Take heed, Mr. Majority Leader

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.

 

 

 

'An act of pure evil'

Islamic State terrorists have beheaded another American. The victim this time is an aid worker, Peter Kessig.

President Obama’s response? He called it an “act of pure evil.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/obama-beheading-was-act-of-pure-evil/vi-BBe9xJq

What now?

Let’s wait for the critics of the U.S.-led aerial bombardment campaign to demand “troops on the ground” to fight ISIL face to face, hand to hand.

My own take is that the air strikes need to continue — only with more ferocity.

The president issued the correct statement aboard Air Force One en route from the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia. ISIL must be destroyed. It must be bombed into oblivion.

The ironic aspect of this murder is that Kessig had converted to Islam after leaving the Army, where he served as a Ranger. Therefore, ISIL killed one ofĀ its own. How does one make sense of any of this, at any level?

Although I do not want to return to the battlefield in Iraq or join the fight — on the ground — in Syria, I clearly understand the odds against an all-airborne campaign accomplishing the mission of destroying a sophisticated, well-funded and well-armed terrorist organization.

I also know that the United States and our allies have immense firepower available to them.

They should use it … with extreme prejudice.

 

Social media produce a blessing

Various forms of social media often get a royal raspberry from those who dislike it.

I’ll admit to being a little late in the social media game, but I’ve found over the past 20 or so hours that it has at least one immense benefit. Social media allow friends and acquaintances to offer instant — and often heartfelt — expressions of sorrow on one’s behalf.

Last night I announced to my network of Facebook friends — who comprise actual friends, others I know only casually and even some folks I’ve never even met — the death of a beloved pet. Socks was our 12-year-old kitty who simply laid down and never woke up.

It’s been a very difficultĀ past few hours for my wife and me. Pet owners understand all too well that these critters we bring into our homes become part of the family. In the case of Socks and his sister, Mittens, they became kin immediately after walking through the door more than a dozen years ago.

It’s gratifying to read theĀ lovely statements of those who’ve had pets, and from those who’ve sufferedĀ a loss similar to what we’ve just experienced.

I can thank social media for that. To be honest, it’s difficult to talk about this just yet. So I won’t go on and on.

The purpose of this post actually is just to recognize that social media, ifĀ used in the right way, canĀ provide a clear path to emotional healing.

 

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.

 

Rest in peace, big guy

Pet owners know how it feels to lose someone to whom you grow attached immediately.

That means, oh, just about every American living today gets it. We’ve all owned pets, yes? Most of them become members of the family. And you get that, too, I’m certain.

Well, friends, a member of our family died tonight. His name was Socks. He was a 12-plus-year-old alley cat. He came into our lives, along with his sister Mittens, in June 2002. We went to the SPCA one Saturday afternoon to select one cat but then came home with two.

We fell in love with them immediately.

What’s more, they fell in love with us at precisely the same time.

Pets do that kind of thing, you know.

It’s hard to single out what made Socks so special.

I’ll start with his temperament.Ā He was quite territorial and didn’t like neighbor cats traipsing onto his turf. He was unafraid to shoo them away and he did so with gusto.

I wrote about a particular episode.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/01/15/cat-does-well-even-without-claws/

Still, Socks wasn’tĀ like your normal cat. He acted more like a dog. He’d follow us around the house. He’d beg for food. He’d climb on our laps, fall asleep purring and then he’d snore. It was a barely perceptible snore, but it was a snore nonetheless.

Socks developed a particular attachment to my wife. I joked to her directly and told friends — usually in my wife’s presence — that she hasn’t enjoyed a good night’s sleepĀ since Socks joined our family. He’d snuggle up to her, usually around her face. He’d occasionally drape himself across her neck while she was sleeping, all the while purring so loudly you could hear him across the room.

Well, that’s about all there is to say.

This blog usually is a forum for my rants and my occasional updates on personal matters. I just wanted to share briefly a loss that pet owners understand all too well.

It’s going to take some time to get over this one.

