Category Archives: political news

Huck needs to cool the rhetoric

“We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity.”

That was the Rev. Mike Huckabee in a conference call to conservative activists. The one-time Baptist preacher and former Arkansas governor is going to announce soon his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination and this is going to be a theme of his second White House campaign.

Honestly, he needs to settle down.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/27/republican-candidates-evangelicals_n_7148310.html?ir=Politics&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Huckabee and a host of other GOP candidates are roiling the party’s base by using scary rhetoric, declaring that there’s a phony war against Christians in the United States. Rick Santorum says it. So does Bobby Jindal. Same for Scott Walker. They all oppose same-sex marriage and suggest that this issue is pretext for the war against Christian belief in this country.

I once considered Huck to be a fairly reasonable man. He ran for president in 2008 and acquitted himself fairly well during much of the GOP primary. He’s gotten a bit overheated in recent years. His statement now about the threat of “criminalizing” Christianity goes beyond what’s reasonable discourse.

He knows that’s not going to happen. Ever.

In this supercharged political climate, it plays well among the party’s base, which seems to believe anything that its political leaders say out loud.

 

Repeal 'Obamacare'? Are conservatives nuts?

Congressional conservatives have rocks in their heads. They’ve gone ’round the bend. They need some smelling salts.

They’re angry with House Speaker John Boehner who they believe is stalling their effort to get a bill that repeals the Affordable Care Act to the desk of the president of the United States — who hails the ACA as his signature domestic legislative achievement.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/conservatives-obamacare-repeal-republicans-117364.html?hp=t1_r

Gosh, what do you suppose President Obama is going to do when he receives a bill repealing the ACA?

Sign it into law? Guess again.

Put it on ice? Hardly.

Veto it outright? Yes.

The ACA happens to be working. It’s gaining popularity among millions of rank-and-file Americans — particularly those who now can afford health insurance whereas before they couldn’t.

Their effort is doomed to fail. As Politico reports: “House Republicans have already voted more than 50 times to try to defund, alter or overturn the health care law that conservatives despise. The latest effort, if it happens, would no doubt fail, too — and there are some indications that GOP leaders are ready to move on. But getting a bill to President Barack Obama’s desk and forcing him to veto it would send a powerful symbolic message to the Republican base that House conservatives haven’t given up on scuttling the law.”

That’s the point, I guess: make the base happy.

They want the law repealed, no matter what. The rest of the country? Well, the tide appears to be pulling in the opposite direction.

Afflicting the comfortable no longer in vogue?

There’s a saying that a free press’s key mission is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

At the risk of sounding like a whiny baby who never got invited to one of these gigs, allow me now to say that the Washington Correspondents Dinner is a disgrace to the high-minded mission that the D.C. press corps is supposed to fulfill.

Check out this essay about what’s become of this annual event:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/white-house-correspondents-dinner-117287.html?ml=po#.VT2bCFJ0yt8

There’s something more than mildly offensive about seeing reporters and their dates parading along a red carpet, a la the Oscars, Tonys, Emmys and the ESPYs.

Those of us who toiled out here in the Heartland — aka Flyover Country — always have thought there ought to be a natural tension between the power brokers and those who cover them, reporting on their dealings to the “unwashed masses” who depend on journalists to tell them the truth.

Here’s how Patrick Gavin describes the event that occurred over the weekend: “What started off decades ago as a stately formal celebration of the best of presidential reporting has morphed into a four-day orgy of everything people outside the Beltway hate about life inside the Beltway—now it’s not just one night of clubby backslapping, carousing and drinking between the press and the powerful, it’s four full days of signature cocktails and inside jokes that just underscore how out of step the Washington elite is with the rest of the country. It’s not us (journalists) versus them (government officials); it’s us (Washington) versus them (the rest of America).”

Boy, howdy. I couldn’t have said it better.

The D.C. press corps has become something of an echo chamber, where journalists parrot each other’s views and simply cannot wait to be seen in the company of the famous and the powerful. In their own minds, that seems to fit the description of the people who cover government.

I loved Gavin’s note that unlike some of the other dinners — such as the Gridiron — where presidents occasionally are absent, POTUS’s attendance at the correspondents dinner seems to be required. Gavin writes:  “The last president to skip it was Ronald Reagan in 1981 and — let’s cut him some slack — he bailed because he had just been shot.”

The press’s mission to afflict the comfortable now seems almost quaint. How can it do so when the comfortable include the very journalists who keep slapping the backs and yukking it up with the folks they are sent to cover?

I much prefer the tension that is supposed to exist between the media and the government. It keeps everyone — reporters and their sources — a little more honest.

 

Bush loses weight, gains momentum

Jeb Bush has lost weight.

It’s reportedly 20 to 30 pounds. The former Republican governor of Florida is considering a run for the presidency next year.

Does one have anything to do with the other?

