Category Archives: political news

national news, political news

So long, D.C. bipartisanship

Perhaps you’ve noticed during the time I’ve been writing this blog that I’ve called for more bipartisanship in Washington, D.C., and in Austin.

Well, my desire to see both parties working together for a change hasn’t changed, other than it might have been intensified. I was hopeful for a more bipartisan atmosphere in Washington after the mid-term election. The president said he wanted it. The new Republican majority leader said the same thing.

We can kiss it goodbye.

President Obama is going to issue an executive order today that will enrage his Republican “friends.” It will tinker a bit with immigration policy, deferring deportation for millions of illegal immigrants, as well as strengthen border security.

I think it’s a good plan, but the incorrect strategy. I wish he would wait. And no, the president is not plowing new ground with this action. He’s doing the same kind of thing on immigration that Republican presidents dating back to Gerald Ford have done.

Still, Obama is going to stick it right back in the eyes of Republican leaders in Congress. He said he’s “waited long enough” for Congress to act. Some in D.C. are talking about impeachment, which is a ridiculous notion on its face.

But the era of even pretending to want bipartisanship in Washington appears to be over.

It’s unclear what the outcome will be for the remainder of Barack Obama’s term as president. A friend of mine, an Australian journalist with a keen interest in American politics, mentioned to me in a recent email that he predicts a miserable and torturous slog toward the end of the Obama presidency. He believes — as I do — that Republicans are feeling emboldened now that they’ve taken control of the Senate and strengthened their grip on the House.

And the president’s response to that bold new opposition? Why, he’s digging in his heels and daring them to fight.

It need not end this way — but it surely will.

 

national news, political news

GOP adults start to tamp down 'I-word' talk

Yes, the Republican Party has some actual grownups in its midst.

Some of them are beginning to speak up against the rough talk of the kids within the party about impeaching President Obama if — and when — he issues that executive order on immigration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/republicans-immigration-impeachment-113027.html?hp=c1_3

Frankly, I don’t quite know how to respond to that tamping down of a possible rebellion.

The president is expected Thursday to issue an order that delays deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants. Congressional GOP leaders have threatened all kinds of mayhem if/when he goes through with it. Some of those threats include impeachment — which is about as stupid an idea as anything I’ve heard in years.

One of the grownups, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said this: “Impeachment and shutting the entire government down takes the focus away from him to us, There are some people in the conferences that will have their 15 minutes of fame over this. But the rest of us want a Republican Party that can compete across the board in 2016.”

Another of them, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, said this: “Nobody’s talking about the ‘I’ word like the White House and others. They would love for us to take the bait. We’re not going to take the bait.”

Actually, I should point out that some of the young Turks within the GOP caucus have said it, too, along with their friends in the conservative mainstream media, such as columnist/Fox News talking head Dr. Charles Krauthammer.

This is nonsense, but it does give Democrats and other friends of President Obama some ammo to shoot back at the GOP chuckleheads.

Therein lies the source of my mixed feelings.

 

 

 

 

 

local news, military news, political news

Thornberry to head armed forces panel

It’s official: Mac Thornberry is going to become the next chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee.

They’re cheering at three key locations in Thornberry’s sprawling 13th Congressional District in Texas: at the Bell/Textron and the Pantex operations in Amarillo and at Sheppard Air Force Base in Wichita Falls.

Thornberry’s constituency includes those enormously important operations.

Here’s the question: Is the veteran Texas Panhandle congressman going to protect these operations from possible budget cuts at the expense of other equally important defense-related projects?

I pose the question because for the two decades Thornberry has served in Congress, he’s been ensconced comfortably and quietly on the back bench. He hasn’t made much noise about the work he does on behalf of those projects. He does so quietly and with little fanfare.

Now, though, he assumes a high-profile role as chairman of one the House’s most visible committees. He’s become the go-to guy on armed services issues. The pressure is going to be on the congressman to deliver the goods back home while listening with a fair and impartial ear to the needs of his colleagues’ districts elsewhere. There might even be colleagues on his committee who’ll be sure to push hard for spending in their districts. With limited money — relatively speaking — to go around, the House panel is going to have to husband its resources carefully.

