Category Archives: political news

political news

Politics, just like life, sometimes ain’t fair

My mother and father more than likely told me a time or two when I was a kid that “Life isn’t fair.”

I’ve passed that bit of wisdom on to my sons. Perhaps I’ll tell my granddaughter the same thing in due course.

It can be said, too, that politics falls into that category of unfairness. People say things about politicians and we tend to think the worst of them.

The political world is reeling at this moment as a prominent U.S. senator appears ready to call it quits over allegations that have come forward from women who have accused him of sexual misbehavior. One of the women produced photographic evidence of it. Sen. Al Franken acknowledged complicity in what she alleged — more or less.

More women have come forward. The word is swirling that Franken is going to announce his resignation from the Senate.

Is the senator entitled to what’s been called “due process”? Yes, to a point. But let’s remember that Franken isn’t charged with a crime. He has been accused of making a serious political mistake. If he doesn’t quit the Senate soon, he damn sure should leave that body. He’s damaged beyond repair.

Now, about that fairness matter.

Franken is likely toast as a national political leader. Why? Because women came forward and accused him of misbehaving.

Franken’s career, reputation destroyed

Meanwhile, the president of the United States has actually acknowledged that he has grabbed women by their genitals, he has kissed them against their will. He said he could do that because he’s a “celebrity,” which he said gives him license to act like a boor.

These revelations came forward in the waning weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign, while the candidate — Donald Trump — was seeking the presidency.

What kind of price did that politician pay? None. He got elected president. 

Oh, there’s more. Another politician has been accused of sexual misbehavior. Women have said that a Senate candidate, Roy Moore, sought an improper relationship with them when they were underage; one woman said Moore made advances on her when she was 14 years of age.

Roy Moore, an archconservative, God-fearing, “family values” Republican, is now expected to win the Senate seat in Alabama. He denies doing anything wrong.

So, a sitting U.S. senator is likely to leave public service because he has been accused of misbehaving badly. Another politician gets elected to the highest, most exalted office in the nation — if not the world — after telling the world he did hideous things to women. And yet another man is likely to win election to an important Senate seat after being accused of pedophilia.

How is any of this fair? It’s not. We’re talking about politics.

national news, political news

Watch this intraparty battle get real hot

Mitt Romney wants to run for the U.S. Senate seat in Utah.

His candidacy will depend on whether Orrin Hatch seeks re-election next year. Hatch, the Senate’s longest-tenured Republican, hasn’t yet made his decision.

But, oh my, this fight is getting nasty before it’s even started.

You see, Mitt is no fan or friend of Donald John Trump. He has called the president a “fraud” and a “phony.” The president’s wing man, former White House strategist Stephen Bannon, has decided to suggest that Mitt was a draft dodger, that his religious mission work in France during the Vietnam War was a tactic to keep him from serving in the military.

Romney’s allies in Utah are coming to his defense. They have blasted Bannon for questioning Romney’s love of country, his patriotism, his character; Bannon even took a swipe at Mitt’s entire family.

Hatch defends his friend

There has been some speculation that Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee, might run even if Hatch decides to seek another term. I would doubt that will occur.

My hope is that Mitt goes for it. I also hope Hatch decides to retire. He’s been on the job for decades. Hatch, at times, has shown an ability and willingness to reach across the aisle to work with Democrats; my guess is that Romney could do the same if he gets elected.

As for Bannon — the guy that Trump and White House chief of staff John Kelly fired — he ought to tone down the tough talk. It’s unbecoming.

What’s more, Romney has done more in service to his country than Bannon ever thought of doing.

Finally, Romney happens to be right about the president, someone I consider to be the phoniest fraud ever to occupy the office. A U.S. Senate seat would give him a wonderful platform to hold the president accountable for his words and deeds.

political news

Best guess: Franken soon to become a ‘former senator’

The late “Dandy Don” Meredith, the former Dallas Cowboys quarterback and football commentator, was fond of singing “turn out the lights, the party’s over” when a pro football team was blowing another one out on national TV.

