Monthly Archives: December 2014

political news, State news

Perry unaffected by Jeb Bush's plans

It’s a fair question to ask of the Texas governor.

Will the announcement by Jeb Bush to “actively explore” a presidential campaign in 2016 affect your own plans, your own timetable for making a decision?

Rick Perry’s answer. No change in plans.

Did anyone expect him to say anything else?

https://wordpress.com/read/post/feed/12395410/576002300/

The Republican field is starting to take some form with the former Florida governor’s announcement of an exploratory operation getting started. Many other Republicans are pondering their next move. Bush’s announcement might alter some decision-making and announcements — but not Perry’s?

An adviser to Perry told the San Antonio Express-News: “It definitely won’t affect the governor’s decision-making process,” the adviser said, adding that Perry plans to make his decision in the spring.

I doubt strongly that Perry and Bush would target the same GOP bloc of primary voters. Perry is a member of long standing of the TEA party wing of the GOP. Bush isn’t. He’s more mainstream, although the two men do share a compassionate view of immigrants, particularly those who are here illegally. Indeed, immigration is the one area where I support Perry’s agenda.

We shouldn’t expect Rick Perry to change a thing with regard to his own presidential campaign planning. He’s not wired that way. Bush will do whatever he plans to do and Perry will march ahead — to his own cadence.

 

 

International news

Yes, we won the Cold War

Barack Obama’s announcement that the United States will begin normalizing relations with its long time enemy Cuba brings to mind a truism that plays into this development.

It is that the Cold War is over. We won! The communists lost it.

Indeed, long before the Cold War was declared over — with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 — we had relations with communist countries. China and the Soviet Union are the two examples.

The president noted today that we even restored relations with Vietnam, a nation with which we fought a long and bloody war that cost more than 58,000 American lives.

Cuba? Until today, it remained on our list of nations non grata.

And why? Well, it didn’t pose a military threat. Its economy is in shambles. Its people still are suffering from lack of freedom and the depravity brought on it by the repressive economic policies of the Marxists who run the island nation.

We’ve made our point. Our system is better than their system.

We outlasted the communists by forcing the Soviet Union to spend money on its military while its people suffered. Then came its restructuring and its newfound openness policies.

All the while, we maintained an embassy in Moscow and they had one in Washington.

The Cubans? We continued to punish them.

President Obama has done what should have been done — could have been done — many years ago.

It’s no doubt going to anger many members of the Cuban-American community who hate the communists who govern the nation of their birth. Will it matter in the grand scheme to the president? Not one bit. He’s a lame duck. He’ll be out of office in two years. The Cuban-American voting bloc supports Republicans overwhelmingly as it is.

The normalization should proceed quickly nonetheless. We won the Cold War. It’s time to move on.

 

International news

Common sense returns to U.S.-Cuba relations

It didn’t work. The United States sought for five decades to punish Cuba because it went from being an old-fashioned autocratic dictatorship to a Marxist tyranny.

The aim was to bring Cuba to its knees and to send a message to its major benefactor — the Soviet Union — that we just wouldn’t tolerate a communist dictatorship at our doorstep.

Well, five-plus decades later, that idiotic non-relationship took a huge step toward its end. President Obama today announced that the United States is going to begin “normalizing” relations with the island nation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obama-us-re-establishing-relations-with-cuba/ar-BBgUJV0

It … is … about … damn … time!

An American aide worker, Alan Gross, who had been imprisoned for five years in Cuba was released today. In exchange, we sent three Cubans back to their homeland. They all had been accused of spying. Gross’s release apparently removed the final impediment to the normalization of relations.

Obama made sense on virtually every point he made this morning in a brief televised announcement.

Cuba poses zero military threat to the United States. The Soviet Union has vanished. Russia’s economy is imploding. The Cuban people remain shackled by the tyranny that governs them, but Obama today insisted today that the Cuban government start loosening the binding that keeps Cubans from expressing themselves freely.

The president noted that the United States is virtually the only nation on Earth that honors the embargo slapped on Cuba in the early 1960s. Yes, Cuba trades with the rest of the world, but its totalitarian government has impeded prosperity from flowing to the people. That, too, should change, Obama said.

The president noted today that Cuba is still governed by someone named “Castro,” but it’s Raul, not Fidel.

He said he called Raul Castro today to tell him of the impending change in the U.S.-Cuba relationship. I’ll presume Fidel’s brother agreed to it.

The question now is whether Congress will agree to legislate an end to the economic embargo. The president can establish diplomatic ties with another nation all by himself, but Congress has to agree to end the embargo, as its enactment was done legislatively.

Here’s hoping the common sense caucus of Congress will agree to what is a profoundly sensible course of action.

Continuing to do the same thing repeatedly while hoping for a different result means it’s time to change what you’re doing. We can continue to have ideological competition between the two countries, but we ought to do so face to face.

Congratulations and thanks, Mr. President, for restoring some sense to our nation’s foreign policy.