Oh man, we’re going to miss the big, gentle brute.

Impeachment for show only?

A thought occurs to me now that impeachment of the president has returned to the arena.

Just suppose the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is actually is so blindly stupid that it actually impeaches President Obama for exercising his constitutional right of executive authority and tinkers with immigration reform.

Now, let us now suppose that the Republican-run U.S. Senate gets articles of impeachment and puts the president on bleeping trial for it.

The next Senate is going to have a maximum of 54 GOP members, depending on the outcome of the runoff race in Louisiana set for December. It takes 67 votes to convict a president of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and remove him from office.

Does anyone in their right mind think Republicans are going to persuadeĀ 13 Democratic senators to engage in this ridiculous charade?

The thought then boils down to this: The impeachment talk, should it ever come to pass, is meant to put an asterisk next to Barack Obama’s name. The members of Congress who detest him and the policies that got him elected twice to the presidency simply want the word “impeached” next to his name. They want his obituary, when it is finally written, to contain the “I-word.” They want his presidency scarred for life with the notion that the House of Representatives trumped up a phony “crime” upon which to impeach the 44th president of the United States.

Well, the last time the GOP tried that — in 1998 against Bill Clinton — it fell flat on its face. President Clinton walked out of the White House in January 2001 with his standing intact and he has emerged as arguably the nation’s premier political leader.

That won’t matter to the current crop of congressional “leaders” who are insisting that Barack Obama keep his mitts off any executive orders regarding immigration.

House Speaker John Boehner declared not long ago that impeachment won’t happen while he’s the Man of the House. Yet his GOP caucus has been strengthened and made even more strident in the wake of the 2014 mid-term election.

We’ll get to see how much clout he can wield if the nimrod wing of his partyĀ starts getting a bit too feisty.

 

 

Keystone Pipeline causes heartburn

The pipeline that most members of Congress seem to support is causing me some grief.

It’s the Keystone project. It will carry petroleum from Alberta, through the middle of the United States, to Texas Gulf Coast ports. Then it will be shipped abroad, where refineries will process it into all sorts of products.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/house-passes-keystone-xl-bill-112903.html?hp=b1_c3

The House of Representatives has approved legislation supporting it. The Senate is going to vote next week.

Should they agree with their House colleagues?

Sure. Why not?

President Obama isn’t sold on the project. He’s signaling he might veto the Keystone Pipeline bill if and when it lands on his desk. How come? Well, he doubts it will be a big job producer and notes that Canada is going to export the oil “everywhere else.” Thus, he believes it won’t have an impact on gasoline prices.

I’ll disagree with that last statement.

The fuel is going to pour into the worldwide supply that continues to outstrip worldwide demand. Therefore, the price of oil — and gasoline — continues to decline.

The federal government already has issued reports that suggest the pipeline would have minimal environmental impact.

I guess I just can’t get too worked up over this project one way or the other.

However, if I had a vote on it, I’d probably vote to build it, help our northern friends, pump more oil into the world market and hope it continues to keep downward pressure on the price of gasoline at the pump.

 

'W' stays on the post-presidency high road

It well might have just tortured Fox News blowhard Sean Hannity to hear his talk-show guest refuse to criticize President Obama.

Then again, perhaps Hannity knew the response he would get from former President George W. Bush.

Whatever the case, President Bush has chosen to remain on the high road nearly six years after leaving the White House.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/george-w-bush-why-refuse-135613369.html

Bush said he doesn’t “think it’s good for the country to have a former president undermine a current president; I think it’s bad for the presidency for that matter.”

Then he added: “Secondly, I really have had all the fame I want.Ā I really don’t long for publicity. And the truth the matter is in order for me to generate publicity … I’d have to either attack the Republican Party, which I don’t want to do, or attack the president, which I don’t want to do. And so I’m perfectly content to be out of the limelight.”

What a concept. A former president following the lead set by his father, another former leader of the Free World, in refusing to mix it up with those who come along after them.

