Category Archives: political news

Sen. Paul: most interesting GOP candidate

I’ll lay my bet down now that Rand Paul is going to be the most interesting and provocative Republican running for president in 2016.

I didn’t like the U.S. senator from Kentucky when he first burst onto the scene. I like him better now. It’s not that I plan to vote for him next year if he gets the GOP nomination. He does have some interesting ideas to share with Americans.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-rand-paul-announces-2016-presidential-run-on-website/ar-AAaxxuJ

He’s already announced on his website that he’s going to run. He has an event planned later today in his home state to make official.

He wants to return the nation to the “principles of liberty and limited government.”

Well, damn! Isn’t that original?

Actually, though, his view of libertarianism encompasses a wide swath of issues.

He suggests favoring marijuana legalization. I’m wondering what he’s going to say down the line about assisted suicide and abortion. His foreign policy doctrine looks to be of an anti-war bent, unlike so many of the TEA party members of his party who seem all too willing to start dropping bombs and (please pardon this hideous euphemism) placing American “boots on the ground” to assist in every regional conflict on the planet.

Paul didn’t distinguish himself during the Senate Benghazi hearings when he scolded then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the confusion that erupted in the firefight at the U.S. consulate in Libya. “If I had been president,” Paul said, he would have fired Secretary Clinton on the spot.

I thought at that moment: Oh … please.

But the man’s occasional quirkiness and interesting take on domestic and international affairs has piqued my curiosity.

With that — run, Rand, run!

 

Hispanic, Anglo: Same thing? Umm, no

John Ellis Bush is no more Hispanic than his mother, father or his four siblings.

He’s an Anglo-American. But in 2009 he put “Hispanic” on his voter registration form.

Thus, the 2016 presidential campaign comedy of errors has begun — and John Ellis Bush, aka Jeb, isn’t even an official candidate for president.

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/06/jeb-bush-committed-felony-lying-florida-voter-registration-form.html

PoliticsUSA, a left-leaning website, says Jeb Bush committed a third-degree felony by registering falsely when he listed his ethnicity as Hispanic. Those folks are all up in arms over it, complaining that the media are giving Bush a pass.

What does PoliticsUSA want to happen to Bush? Toss him in jail for committing a third-degree felony six years ago?

I’m not willing to slap irons on the former Florida governor’s wrists and/or ankles.

Hey, perhaps he was thinking of his wife, Columba, who was born in Mexico. She’s Hispanic, for sure. So are the couple’s children, the most notable of whom is George P. Bush, the newly elected Texas land commissioner.

My favorite memory of George P. Bush is watching the then-teenager at the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston extolling the virtues of his grandfather, President George H.W. Bush, who was seeking re-election. “Viva Boosh!” shouted George P. from the podium that day — bringing down the house in the Astrodome.

Jeb Bush will get past this little kerfuffle.

Just a reminder, though: John Ellis Bush, you are an Anglo. Keep it straight in the future, all right?

 

Beware of big money, former Sen. Hart warns

Former Vice President Walter Mondale once asked famously of then-Sen. Gary Hart: Where’s the beef?

He sought to smoke out Hart’s position on the issues that were driving the 1984 Democratic Party primary presidential campaign.

These days, though, the former senator is giving us plenty to chew on as he warns of the influence of big money — as in really big money — on the upcoming 2016 campaign for president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/gary-hart-hillary-clinton-2016-billion-dollar-campaign-116673.html?hp=l2_3

Hart’s target? Former Sen. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who figures to raise as much as a billion bucks to run for president. Hart doesn’t like that kind of influence. While he expresses admiration and respect for Clinton, he sounds like he’s leaning toward a possible alternative candidate for president — say, Elizabeth Warren or Martin O’Malley.

As Politico reported: “The post-Citizens United campaign finance environment has sullied the presidential process, he said, benefiting establishment politicians who cater to financial backers. He pointed to his own experience, noting that he and his wife mortgaged their home for between $50,000 and $75,000 — an amount that made a significant difference in his first campaign in 1984.”

Ah, yes, Citizens United.

That was the infamous Supreme Court decision that ruled in 2010 that campaign contributors cannot be limited in the amount of money they give. Why, it’s a free speech issue, the court ruled. President Obama then stood in the lectern at a State of the Union speech and scolded the justices as they sat right in front of him for their decision. Although the setting was inappropriate for such a tongue-lashing, the guts of what the president said hold up today: It is that money wields too much influence in the modern political process.

Those who suggest that enabling corporations to give mountains of money to candidates is simply allowing “free speech” do not seem to grasp that some speech is heard more clearly than others. Politicians are going to listen to those who can give huge sums of money more than they’ll listen to you and me.

Is their voice more important than ours?

That’s the kind of influence Sen. Hart is warning us about.

Gary Hart has found the beef.

 

'Kennedy whitewash' critique was expected

I knew this critique would come from those who opposed the late U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy’s view of government and the world.

It arrived from Brent Bozell and Tim Graham, two leaders of the Media Research Center, a conservative-leaning media watchdog organization.

