Category Archives: political news

national news, political news

That's the liberal caucus we have known

Well now. It appears that Democratic liberals in Congress are rising up to give their leaders as much grief as the tea party Republicans are set to do to their leaders.

Excellent! That’s the Democratic Party with which I came of age back in the 1960s.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/keystone-xl-senate-liberals-113009.html?hp=r1_3

The defeat of the Keystone XL pipeline in the Senate seems to have juiced up the lefty caucus on Capitol Hill. They’re set to do battle with the more, um, “establishment” members of the Democratic minority in both congressional houses.

It’s looking like we might have two intraparty squabbles erupting in Congress when the next body convenes in January.

The president is stuck having to deal now with two warring factions within each party. He’s bound to anger the extremists on the left, too.

As Politico reported:

“I will use whatever tools I have as a senator to protect the environment,” said Sen. (Jeff) Merkley, a liberal from Oregon. Asked if he could ever envision himself performing a Rand Paul-style talking filibuster in the Republican Senate, (Sheldon)

Whitehouse of Rhode Island replied: “Oh, of course. We will have more tools in the minority than we had in the majority.”

The liberals don’t like President Obama any more than the conservatives do, or so one might be led to think.

Which begs the question: If Obama is ticking off conservatives so much, how is it he can do the same thing to liberals?

A truism in journalism is that if you’re angering both sides of an argument, then you’re doing a good job.

Not so in politics.

Obviously.

 

 

political news

Why not just accept grand jury verdict?

Maybe the onset of old age is making me more circumspect about some things.

Such as when the criminal justice system renders a decision many folks find repugnant. Meanwhile, I have grown to just accept it as the system doing what it’s intended to do.

The grand jury in Ferguson, Mo., delivered a verdict this week that has many folks reeling. It found that a white police officer, Darren Wilson, did not commit a crime when he shot a young black man, Michael Brown, to death this past summer.

At one level I thought perhaps Wilson overreacted when he confronted Brown one night in the St. Louis suburban community. Brown wasn’t doing anything. Wilson wanted him to stop. Brown threw his hands in the air and the policeman shot him.

Well, that’s not what the grand jury heard in testimony. So it delivered a decision that some believe is unjust.

I won’t go there. I truly have no sure-footed opinion on who is right or wrong. Why? I wasn’t in the grand jury room. I didn’t hear the evidence. I didn’t see the faces of the people testifying before the panel. I didn’t have all the facts to ponder.

We’re all spectators.

That hasn’t stopped some folks from grandstanding.

At another level this case reminds me a bit of the outrage that followed the 1995 verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder case. My reaction then was similar to what it is now. That was nearly 20 years ago, so I cannot claim “old age creep” back then.

But my initial reaction to the acquittal was that the jury got it wrong. I still believe Simpson got away with murder.

Then I wrote a column in which I surmised that after many weeks of testimony, all the hoopla and courtroom histrionics, only the 12 people in the jury box had seen and heard all the evidence. Only they knew what none of the rest of us knew. I didn’t agree with their verdict, but I accepted it. The system did its job.

Then, as now, the rest of us were spectators.

I’m not going to wring my hands over this latest decision. However, I do hope it spurs a serious community conversation in Ferguson, where African-Americans think their government doesn’t represent their interests sufficiently.

The folks there have the tools to fix the problem. They can do so at election time.

 

military news, national news, political news

Lieberman for defense chief? Fat chance, Ted

Leave it to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz to provide a laugh amid a serious discussion about national defense policy.

The freshman Republican from Texas thinks former Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., would make a wonderful choice to become the next secretary of defense, replacing Chuck Hagel, who announced his (forced?) resignation Monday.

President Obama might make his pick later today, so I have to get this thought out quickly.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/11/cruz-proposes-lieberman-to-replace-hagel-at-pentagon/

Lieberman might make a good choice except for one little thing.

In 2008, Lieberman — who campaigned as Al Gore’s vice-presidential running mate on the 2000 Democratic ticket — bolted from the party in 2008 when he backed Sen. John McCain for president against, yes, Sen. Barack Obama.

I guess Lieberman is still a Democrat, but I hardly think the president would select someone who’s on record as backing one of the president’s most vocal foreign-policy critics to lead the Pentagon.

Does a president of either party deserve to have folks loyal to him and his policies? Would a President Cruz — perish the thought!) — demand loyalty were he to sit in the Oval Office? “Yes” to the first question. “You bet he would” to the second question.

