Category Archives: political news

national news, political news

'Majority rule' is a major misnomer

1 Comment

Majorities determine how government should be run.

That’s how it’s supposed to go. A study just released, though, suggests that the United States of America has a “majority of a minority” rule when it comes to electing people to high office, at least during these mid-term election cycles.

Turnout for the 2014 mid-terms reached a near-historic low, according to political analyst Michael McDonald, a University of Florida expert on voter turnout.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/voter-turnout-drops-historic-low

The turnout was 36.4 percent of eligible voters.

What did most of the nation’s eligible voters miss? They missed the chance to determine who should represent them in Congress, in governor’s offices and in state legislatures. These folks determine a lot of serious public policy issues that affect us all.

Most of us sat this one out.

Too bad for those who didn’t take the time to vote.

According to MSNBC.com: “Most observers attribute the low turnout to frustration among voters at the gridlock that has enveloped Washington, after Republicans made stymieing President Obama their top priority. That has left many voters—especially Democrats—feeling skeptical about the system’s ability to deliver change. Eighteen percent of voters said they feel they can never trust the government in Washington to do the right thing, according to the NBC News national exit poll.”

That’s so very interesting and so self-defeating. If frustration in government has gotten voters down, then it becomes voters’ responsibility to step up to change whatever ails the system, which cannot change itself.

We hold the key. You and me. Citizens who have the right afforded to us by the very government we supposedly detest to actually change it.

 

 

International news, national news, political news

Trying to figure out why they're called 'truthers'

Andrew Napolitano is a so-called “truther.”

He believes the 9/11 attacks were somehow concocted by the federal government.

According to Media Matters, a left-wing journalism watchdog organization, Napolitano — a Fox New contributor and former judge — said this: “Napolitano has made numerous appearances on (radio talk show host Alex) Jones’ show. During a 2010 interview, Napolitano told Jones, ‘It’s hard for me to believe that [World Trade Center building 7] came down by itself,’ adding, ‘I think twenty years from now, people will look at 9-11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn’t possibly have been done the way the government told us.’ After his appearance, families of 9-11 victims criticized Napolitano for being “willfully ignorant of the facts surrounding the collapse of WTC 7.”

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/11/10/rand-paul-writes-foreword-for-confederate-apolo/201516

Why bring this up?

A potential candidate for president in 2016 has written a foreword in Napolitano’s new book, “Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Assault on Civil Liberties.” The possible candidate is U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who now is associated with someone who has some truly nutty ideas.

His new book also chastises President Lincoln for provoking the Civil War when, according to Napolitano, slavery was dying a natural death anyway.

Let’s not forget as well that he believes President Obama is usurping our liberties and freedom.

But this post is about truthers and the idiocy surrounding the notion that the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington were an inside job.

Andrew Napolitano is one of them. And for the life of me I cannot understand a sitting member of the Senate contributing to this guy’s literary career. To think we call these people “truthers.”

Be sure to keep this bit of intelligence in mind the moment Sen. Paul declares his presidential candidacy.

 

legal news, national news, political news

AG should knife the boss in the back?

Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah are making an impossible demand of the woman selected by President Obama to become the nation’s next attorney general.

They want Loretta Lynch to state up front whether a presidential executive order regarding U.S. immigration policy is constitutional and legal. More to the point, they are demanding that she declare such an action unconstitutional and illegal.

Let’s think about this for a moment.

What they’re demanding is that the woman who wants to be attorney general stick a dagger in the back of the individual who has nominated her to that high office.

Cruz and Lee do not appear interested in simply hearing her out. Both men already have declared that they believe such a move — which the president has all but telegraphed will occur — doesn’t pass constitutional muster.

They are among congressional Republicans who already are angry over Obama’s use of executive authority to tweak and tinker with the Affordable Care Act. These men both are dead set against reforming immigration policy at least during the current congressional session.

So now they’re threatening to hold the attorney general nomination hostage to their own agenda.

What’s more, they’re asking the AG-designate to betray the president who’s nominated her.

Good luck with that, senators.

national news, political news

Worst of the worst

The Hill newspaper has listed its Top 10 worst candidates for the U.S. Senate in 2014.

It’s an impressive gathering covering both political parties.

Top 10 worst candidates of 2014

I have two clear favorites. They’re both Democrats.

* The worst of the bunch has to be Bruce Braley, the Iowa congressman who ran to succeed fellow Democrat Tom Harkin. His foe was Republican Joni Ernst, the hog-castrating tea party golden gal. Braley should have won the seat in a walk. Then he stepped in it big time, by calling Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley “just a farmer from Iowa.”

Whoops! You don’t say “just a farmer” in a state full of farmers. I’ve been to Iowa a couple of times and I’ll tell you I’ve never seen so much corn in my entire life.

Really bad form, congressman.