These gentlemen were offended at the recent opening of the Edward Kennedy Institute and the ceremony that praised the Liberal Lion’s work in the Senate.

http://nypost.com/2015/04/03/a-kennedy-whitewash/

They called the event a whitewash, glossing over the many personal foibles — and the tragedy — that stalked Kennedy for much of his life.

I get that Bozell and Graham thought that the media should have told the rest of the story about Kennedy: the womanizing, the public intoxication, the overall bad behavior and, yes, Chappaquiddick.

The event at the Edward Kennedy Institute was meant to honor the man’s public service. The bad stuff happened off the clock. He was clearly a flawed human being — as we all are.

However, it is no mere coincidence that Kennedy had many friends with whom he shared little or nothing politically. His across-the-aisle relationships became almost legendary on Capitol Hill. Kennedy’s best friend in the Senate arguably was Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, who counseled his friend Teddy and became something of a father confessor to the youngest member of the Kennedy “royal family.”

Did the late liberal lawmaker fight hard for his beliefs? Yes, as Bozell and Graham noted in their essay. He savaged the late Robert Bork when President Reagan nominated him for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Kennedy’s ferocity against Bork has been matched in recent years by the right’s assault on, say, the president of the United States and any number of key appointees he’s sought to install in high office.

Watchdogs such as the Media Research Center do provide a valuable service to the public. They remind us that the media need to be monitored carefully, to ensure they tell the complete story. The left has its share of watchdogs, as does the right.

The unveiling of the Edward Kennedy Institute, though, was meant to honor one aspect of a senator’s public life. The private indiscretions remain part of the man’s larger legacy. I see nothing wrong with examining them both — separately.

 

Nugent has right to expose his ignorance

I’ve taken great pleasure criticizing the blathering of the Motor City Madman, one-time rocker Ted Nugent.

Nugent is a profane loudmouth. Many of his utterances border on sedition.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-nugent-obama-is-causing-veteran-suicides/ar-AAankZq

He’s also an American citizen who has the same rights the rest of us enjoy under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. He has the right to make an ass of himself. He does it regularly and he does it well.

The French writer, historian and philosopher Voltaire said it better than most when he wrote: “I do not agree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Nugent said recently that the rash of veterans’ suicide is a result of President Obama’s policies. Yep, he blamed the president of the United States for those tragic deaths. He said “the commander in chief is the enemy.”

He’s referred to the president as a “subhuman mongrel” and added an assortment of disgraceful, disgusting statements to make whatever point he seeks to make.

I disagree with every single political statement that flies out of this guy’s mouth.

However, he’s entitled to say these things. He’s as American as anyone else, which just goes to show how diverse our national family has become.

Voltaire’s understanding of the right of free speech is unparalleled.

Even nut jobs like Ted Nugent are entitled to be heard.

Which brings up another famous quote from another notable statesman.

This, from President Abraham Lincoln: “Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”

 

MLK Jr. dies; RFK gives speech for the ages

Forty-seven years ago a single rifle shot killed one of the 20th century’s greatest Americans, Martin Luther King Jr.

James Earl Ray would be captured, tried and convicted of murdering Dr. King. He would die in prison.

Not long after the rifle shot ended the life of the Nobel laureate and champion of non-violent civil disobedience, a politician stepped to the microphone in Indianapolis. Robert F. Kennedy was campaigning for the presidency on April 4, 1968 and he decided to tell the mostly African-American crowd some tragic news.

He told them that Dr. King had been murdered and then he delivered one of the greatest extemporaneous speeches in modern political history.

RFK sought to quell the rage that rose from the shock of the news. He succeeded that night. While other cities across the country erupted in violence, Indianapolis remained calm.

I remember the events of that day very well. I was a teenager struggling to find my own way. I’d discovered a path later that summer when I was inducted into the U.S. Army.

Dr. King could stir enormous passion in people. He sought justice for African-Americans but insisted on taking a peaceful path. That he would die a violent death remains to this day one of the great tragic ironies of the 20th century.

Robert Kennedy’s courage that night in Indianapolis would be almost unheard of today. He urged the crowd to reach out and to seek the goodness among each other.

That was a turbulent time. RFK’s brother — the president of the United States — was struck down by an assassin less than five years earlier.

Indeed, Robert Kennedy’s own life would end violently two months and one day after Dr. King’s assassination.

In that brief moment, standing in the night, Robert Kennedy sought to honor Martin Luther King Jr. by seeking to tap the better angels of a society torn by violence.

 

Yep, Sen. Menendez ought to quit

The curious world of politics at times deprives politicians of the presumption of innocence granted to “ordinary citizens.”

Such is the case with U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., who’s been indicted on a host of corruption charges.

He ought to quit the Senate and pursue his defense as a private citizen.

A federal grand jury indicted Menendez on felony counts relating to his close relationship with an eye doctor, Soloman Melgen, who flew Menendez to the Dominican Republic on his private jet — trips that Menendez failed to disclose to congressional ethics officials.

There’s a lot of other allegations involving favors exchanged between the men. The amazing detail of the indictment suggests there’s considerable fire under all that smoke.

