Category Archives: political news

national news, political news

McCain might run again … for the Senate

John McCain confounds me .

The Arizona Republican is at once an admirable man, a genuine war hero, an annoying gadfly, a petulant loser and a real-life expert on foreign policy.

The senator, who’s 78, says he might run for a sixth term in 2016 but observers say he’s going to get a serious tea party challenge if he suits up for another senatorial campaign. He got a stout challenge in 2010, but thrashed former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth by 25 percentage points.

McCain gets ready for race of his life

I think he ought to run at least once more if he’s up to it.

McCain’s biography is well-known. He was a Navy aviator, shot down over Hanoi during the Vietnam War and held captive for more than five years. He suffered terrible torture at the hands of his captors.

His career in public office has been marked by amazing ups and downs.

McCain has run twice for president, nominated by the GOP in 2008, when he lost to Barack Obama.

He’s been a friend of the “liberal” media, which has ticked off conservatives to no end. He’s no liberal, however. He’s voted consistently with the right wing of his party throughout his lengthy career.

Yet … when he carps about President Obama’s decisions he sounds like a sore loser.

Still, he maintains friendships with colleagues on the other side, particularly those with whom he shares combat experience. He has defended the character of his friends John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, both of whom now serve in the president’s Cabinet.

Indeed, my favorite McCain moment might be the time he scolded Senate newcomer Ted Cruz, R-Texas, when Cruz questioned Hagel’s patriotism when Hagel was being examined by the Senate to be defense secretary.

McCain is one of those senators I’d like to meet one day. It won’t happen. If I had the chance I’d likely ask him: Senator, do you confound and confuse some of us intentionally, or is that just a byproduct of a complex personality?

International news, national news, political news

Obama deserves unified nation

The late great Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan had it right.

Partisanship, he said, should “stop at the water’s edge.”

Put another way: When a president takes a nation to war then it becomes imperative for a nation to rally behind the effort.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/obama-un-address-111287.html?hp=l1

President Barack Obama went before the United Nations today to tell the world body that it’s time for the world to step up in the fight against the Islamic State. He didn’t sugar-coat it. He said the fight well could take years. He said ISIL is a tough and resilient foe. He also said that dozens of nations have lined up as part of a growing coalition to fight the terrorists.

But can the commander in chief perform his duty to protect Americans without much of the partisan carping that has plagued him to date? If his Republican foes choose to heed the words of one of their predecessors — the late Sen. Vandenberg — then there might be a unified nation rallying to fight a determined enemy.

Unity, of course, isn’t always the norm.

President Bush was able to rally the nation initially when he took us to war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Much of the support evaporated when he expanded that fight into Iraq in March 2003.

President Clinton had his critics when he started bombing fighters in Bosnia and Kosovo.

President Truman heard the critics when the Korean War dragged on.

And Vietnam? Well, we know what happened there.

Barack Obama received congressional authorization to arm and train Syrian rebels. He’s consulted with political friends and foes in advance of launching the air strikes. Some critics will continue to say the strikes are too little too late.

Let us not undermine this necessary effort to destroy the Islamic State, however, with partisan carping.

political news, State news

Texas: reddest of the Red States

Texas is Ground Zero — pardon the reference — of the conservative movement.

That’s the assessment of Dan Balz, a veteran Washington Post political reporter, who uses land commissioner candidate George P. Bush as his example of the state’s rightward shift.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/texas-has-become-epicenter-of-conservative-movement/2014/09/20/71678e12-410f-11e4-a430-b82a3e67b762_story.html

Bush is the grandson and nephew of two former presidents and the son of a former Florida governor. All three of his ancestors, Balz said, used to personify the “kinder, gentler” wing of the Republican Party. Bush thinks GOP firebrand Sen. Ted Cruz is the future of his party and he said so at a gathering of pols and pundits at a Texas Tribune talk-fest held in Austin.

