Category Archives: political news

International news, national news, political news

Foes 'all too willing to test us'

Here’s a tiny part of what former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said before a crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“Here’s the simple truth of our foreign policy: Our allies doubt us and our adversaries are all too willing to test us. No one should be surprised, no one should be surprised that dictators like Assad would cross the president’s red line because he knows the president will not even defend the line that separates our nation from Mexico.” 

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/perry-compares-middle-east-troubles-texas-border

Did you get what he’s inferring here? Perry is possibly going to run for the Republican nomination for president of the United States — again — in 2016. To make the case to GOP voters, he must lambaste the president from the other party.

I understand how it works. Democrats do the same thing to Republican presidents as well, as U.S. Sen. Barack Obama demonstrated when he won the presidency in 2008.

But is this “testing” of U.S. power and prestige limited to just this president?

Let’s see: President Richard Nixon was tested when Arab nations executed an oil embargo in 1973, causing near-panic at gasoline service stations throughout this country. President Ronald Reagan was tested in 1983 when terrorists blew up the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, killing 241 of our young Marines. President George H.W. Bush was tested in Panama when the dictator Manuel Noriega kept looking the other way while drugs were pouring into this country from Panama. President George W. Bush certainly was tested when terrorists flew those hijacked jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11.

Yes, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were tested too. Carter faced the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979-80  and Clinton had to deal with those warlords in Somalia.

Testing of U.S. presidents has been the norm perhaps since the end of World War II, when this nation emerged from that global conflagration as the world’s pre-eminent military and economic power.

It goes with the territory. It’s part of the president’s job description.

 

national news, political news

House members reaching into Senate affairs

It’s downright fun to watch members of one congressional body suggest the way members of the other congressional body should do their job.

Let’s presume that the upper chamber, the Senate, would prefer that the lower chamber, the House of Representatives, mind its own business.

House conservatives push McConnell to gut filibuster

Then again, they’re all on the same team, yes? They’re all interested in doing what’s right and correct for the country, aren’t they?

Maybe so. Maybe not.

U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, thinks the Senate should change its filibuster rules to strip power from Democrats. He wants Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” by not allowing Democrats to filibuster GOP-sponsored bills to death. The issue at hand is the Department of Homeland Security funding measure that’s being kicked to death on the floors of both chambers.

Remember when then-Majority Leader Harry Reid did the same thing when Republicans were in the minority? You’d have thought GOP senators’ heads would explode.

Now the fortunes are reversed. The GOP controls the Senate, along with the House. But among the Republican majority there exists a restive band of malcontents, the TEA party caucus, that wants to shake things up not only in their own body, but in the other one as well.

That’s where Labrador and fellow House TEA party insurgent Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., are seeking this change in Senate rules.

Someone needs to inform both of these young men about the institutional rivalry that exists between these two bodies. Senators represent their entire states and serve for six years. Those House members represent certain congressional districts, which have been gerrymandered — more than likely — to elect people of certain ideological stripes; they’re elected to mere two-year terms.

The Senate considers itself a more deliberative body; the House by nature is more raucous. Senators likely won’t admit to it, but they look down their noses at their House colleagues.

Thus, it is at some peril that Reps. Labrador and Huelskamp seek to tell the folks at the other end of the Capitol Building how to conduct their business.

Tread carefully, fellas.

 

national news, political news

Speaker's future suddenly gets cloudy

It might be that a supposition put forward to me months ago by someone close to House Speaker John Boehner might be panning out.

Boehner might want to throw in the towel on his effort to be the Man of the House. He might just quit and go home.

The speaker got a swift kick in the face yesterday as House Republicans teamed up with Democrats to defeat a short-term funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. Those TEA party Rs remain angry with President Obama over his immigration-related executive action — which granted temporary delay in deportation of 5 million illegal immigrants — so they want to defund the DHS to stick it in Obama’s ear.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/john-boehner-republicans-homeland-security-funding-115588.html?hp=t1_r

Boehner sought to stave off a DHS shutdown. The measure failed, but then the House and Senate came up with a one-week funding plan. We’ll be back at this at the end of next week.

