Monthly Archives: November 2013

Uncategorized

Senate set to change vote rules?

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is threating the “nuclear option” as it regards the Senate’s voting rules.

Go for it, Mr. Leader.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/190780-reid-threatens-to-go-nuclear

Republican senators are blocking three judicial nominees to the federal court system. President Obama nominated highly qualified jurists to the D.C. Court of Appeals. The GOP has filibustered the nominees, however, requiring a 60-vote majority to break the filibuster and moving the nominations forward. They offer a silly rationale for the filibuster, saying that the D.C. court has too many seats and that it can function with just eight judges. The 11-member court has three vacancies at the moment.

Reid has had his fill of this kind of tactic. He is threatening once again to invoke a rule that would enable the Democrats who control the Senate to change the rules to require a simple majority — 51 votes — to unclog the nomination process.

Why not do it?

Republicans contend the measure could backfire on Democrats if the GOP takes control of the Senate after next year’s election. That would mean Republicans could stop any Democratic effort at filibustering legislation proposed by a theoretical GOP majority.

Reid insists that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the Senate to be hamstrung by procedural maneuvering, which is the result of the 60-vote rule.

The nation operates on a simple majority rule, yes? We elect our public officials who manage to gain a majority of 50 percent plus a single vote. Heck, we even elect presidents who don’t even get a majority of the votes cast, but manage to win a majority of votes awarded by the Electoral College (see George W. Bush, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and John Quincy Adams).

The 60-vote rule can be abused, as has been the case with this constant blocking of judicial appointments by the president of the United States.

Go nuclear, Sen. Reid.

Uncategorized

What will happen if Obamacare gets fixed?

I’ve been giving thought to a situation that admittedly remains highly hypothetical … at the moment.

The situation involves attempts to repair the healthcare.gov website that has given the White House — not to mention millions of Americans — headaches, heartburn and all kinds of angst.

The website was meant to be the vehicle with which Americans would sign up for the Affordable Care Act. It hasn’t worked. The White House, President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, staffers throughout the federal government and just plain folks are up in arms over it.

The president has apologized for the mess. His critics aren’t accepting his apology. They’re demanding that heads should roll. Sebelius seems like the likely target, given that HHS is administering this snafu and Sebelius is in charge of HHS.

Congressional Republicans have declared the ACA to be a disaster. They know, by golly, that it will never work. It won’t provide health insurance at a price Americans can afford, they say.

The website fix? Forget about it, the critics say. The website is just a tiny fraction of the problem.

Well, this is all so much political grandstanding.

I’m wondering now what will happen if the Obama administration’s team of computer geeks fixes the website. What will occur if healthcare.gov is repaired and the site is able to process applications? What’s going to happen if by some chance the ACA starts enrolling Americans, who then will be insured for the first time in years?

And what will occur if the nation’s health care deliver system actually starts seeing improvements that its supporters — starting with the president himself — have said it would deliver?

I’m not yet ready to start throwing dirt on the ACA. I want to wait to see if the experts can fix what’s wrong with the website and I’m waiting to see what happens when the law gets implemented fully.

If after all that occurs and the system is still a mess … well, then you can hand me the shovel.

Uncategorized

Now this was a speech for the ages

Americans are filled this year with commemorations of seminal events in our nation’s history.

We’ve noted already the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, with its climactic speech by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who proclaimed for the ages that “I have a dream today …” This Friday marks the 50th year since a gunman shot down the 35th president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, as he motored through downtown Dallas.

Today also marks the 150th year since another milestone moment. President Abraham Lincoln stood on a field that once was the scene of immense carnage and delivered the Gettysburg Address.

The speech is remarkable for two things: One is the content of the text and the profound wisdom it contains. The other is its brevity. Here is the speech … in its entirety:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

“Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

“But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

President Lincoln was incorrect about one element of his remarks. He declared “The world will little notice, nor long remember what we say here … ”

Wrong, Mr. President. The world remembers.

And many of wish we could return to an era when statesmen rose to speak such wisdom.

Uncategorized

Rocket launch rekindles age-old interest

I watched the launch of a rocket Monday afternoon and found myself smiling as it blasted off the pad and headed into space.

