Clinton getting ready to reassert her place, there becomes a shrinking opportunity for the vice president to jump into the primary race to “save the party” from nominating someone with cumbersome political baggage.

My hunch just a day after the debate is that no one will need to persuade the VP that a 2016 presidential campaign is futile. He’ll know it. I suspect that he knows it today.

The vice president has had a long career of public service. He can be proud of what he’s done — as a member of the U.S. Senate and as vice president of the United States for two terms.

Yes, there have been the occasional hiccups, gaffes and blunders along the way. Hey, no one is perfect.

Clinton’s performance has gone a long way toward cementing her front runner status.

I expect former Sen. Jim Webb to drop out soon, along with former Govs. Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee. No one today is taking about their debate performances.

All eyes and ears turned to Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Of the two, Clinton emerged as the stronger candidate.

That means, Mr. Vice President, your hopes are likely dashed.

Forever, I’m saddened to say.

 

Who are ‘they,’ Donald?

donald

Donald Trump is taking undeserved credit — imagine that, will you? — for Kevin McCarthy’s stunning withdrawal last week from the contest to become the next speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The GOP presidential candidate said “They’re giving me a lot of credit” for McCarthy dropping out of the congressional campaign.

Who said it, Donald?

That’s all part and parcel of Trump’s modus operandi.

He takes credit where none is deserved, along with shuffling blame off on someone else — all while tossing a personal insult or three at various other individuals.

So help me, I never heard anyone giving Trump “credit” for McCarthy backing out of the House leadership race. That is, until Trump said so.

The fact is that McCarthy’s own intemperance got him booted out.

He muttered that amazing fact, er, gaffe about the Benghazi hearing under way in the House, suggesting the committee was formed for the expressed purpose of undercutting HRC’s presidential ambition.

As former Texas Gov. Rick Perry might say …

Oops.

Trump causes fits with his poll fetish

trumpdonaldtwo09192015getty

Donald Trump has a poll fetish that is second to none.

The Republican presidential candidate keeps harping on his standing in the polls, which might be the most fascinating measure of how unconventional a politician he truly has become.

Pols say they don’t care about polls. Not Trump. He loves ’em, especially when they show him leading the GOP pack as they have since almost the moment he entered the contest.

The New York Times, though, reports that Trump is giving hints of a possible “exit strategy” once the polls start to give way to other front runners.

Trump is no masochist, he said on “Meet the Press” not long ago, meaning that he won’t stay in the race if it becomes clear he won’t win his party’s presidential nomination.

You know, this is giving me fits.

I do not believe Trump is remotely qualified to become Leader of the Free World. On every level imaginable, he is unfit for the highest office in the land … if not the world.

His campaign has generated many more laughs than serious talking points.

However — and I don’t think I’m alone in this — I really don’t want him to exit the campaign. His insults, gaffes and remarkable intemperance are giving his Republican opponents — not to mention the rest of us — lots of grist to toss around.

Is he plotting a possible way out of this campaign?

In the longer term, probably so.

In this crazy, goofy and unpredictable campaign season, though, I’m half-hoping he stays in it for a while longer.

 

What would Ben do?

deadstate-Ben-Carson

Ben Carson ought to be a little more circumspect about some of the responses he gives to hypothetical situations.

Dr. Carson, a Republican running for president of the United States, had the bad form the other day to say that the Umpqua Community College students in Roseburg, Ore., should have ganged up on the gunman who killed nine people before killing himself.

Easy for you to say, Doc. But … but what did you do when someone actually pointed a gun at you?

He said that happened once at a Popeye’s restaurant and he told the gunman that his target was someone else. According to the Los Angeles Times: “Guy comes in, put the gun in my ribs. And I just said, ‘I believe that you want the guy behind the counter,'” Carson said.

Dr. Carson’s account of what happened differed quite dramatically from what he said others should do when faced with mortal peril.

So, Dr. Carson’s hypothetical bravery actually became something else when he faced a threat of his own.

This, I submit, is the danger that politicians — and, yes, Carson’s status as an active presidential candidate makes him a politician — face when they respond to real-life situations with tragic outcomes. They need to take care when saying such things about what they might do or how others should respond.