So … now the chatter has turned to whether Boehner could be tossed out by the raucous Republican rabble-rousers. Twenty-five GOP members voted against Boehner to be speaker when the new Congress convened. Others might join the anti-Boehner parade.

That source I mentioned who had said he thought Boehner might pack it in was speculating about whether the speaker could contain the rebel wing of his party. His thought this past fall was that Boehner would be re-elected as speaker, then he would resign from Congress and do something else — such as become a lobbyist or a K Street consultant.

I shudder at the thought of someone from that TEA party wing — and I’m thinking of East Texan Louie Gohmert, who actually sought the speakership against Boehner — taking control of the House gavel.

Given the wackiness that hasn’t gone away, absolutely nothing at all would surprise me.

Let’s all watch this one play out.

 

national news, political news

Terrorists, union protesters: all the same?

Robert Reich is a former labor secretary during the Clinton administration.

He posted this message on Facebook today in response to a patently absurd statement made at the Conservative Political Action Conference by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Reich wrote this:

“Can it get any lower? Last night, at CPAC’s ‘beauty pageant’ for right-wing presidential hopefuls, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was asked how he would fight ISIS if elected president. Walker referred to his political fights with teachers and labor union members in his home state: ‘If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.’ I doubt Walker really believes Americans who peacefully protest for a decent wages are analogous to foreign barbarians who saw off peoples’ heads. But to him and the other right wing-nuts of the Republican party, political opponents are enemies rather than fellow citizens, to be ‘taken on’ mercilessly. This is why they can’t (and mustn’t) govern America.”

There you have it.

A governor who has all but declared war on the union movement in his home state equates facing down peaceful protesters in the streets with the monsters who are terrorizing innocent people on the other side of the world.

This is the kind of rhetoric that CPAC has been hearing from its dog-and-pony show of candidates strutting across the stage to fire up their followers.

The serious thinkers of the Republican Party need to be heard above the demagoguery that’s getting all the attention.

I share Reich’s belief that Walker really equates the protesters with terrorists. Then again, why does he spew such garbage? Oh, I almost forgot. He’s appealing to his party’s “base.”

national news, political news

Preposterous plan saves DHS, for now

Roger Daltrey sang it loudly at the end of The Who classic, “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!”

Republicans had vowed to govern better than Democrats did when they took over both congressional chambers at the beginning of the year. That vow is in jeopardy.

Why? The House of Representatives, which the GOP has controlled since 2011, is going to fund the Department of Homeland Security — but only until March 19. Then the House and Senate will have deal once again with imminent closure because of Republican anger over an executive action taken by President Obama to deal with illegal immigration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/harry-reid-nancy-pelosi-shutdown-homeland-security-115538.html?hp=lc1_4

Congress appears ready to avoid a shutdown at the end of today. The GOP-run Senate wants to approve a funding measure that doesn’t include a provision to strip the executive order of its authority. The GOP-run House, though, isn’t ready to swill that Kool-Aid.

What a terrible way to run the government. A Band-Aid here and there. Then we return to the same crisis mode that sends everyone’s blood pressure through the ceiling.

Obama sought to delay deportation of 5 million illegal immigrants. Congress didn’t like that the president acted alone, even though his predecessors have done so on the same issue over the years.

Republicans are so intent on stopping the deportation order that they’re threatening to de-fund the very agency, the Department of Homeland Security, that is charged with protecting the nation against bad guys trying to sneak into the country.

What kind of governance is that?

The new boss is no better than the old boss.

Ridiculous.

 

national news, political news

Ex-Gov. Palin is wrong — again — on Obama

Sarah Palin has cast this remarkable spell over the nation’s political conservative movement.

With so many qualified public officials able to stand and deliver cogent messages, the nation’s Republican Party — particularly its far right wing — is transfixed by the former half-term Alaska governor who simply doesn’t know of which she speaks.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/sarah-palin-president-obama-radical-islam-isil-cpac-115565.html?hp=c2_3_b3

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Palin stood before the attendees and actually inferred that President Obama is ignoring the threat posed by the Islamic State terrorists.