* Alison Lundergan Grimes finished a close second. She should have won in Kentucky against incumbent Sen. Mitch McConnell, who isn’t your garden-variety retail politician. He’s stiff, unfriendly and quite wedded to the Washington, D.C., power structure — the one that has broken down and created so much of the anger and angst among voters. So what did Grimes do to win a spot on this list? She refused on several occasions to say whether she voted for President Obama.

The refusal was as clumsy as it gets. She tripped over her own tongue in trying to explain it all away, giving out an air of phoniness. She seemed to be terribly lacking in authenticity.

That’s my short list. The rest of them noted by The Hill all had their moments of “glory.”

Bring on the next set of winners and losers in 2016. First, let us catch our breath.

national news, political news, State news

Lame-duck status might produce some courage

There’s something to be said for being a lame-duck officeholder.

No more elections to face means no more pressure from political action groups. Thus, officeholders are free to do what their gut tells them to do.

President Obama’s gut has been rumbling over this immigration reform matter. Does he or does he not invoke executive action to initiate changes in federal immigration policy which politicians in both major parties say needs repair?

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/07/after-election-texas-waits-executive-action/

The Texas Tribune reports that an executive order or three is bound to help the Texas economy. Hey, wouldn’t that be an ironic touch, with a president who is opposed by so many Texans actually doing something to aid this state’s economy?

The Tribune reports: “’For the Texas economy, executive action could be a boon,’ said Ali Noorani, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington-based policy research group. ‘The agricultural and construction industries disproportionately depend on undocumented workers. And I think there are a lot of growers and builders out there who would rest a lot easier if their work force was stable and legal.’”

Imagine that.

House Speaker John Boehner has warned Obama not to do anything by himself, saying it would “poison the well.” Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Mitch McConnell echoes the speaker, preferring to let the next Congress take up the matter.

The president spoke about working with Congress in the wake of the mid-term election that saw the Senate flip from Democratic to Republican control.

Then again, he is a lame duck. His presidency ends in a little more than two years. No more elections need to be run.

Congress has dilly-dallied over this immigration matter. The president wants something done and should he have any trust that the next Congress is going help bring some of these illegal immigrants out of the shadows? I’m betting he doesn’t.

According to the Tribune: “The president is expected to expand and modify his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative. That initiative provides certain younger undocumented immigrants a two-year reprieve from deportation proceedings and gives them renewable work permits. Applicants must have been in the United States continuously since June 2007, must have arrived in the country before they were 16 and must have been 30 or younger in June 2012.”

Being a lame duck has its advantages.

political news, State news

GOP 'ground game' catches Democrats

Give credit where it most certainly is due.

The Texas Republican Party has developed what’s called a “ground game” that in this state more than rivals the Democratic efforts at getting voters to turn out.

The ground game has been credited with giving Greg Abbott an astounding victory in his campaign for governor over Wendy Davis.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/07/abbott-had-sophisticated-turnout-machine/

Are you understanding all of this, Texas Democrats?

As the Texas Tribune reports: “The Abbott campaign’s stealthy ground game started with a huge paid field operation, spread out across Texas and costing $5 million to $6 million. The team, aimed largely at identifying and motivating voters who infrequently participate in state elections, was almost 10 times larger than the one Gov. Rick Perry put together in his 2010 re-election campaign.”

That’s what all the money Abbott raised was able to buy him. He managed to put a lot of players on the field all across the state and worked them hard to turn out the vote in places where Democrats used to stand tall.

The Tribune piece attached to this post lays out it quite clearly. Texas Republicans have gotten the message delivered by national Democrats, particularly those who helped elect Barack Obama president twice. The president’s ground game, and his campaign’s masterful use of social media to put his message forward has paid huge dividends.

My sense now is that the 2016 campaign — which now is more or less officially under way — is going to be a lot more competitive than some of us figured it might have been.

National Republican campaign strategists can look to Texas to see how this game is played and how it is won.

It matters a lot, because as the saying goes: Texas is “like a whole other country.”

national news, political news

Lynch deserves confirmation

Allow me to state once again my strong support of presidential prerogative in key appointments.

The current president, Barack Obama, has just nominated Loretta Lynch to become the nation’s next attorney general. The U.S. Senate will vote to confirm or reject the appointment. I join Republicans in wanting the next Senate, the one controlled by the GOP, to have a say in this vote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/loretta-lynch-eric-holder-attorney-general-white-house-112705.html?ml=la

But I always shudder at the prospect of trumped-up reasons by the loyal opposition coming to the fore during these hearings.

They crop up from both sides of the aisle.

The Constitution gives the president the authority to nominate Cabinet officers. It also gives the Senate the power to “advise and consent” to the appointments. I get all of that. I understand fully the “co-equal” aspect of government, which empowers the legislative branch with as much power as the executive.

Now that I’ve laid down those cards, I want to declare that the president is elected by the entire nation. Yes, the Senate — as a body — is elected by the same voter base. But it’s the president’s call on who he wants to serve on the Cabinet.

This president has chosen a highly qualified individual. Lynch is seen by both Democrats and Republicans as a workhorse. She’s fair and dogged in her pursuit of justice.