So, I’ll creep just a tiny bit out on the limb here and predict that Barack Obama will ignore Ted Cruz’s advice and go with someone with whom he feels most comfortable in helping shape American defense policy in this difficult and trying time.

 

 

military news, national news, political news

Hagel was 'up to the job'

Chuck Hagel’s departure today as secretary of defense has the look of a forced resignation.

It now appears, at least to me, that Hagel was the one who forced the issue. That’s too bad. The Pentagon and the Obama administration have lost a good man who knows and understands the needs of the men and women who do all the heavy lifting … in the field.

How Obama and Chuck Hagel reached the end of the line

President Obama talked today about how then-Sen. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, took the young Sen. Obama under his wing and showed him the ropes in a body prone to cliques. He heaped praise on the defense boss and wished him well, which is what one would expect.

Now comes word that Hagel tried to crack the president’s tight inner circle, but couldn’t get in. He had difficulty making his defense policy opinions heard by the commander in chief and those who form that tight-knit circle around him.

If Sen. Hagel was such a trusted ally to the man who would be president, how is it that he was left on the outside looking in when key policy decisions and critical shifts in defense policy were occurring?

Sen. John McCain, one of Hagel’s best friends in the Senate, is set to lead the Senate Armed Services Committee next January. He will chair the panel that will decide whether to confirm the next defense boss. I hope McCain can set aside his personal animus toward Obama — who beat him in the 2008 presidential election — and conduct a thorough but fair hearing of the next nominee.

One of the questions that needs answering, though, is whether the new person will have the access to the commander in chief he or she will need to operate at maximum efficiency. The nominee won’t know that with certainty. The president will and he should make that clear when he announces his next defense secretary nominee.

 

military news, national news, political news

Hagel bids awkward adieu at Defense

Talk about an awkward moment.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel resigned today amid media reports that he was forced out by the White House that reportedly was unhappy with the way he communicated foreign policy strategy. Then, in an extraordinary attempt at trying to look happy about his departure, he stood with President Obama and Vice President Biden, both of whom heaped praise on their “friend.”

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/24/politics/defense-secretary-hagel-to-step-down/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

This is how you play the game in Washington, or I suppose in any government power center.

Hagel will stay on until the next defense secretary gets confirmed by the Senate.

And here is where it will get real interesting.

A cadre of bomb-throwing Republicans are vowing to block future presidential appointments in retaliation for Obama’s executive order on immigration this past week. The bomb thrower in chief, of course, is the Texas loudmouth Sen. Ted Cruz, who did qualify his threat by saying he wouldn’t object to key national security appointments.

Well, someone must tell me if there is a more important national security post than that of defense secretary. I can’t think of one.

I have zero confidence that Cruz will step aside and let this next appointment get the kind of “fair and thorough” confirmation hearing he or she will deserve.

But let’s hope for the best.

As for Hagel, I’m sorry to see him go. I rather liked the fact that an enlisted Vietnam War combat veteran was picked to lead the Pentagon. I also appreciated that Obama reached across the aisle to select a Republican former senator for this key post. I thought Hagel acquitted himself well under extreme pressure when the chips were down. He was at the helm during a time of enormous change at the Pentagon.

Our military force is still the strongest in the history of the world. I am quite certain we will maintain or position as the world’s pre-eminent military power.

Now, let’s find a successor and get the new person confirmed.

national news, political news

Thanks, Sen. Sessions, for taking impeachment away

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., says the Senate won’t impeach President Obama over his use of executive authority.

That’s awfully big of the senator.

Except for one thing: Impeachment doesn’t originate in the Senate.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/gop-senator-doesnt-plan-to-impeach-obama/ar-BBf7jQk

Impeachment begins in the House of Representatives. If the loons in the House have their way, the Senate gets to put the president on trial for whatever charges the House decides to bring against the president.

The Huffington Post reported Sessions’s remarks this way: “No, we’re not going to impeach President Obama. Or have a move to impeach,’ Sessions said at a Heritage Foundation event and then added, ‘The president has certain powers and we truly believe — and I think it’s accurate to say that he abused those powers.'”

Clear as mud, yes?

Actually, the president didn’t “abuse” his power as chief executive of the federal government. He acted within his constitutional authority. He merely riled his Republican “friends” to the point of apoplexy — which isn’t all that surprising, given the political climate that hovers over the nation’s capital.

I hope the idiotic fringe element of the House of Reps — along with their allies in the conservative mainstream media — takes Sessions’s declaration seriously and ends this nonsensical talk about impeachment. The new majority in both houses of Congress needs to demonstrate an ability to govern.

Remember?

 

national news, political news

How dare Obama quote Scripture!