What in the world is she thinking?

“Wake up, Mr. President,” Palin said on Thursday at CPAC’s gathering. “While Christians bow our heads and pray for you, radical Islamists want to cut off your head.”

Wake up? She wants the president to wake up? Hasn’t she been paying attention?

I know the answer. She hasn’t. She’s been busy listening to the sound of her own voice while ignoring more important voices within her party and certainly ignoring the spoken words and deeds of the incumbent president who’s been fighting the terrorists every day.

Palin parrots the GOP talking points about Obama allegedly not taking the Islamist terrorist threat seriously. Why? Because he’s instructed his administration to avoid using the words “Islamist terrorist.” There you have it. If you don’t say the right words, you’re not actually fighting the bad guys.

What an utter crock of moose dookey!

I had hoped to remain silent about the former governor. I cannot let stand her ridiculous assertions whenever she utters them. Palin did so again today at the CPAC meeting.

Having gotten this little tantrum out of my system, I’ll take another from break monitoring Palin’s rhetorical nonsense.

 

national news, political news

Actually, Mr. Mayor, I heard you clearly

Rudy Guiliani has tried to explain his harsh criticism of Barack Obama by saying that his bluntness got in the way of his message.

He writes in the Wall Street Journal: “My blunt language suggesting that the president doesn’t love America notwithstanding, I didn’t intend to question President Obama’s motives or the content of his heart.”

Well, OK. I heard his remarks. I’ve read them carefully. I think I understand exactly what he said and the message he intended to convey.

For the record, the former New York mayor was speaking at an event honoring Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who’s considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination next year. Guiliani decided to say that the president “doesn’t love America.” Then he went on to say he didn’t question the president’s patriotism.

Those statements seem to be mutually exclusive. A patriot, by definition, loves his country. Am I missing something? I don’t think so.

The former mayor — a one-time candidate for the GOP presidential nomination — went on at some length to tell his audience that the president has a “different” view of the nation from, well, others.

A day or two later, Guiliani tried to counter criticism from some that his attacks were racially motivated, saying that the president was raised by a “white mother.” Someone will have to explain that one to me.

Then he mentioned that young Barack was brought up with “communist influences.” Huh?

I heard the former mayor clearly. I think I know what he intended to say. He’s a well-educated, usually well-spoken man who’s used to the limelight. He undoubtedly wasn’t suffering from stage fright at that dinner the other evening.

He simply was mistaken to the max in his assessment of the president’s love of country.

 

political news

Texas seeks a voice in '16 contest

It’s good to be one of the Big Dogs when it comes to electing presidents of the United States.

Texas is big. And on March 1, 2016 the state is going to have its primary election, meaning that it’s going to be one of the first states to select delegates to the Democratic and Republican national conventions.

http://www.newser.com/article/ab00f4db33c14188a5a6ab79ba90bbd5/in-unusual-twist-the-presidential-race-is-already-afoot-in-texas-changing-the-2016-outlook.html

The state is going to be a player in the next presidential election cycle, judging by the early interest by a gang of potential GOP candidates who are coming to the state in search of cash and even some votes.

In an interesting twist, several of the potential GOP candidates have strong Texas ties.

* Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was born here; his dad, former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, has run for president twice already while serving as a congressman from the Houston area.

* Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush also is a Texas native; his son, George P. Bush, has just taken office as state land commissioner. Jeb’s brother, George W., was Texas governor before being elected president in 2000 and his dad, George H.W., served in Congress from the Houston area before he was elected vice president in 1980 and then president in 1988.

* Ted Cruz represents Texas in the U.S. Senate.

* Rick Perry is a former Texas governor and holds the record for longevity in that office.

And for the Democrats? Well, some folks have tried to suggest that Hillary Rodham Clinton has a Texas connection, too, having worked with her husband, Bill Clinton, as Texas campaign coordinators for the late Sen. George McGovern’s presidential campaign in 1972.