Sure it does.

http://www.examiner.com/article/jeb-bush-weight-loss-will-bush-s-weight-loss-help-his-run-for-president

We’ve become obsessed with how candidates look. OK, maybe not obsessed, but its important in the minds of voters who want their national leaders to present themselves well.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, another possible — if not probable — GOP presidential candidate, had some surgery to help him control his weight. He said at the time he was doing it for health reasons and because his wife and children were concerned about his health. I am certain of their concern.

But he said nothing about the cosmetic aspect of the weight loss surgery and whether his own ambitions for higher office had anything to do with his decision.

The last truly obese president we elected was probably William Howard Taft, who weighed in at 300-plus pounds. But that was in 1908. Enough said about that, yes?

These days, candidates have to look the role they seek to assume.

Thus, Jeb Bush’s weight loss serves as a precursor to what almost every political pundit/commentator/observer has been saying for months. He intends to run for president of the United States.

If nothing else, Gov. Bush’s weight loss is a testament to the stamina he’ll need to endure the grind he’s about to undertake.

 

Be careful with war references, politicians

Listen up, politicians.

Whether you’re running for president of the United States, any seat in Congress, the statehouse or a seat at City Hall, take care when referencing any military experience.

There will be folks out here who are listening to your every word.

Roy McDowell is running for mayor of Amarillo. He’d been referring in public statements to his military service “in Vietnam.” Turns out McDowell didn’t serve in-country, but served during the Vietnam War era.

Why bring this up? Because some of us who actually did serve in Vietnam are keenly aware of these things and want to be sure that all vets — whose service is honorable — portray their service honestly.

Is this a deal-breaker? Probably not, but McDowell and other politicians need to be acutely aware that the world is watching and listening.

He’s not the first politician to fudge a little. U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., did a doozy of a job mischaracterizing his own military service before being elected to the Senate. He, too, said he’d served in Vietnam when he hadn’t. Bad call, senator.

This also reminds me of a young man whose acquaintance I made some years ago. He told my wife and me he “flew helicopters” in Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid-1990s. When he said he “flew,” I assumed immediately he piloted them. We would talk about his experience “flying” Apache choppers for the Army. I assumed, of course, that he either was a warrant officer or was commissioned. He well might have flown aboard the choppers, but perhaps as a crew member.

Why make that leap? Well, years later, I happened to be browsing through his office and discovered his discharge certificate on a wall. It listed his rank as private, E-1. What? How could he have “flown” helicopters if he’s a mere enlisted man — and a buck private to boot?

Take great care, politicians. If you fudge on your service record, you can be caught.

 

Lynch gets key GOP ally

Politics occasionally produces peculiar alliances that develop at key moments.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked Attorney General-designate Loretta Lynch’s confirmation vote over an unrelated bill dealing with human trafficking. Then the Senate approved the trafficking bill. What did McConnell do then? He rounded up enough votes to get Lynch confirmed.

McConnell whipped for Lynch, avoiding nuclear fallout

His work to end a filibuster that had stopped Lynch’s confirmation apparently has angered the likes of Sen. Ted Cruz and other members of the Senate’s TEA party caucus.

My reaction? Live with it.

This seeming reversal gets to a key element of McConnell’s leadership. He can be a fierce partisan when the opportunity presents itself, but he knows how the Senate is supposed to work and he knows how to deal with the “other side,” namely Democrats, when that opportunity presents itself.

Compromise, therefore, isn’t a bad thing when a failure to compromise gums up the legislative works — as it did while Loretta Lynch waited an interminable length of time to be confirmed as the nation’s next attorney general.

So, now let’s move on to the next congressional crisis.

 

Lynch finally confirmed as AG

The vote was 56-43.

The only reason the full U.S. Senate didn’t vote on this key appointment was that Republican Ted Cruz of Texas didn’t cast a vote. He didn’t like the nominee being considered for attorney general.

Welcome to the U.S. Justice Department, Loretta Lynch.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/239878-senate-votes-to-confirm-lynch-as-attorney-general

A number of Republicans voted to confirm Lynch, whose nomination should have been decided weeks ago. It was bogged down by the Senate Republican leadership’s insistence that it deal first with a bill that had nothing to do with Lynch’s nomination.

But she’s in. That’s good. She’s qualified and she deserved long ago to get a vote by senators on her nomination.

But here’s a curious element to the vote. One of the “no” votes came from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who said this:  “The question for me from the start has been whether Ms. Lynch will make a clean break from (President Obama’s) policies and take the department in a new direction.”

So, the chairman wants the new attorney general to break away from the policies of the president who appointed her. When has that ever happened? When has a Cabinet official ever promised to go against the individual who selected him or her?

The bogeyman for Grassley and other Republicans was Obama’s executive order on immigration that delays deportation for an estimated 5 million undocumented immigrants. He wanted her to say she opposed the order. Good luck with that one, Mr. Chairman.