Take heed, former Vice President Cheney. He’s been popping off repeatedly ever since he moved out of the VP’s mansion.

Indeed, this unofficial vow of silence that former presidents take has more or less been followed since the founding of the Republic. I say “more or less,” becauseĀ President Bush’s immediate predecessor, President Clinton, has been pretty vocal in criticizing Republican critics of Barack Obama, although I cannot recall Clinton torpedoing George W. Bush’s foreign-policy decisions duringĀ W’s presidency.

Let’s not ignore President Carter, who on occasion has shot darts at all the men who assumed office after he left the White House in 1981. He does pick his shots, though.

But in my memory of former presidents, which dates back to Dwight Eisenhower, it’s been the custom for former presidents — and vice presidents, for that matter — to stay quiet and let their successors suffer the barbs that others toss at them.

It’s an appropriate thing for these former leaders to do. They belong to an exclusive club. Only they know all the ins and outs of the world’s toughest job.

As we all understand,Ā we can have only one president at a time. For aĀ former president to takeĀ a seatĀ in the peanut gallery and “undermine a current president” is very bad form, indeed.

Well said, President Bush.

 

$1 billion settlement just isn't fair

There’s just no pleasing some people, I reckon.

Consider the case of Sue Ann Hamm, former wife of Harold Hamm.

Ms. Hamm got a billion-dollar settlement from an Oklahoma court in her divorce action against her ex-husband. A billion bucks!

Was it enough? Nope. She’s going to appeal the settlement.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/14/luxury/harold-hamm-divorce/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

“Sue Ann is disappointed in the outcome of this case,” said her lawyer Ron Barber. “She dedicated 25 years as Harold’s faithful partner in family and business.”

Harold Hamm reportedly is worth around 20 bil, so I reckon his ex-wife wants a bigger piece of that action.

OK, I’m not a party to this divorce action. I’m just sitting out here in the peanut gallery, albeit not too terribly far from the Oklahoma state line. Still, I get that there’s a lot I don’t understand about this case.

I’ll acknowledge one thing that escapes my understanding: Why isn’t $1 billion enough?

Sue Ann can take the dough, stash some of it away for the kids, invest most of it in some secure stocks and other things, keep a healthy sum of it — say, $50 million or so — for herself and still live very nicely.

According to CNN.com, Harold Hamm is a big hitter: “Harold Hamm is somewhat of a legend in the oil businesses. He built the company from the ground up, pioneered the use of fracking and led the development of North Dakota’s Bakken oil field.”

Well, absent a pre-nuptial agreement, the former couple is left to settle this matter as amicably as they can.

From my perch far, far away, a billion dollars looks pretty darn amicable.

 

Rein in university regents

Texas Senate Higher Education Committee Chairman Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, is a persistent lawmaker.

What got vetoed in 2013 is coming back in 2015 and Seliger’s hope is that a new governor will see fit to sign it into law, rather than veto it, which his predecessor did.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/12/bill-restricting-regents-authority-re-emerges/

Senate Bill 177 would limit the power of university regents, seeking to keep their noses out of university administrative affairs. It’s the kind of thing that has erupted within the University of Texas System and regents’ ongoing dispute with UT-Austin President Bill Powers.

One of the bill’s provisions is that regents cannot fire a campus president without a recommendation from the system chancellor.

Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the 2013 bill, saying it went in the “wrong direction.” Seliger is optimistic that the new governor, Greg Abbott, will have a different view.

“I can’t answer for Gov. Abbott, but I think his view of legislation is going to be entirely different,ā€ Seliger said. ā€œI think it’s a good piece of legislation based upon the fact that it passed and had a lot of support last time — I’m very optimistic.”

Regents should be left to set policy and allow campus presidents to administer those policies. The campus presidents are the people with eyes and ears inside their institutions, so give them some room to maneuver. That hasn’t been the case at the UT System, as regents have been squabbling among themselves with President Powers over the way he runs the flagship campus at the massive university system.

It’s been a mess. Senate Bill 177 seeks to prevent future higher education messes.