Tag Archives: House GOP

Preposterous plan saves DHS, for now

Roger Daltrey sang it loudly at the end of The Who classic, “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”

“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!”

Republicans had vowed to govern better than Democrats did when they took over both congressional chambers at the beginning of the year. That vow is in jeopardy.

Why? The House of Representatives, which the GOP has controlled since 2011, is going to fund the Department of Homeland Security — but only until March 19. Then the House and Senate will have deal once again with imminent closure because of Republican anger over an executive action taken by President Obama to deal with illegal immigration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/harry-reid-nancy-pelosi-shutdown-homeland-security-115538.html?hp=lc1_4

Congress appears ready to avoid a shutdown at the end of today. The GOP-run Senate wants to approve a funding measure that doesn’t include a provision to strip the executive order of its authority. The GOP-run House, though, isn’t ready to swill that Kool-Aid.

What a terrible way to run the government. A Band-Aid here and there. Then we return to the same crisis mode that sends everyone’s blood pressure through the ceiling.

Obama sought to delay deportation of 5 million illegal immigrants. Congress didn’t like that the president acted alone, even though his predecessors have done so on the same issue over the years.

Republicans are so intent on stopping the deportation order that they’re threatening to de-fund the very agency, the Department of Homeland Security, that is charged with protecting the nation against bad guys trying to sneak into the country.

What kind of governance is that?

The new boss is no better than the old boss.

Ridiculous.

 

GOP plays with fire over immigration

When you play with fire, the saying goes, you’re going to get burned.

So, what has the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives done right out of the chute? It has voted to defund President Obama’s executive order that seeks to reform the nation’s immigration policy.

Which voting bloc is most interested in this activity? Why, I do believe it’s the Hispanic voter, the very folks that Republicans say they need if they have any hope of winning the White House in the 2016 election.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/229469-house-votes-to-defund-obamas-immigration-orders

Why, then, the interest among those Americans? Well, the immigration-related executive order seeks to delay the deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants. No, they can’t vote. But they have a lot of supporters among Hispanic American citizens who do vote and those individuals are likely to remember what the House of Representatives and the Senate — which also is in GOP hands — will seek to do to Obama’s order.

The GOP has done a two-fer. They defunded the deportation plan. In a second vote, they decided to take the teeth out of the DACA provision. DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and it sought to delay deportation of children who came here illegally, either by their parents or those who were part of that mass migration across our southern border.

There well might be hell to pay if Republicans insist on these tough measures.

Is the president going soft on illegal immigration? Of course not. The Obama administration has set deportation records left and right for the past six years. The president, though, intends to start improving the system while allowing those who are here illegally some time to apply for legal resident status or become U.S. citizens.

Republicans are having none of it.

It will cost them.

Dearly.

 

 

Apology accepted, congressman; now promise: never again

Congressman Randy Weber has done the right thing by apologizing for a hideous reference to Adolf Hitler while criticizing President Obama’s absence from the unity rally in Paris.

The Republican who represents Southeast Texas in the House of Representatives had sent out a tweet that noted Hitler had gone to Paris in 1940 “for the wrong reasons” but Obama couldn’t go this past week “for the right reasons.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congressman-randy-weber-apologizes-tweet-comparing-president-obama/story?id=28200320

It was a ghastly reference that has no bearing on anything other than to morph the president of the United States into some kind of comparison with the 20th century’s most despicable despot.

Oh, but Weber said that wasn’t his intention. He intended only to use the Hitler reference to illustrate the evil that lurks in today’s world.

OK, whatever.

I’m glad Weber apologized to “all those offended by my tweet.” Yep. That would be me, among many others.

His explanation of what he intended, though, seems a bit dubious.

It’s my hope that he and others who are inclined to toss Adolf Hitler’s name around to make some political points will cease doing so … forever.

Love brings diversity to Black Caucus

Well, how about this? The Congressional Black Caucus — normally an echo chamber comprising progressive Democrats — is going to have a Republican join its ranks.

U.S. Rep. Mia Love of Utah will become a member of the CBC, a group she once vowed to “dismantle.” She now hopes to change it from within.