Aw, what the heck. Let’s allow her to claim some Lone Star State roots, too, shall we?

As the Associated Press reported: “Traditionally, opening the campaign with small states has allowed the candidates to concentrate on connecting with highly motivated groups of voters rather than wooing the masses, and gradually building momentum. Adding an early behemoth like Texas makes a difference. More than 150 delegates to the GOP nominating convention are at stake in one place, dozens more than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada combined. And Texas’s 270,000 square miles requires more campaigning by television across 20 cash-draining media markets.”

Welcome back to the Big Show, Texas.

 

political news, Sports news, Uncategorized

UT-Tribune poll reveals poor Perry showing

Two things jump out at me from some recent presidential polling in Texas.

One is as a political analyst notes, that Sen. Ted Cruz’s once-huge lead among Texas Republicans has vanished; Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is breathing down the Cruz Missile’s neck.

The other one, though, perhaps is even more startling: Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry — the TEA party darling and the all-time champeen among Texas Republican vote-getters — is trailing far behind the two frontrunners.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/02/23/uttt-poll-texas-walker-ties-cruz-clinton-soaring/

The University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll shows Perry with just 8 percent of the vote among Texas Republicans. He trails Cruz, Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (a former Texan, by the way), and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

“Scott Walker is clearly breathing some of the oxygen on the right. The big takeaway here is that Ted Cruz is still a giant among Texas Republicans — but he is not invulnerable,” said Jim Henson, co-director of the poll and head of the Texas Politics Project at UT-Austin. “Conservatives are willing to look at another candidate who fits that profile.”

I know. It’s still early. The GOP race isn’t yet formed fully. None of these “candidates” has actually announced formally a presidential candidacy. I’m hoping all of them jump in. I want a full-throated debate among Republicans, who’ve shown quite a talent in recent election cycles for carving each other into a zillion little pieces.

As for Perry, well, he’s got some work to do.

He left office in January, headed off to Iowa to take part in something called a Freedom Summit. He’s trying to dress up his image, make himself sound more presidential. But so far, the attention has been sucked away by Cruz and Walker.

Oh, and the Democrats? Hillary Clinton is favored among 62 percent of Texas Democrats. No story there. She won’t carry Texas in November 2016, no matter how strong she looks today — or on Election Day.

Gov. Perry, though, has to get busy.

 

national news, political news, religious news

'No religious test' ends this discussion

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

— Article VI, Paragraph 3, U.S. Constitution

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has had a tough time of it in recent days.

He sat in the room when former New York City Mayor Rudy Guiliani questioned whether President Obama loved America. Walker didn’t refute the ex-mayor’s nonsense.

Then came a question about whether President Obama is a Christian — as if that even is relevant to any discussion about anyone on Earth, let alone the president of the United States. Walker said he didn’t know, offering some lame notion that he’s never discussed Obama’s faith with him.

I hereby refer to the U.S. Constitution’s Article VI. See the above text.

Right there is all the evidence I need that this discussion has no place in today’s political discourse.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/21/scott-walker-s-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-answer.html?via=mobile&source=twitter

But yet it keeps coming back, particularly as we reference the current president. Why is that?

Has anyone ever wondered aloud whether any of the men who preceded Obama were Christian? Why didn’t Walker swat that idiotic question aside by saying something like:

“That question is irrelevant. You’ve never asked such a thing of George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy … none of them. Barack Obama’s faith is his personal business and the fact that he’s had to speak about it all — and he’s declared his belief in Jesus Christ as his Savior — is because the media and the president’s foes keep bringing it up.

“Next question.”

A president’s faith — or the faith of anyone seeking public office — according to the nation’s founders, is of zero consequence. Does that mean a candidate should necessarily hide his faith from public view? Of course not. Candidates are free to proclaim whatever they wish to proclaim and if their religious faith informs how they set public policy, that should be a factor that voters should consider.

However, the Constitution expressly declares that there should be “no religious test” that candidates for public office must pass.

Let’s focus fully instead on policies that affect people’s lives.