Indeed, the view that Texas is leading the conservative charge probably isn’t that much of a surprise. Even when it leaned heavily Democratic, its officeholders weren’t usually considered — at that time, at least — to be squishy liberals. The most successful Democrats in the state were folks like John Connally, Lloyd Bentsen, Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson. Yes, you had your occasional lefty in there, such as Ralph Yarborough and then Ann Richards.

The last Democrat elected to statewide office in 1994 was John Sharp, hardly a lefty, who’s now chancellor of the Texas A&M University System.

So, Texas has leaned right for longer than the GOP has been in control of everything.

As for the model of today’s modern conservatism in Texas, look at Dan Patrick, the GOP candidate for lieutenant governor. He’s just recently declared his intention to rid the state of the DREAM Act, which allows Texans brought here illegally by their parents to enroll in state public colleges and universities as “in-state” students, paying in-state tuition rates.

Gov. Rick Perry, a fiery conservative if there ever was one, endorses the DREAM Act. Not Patrick. If he’s elected, he’ll get rid of it.

Yep, the state is No. 1 all right.

national news, political news

DREAM on, Sen. Patrick

Texas Republicans have this problem with Hispanics, who see them as hard-hearted and uncaring about the needs of the state’s fastest-growing demographic group.

The state GOP is trying some outreach to the Hispanic community. Then along comes the party’s nominee for lieutenant governor to say that if he’s elected he’ll work to repeal the DREAM Act for young Texans seeking to enroll at public universities.

Well done, state Sen. Dan Patrick. You just might have shot yourself — and your party — in both feet.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/22/patricks-push-repeal-dream-act-could-face-criticis/

Current state law, the DREAM Act, allows undocumented immigrants to enroll at Texas colleges and universities and pay in-state tuition. This law applies to those who were brought here illegally as children by their parents. They are here because their parents decided to come to Texas to seek a better life.

So the state has allowed them to enroll in public colleges and universities as if they are Texans, which they are, given that they’ve grown up here, come of age here, known only life in Texas.

Dan Patrick says he’ll do away with that, toeing the conservative line so popular among Texas Republicans.

Let’s back up, though, for just a second. Two other prominent Texas conservatives support the DREAM Act. One of them is Gov. Rick Perry, who’s leaving office at the end of the year. The other one is Perry’s predecessor as governor, George W. Bush, who then went on to be elected to two terms as president of the United States.

Perry and Bush get it. They understand what the DREAM Act does for young Texans who want to get an education at a price they can afford.

Patrick doesn’t get it. All he gets is what his party’s “base” keeps shouting in his ear.

The most interesting push back to Patrick’s vow to kill the law comes from a group that has endorsed him, the Texas Association of Business. Its executive director, Bill Hammond, a former legislator from Dallas said this: “We think in-state tuition is a very appropriate response to the fact that we need more Texans going to college and completing college. We choose to disagree with him respectfully on this issue.”

Bill Hammond and the TAB get it, too.

national news, political news, State news

Sen. Cruz denies the obvious

Someone will have to pass the smelling salts to me. I must have been in a stupor the past year or so.

Either that or U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is utterly delusional.

I’ll go with the latter for now.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/09/cruz-denies-playing-role-in-congressional-gridlock/

Cruz is a Texas Republican who has denied playing a role in shutting the government down over a fight about the Affordable Care Act. He said at Texas Tribune Fest that the “blame” belongs to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Cruz’s role in that debacle? He says he didn’t have any role to play.

Huh? Cruz’s Republican colleague in the Senate, fellow Texan John Cornyn, said otherwise.

So has every observer of Capitol Hill — Democrat, Republican, independent, media observers — said that Cruz was a key player in the shutdown.

He filibustered against the ACA trying to repeal it. Didn’t he do that?

Of course, Cruz blamed the media — which he said sides with Democrats — for the characterizations attached to the junior senator. According to a blog posted by the San Antonio Express-News: “Remarking that Republicans are usually criticized as either crazy or evil, Cruz said he took it as ‘somewhat of a back-handed compliment that the press has invented a third caricature of me, which is crazy.’”