Good for her. Good for the CBC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/01/06/mia-love-joins-the-cbc-the-group-she-vowed-to-dismantle/

It’s not that the CBC has been devoid of Republican members. The most recent member had been Rep. Allen West of Florida, the TEA party blowhard who — in my view — disgraced himself by suggesting that most Democrats were closet communists. Voters tossed him out after a single term.

Black Republicans in the past have been reluctant to join the CBC. The late former Sen. Edward Brooke of Massachusetts, the first African-American elected since Reconstruction, didn’t join; neither did former U.S. Rep. J.C. Watt of Oklahoma; current Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina hasn’t joined.

It’s good for the caucus to hear from Rep. Love. She clearly is going to sing from a different hymnal than her CBC colleagues.

That’s OK. A group that preaches “diversity” is now going to have some within its own ranks.

 

Boehner will keep speaker's gavel, however …

John Boehner is going to be re-elected speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Ohio Republican, though, is going to pay a price. Or, more to the point, rank-and-file Americans are going to pay the price.

It will be because the challenge to Boehner’s speakership is coming from the far right wing of the speaker’s Republican Party caucus in the House. And those clowns are going to pressure Boehner to keep tacking to the rightist fringe of the GOP.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/john-boehner-speaker-vote-2015-113984.html?hp=l2_3

Bank on it.

The question for some of us — including me — is whether Boehner will rediscover the backbone he has shown in resisting TEA party pressure to do foolish and destructive things, such as shut down the government over disputes with President Obama.

Reps. Louie Gohmert of Texas and Ted Yoho of Florida have decided to run for speaker. The vote will occur Tuesday. Gohmert is a goofball. I can’t speak to Yoho, other than I know he’s a TEA party guy, just like Gohmert.

Boehner has said categorically that impeachment of the president is off the table as long as he’s speaker. Gohmert says quite the opposite. Is Yoho on board with the Gohmert view? Yeah, probably.

This dynamic reminds me of what might happen here in Texas, with a new governor about to take office. He’ll have a lieutenant governor who’ll push him to the right with the threat of a challenge from within the GOP when the governor’s office is up for election in 2018. I hope Gov. Greg Abbott can fend off the pressure that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick is going to apply.

I wish the same for Boehner once he is re-elected speaker in a House that will be even more Republican than the previous one.

And as the GOP takes command of the Senate, we’ll all get to see if the new brand of Republican lawmakers can actually govern, as in can they present legislation to the president that he actually can sign into law.

I am not feeling good about the prospects.

 

Go, Louie, go for the speaker's job!

This might be the best news yet of the new year — which, I know, is just four days old.

U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-TEA Party Fringe, has just announced he’s going to challenge John Boehner as speaker of the House of Representatives.

How does it get any better than that?

Gohmert, you see, is in the running as well for being the goofiest member of Congress. He’s got some competition for that honor. The previous frontrunner was fellow Texan Steve Stockman, who had the bad form to challenge Sen. John Cornyn in the GOP primary this past spring; he lost badly. He’s now out of the House. Right up there, too, is Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who said illegal immigrants are packing illegal drug across the border while running on “calves the size of cantaloupes.”

Gohmert hails from East Texas and he’s challenging fellow Republican Donald Trump for the unofficial title of “birther in chief.” He and The Donald just do not believe that President Obama was born in the United States of America, in Hawaii, and that — by golly — he’s constitutionally qualified to serve in the office to which he was elected twice.

Now he’s running for speaker. He told his pal Tucker Carlson on Fox News that someone needs to challenge Boehner. Gohmert says he’s gotten “a lot” of support to mount that challenge.

I’d love to ask him how he defines the measure of so-called support. Maybe it is a lot. It surely must be vocal because that’s how the TEA party wing of the GOP operates. It outshouts the other side within the Republican Party and then it outshouts the Democrats.

Hey, the truth is he’s just firing a shot across Boehner’s bow. He’s telling the speaker to watch his right flank. The TEA party will be watching, waiting and looking for any opportunity to undermine the speaker’s instincts to work with the other side.

I’m still glad to see Rep. Gohmert step up — even if it does embarrass some Texas residents back home who really would prefer that he shut his trap.

Racial issue gets in GOP's way once more

That darn issue of race relations has just bitten the Republican congressional leadership right in the backside.

Don’t you just hate it when that happens?