You know, if I had given it a moment’s worth of thought, I might have been able to predict that one conservative mainstream media outlet would criticize the president of the United States for quoting Scripture.

The thought didn’t cross my mind. Then I saw this item from Media Matters, an acknowledged liberal watchdog organization.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/21/now-fox-amp-friends-is-upset-that-obama-is-quot/201665

(Check out the link where Elizabeth Hasselbeck says she “got goosebumps” when President Reagan cited Scripture back in 1981.)

They chided “Fox and Friends” for criticizing President Obama for having the utter gall to quote the Bible when talking about his executive order regarding immigration reform. Why, those “Fox and Friends” talking heads just couldn’t understand how the president — whom they have criticized in the past for his alleged failure to acknowledge his Christian faith — could do such a thing in this context.

I need to stop hyperventilating.

There.

Let’s understand something about the 44th president. He’s declared time and again that he believes Jesus Christ is his savior. He reads the Bible and has been a Church of Christ member for, oh, a long time. Barack Obama also uses Scripture passages frequently when making some point, just as all of his predecessors — from both political parties — have done since the beginning of the Republic.

May we stop applying these ridiculous double standards when analyzing the president’s statements on public policy?

OK. I’ve made the request for fairness in covering these things. I’m quite sure no one at Fox News will give it any consideration.

 

 

national news, political news

When in doubt, House, sue

Congress is going to court with the president of the United States.

The House of Representatives filed its long-awaited lawsuit against Barack Obama, contending the president misused his executive authority to “rewrite the law” regarding the Affordable Care Act.

I’ll stipulate that I’m no constitutional lawyer, but I’ll bet the farm that Obama didn’t break the law.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/house-files-obamacare-lawsuit-113089.html?hp=b1_l1

He did what the Constitution empowers him to do.

It’s curious, too, that Congress filed the suit the day after Obama delivered that long awaited executive order on immigration, although the lawsuit deals with the ACA exclusively. I guess Speaker John Boehner just couldn’t take it any longer.

The lawsuit, along with the talk of impeachment, is utter nonsense.

Boehner is grandstanding in the worst possible way. It’s not even clear the court will hear the lawsuit, let alone allow to go to trial and be decided by a jury.

The most hilarious aspect of this lawsuit are the claims by Republicans that the president is “overusing” the executive authority granted to him. It’s funny because Obama has signed fewer executive orders than almost any of his immediate predecessors. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the most recent two-term Republican presidents, signed more. Where was the outcry then?

We’ll now get to see how this circus plays out.

Meanwhile, some serious legislating needs to get done. How about seeing the GOP craft a bill on, say, immigration and health care? They say they can do better. Let’s have it.

 

national news, political news

TV networks miss a chance to engage viewers

This post will be brief, so I’ll get right to the point.

The major broadcast networks and a major cable network are blowing a chance to stay engaged in the immigration by declining to broadcast the president’s remarks tonight on the executive order he is about to issue.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/19/media/networks-and-obama-speech/index.html

ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox have said “no thanks” to carrying the speech live. CNN and PBS will carry it.

Given all the debate, discussion, finger-pointing, threats and lies told to and about all sides in this debate, I would have bet the proverbial farm that the networks would carry it live. It’s kind of a big deal, given what congressional Republicans have threatened to do when the president signs the order.

Silly me. The broadcast networks have dramas and comedies to show.

 

political news, State news

Cruz overstates his case once more

Ted Cruz just cracks me up.

Except that I’m not laughing.

He’s written an essay in which he accuses the president of the United States of acting like a monarch. Barack Obama plans to issue an executive order that tweaks federal immigration policy. He’s going around Congress, which includes the freshman Republican senator from Texas. Yes, Ted Cruz.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/president-obama-is-not-a-monarch-113028.html?hp=c4_3#.VG35X1J0yt9

What the senator and his fellow critics of the president keep ignoring is that previous presidents, including some notable Republicans, have done precisely the same thing that’s about to occur with this president. Where was the congressional outrage then? Well, there wasn’t any.

The link attached to this blog post also notes that Texas may sue the president over his executive order. That’s kind of strange, too, given that I’ve read reports in recent days about how Texas is going to benefit tremendously when the president defers deportation of millions of illegal immigrants. Many thousands of them live and work in Texas and they would be able, under the order, to come out of the shadows and work openly, pay taxes and perhaps start working their way toward legal residency status, if not outright citizenship.

That doesn’t stop loudmouths like the Texas Cruz Missile from overstating his case, which he does with annoying frequency.