How is Chairman Thornberry going to respond to those pressures with the eyes of the nation fixed on how he conducts himself and how he runs this congressional committee?

Good luck, Mr. Chairman.

 

political news, State news

Gov. Perry loses key dismissal fight

A state district judge has ruled that Texas Gov. Rick Perry should stand trial for felony charges related to his alleged abuse of power.

Good. Now let’s get the trial started and then concluded, OK?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/rick-perry-case-texas/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Perry legal team sought a dismissal on the grounds that special prosecutor Michael McCrum wasn’t sworn in properly, rendering all his actions taken during the time he has investigated Perry to be invalid.

Today, Judge Bert Richardson said in Austin that McCrum’s swearing in was sufficient and that he has standing to prosecute the governor on two felony counts. “This court concludes that Mr. McCrum’s authority was not voided by the procedural irregularities in how and when the oath of office and statement of officer were administered and filed,” Richardson said in his ruling.

A grand jury indicted Perry on abuse of power and coercion of a public official in connection with his veto of money appropriated for the Public Integrity Unit run out of the Travis County district attorney’s office. He threatened to yank the money after DA Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested for drunken driving. She pleaded guilty to the crime and served jail time. Perry demanded she quit. She didn’t. So, Perry vetoed the money appropriated by the Legislature for the integrity unit she runs.

This case is riddled with political overtones and consequences.

Perry is pondering a run for the presidency in 2016. He doesn’t want this case hanging over his head. Frankly, I happen to agree with him. Let’s get this thing settled.

As for Lehmberg, she’s going to bow out when her term expires. She should have quit when she got popped for the DUI. Had she done so, Perry could have appointed a Republican DA to replace the outgoing Democrat.

Do you see how this is so, so political?

Perry calls the indictment a serious overreach. He has received a lot of legal support — from Democrats as well as Republicans.

So, let’s get this case settled. If he’s acquitted of both charges, he can crow all he wants about his huge victory in court.

But if he’s convicted of just one of them — and I still think the coercion charge is the stronger of the two counts — well, the governor can kiss the White House good bye.

I’m ready to have this case decided.

 

International news, national news, political news

'Immigrant' gets clarification

The term “immigrant” became the subject of a brief tempest after I posted a blog entry that mentioned U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

I mentioned that Cruz opposes immigration reform and suggested there was a certain irony in his opposition, given that he immigrated to this country from Canada.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/11/17/take-heed-mr-majority-leader/

A friend of mine disagreed with that assertion. He said that Cruz was a U.S. citizen upon birth because his mother is an American. Federal law grants children of U.S. citizens automatic citizenship, so that meant little Teddy was an American the moment he entered this world. That instant citizenship means Cruz isn’t an immigrant, my friend said.

I disagree with my friend.

Thus, I looked up the word “immigrant” in my American Heritage Dictionary.

“Immigrant” is defined simply as “one who immigrates.”

Aha! So, I looked up “immigrate,” which the dictionary defines this way: “To enter and settle in a foreign country.”

Cruz was born in Canada. He and his family subsequently relocated to this country. Teddy grew up to be a smart fellow, went to law school, became a lawyer and now he’s a U.S. senator.

By my reading of the dictionary, that makes Ted Cruz an immigrant.

Why mention this at all? Well, immigration has returned to the front burner of the national discussion. President Obama is likely to issue an executive order that’s going to upset a lot of Republicans, including tea party members of Congress, such as the former immigrant Sen. Cruz. They’ll go apoplectic.

Yes, immigrants such as Cruz entered the country legally. The issue here is how to handle the illegal immigrants who’ve come here. Many in Congress want them deported. The president and his allies in Congress want to give them a chance to achieve legal status and eventually become U.S. citizens.

He’s already deported more illegal immigrants than any president in history. An executive order delaying deportations of about 5 million undocumented residents will constitute a change in policy at the White House.

I just find it curious that a one-time immigrant would feel so strongly that others seeking a better life in this country shouldn’t have a chance to make their dreams come true.

 

 

 

national news, political news

Yes, Mme. Leader, it was a 'wave'

Nancy Pelosi needs a reality check.

The House of Representatives Democratic leader says the Republican sweep in the midterm election didn’t constitute a “wave.” She said voters weren’t endorsing GOP policies and its agenda.