GOP closes ranks around Scalise

GOP House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., spoke to a white supremacist group in 2002. The group was founded by a fellow Louisianan, one-time Ku Klux Klan grand dragon/wizard/potentate/medicine man David Duke.

Scalise says now he “regrets” his “error in judgment.” He condemns the views of “groups like that.”

Hey, it was a dozen years ago. No harm done now, right? He spoke six years before entering Congress.

Should he quit his leadership post? Should the congressman quit his House seat? I’m not going there until we know more about what he said and the nature of the invitation.

It does kind of remind me of what happened when former U.S. Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., had the poor judgment to say something kind about the late Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 1948 presidential campaign. That was when ol’ Strom broke away from the Democratic Party — of which he was a member back then — to run for the White House as a Dixiecrat. He was a segregationist back then — and proud of it, too! He just didn’t like mixing with black people — even though, as we would learn later, he mixed it big time with an African-American woman, with whom he produced a daughter.

Lott said this about Strom: “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

Oh, brother. That got Lott into some serious trouble. Lott stepped down as majority leader.

Two questions: Did the invitation to Scalise come from a group — the EURO Conference — identified easily as a white supremacist organization? And did he know of Klansman David Duke’s association with it?

The deal-breaker well might be the Duke involvement. Let’s come clean, shall we?

 

 

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 persuade 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 party starts getting a bit too feisty.

 

 

Hey, what about that lawsuit?

Politico asks an important question: Why haven’t congressional Republicans filed that lawsuit against President Obama, contending that the president has misused his executive authority regarding the Affordable Care Act?

It’s just a short distance from Capitol Hill to the federal courthouse. The House GOP could file the lawsuit and get this thing started, yes?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obama-lawsuit-house-republicans-112196.html?hp=t1

Well, I have a two-part theory: First, the lawsuit lacks merit and, second, filing the lawsuit now with the world focused on much more grave issues, such as international terrorism, makes Republicans look petulant.

Politico also points out that the employer mandate, which is what the president delayed through his executive action, is set to kick in on Jan. 1. If the mandate starts — requiring employers to offer insurance to employees — then the lawsuit becomes moot.

House Speaker John Boehner announced his intention to sue Barack Obama with great fanfare. Then the world went up in flames in Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Nigeria, Ukraine — have I missed anything?

The president has been tested time and again by real crises, not pestered by made-up problems brought to bear by political opponents at home whose sole intent is to stick it to him.

I still contend the speaker is a reasonable man. He knows how it would look for him to pursue this lawsuit now.

Almost no one in Washington believes that the ACA will be repealed. It’s working. It is providing insurance to millions of Americans.

If the Republicans were going to strike a blow against what they say is executive abuse of power, well, the time has passed.

Let’s move on to things that really matter.

Let’s try governing.

Ebola 'czar' gets expected criticism

Is there any better example of being “damned if you do, or don’t” than President Obama’s appointment of an Ebola “czar”?

Let’s meet Ronald Klain, who is the new manager of the government’s response to the Ebola situation. Klain is a trusted adviser to the president, a Mr. Fix-It sort of individual. He is known as a master government technician who knows how to make things work.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/obama-names-ebola-point-person-211624626.html

He’s not a medical professional. However, he comes into the game reportedly with a good deal of nuts-and-bolts know-how.

Republicans in Congress have been yapping about the president’s propensity for naming these “czars.” He’s got a czar for all kinds of things.

Yet … the GOP wanted him to name an Ebola czar because, they contend, the government’s response to this so-called “crisis” has been tepid, ineffective, milquetoast.

So then Obama puts Klain on the job.

GOP leaders now contend that Klain is the wrong person for the job. I haven’t yet heard who they think is the right person, or even how they would describe that individual.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/17/politics/ebola-czar-gop-reaction/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I’m not at all certain the president even needed to appoint a czar to do this job.

A surgeon general would have been an appropriate person to lead the nation’s response to this matter, but Republicans have blocked the naming of that individual for reasons that have nothing to do with his or her medical qualifications. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is run by someone who’s qualified to coordinate the effort; but Dr. Thomas Frieden has been criticized — again, by Republicans mostly — his own agency’s failure to manage this “crisis.”

The president is damned yet again for doing what his critics have demanded he do.