 

political news

'Officially exploring' means Jeb is in

1 Comment

Take this to the bank. It’s a lock. Done.

Jeb Bush is running for president of the United States in 2016.

Yes, another Bush is, um, beating the bushes for votes. He wants to become the third member of his immediate family to occupy the White House. George H.W. “Poppy” Bush served from 1989 until 1993; big bro George W. served from 2001 to 2009.

The Bush “brand” is well established, correct?

And what do the first two Bushes have in common? They presided over an economy that tanked.

It Poppy’s case, the economy cost him re-election in 1992. As for W, the “Great Recession” caused untold grief for millions of Americans who watched their retirement investments vanish into thin air.

OK, were either recessions the direct result of the men’s presidencies? As I’ve noted before, presidents don’t deserve all the blame when things go wrong any more than they deserve all the credit for when things go right.

But these events happened on their respective watches.

And that is the “brand” that Jeb will have to overcome.

Voters’ memories are long, you know?

But Jeb Bush has a record of his own as a former Florida governor. It’s a decent one at that. The state ran well under his governorship. And I do like his moderate stand on immigration reform, which is natural, given that he’s married to a Mexican woman.

He shouldn’t take too seriously the notion that a Republican moderate is doomed to lose the next election. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said as much. But hey, the Cruz Missile is considering a presidential run as well and no one with an ounce of sanity ever is going to suggest Cruz is a moderate on anything.

Bush is yet another old shoe set to run for president. The Democrats have their own in Hillary Rodham Clinton.

My own GOP preference remains Mitt Romney, who’s now sounding as though he, too, will start “actively exploring” a campaign of his own.

This will be fun to watch, yes?

 

International news

Did the U.S. destroy the Russian economy?

A question is being bandied about in the international press while the world watches the Russian economy implode.

Have the U.S.-led sanctions against Russia brought about the collapse?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/barack-obama-vladimir-putin-russian-economy-113626.html?hp=t2_r

You remember when President Obama announced the sanctions after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine and sent troops into the neighboring country because Russian President Vladimir Putin didn’t like all that anti-Russia rhetoric coming out of Kiev.

Some hardliners on the right wanted the United States to do more, to bring military pressure to bear — perhaps by arming the Ukrainians who were fighting the advance of Russian armor and infantry into their country. The sanctions, they reckoned, wouldn’t have much of an impact.

Interesting that the sanctions all by themselves might have helped bring the Russian economy to its knees. The value of the ruble is plummeting, along with the price of oil, a major source of Russian income. The sanctions have tied up Russian investments abroad and have made it quite difficult for Russian businessman to function.

Russia remains a major military power. Its economic standing, though, has been reduced to second- or perhaps third-tier status.

According to Politico: “’It’s hard to disaggregate out the independent effects of the sanctions from the bigger story. Obviously the driver is oil prices,’ said Obama’s former ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul.

“’That said, there is no doubt that sanctions raise uncertainty about the Russian economy. Their own minister of economic development said today that the ruble is falling faster than the macroeconomic indicators would suggest it should be,’ McFaul added.”

The sanctions are punishing the one-time super power.

It remains to been, of course, whether Putin’s future adventurism will end. My guess is that he’ll have to think twice, maybe more, about getting involved in other countries’ internal affairs.

 

national news

ICE gets new director

Sarah Saldana has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate as head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, aka ICE.

Wow. That was a close a call that never should have been that close.

In that curious game of political gamesmanship on Capitol Hill, Senate Republicans who once sang Saldana’s praises turned on a dime against her nomination. Why is that? Well, it seems they didn’t like her support of President Obama’s executive order delaying deportation of millions of illegal immigrants.

OK, so let’s consider that for a moment.

Saldana was deemed supremely qualified to lead this critical national security agency prior to the executive action. NPR this morning had a report of how the GOP tide turned against her instantly as she backed Obama’s decision. One of her supporters-turned-foes happened to be Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

So, the Republicans wanted her to in effect turn against the policies of the president who appointed her.

What in the name of God’s green Earth did they expect from this presidential appointee? Is this person going to spit in the face of the man who selected her to lead the effort to protect our borders? Of course not!

Yet the GOP caucus in the Senate all but demanded it of her.

All the while, Senate and House Republicans keep harping — correctly, I should add — that the nation needs to do all it can to prevent illegal immigrants from streaming into our country.

Do they want the president to appoint an ICE director or don’t they?

Well, we now have one.

As someone noted this morning on National Public Radio, the job Saldana is about to assume is arguably the most difficult job in the federal government.

If she was a stellar choice prior to her backing the president on immigration, then she remains a stellar choice today.

Let’s get to work, ICE Director Saldana.

 

 

State news

Not quite so fast on putting Perry's name on building

1 Comment

Texas A&M University is considering an idea to name a historic building on its flagship campus after one of its more famous alums, Gov. Rick Perry.