“There was no wave of approval for the Republicans. I wish them congratulations, they won the election, but there was no wave of approval for anybody. There was an ebbing, an ebb tide, for us,” she said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/nancy-pelosi-112799.html?hp=b3_r2

As much as I hate to disagree with the minority leader, she’s wrong, mistaken, misguided, or just plain ignorant. OK, I doubt the “ignorant” part.

What happened Nov. 4 was a wave.

The GOP needed to flip six seats to gain control of the Senate; it got eight and is poised to win a ninth seat if the Louisiana runoff in December ends up in Republicans’ favor. Republicans also won 12 additional House seats, cementing their control of the lower chamber. The GOP also gained governorships across the nation.

That’s a wave, Mme. Leader.

All is not lost for Democrats. They have a decent chance in 2016 of getting the Senate back — but only if a couple of things happen.

First, the turnout has to improve dramatically from the dismal midterm turnout, which figured to work in Republicans’ favor. We’ll be electing a new president in two years and the turnout for these elections always dwarfs the previous election. That means more of the Democratic base — namely minorities and lower-income Americans — will be motivated to vote.

What’s more, a large number of Republican Senate seats will be on the line, giving Democrats a legitimate chance of picking off a few incumbents, or capturing seats that Republican incumbents will surrender through retirement.

Second, the Republican majority in both congressional chambers stands a fair chance of bungling this opportunity to actually govern. If they shut down the government later this month, or if they actually launch impeachment proceedings against the president over his use of executive authority, well, the blowback could be fearsome.

However, that does not diminish the importance of what happened just a few days ago.

Democrats got swept out of power in a political wave.

 

International news, national news, political news

Columnist gets it right on immigration battle

Ruben Navarrette is far from being a flaming leftist Barack Obama sympathizer.

He’s a mainstream conservative journalist and commentator who in an essay posted on CNN.com has posited the notion that any talk of impeaching the president over an expected executive order would be a foolish overreach.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/16/opinion/navarrette-immigration-not-impeachable-offense/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

He is so correct. I wish I could shake his hand right now.

At issue is an expected order the president will issue that could do a number of things to improve the immigration system. He’s sought to do it legislatively, but his congressional foes won’t let it happen. They’ve bottled immigration reform up. Obama has warned them repeatedly that he’d take action and now he appears ready to do it.

I’ve noted already that I don’t want him to act just yet.

When he does, though, it’s likely to ignite a fiery response from the tea party wing of the Republicans who control the House and are about to take control in January of the Senate.

An executive order reportedly is going to do a number of things. It would boost border security. It would delay deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants. It’s the deportation delay that has Republicans’ underwear all knotted up.

Navarrette’s main point is that none of this constitutes an “impeachable offense.”

The president would be acting solely within his authority granted by the U.S. Constitution, according to Navarrette.

The essayist notes: “Republicans have no trouble deflecting criticism by reminding Latino voters that Obama is in charge of deportations. So, instead of threatening the suicidal tantrums of a government shutdown or impeachment, conservatives should pipe down and let him be in charge of deportations. That doesn’t just mean deciding who goes but also who stays.”

Let’s can the impeachment rhetoric and get down to the business of governing, shall we?

 

national news, political news

Don't shut down the government

Mitt Romney is quite capable of making sense.

Take his view on a threat to shut down the federal government to get back at President Obama for enacting an executive order to help fix a broken U.S. immigration system.

The crux of Romney’s view on that idea? Don’t do it, Republicans.

Will someone on Capitol Hill listen to the GOP’s 2012 presidential nominee?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/224320-romney-more-productive-ways-to-fight-obama-than-shutdown

The tea party crackpots are threatening to shut ‘er down by withholding money to fund the government past its Dec. 11 deadline. They’re going to get angry if — and likely when — the president signs an executive order that delays deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants.

I agree with them that the president need not pick this fight. But he’s likely to do it.

The Republicans’ response really shouldn’t include shutting down the government. In case they have forgotten, a lot of Americans rely on the federal government. Many thousands of them draw their paychecks from the government, for example.