Now we’re getting some rumblings from the far right wing of the Republican Party that at least two senators want Lynch to state whether she believes a potential executive order from the president on immigration is legal. Well, the president has made no such order, so the demand to know such a thing deals with an extreme hypothetical scenario.

I’ve never backed away from this prerogative issue. I stood behind President George H.W. Bush when he nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court for precisely the same reason I back the current president. He’s elected by Americans who were told what kind of individual would receive these appointments. Thomas was qualified to serve on the High Court when the president selected him, although the American Bar Association’s recommendation was less than sparkling. Still, he was qualified.

I have stood behind President George W. Bush’s appointments of Samuel Alito and John Roberts for all those reasons.

My belief in the Lynch appointment falls in line what I perceive as the president’s prerogative as the chief executive of the federal government.

My sincere hope is that the Senate gives Lynch a thorough but fair hearing.

national news, political news

Lynch for AG; let the new Senate decide

Loretta Lynch by all rights should be sworn in as the nation’s next attorney general.

President Obama made the announcement today nominating the New York U.S. attorney to the post.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/08/politics/attorney-general-nominee-loretta-lynch/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Of course, there are a couple of wrinkles attached to it. One of them is worth supporting, the other is utter nonsense.

Lynch would replace Eric Holder as AG. She’s already drawn the support of one key Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who says Lynch is “qualified.” Well, of course, she’s qualified. She’s been approved overwhelmingly twice by the Senate to U.S. attorney posts and there appears to be little reason to oppose her now as the nation’s next top lawyer.

Here come the wrinkles.

Republicans are insisting the new Senate, which will be run by the GOP, needs to confirm Lynch. That’s the correct call. Lame-duck Democrats who either are retiring or who lost their seats in the mid-term election need not vote on this appointment. Let’s have the new Senate make this call and let us also hope that Republicans who run the upper chamber will give Lynch a “fair hearing,” which the new majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has vowed.

The second wrinkle amounts to a litmus test.

It comes from two tea party Republican senators, Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, who want Lynch to declare right now whether she believes any potential presidential executive action on immigration is “legal and constitutional.” If she doesn’t tip her hand, does that mean Cruz and Lee will oppose her outright? If she believes the president would be acting legally and constitutionally, does that doom her appointment?

These two men appear to be seeking the “right” answer to the question, which is a litmus test by any definition.

How about examining the scope and breadth of this lawyer’s distinguished career?

By my reckoning, she’s earned her spurs and should be confirmed.

local news, political news

Voting for the party, not the candidate

2 Comments

We’ve all said at one time or another: I vote for the candidate, not the party.

This item in today’s Daily Oklahoman caught my eye. It’s on the editorial page and, of course, it gigs Democratic-leaning voters for making some, um, strange polling-place choices on Election Day. I get it, given the paper’s conservative tilt editorially. No problem with that.

http://newsok.com/scissortales-an-unusual-distinction-for-oklahoma-governor/article/5364590

An editorial brief in the Oklahoman refers to a Democratic candidate for Congress who received 35,006 votes on Tuesday — even though he died in a car accident several days before the election. Then it refers to a Cleveland County commissioner candidate, another Democrat, who received 38 percent of the vote despite having been arrested three times for drunken driving.

The paper wonders whether party label mattered over candidate qualifications.

Good point.

But here’s another example of the point the Oklahoman was making.

Over here, in Potter County, a Republican candidate for justice of peace actually defeated a long-time Democratic incumbent even though the GOP challenger had been arrested multiple times in recent years on felony charges involving domestic disputes.

Does party affiliation matter more in this instance than a candidate’s actual qualifications?

I will say, with considerable emphasis, “yes.”

local news, political news, State news

Ban straight-ticket voting

I never have liked straight-ticket voting.

It’s an unintelligent way to vote, in my humble view. Yet, while working Election Day as an exit pollster at a polling station, I heard from a number of voters Tuesday that, by golly, that’s what they did. They just punched the old “Republican” or “Democratic” spot on the ballot, walked away and went about doing the rest of their day’s business.

Texas allows this way of voting, I suppose, to make it easier for folks to vote.

Here in this part of Texas, where the GOP rules even more supreme than it does in most of the rest of the state, it seems so many votes like to vote for the “party rather than the individual.” It’s true in remaining Democratic bastions around the state, such as in the Golden Triangle of Southeast Texas, where I worked for 11 years before traveling way up north.

I didn’t like it then. I don’t like it now.

It’s understandable that voters prefer candidates of one party over the other. If so, then why not force them to look down each race on the ballot and give them the chance to ponder their selection before actually making it?

As for me — and I know for a lot of other Texans — there’s plenty of ticket-splitting going on at the ballot box. Which brings me to another aspect of the Texas voting law. If you punch the straight-ticket slot on the ballot, then vote for a candidate of the other party down the line, the other-party vote still counts.

So, what’s the point of giving voters the straight-ticket option?

Let’s just dump the whole idea.