NASA is sending a probe to Mars. It’ll take 10 months to get there. The Maven satellite will settle into Martian orbit and send back data that is supposed to tell scientists back home on Earth about the atmosphere that surrounds the Red Planet.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/mars-mystery-tour-nasa-counts-down-maven-orbiters-launch-2D11603312

That, of course, will happen if all goes according to plan.

Why the keen interest? Well, the launch rekindled my childhood fascination with rocketry and with the notion of sending manmade objects — not to mention human beings — into outer space.

NASA has been relegated to the back burner of our national discussion. The United States no longer has an operational manned space program. NASA grounded the shuttle fleet two years ago, sending the three working space shuttles and its one prototype model to museums around the country. It sent thousands of space workers packing.

We’re still training astronauts to fly into space. They are hitching rides aboard Russian rockets — if you can imagine that — to spend time aboard the International Space Station.

I’ve long thought human beings were put on this planet to explore beyond its bounds. We’re still doing so, but now we’re doing it with unmanned vehicles, such as the Maven mission that is now en route to Mars.

The launch excited me Monday. These events usually do, especially when the communicator counts down the final 10 seconds, the engines ignite and the vehicle lifts off. I become slightly breathless as it starts to turn toward orbit and am relieved to hear the launch director declare that the vehicle has attained orbit successfully and then has launched its way toward deep space.

I keep hoping one day — before I check out — that we’ll see human beings take this journey.

Indeed, I still believe that’s one of the reasons God put us here in the first place.

Uncategorized

Apology offers clear lesson in good manners

Martin Bashir is an MSNBC talk-show host and liberal commentator who on Friday said some horribly offensive things about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Today he apologized for his remarks.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/18/msnbcs_bashir_apologizes_for_saying_someone_should_defecate_on_sarah_palin.html

I didn’t hear the remarks as he said them on TV. I caught up with the remarks over the weekend from online publications. I heard them and was appalled. The link attached here carries additional links to what he said at the time. Take a look and have a listen. I think you’ll agree with his apology.

Two points need to be made about Bashir’s apology.

First is that he didn’t qualify it with one of those “If anyone was offended … ” non-apologies. He said he is sorry, period. He knew he crossed a line of decency and civility and was man enough to offer the unqualified expression of regret to Palin, her family, friends and political supporters.

Second is that Bashir and others have been correctly critical over many years of some of the discourse that has emanated from those on the other side of the political divide. They have taken others to task for untruthful statements and outright lies about public policies.

The deeply divided nation can debate policy differences without resorting to the kind of ugliness that presents itself from time to time. From the left and the right it has revealed its ugly side.

To that end, Bashir promised to be more thoughtful and circumspect “in the days ahead.”

I hope the folks on the other side, those on the right and the far right, follow Bashir’s lead.

Uncategorized

Who says Canadians are dull?

I had stayed out of the melee involving Toronto Mayor Rob Ford for reasons I don’t yet know.

Maybe I was just uninterested in the goofy dealings of some pol north of our border. Now I’m rather concerned that Ford’s behavior has shattered a stereotype of Canadians.

http://msn.foxsports.com/football/story/toronto-mayor-rob-ford-crashes-toronto-argonauts-canadian-football-league-playoff-game-ignores-request-to-stay-away-111713

The wild and crazy mayor showed up last night at a Canadian Football League playoff game. His hometown Toronto Argonauts lost to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. CFL officials had asked Ford to stay away. He ignored the league’s plea and sauntered in around halftime and promptly made a world-class spectacle of himself.

I once thought of Canadians as being dull and stodgy. They spoke with that funny accent — saying things like they were “going uuut and abuuut.” They end many sentences with “eh,” making it sound as if they’re asking a question. They’re tough to read, eh?

Now comes this clown Ford. He admits to smoking crack, which in Canada is as illegal as it is in the United States. He also says he has purchased other illegal substances.

He seems unapologetic about his behavior, telling his constituents that they knew what they were getting when they elected him. I rather doubt they had this in mind.