Well, he’s not crazy. Almost everything he’s done publicly since joining the Senate in January 2013, though, reveals a burning ambition. He’s been out front on high-profile issues almost from Day One of his still-young Senate tenure. He ignores Senate decorum. He’s drawn the ire of fellow Republicans as well as Democrats.

Now he says he had nothing to do with the government shutdown.

The young man possesses some serious hubris.

International news, national news, political news

Air strikes in Syria begin … with help

American pilots are now doing what the commander in chief said was likely: launching air strikes against Islamic State targets in Syria.

With that news, the war against the terrorists has expanded.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/22/world/meast/u-s-airstrikes-isis-syria/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

My view from many thousands of miles away is this: We’d better hit them hard and keep hitting them hard for as long as it takes to render them “degraded” significantly.

I do not want U.S. “boots on the ground.” Those “boots” would be carrying Americans, which is why I have grown weary of that cliché. I remain cautiously optimistic that air strikes can do what President Obama wants them to do, which is to degrade and ultimately defeat the Islamic State.

No, we cannot do this alone. The Pentagon has said that partner nations are involved in the air strikes, which began with Tomahawk missiles and fighter aircraft launched from the Navy’s newest aircraft carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush.

There can be no doubt that any military operation requires friendly nations to take part. The Pentagon hasn’t been very specific on which nations are contributing to this cause, but reports indicate that Sunni Arab states have been involved. That’s an encouraging sign.

What’s the biggest worry, other than ISIL responding with some hideous execution? My guess is that it would Syria reacting badly to U.S. aircraft entering Syrian airspace. If the Syrians are smart — and I believe they are — they’ll be quietly applauding the air strikes, as the ISIL targets represent the biggest threat to that government’s survival.

Oh, boy. This fight has just gotten a whole lot more complicated.

national news, political news

Citizenship test for voters?

An aspect of modern media today is that with so many platforms out there, it’s easy for talking heads — people with lots of opinions about this or that issue — to speak their peace before plenty of people.

The size of their platform grants them some sort of “expert” status.

In fairness, I could add myself to that list of so-called “experts.” I write this blog and offer my opinions to those who care to read them. What they do with these thoughts, well, depends on whether they agree.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck is a Fox News Channel host who, I guess, has a forum to say things that are patently ridiculous. However, because she’s on a network “news” channel, her statements carry some extra weight.

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/22/elisabeth_hasselbeck_it_is_more_meaningful_if_citizens_have_to_take_a_test_before_voting/

Her latest ridiculous rant suggested that citizens should have to pass a citizenship test before they vote or before they graduate from high school.

Hasselbeck endorsed the idea of a citizenship test in a morning discussion on the “Fox and Friends” show she co-hosts. But according to Salon.com, Hasselbeck missed a history lesson of her own.

According to Salon.com: “The problem is one that Fox completely omitted, an argumentative tactic that has served the network well. There actually has been such a test, a so-called literacy test, which was eventually banned by the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The test was theoretically to be given to people of all races, but was disproportionately given to black potential voters in order to disenfranchise them. A few of the tests are available, and the wording of the questions are deliberately confusing and obtuse in such a way that even highly educated people would not necessarily do well.”

As a former colleague of mine is fond of saying — usually in support of right-wingers’ view of constitutional issues — the Constitution doesn’t say a word about requiring such tests as a condition for voting.

Therefore, Hasselbeck has just flunked her own test of civic knowledge.

national news, political news, State news

ACA is hardly an 'abject failure'

Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Abbott declared something the other day during his debate with Democratic opponent Wendy Davis that I cannot let stand.

“Obamacare,” he said, “is an abject failure.”

That’s it, then. The verdict is in. The Affordable Care Act isn’t working. It isn’t providing health insurance to Americans who couldn’t afford it. It isn’t saving lives. It isn’t saving people’s livelihoods.