Um, U.S. Sen. Al Franken? The party appears to be over.

More women have come forward to accuse the Minnesota Democrat of groping and unwanted kissing. Droves of Democratic senators now are singing the same chorus: Franken has to quit.

It sounds to me as though the party is over.

Senators turn on one of their own

As a friend of mine noted on Facebook, Franken is about to “spend more time with his family,” but he wonders whether his family will want to spend more time with him.

Let’s all understand something here. There have been no criminal charges filed against Franken. This is purely a political matter. There’s an element of “due process” to follow, but it’s not nearly as critical as it would be if there was criminality involved.

The process is supposed to include an ethics investigation by a Senate committee charged with looking at these matters.

But just as Rep. John Conyers was damaged beyond repair over the allegations that took him out of office, the same appears to be said of Franken.

If his fellow Democrats are turning on him in this fashion, Franken cannot possibly continue to serve in the Senate.

So much for a 2020 presidential campaign, eh?

national news, political news

If Moore wins, his victory will be pyrrhic

Talk about “pyrrhic victories.”

I am beginning to believe that Alabama voters are going to send a man accused of sexual abuse of children to the U.S. Senate. Republican Roy Moore well might become the Senate’s newest member.

If that happens, it will be to the ever-lasting shame of those who backed this guy.

There now also appears to be zero chance that the Senate will expel its newest member. Republican Senate leaders don’t want him among their ranks. Democrats damn sure don’t want him anywhere near Capitol Hill.

But, by golly, he has the endorsement of Donald J. Trump Sr., the president who’s also got his share of difficulty involving accusations of his own behavior with women. If Moore wins, Trump will crow about it. He’ll take all the credit in the world for pushing this twice-ousted state supreme court chief justice over the finish line ahead of his opponent, Democrat Doug Jones.

It’s going to be sloppy, chaotic and confusing as Moore takes his seat.

I cannot get past the prospect of a U.S. senator being politically neutered — yes, I meant to use that description — the minute he takes his oath of office.

And that brings me back to the question I cannot shake: Do the voters of Alabama really want to elect someone who can do nothing for the folks who sent him to the U.S. Senate?

Sure, he’ll have a vote. He’ll be able to have his voice heard that way. He’ll be the only voice one will hear. I cannot imagine his fellow Republicans standing with him as he makes policy pronouncements or declares his loathing of the “fake news” mainstream media, or the so-called godless heathens who oppose him on, oh, just about everything.

Yes, indeed. Roy Moore’s possible election is likely to sink the level of policy discourse in the halls of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body to depths it hasn’t seen since, oh, the days of Joe McCarthy.

God help us.

political news

Conyers has ‘retired in disgrace’

John Conyers has given us a new definition of how a politician leaves public life.

The Michigan Democratic congressman today has announced his retirement effective today. By my standard, he has decided to “retire in disgrace.” He didn’t just resign. He didn’t wait until the end of his term to walk away.

Conyers, facing sexual harassment allegations — and a settlement he paid to one of his accusers — has called it a career.

It’s a fascinating and correct end to a lengthy career in politics.

Conyers is the longest-serving member of the U.S. House. He’s been on the job for 53 years. He has held positions of extreme power and influence and, according to several women, allegedly abused his power and influence in disgusting and disgraceful ways.

Here’s a serious non-shocker: Conyers is citing factors unrelated to the allegations as his reason for retiring. According to The Associated Press: “Conyers’ attorney, Arnold Reed, has said Conyers’ health would be the paramount consideration in whether he decides to step down from his House seat. He has already stepped aside from his position as ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.”

This is what politicians do. Faced with mounting pressure stemming from misbehavior, they cite other “reasons” for deciding to give up the fight. Those “reasons” might have merit or … they might be made up to divert attention from the reality of the moment.

I don’t know about Rep. Conyers’ health, although he is past 80 years of age. So, I suppose his health might be an issue.