Romney was asked on “Face the Nation” this morning about a possible shutdown. “Well, I think there’s got to be more productive ways for us to be able to impress on the president the need to work for a permanent solution, as opposed to a temporary stop-gap solution,” Romney replied.

Shutting down the government punishes people who have been turned into political pawns.

Is that what Republicans really and truly want to do?

Listen to Mitt, OK?

national news, political news

Take heed, Mr. Majority Leader

1 Comment

Mitch McConnell has wanted to become majority leader of the U.S. Senate.

I feel the need to remind the Kentucky Republican to be “careful what you wish for.”

He’s about to have his hands full. Not so much from Democrats, who are licking their wounds and trying to regroup from the pounding they took at the polls Nov. 4. No, McConnell’s worries well might come from within his own Republican caucus.

I’ll sum it up in two words: Ted Cruz.

Cruz is the freshman Republican from Texas who has delusions of grandeur, specifically the White House. He wants to be president someday. Maybe he’ll make a run for it in 2016. He might wait until 2020 and then go full force if a Democrat wins the ’16 contest.

But here’s ol’ Mitch, vowing to take President Obama up on a request to sip some Kentucky bourbon with the new majority leader. I believe deep down that McConnell really wants to “work with” the president. But he’s got that goofy caucus within his GOP caucus that won’t hear of it.

This is the tea party wing, led by Cruz.

It still amazes me that this freshman loudmouth has gotten so much attention in so little time.

Cruz wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with … um, well we don’t know. He said something the other day about “net neutrality” is like “Obamacare for the Internet,” whatever the bleep that means. He seems to oppose immigration reform, which is odd given that he’s an immigrant from Canada.

Here’s the thing with Cruz. He isn’t alone in thinking this way. He’s just managed to become the mouthpiece for many of the hard-righties within the Senate who think as he does.

McConnell is more of an “establishment” guy. He’s actually got friends within the Obama administration, one of them being, for example, Vice President Biden, with whom he served in the Senate until Biden was elected VP in 2008.

So, the question can be asked of Majority Leader-to-be McConnell: Is the job you coveted really worth having if you’re going to have to fend off the challenges from your own extremist wing?

Good luck, Mr. Majority Leader.

 

 

 

International news, legal news, national news, political news

Reagan and Bush did it; why not Obama?

Republicans in Congress are getting loaded for bear if that Democratic rascal in the White House follows through with a threat to execute an order that delays deportation of some 5 million illegal immigrants.

What they’ll do precisely in response to a now-expected executive order remains unclear.

Maybe they should follow the congressional led set when two earlier presidents did precisely the same thing, using exactly the same constitutional device.

That would be: nothing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/15/reagan-bush-immigration-deportation_n_6164068.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

At issue is whether President Obama will use his executive authority to delay those deportations and, by the way, strengthen security along our southern border. Congress wants him to wait. So do I, for that matter. Congressional Republicans are threatening to hamstring confirmation hearings on the president’s pick to be attorney general, Loretta Lynch. Heck, they might even sue the president.

The most troublesome — and ridiculous — notion being field tested in the court of public opinion is impeachment.

Let’s look briefly at history.

Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did the same thing. One heard nary a peep out of Congress, let alone the Democrats who controlled the place at the time.

Congress enacted an immigration law in 1986, but in the following year, President Reagan gave immigration officials the power to cover the children of illegal immigrants who were granted amnesty under the law. As the Huffington Post reported: “Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.”

Along came President Bush in 1989. The Huffington Post reports: “In a parallel to today, the Senate acted in 1989 to broaden legal status to families but the House never took up the bill. Through the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service), Bush advanced a new ‘family fairness’ policy that put in place the Senate measure. Congress passed the policy into law by the end of the year as part of broader immigration legislation. ‘It’s a striking parallel,’ said Mark Noferi of the pro-immigration American Immigration Council. ‘Bush Sr. went big at the time. He protected about 40 percent of the unauthorized population. Back then that was up to 1.5 million. Today that would be about 5 million.'”

What gives with the current crop of yahoos calling the shots on Capitol Hill?

Oh, I forgot. The tea party/nimrod wing of the GOP vows to shake things up and no longer do things the way they’ve been done in the past.

That must include allowing the president of the United States to actually lead.