But what the heck. She waited longer than any other recent Cabinet appointment to get confirmed.

Let’s hope her new job will have been worth the wait.

 

Benghazi report timing is, um, dubious

This shouldn’t surprise anyone.

The U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi will release its report to the world sometime in, that’s correct, 2016. That’s right smack in the midst of a presidential campaign featuring the No. 1 principal in that investigation, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who — by the way — will be running for president of the United States.

I know. You just can’t believe the timing of it all, right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/house-benghazi-report-release-2016-117231.html?hp=r3_4

The panel’s chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, had wanted to release the report no later than the end of the current year. Legal staffers, though, said they needed more time to assimilate everything and compile into a comprehensive report on what happened on Sept. 11, 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Libya.

What did happen? Some terrorists launched an attack on the consulate, a fire fight ensued and four Americans were killed, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. Clinton’s State Department has been accused of covering up key elements relating to what they knew and when they knew it. Previous findings have concluded there has been no deliberate cover-up. But the Republican-led House launched a select committee probe anyway.

This is certain to muddy Clinton’s presidential campaign, particularly if it produces a proverbial “smoking gun.”

What did she know? When did she know it? Did the secretary deliberately mislead Americans?

I’ve long thought this congressional panel already had pre-determined culpability, but was looking for the path that would reach that conclusion. Then again, I’m not in the hearts and minds of those who are conducting this investigation.

I’ll accept Chairman Gowdy’s assertion that he wanted to release the report prior to the election year.

My hope now is that we can choose the next president on the merits of their full public record, their campaign rhetoric and their pledges to lead the country toward an even brighter future.

My fear is that the Benghazi report is going to plow all of that noble intent into the ground.

 

Why bother with a congressional has been?

The last time I commented on former U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s blatherings, some of my lefty friends asked: Why pay her no never mind? She’s out of office, irrelevant, she doesn’t matter any longer.

Allow this brief explanation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/michele-bachmann-the-rapture-is-coming-and-its-obamas-fault/ar-AAboZhG

I chose to comment on Bachmann blaming the coming Rapture on President Obama because — believe it or not — a lot of Americans actually take her seriously.

I am not one of them.

Bachmann served a few terms in the House of Representatives. She became a favorite of the TEA party wing of the Republican Party. She ran for president in 2012 and for one brief moment during the GOP primary, she actually rose to near the top tier of the class of clowns running for the party nomination. For the record, I do not include eventual nominee Mitt Romney in that gaggle of goofballs.

Bachmann then decided to step down from public office in 2014, but she hasn’t stepped down from public life or from the public’s attention.

She remains relevant in some people’s minds, although for the life of me I cannot understand why.

So, when she says, as she did the other day on a right-wing radio talk show, that the Rapture is imminent, some folks listen to her. “We in our lifetimes potentially could see Jesus Christ returning to earth and the rapture of the church,” Bachmann said. “We see the destruction, but this was a destruction that was foretold.”

She said more. “We are literally watching, month by month, the speed move up to a level we’ve never seen before with these events,” Bachmann said. “Barack Obama is intent. It is his number one goal to ensure that Iran has a nuclear weapon.”

Sigh.

I never know whether to laugh or laugh harder when Bachmann opens her mouth.

She is giving folks like me plenty of commentary grist.

That’s why she remains relevant.

No diversity on Democratic bench? C'mon!

The Hill newspaper has a headline that shouts that actual and potential Democratic candidates for president lack “diversity.”

The Democratic “bench” is too, um, bland … or some such thing.

Hold on here.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/239460-democrats-have-no-bench-and-no-diversity-in

The trio of mug shots that accompany the news story attached here tell me something quite different.

* Hillary Rodham Clinton is, quite obviously, a woman. She was first lady for eight years from 1993 until 2001. She served in the U.S. Senate and then as secretary of state. Enough said there.

* Jim Webb is a former U.S. senator from Virginia. He’s a Vietnam War veteran. He saw combat as a Marine. He served in the Reagan administration, not exactly a bastion of progressive principles.

* Bernie Sanders is an independent U.S. senator from Vermont. He’s a card-carrying, say-it-loud-and-proud socialist. He makes no bones about his share-the-wealth philosophy.

I won’t mention Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who keeps saying she isn’t running.

Oops. I just did.

Those three individuals look pretty diverse to me. They each bring a different set of governing principles to a presidential campaign.

Only one of them, Clinton, has declared her candidacy. Webb has formed an exploratory committee, while Sanders is keeping his options open.

I get what The Hill means, though, about the lack of “diversity.” It refers to the Republican field that so far has two Hispanic candidates — Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. There well might be a woman, Carly Fiorina, in the mix as well. An African-American, Ben Carson, is likely to run.

Let us not dismiss the potential Democratic primary field as being bland and one-note boring.

Among the possible field of three — Clinton, Webb and Sanders — one can find plenty of ideological diversity.