Whatever the case, the man needs to go. He’s served long enough and from this moment forward every single day he remains in office will be clouded by the hideous allegations that have become all the talk in Washington, and Hollywood … and even on Main Street.

national news, political news

A serious political maverick has passed from the scene

John McCain likes wearing the “maverick” label.

In truth, U.S. Sen. McCain is a novice in the league of mavericks compared to one who has just died.

I refer to former U.S. Rep. John B. Anderson, the one-time Illinois arch-conservative Republican-turned civil rights activist. Anderson died Monday at the age of 95.

He is best known as an independent presidential candidate who, after losing the GOP nomination to Ronald Reagan, ran for president on his own. He didn’t win any electoral votes in 1980. He did, however, post the seventh-best independent candidate’s finish in the history of presidential elections.

I became smitten by the thought of this candidate actually winning the presidency. President Carter was under heavy criticism for (a) his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis and (b) the national economy. I couldn’t vote for Ronald Reagan. So I began to look at Anderson’s candidacy.

I knew about his beginning as a staunch conservative Republican congressman and his early opposition to the Civil Rights Act. I also witnessed his transformation from his former self to what he became.

He was a maverick’s maverick.

I was editor of the Oregon City (Ore.) Enterprise-Courier during the 1980 campaign. I consulted with the No. 2 man in the newsroom and we concluded that Anderson was the best of the three men running for president. With that, I drafted an editorial endorsement of Rep. Anderson. I turned it in to the publisher.

It took my boss no time at all to kick it back to me. “No can do,” he said. “We’re going with Reagan,” he informed me. So … we did.

But I gave it my best shot.

During that campaign, Anderson delivered a speech in which he said, in part: “The credit belongs to the man (who knows) the great enthusiasm, the great devotion and spends himself in a worthy cause, who if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

John Anderson the maverick was neither “cold” or “timid.” He delivered his policy statements in a booming voice.

And to this day, I still believe he was the best choice in 1980.

legal news, national news, political news

Sessions vs. Dowd over ‘obstruction of justice’?

Donald Trump’s lawyer, John Dowd, says the president “cannot obstruct justice” because the law exempts him from doing so.

Dowd said: The “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer … and has every right to express his view of any case.”

Are you clear on that? Me, neither.

Oh, but now we have this tidbit regarding the attorney general of the United States, Jeff Sessions. Nearly two decades ago, when President Bill Clinton was being tried in the U.S. Senate after the House impeached him, Sessions — then a Republican senator from Alabama — said this while making the case to remove the president from office:

“The facts are disturbing and compelling on the president’s intent to obstruct justice.”

There’s more.

“The chief law officer of the land, whose oath of office calls on him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, crossed the line and failed to defend the law, and, in fact, attacked the law and the rights of a fellow citizen.”

Dadgum, man! Who’s right? The president’s personal lawyer or the attorney general?

Dowd is reaching way beyond his — and the president’s — grasp, in my view, in contending that Trump is immune from the obstruction of justice complaint, were it to come from the special counsel probing the Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election.

I disagree with what Sessions said in 1999 about President Clinton, but his statements on the record during that trial put him squarely at odds with what Trump’s personal lawyer is trying to peddle today. If an earlier president can be charged with obstruction of justice, then surely so can the current president face such a charge if one comes forward from the special counsel’s office.

This all begs the question from yours truly: What kind of legal mumbo jumbo is Trump’s lawyer trying to peddle?

political news

GOP repays Democrats with ham-handed strategy

Do you remember the days when congressional Republicans accused congressional Democrats of ramming legislation through without consulting them?

They were angry, man! Barack H. Obama wanted to enact sweeping health care insurance reform. He reached out to Republicans. They were having none of it. So the Democratic president turned to his allies in Capitol Hill.

Why, that just infuriated Republicans.

The GOP’s response once they took control of Capitol Hill? How did the Republicans decide to legislate when one of their guys, Donald Trump, was elected president?

They chose to do the same thing. They sought to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something else. They had no Democrats on board with that fight. The ACA repeal-and-replace effort failed.