How does he come to that conclusion?

Oh, wait. I think I know. He’s running for governor in a state that detests the ACA’s author, President Barack Obama. So it makes political sense for Abbott to declare the ACA a complete failure. It makes as much sense for the state’s attorney general to promise, as he did the other night, to bring “more health care to Texans.” The question, however, is this: How — precisely — does the governor do that?

I’ve noted already that the ACA rollout was full if fits and starts, hiccups, mistakes and all manner of “technical difficulties” with the healthcare.gov website that was supposed to be up and running.

However, Americans are enrolling in the ACA. They’re getting coverage now after being unable to get it prior to enactment of the law.

Will this process now proceed hitch-free? Probably not.

The ACA is just a few months old. It’s going to be fine-tuned, tinkered, tightened as we move along.

That’s the case — without exception — with all landmark laws.

local news, national news, political news, State news

Glad the Scots said 'no' to independence

I’ve been thinking about the vote in Scotland to stay attached to the United Kingdom and the thought occurs to me: Would a “yes” vote to declare independence fuel further secession talk in Texas?

I’m only half-joking about that speculation.

A neighbor of mine sports a “SECEDE” bumper sticker on the back of his vehicle, right next to one that says he was “Proud to Serve” in the U.S. military. Frankly, I don’t get the juxtaposition.

Imagine if Scotland had voted to pull out of the UK. The Scots would have had to form their own military establishment, rather than relying on Her Majesty’s impressive military establishment for protection. There would be all kinds of ancillary expense to forming a nation.

The same thing applies to any notion that one of the United States of America should want to secede.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry a few years back made some careless remarks about secession. He came strangely close to endorsing the idea, only to back away and say he is a proud American who doesn’t want the Union broken up.

And we hear such talk among others around the state. I would call them the fruitcake wing of the Lone Star State’s 26 million or so souls, most of whom are good, decent and proud Americans.

I shudder to think what might have happened had the Scots had said “yes” to independence. I’m glad they went the other way on the issue. Sanity has a way of prevailing when the chips are down — most of the time.

political news, State news

Davis needed a knockdown; she barely landed a punch

It pains me to say this, but Wendy Davis — if you’ll pardon the boxing pun — barely laid a glove on Greg Abbott at their debate this past week in Edinburg

She tossed haymakers from the opening bell. Abbott — using his best Muhammad Ali tactic of pulling away from the punches — let them sail past him.

The two candidates for Texas governor have another debate lined up later this month. If Davis, the Democrat, hopes to draw blood (politically speaking, of course) from Abbott, the Republican, she’ll need to land some sharper jabs and hooks.

Have you had enough of the boxing puns? Good. Me, too.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/19/davis-goes-on-attack-debate/

Davis has had difficulty getting traction for her uphill campaign against Abbott. It’s not entirely that I want her to win, which I do, that upsets me. I am hoping at the very least that Davis makes Abbott defend himself in his effort to torpedo the Affordable Care Act in Texas, his support of deep cuts in public education, and his support of the overly restrictive anti-abortion bill that Davis fought to defeat.

I’m beginning to go along with most Texas political observers who think Abbott is going to win this one easily. I’m thinking 12, maybe 15 percentage points.

Part of Davis’s problem in campaigning against Abbott is that Texas voters seem to turn deaf ear to problems involving Republican candidates. The state is so deeply Republican these days that GOP candidates seemingly need to be caught committing acts of bestiality to have their credibility stripped.

Is Abbott a crook? Is he a liar? I don’t think he’s either.

He’s just running for governor as a Republican at precisely the right time in this state’s history to be doing so. He is running as a smart politician who knows the lay of the land.

Moreover, if Abbott he trounces Davis — as some are predicting — then I would caution another up-and-coming Republican, lieutenant governor nominee Dan Patrick, to be wary of challenging Abbott in four years.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/abbott-and-money-machine