Is the senator guilty? I have no clue.

This much is clear: His service in the U.S. Senate will be clouded forever by this indictment. How in the world can this man conduct the public’s business when he is defending himself against a federal indictment?

Why does this matter to anyone outside of his home state? Well, he’s a federal official himself and he votes on laws that affect all Americans, even those of us out here in Flyover Country.

As the New York Time editorialized in calling for his resignation: “Mr. Menendez is evidently not in a hurry to get to the stage of contrition, having warned on Wednesday that he’s ‘not going anywhere.’ He would be doing a disservice to New Jersey by clinging to power as a disgraced politician. His colleagues in the Senate should demand that he step aside.”

Politics can be a dirty business. It doesn’t allow for the normal presumptions of innocence granted to non-politicians. That’s the way it is.

 

Boycotts hurt more than they help

Let me be clear.

I detest boycotts in response to bad public policy. The Indiana legislature enacted a bad bill, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Gov. Mike Pence signed into law.

The reaction across the country has been to boycott Indiana. Business leaders are encouraging Americans to stay away, don’t do business in the Hoosier State.

What precisely do boycotts accomplish? To my mind, they inflict significant collateral damage on business owners who well might oppose the public policy that’s been enacted in their name.

RFRA is intended to protect business owners from being sued for refusing service to individuals based on “religious beliefs.” The law has been interpreted as giving license to discriminate against gay people.

Thus, the calls for boycotts have been launched.

I detest this tactic as a political response.

To my way of thinking, a more reasonable response is to send letters to the offending politicians. Leave the business owners out of this fight. They’ve been used as pawns by politicians. They shouldn’t be used as pawns by those who the politicians have offended.

If there was the textbook definition of “political football,” the business owners victimized by angry boycotts fit the bill.

 

Good move, Gov. Hutchinson

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson is a smart politician, and I don’t say that intending to be snarky.

His state’s lawmakers sent him a bill that looks like the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act — the one that caused all that furor. What did Hutchinson do? He sent it back to the legislature and told lawmakers to rework the bill to ensure it doesn’t encourage discrimination against gays and lesbians.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/arkansas-religious-freedom-bill-recall-asa-hutchinson-116574.html?hp=r1_4

If only Indiana Gov. Mike Pence had dialed in his own radar when he got the bill that he signed into law.

RFRA is intended to protect business owners from being sued for denying service to gays and lesbians. It is seen, though, as a license for business owners to discriminate against the LGBT community. The uproar has been furious.

Hutchinson heard the fury all the way down in Little Rock. His view is that the Arkansas bill needs to reflect the 1993 federal law signed by President Clinton that protects the rights of all citizens and disallows business owners from discriminating against anyone.

“My responsibility is to speak out on my own convictions and to do what I can as governor to make sure that this bill reflects the people of Arkansas, protects those of religious conscience, but also minimizes the chance of discrimination in the workplace and in the public environment,” Hutchinson said.

This debate has raged now for several days and it likely will continue to rage until the Indiana legislature does what Gov. Pence has requested, which is to rework it to protect all citizens’ rights. As for the Arkansas bill, Gov. Hutchinson took the advice of his son, Seth, who informed his father that he signed a petition urging Dad to veto the bill as it was presented to him initially.

Sons usually are told to listen to their fathers. In this case, Dad did the listening — as he should.

 

New folks hogging all the air time

Ted Cruz has done it. So has Tom Cotton. The two Republican senators,  from Texas and Arkansas, respectively, have managed to muscle their way onto our TV screens and into our local newspapers with their actions, even though they’ve been on the job such a short time.

Same with Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts. She’s been on the job about two years and she’s everyone’s go-to gal when the subject of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy comes up.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/01/elizabeth_warren_dems_must_emphasize_differences_with_gop.html

I posted a blog earlier this week about the late Edward Kennedy’s adherence to Senate tradition, how he didn’t make a floor speech until he’d been in office for a year.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/04/01/r-i-p-ted-kennedys-u-s-senate/

All bets are off these days. The new folks are not bashful at all about hogging up media air time and space.

Cruz is running for president. Cotton drafted that letter to the Iranian mullahs and recommended they reject a nuclear deal worked out by the United States.

Now it’s Warren.

Didn’t she say she “is not a candidate for president” in 2016? Why are the media still digging around the roots of that story?

Is she going to challenge Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primary or not? I thought she was declarative in her statement about not running. Oh, wait. She spoke in the present tense. “I am not running,” she said, if memory serves. That means the door is still slightly open for her to change her mind.

These new senators — and House members, too — are overshadowing the senior members.

Republican Orrin Hatch? He’s nowhere to be seen or heard. Democrat Barbara Boxer? She’s announced her impending retirement — and that’s been it. Republican Thad Cochran? He almost lost the GOP primary in Mississippi but got renominated on the strength of African-Americans who didn’t want the other guy to win. Democrat Patty Murray? She’s been as quiet as Hatch.

The new folks keep showing up. They’re everywhere.

The “new normal” in Washington is to let the newbies have the floor.