Donald Trump just had to have a legislative victory. So he turned to tax overhaul.

Here we are. Both legislative chambers have approved versions of a tax overhaul bill, except that it was done with a Republican-only majority. The debate has been joined, with both sides arguing from across the room at each other. It’s going to blow up the federal budget deficit, which Republicans used to hate; Democrats say the rich will get a break, while middle-class Americans get the shaft.

Thus, we have more of precisely the same kind of ham-handed bullying that Republicans alleged against Democrats.

As the fictional philosopher Tonto once told The Lone Ranger: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

national news, political news

Ronald Reagan would be aghast at GOP’s internal strife

I wasn’t a fan of President Ronald Reagan. I voted against him twice, in 1980 and 1984.

As the years have gone on and as I look back at the late president’s legacy, I am struck by one element of the manner in which he governed. He governed with a measure of good will toward his foes.

Yes, he could blister liberal Democrats with the best of ’em. He did so with a touch of humor. You’ve heard as well about his personal friendship with the late Democratic U.S. House Speaker Thomas “Tip” O’Neill.

President Reagan also crafted what he called the “11th Commandment,” which was that “Republicans shall not speak ill of other Republicans.”

That “commandment” has been tossed into the crapper, onto the scrap heap, burned, torn to shreds. You name it, today’s Republican Party has abandoned the 11th Commandment with a vengeance.

Don’t misunderstand: I don’t have a particular interest in seeing Republicans lock arms, hug each other’s necks, sing from the same hymnal page. I’m just amazed as I watch GOP officials lambaste each other how irrelevant their idol’s admonition has become in today’s climate.

The most glaring and daring example of Republican cannibalism involves Roy Moore, the Alabama candidate for the U.S. Senate. He is accused of making improper advances on underage girls. Congressional GOP leaders want nothing to do with this guy. Moore in return as all but declared political war on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell; other senators are backing McConnell, with many — if not most — of them withdrawing their endorsement of Moore. They believe the accusers’ account of what Moore allegedly did.

What might the former president think of all this? What might President Reagan say to his fellow Republicans? Indeed, would the president stand with the Alabama candidate or would he choose to believe the man’s accusers?

This isn’t The Gipper’s Republican Party. Of that I am certain. Indeed, my strong hunch is that President Reagan’s affection for the likes of Speaker O’Neill might subject this once-beloved political figure to much of the intraparty condemnation he once banned.

national news, political news

RINOs take over congressional GOP

Republican Party “purists,” whoever they may be, must be furious with what the GOP majority in Congress has done.

Republicans who control both congressional chambers have just rammed through two versions of a tax cut that by many economists’ view is going to explode the federal budget deficit.

Therefore, congressional Republicans — virtually to a person — comprise Republicans In Name Only. They are the dreaded RINOs that purists keep condemning as closet big-spenders masquerading as members of the party of fiscal responsibility.

One Republican — lame-duck U.S. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee — managed to vote “no” on the Senate version of the tax cut. But he was the only one.

Now this monstrosity goes back to the House of Representatives, which will seek to reconcile its differences with the Senate version. Then they get to vote again on it.

After that? It goes to the Oval Office, where the president of the United States will sign it. He’ll boast about the “victory” he won. Donald Trump will take credit for enacting a bill about which he likely doesn’t know a thing.

Do you remember the time when Republicans used to blister Democrats for running up those huge deficits? As recently as the 2016 election, Republicans were pounding freely at Democratic President Barack Obama for overseeing a sharp growth in the national debt. But here’s the deal: Under the Obama presidency, the size of the annual deficit was decreasing almost every year; by the time President Obama left office, the annual budget deficit had been cut by about two-thirds from the amount he inherited when he took office in January 2009.

I guess those days are gone, along with any chance that Republicans and Democrats are going to find common ground on matters that affect all Americans.

As for the country’s budgetary future, it’s now in the hands of RINOs. When are the party purists going to start squawking?

Hello? Is there anyone out there?