Perhaps the next time something happens that compares to what occurred in Roseburg, public figures everywhere should say: “I only can imagine the horror that raced through their hearts. I have no idea how they should have reacted, nor do I know what I would have done.”

Hey, just leave it at that.

 

Bring back Newt?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich speaks at the Richard Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California in this May 24, 2007 file photo. REUTERS/Mark Avery

You’re never too old to learn something.

I found that out today. I did not know, for example, that the U.S. Constitution does not require the speaker of the House of Representatives to be a current member of the House.

Do you know what this means? The Republicans who control the House conceivably could go outside the body to find someone to lead it.

I’ve been watching the federal government for nearly 40 years and I did not know this about the House.

This opens up the list of candidates for the speakership to a remarkable degree.

John Boehner announced his intention to quit the House and the speakership. Kevin McCarthy was supposed to be the heir apparent. Then he dropped out today.

Who’s left? The TEA Party caucus of the GOP is beside itself.

Hey, why not enlist former Speaker Newt Gingrich? He said today he’d be willing if a majority of House wanted him to return to Capitol Hill.

Hey, maybe the GOP could call on former Vice President Dick Cheney, who once served in the House. We’ve got a former Republican president out there, George W. Bush, who’s able to serve; former President George H.W. Bush is in failing health.

How about Donald Trump? He’s running for the GOP presidential nomination and he proclaims he is able to do anything under the sun.

Former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is available. Bring him back.

Oh, the possibilities seem endless.

 

Is this how you govern?

logo-teaparty

What on God’s Earth is happening to the Republican leaders who are supposed to run the legislative branch of the U.S. government?

  • House Speaker John Boehner quits his congressional seat.
  • House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy emerges as the presumed next speaker of the House.
  • McCarthy then drops out of the race for speaker after stating an amazing gaffe about the Benghazi committee’s intention to derail Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid.
  • TEA Party Republicans are now fighting among themselves over which of them should declare for the speakership.

And now the threat of a government shutdown and the possibility that Congress won’t increase the nation’s debt ceiling are threatening to derail the U.S. economy.

The election for a new speaker has been postponed. Boehner wants out. Why? He’s sick of the fighting among the GOP members. He’s likely stuck in the job he no longer wants until … oh, heck, until further notice.

Didn’t these Republicans actually promise to govern when they took control of the House in 2011? Didn’t they vow to change things, shake it up, make government work better?

Good grief! They’re now threatening to shut the whole damn thing down!

This is governance at its worst.

How does ‘Speaker Thornberry’ sound?

mac

Mac Thornberry’s name popped into my noggin today around noon when I heard that Kevin McCarthy had dropped out of the race to become the next speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Then I got onto other matters.

Now it turns out that at least one blogger, writing for a major American newspaper, thinks Thornberry would be a good fit as the Man of the House.

Tod Robberson’s blog for the Dallas Morning News seeks to make the case that Thornberry, a Clarendon Republican who’s represented the 13th Congressional District since 1995, might be the man to (a) heal the fractious House GOP caucus and (b) work with President Obama on some of the key issues that need to be resolved.

I happen to like Thornberry on a personal level. We’ve always had a good professional relationship as well. He and I have something in common: We assumed our new Texas Panhandle duties on the same week; I came to work at the Amarillo Globe-News in January 1995 just as Thornberry was taking his oath of office in Washington.

That’s about all we have in common — except that we belong to the same Presbyterian church congregation in Amarillo. But, hey, I thought I’d mention it.

I don’t really buy into the notion that Thornberry even wants to be speaker. He’s never struck me as a media frontrunner, which is what the speaker must be if he or she is to be an effective congressional leader.

Thornberry had long aspired to chair the House Armed Services Committee, which would take yank him off the back bench and into the limelight. He became chairman this year when Buck McKeon retired from the House.

Prior to becoming chairman of the committee, though, Thornberry was one of those lawmakers few folks outside of his West and North Texas district ever saw.

My strong sense is that Thornberry — who is a strong conservative and loyal Republican — simply isn’t wired for the harsh, bright lights that shine on the individual who is third in line to become president of the United States.

However, in this wild and crazy political time in Washington, anything can happen.

Anything!