Now we learn that His Dishonor wants to be prime minister of Canada. I wonder if it’s as true there as it is here that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity” when it comes to politicians’ reputations.

One-time Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards once said that the people of his state didn’t “expect their politicians to be corrupt; they demand it of them.” Of course, he ended up doing prison time for his misdeeds.

Will that end up being Rob Ford’s fate in the Great White North? Time will tell.

This guy, though, is making me rethink my view of Canadians.

Uncategorized

Soon-to-be-ex-Gov. Perry reintroduces himself

Here he comes again, the man formerly known as Gov. Goodhair is returning to the national stage.

Rick Perry is about one year away from the end of his interminable tenure as Texas governor. He is not about to disappear. He won’t be heading back to Paint Creek to write poetry or learn how to paint. He’s coming back to the national stage … or so it seems.

Texas Tribune’s Ross Ramsey has written a fabulous analysis of Perry’s latest effort to rebrand himself, possibly setting himself up for another run for the Republican nomination for president in 2016.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/11/18/and-now-reintroducing-governor-texas/

Ramsey cautions skeptics — such as myself — to avoid dismissing Perry’s effort at rebranding. Ramsey writes: “Joke all you want, but watch: The governor is pretty good at this sort of maneuver. He was a Democrat who loaned his time to Al Gore’s 1988 presidential campaign, when the Republican nominee was a Texan named George H.W. Bush. Two years later, as a Republican, Perry ambushed the state’s popular agriculture commissioner, Jim Hightower, a Democrat, in a statewide race that set him on his current political trajectory.”

Ramsey is a smart fellow who’s covered Texas politics like a blanket perhaps since The Flood. He knows Perry better than most journalists.

I still have trouble buying into the notion, though, that the governor who flamed out so miserably before the 2012 GOP presidential primary campaign really go started can re-tool himself sufficiently to make voters forget all the gaffes, goofs and guffaws he produced.

His “oops” moment will go down in history as a classic. Perry’s loose talk of secession in 2009 won’t play well in Yankee territory, which as a national candidate for president he will need. Remember when he accused of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke of committing a “treasonous act” by printing all that money?

This is just a sample of the kinds of issues his foes — even those within his own Republican Party — will be more than happy to throw back at him.

I’ve long thought of Perry as more than a guy with good hair. He has tremendous instincts when it comes to Texas politics. He knows his native state well and knows the people who live here.

Still, the late columnist Molly Ivins’s apt Gov. Goodhair moniker does seem to fit, which explains, according to Ross Ramsey, why Perry has donned black-framed eyeglasses in recent public appearances.

Get ready, America. You’re about to get a lot more of Rick Perry than ever before.

I’ll paraphrase comments I heard during Perry’s first run for president in 2012 that came from devoted Texas Panhandle Republicans. They were pulling for Perry to win the White House “just to get him out of Texas.”

Uncategorized

Family feud mirrors larger GOP split

Two women from one prominent political family are sparring publicly over one of the nation’s most sensitive social issues.

It involves gay marriage.

One of the women is gay; the other is straight. The gay sister, Mary Cheney, is married to her wife and is the mother of two children. The straight sister, Liz Cheney, is running for the U.S. Senate seat from Wyoming against a long-time incumbent, fellow Republican Mike Enzi.

Cheney Family Airs Gay-Marriage Feud on Facebook

Liz Cheney has come out strongly against gay marriage. Her sister Mary has challenged Liz’s views, saying she is out of step with history.

Oh, have I mentioned these women come from a prominent political family? Their dad is former Vice President Dick Cheney, who supports gay marriage; their mother is Lynne Cheney, who’s served as top adviser to GOP presidents going back to Ronald Reagan.

The women’s differences over gay marriage — or “marriage equality,” as proponents like to call it — serves as an interesting metaphor for the divisions that exist within the larger political party. The right wingers are unwilling to compromise on this or any issue with the “establishment wing” of their party.

No one can accuse the Cheney family of being squishy on their conservatism. They all come from sturdy right-wing stock.