A word to the wise here: I’d wait just a little longer before making that call.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/16/texas-m-may-name-iconic-building-after-rick-perry/

The governor has a felony indictment to put behind him and there’s no guarantee at all that he’s going to avoid conviction of at least one of the charges being leveled against him.

The Academic Building, which turns 100 soon, might get Perry’s name on it.

Hey, I don’t have a problem with putting the governor’s name on a university from which he is a graduate. Texas A&M wants to honor him for his lengthy service as Texas governor.

Regents, though, ought to wait at least until this legal matter is worked out before making the call.

Perry has been indicted for abuse of power and coercion. He’s fighting it hard. The case, though, has yet to run its course through the legal system. One judge already has ruled against a defense motion to dismiss the special prosecutor assigned to the case, which alleges that Perry threatened the Travis County district attorney with vetoing money for the Public Integrity Unit run out of her office after she pleaded guilty to drunken driving.

Let’s not get into a big hurry, A&M regents.

If the governor is cleared of the felony, then name the building after him. If he’s convicted, well, I’m sure you can find plenty of other Aggie alumni to honor.

 

International news

Monsters strike once again

Do you suppose the madmen who opened fire on a military school in Pakistan would say their attack was a “proportionate response” to the deaths of Taliban killers?

If they do, then they’ve just demonstrated for all the world to see the ruthlessness of this enemy.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/pakistani-forces-reclaim-school-after-%e2%80%98horrific%e2%80%99-taliban-attack-kills-at-least-132/ar-BBgRAT9

Gunmen opened fire in a Peshawar, Pakistan school, killing at least 132 people — most of whom were students.

The nine killers themselves were killed by Pakistani military and police after a nine-hour gun battle.

I guess there can be no limit to the hideousness of this cabal of killers. They once ran the government in Afghanistan and they’ve been mounting terrorist attacks there and throughout the region ever since their ouster in 2001 right after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

The list of ghastly incidents of violence is too numerous to recount here. The latest attack on the military school is just one more example of how we must fight this enemy.

We must keep fighting them with extreme vigor — and prejudice.

 

national news, political news

Can Sen. Warren actually defeat Hillary?

OK, let’s be clear that while the media routinely refer to a former secretary of state as “Hillary,” no one is going to call the senior senator from Massachusetts “Liz.”

One prominent conservative columnist, though, does believe that Sen. Elizabeth Warren has an honest chance of defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2016 race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/david-brooks-elizabeth-warren-113594.html?hp=l3_4

New York Times columnist David Brooks believes Warren has tapped into the Democrats’ populist/progressive base. She is taking on the banking industry, a favorite target of those progressives.

Brooks isn’t predicting a Warren nomination, he’s merely stating that he thinks she’s got a puncher’s chance.

Pardon me if I seem a bit skeptical.

Money wins these things. Hillary Clinton has tons of it in the bank and even more of it awaiting her the moment she announces her candidacy. The former secretary, senator and first lady can thank the Supreme Court for that advantage, given its ruling that well-heeled political action groups can give unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.

I’ll hand it to Brooks, though, for going out on a limb.

One more thing. Warren said today she isn’t running for president. She didn’t vow to stay out of the 2016 race until the end, just that she isn’t running. That means today. Tomorrow? It hasn’t arrived yet.

It’s still Hillary Clinton’s nomination to squander.

 

medical news, national news, political news

Senate approves surgeon general … finally!

For the first time in I don’t know how long, the United States has a top doctor.

He is Vivek Murthy, who today was approved by the U.S. Senate to become the nation’s next surgeon general.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/senate-approves-obama-pick-for-surgeon-general/ar-BBgQAMd

Despite his sparkling medical credentials and the work he has done to combat HIV/AIDS, senators had held up his nomination because he has spoken out against gun violence, calling it a public health issue.

Imagine that. A physician wanting to control gun violence because bullets injure and kill people.

His confirmation vote today was 51-43, with Republicans overwhelmingly opposing him because he is no friend of gun-rights advocates. Some Democrats joined their Republican colleagues in opposing Dr. Murthy.

One of them was Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who issued a statement opposing the doctor because, according to Manchin, his political views muddled his medical policy. I understand why Manchin joined other senators in opposing Murthy. It’s because he’s scared of gun-rights groups such as the National Rifle Association and the potent political power they possess.

That doesn’t make it right.

Vivek Murthy is perfectly qualified to serve as surgeon general. His views on gun control are well-known, but they do not infringe on his ability to help set medical policy or recommend measures to promote good health on behalf of the Obama administration.

Indeed, had their been a surgeon general on board during the recent Ebola mini-scare, there might not have been a need for the president to appoint an “Ebola czar” to coordinate the administration’s response to the disease’s arrival in the United States.

OK, so that task is done. We have a surgeon general. It’s good to know that at least 51 senators had the guts to vote in favor of hiring a chief medical officer to advise the nation on how to take better care of its health.