The sisters’ split reminds me a bit of a similar split within Ronald Reagan’s family, particularly between the two sons — Michael and Ron. Michael Reagan is a star on the conservative talk-radio circuit; Ron tilts considerably to the left and is a frequent guest of liberal TV talk show hosts. The third surviving Reagan child, daughter Patti, is aligned with brother Ron.

Has anyone seen the Reagan brothers in the same room lately?

Back to the Cheneys …

If anyone needs a lesson on the split among Republicans, they can look no further than the strain developing between two strong-willed women.

Uncategorized

Obama lacks a Bobby Kennedy

Texas Monthly blogger/editor Paul Burka is a smart guy whose blog I read regularly.

He says in the post linked here that Barack Obama is “on the verge” of becoming a failed president.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/obamas-collapse

He talks about the still-new president developing a cult of personality, which has contributed, according to Burka, the failure of the Affordable Care Act rollout and the accompanying headaches.

I agree to a point. I’m not sure Obama is yet at the brink of a failed presidency.

What I think he lacks is someone in his inner circle who’ll tell him the truth. My favorite example of that kind of individual is worth noting this week in particular as the nation marks the 50th year since the shocking murder of President John F. Kennedy.

JFK had a truth-teller in his inner circle. His name was Robert Francis Kennedy, the president’s brother, the nation’s attorney general and someone who grew enormously into a powerful political presence in his own right — until his own death at the hand of an assassin in June 1968.

Bobby Kennedy could tell the president the truth. He could tell his brother when he messed up. He could give him unvarnished counsel, speak to him in blunt terms and help steer him toward a more prudent course.

Bobby had managed his brother’s winning 1960 presidential campaign. He could play rough and tough. RFK had his enemies, chief among them were Vice President Lyndon Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. LBJ hated RFK and the feeling was quite mutual. Hoover made a parlor game out of digging up dirt on powerful politicians and the Kennedys were not exempted from his prying eyes and ears.

Barack Obama has professed great admiration for the 35th president. He’ll do so again this week in ceremonies marking the half-century since his predecessor’s death in Dallas. One of the things that made Kennedy an effective president was his ability to listen to the harsh truth when he needed to hear it.

Robert Kennedy gave it to him. Barack Obama needs someone like that now.

Uncategorized

Politics means ‘lying’ takes on broader context

My American Heritage dictionary defines the term “lie” thusly: “a false statement deliberately presented as true.”

That’s a commonly accepted description of a lie. Someone has to knowingly say something that is false.

Well, in politics, lying takes on a different sort of meaning.

Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick “Prince of Darkness” Cheney, said just the other day that President Barack Obama lied when he made grand promises about the Affordable Care Act.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/190496-liz-cheney-no-question-obama-lied-about-o-care

“No question” that he lied, said Cheney. What’s more, the former VP’s daughter has accused Republican U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming — whose seat Cheney wants to take from the incumbent — of enabling the president to lie about the ACA.

I won’t get into whether Enzi enabled anything.

I am puzzled, though, why we allow politicians to use terms like “liar” and “lie” when the universe could contain all kinds of reasons for untruthful statements.

Yes, the president said anyone could keep their health plans if they wanted to do so once the ACA kicked in. It didn’t happen; millions of Americans had their policies canceled, forcing the president to announce this past week that insurers could keep policies in force for another year.

Pardon the verbal parsing, but for Cheney — who’s an underdog in her campaign to beat Enzi — to suggest that Obama “lied” is to become a mind-reader. She knows without a doubt, she says, that the president lied — which is to say he deliberately stood before the nation and said something he knew to be untrue.

Just maybe the president believed what he said at the time to be true. If someone says something in good faith — believing they are telling the truth — does that make them bad-faced liars?

Here’s an example that might hit Liz Cheney right in the gut.

Her dad told us that the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Those WMD became the basis for us launching a full-scale war against Iraq in March 2003. Our troops stormed into Baghdad, captured Saddam, scoured the country from top to bottom looking for those WMD.

They weren’t there.

Did Daddy Cheney tell a lie? I’m guessing his daughter Liz would say “no.” Some of us likely would beg to differ. Hey, that’s politics.