Tag Archives: Senate GOP

local news, State news

Sullivan threw out the bait; I took it

2 Comments

Michael Quinn Sullivan runs an outfit called Empower Texans. He sent out a mailer to Texas Senate District 31 residents which contained a bit of red meat of which I took a bite.

It implied that state Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, opposes a Senate bill that would provide $4.6 billion in tax relief for Texans. Dumb me. I fell for it.

Seliger called this morning to remind me that he voted for Senate Bill 1, but simply declined to sign on as a sponsor of the bill.

The antipathy between Seliger and Sullivan is as strong as ever. Indeed, I happen to stand with Seliger in his distaste and distrust of Sullivan, who sees himself as a kingmaker, seeking to elect legislators and statewide officials who agree with his brand of ultraconservatism.

I also happen to agree with those who believe the state should hold off on tax cuts until it takes care of some essential needs, such as infrastructure improvement and restoring money to public education.

Lesson learned: Read everything that Michael Quinn Sullivan sends out — carefully.

 

legal news, political news

AG vote delay: preposterous

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder wants to go home, wants to hand his job over to someone else and wants to bow out of the public eye.

He’s infuriated that he cannot do any of that because the people with whom he’s had the most serious disputes during his time as head of the Justice Department — congressional Republicans — won’t vote on whether to confirm his successor-to-be, Loretta Lynch.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/eric-holder-lynch-nomination-delay-116274.html?hp=lc2_4

The U.S. Senate has delayed Lynch’s confirmation vote because Republicans are mad at Democrats over an abortion provision in an anti-human trafficking bill.

What does that have to do with Lynch’s nomination? Beats me. It also puzzles Holder and President Obama, who nominated Lynch to become the first African-American woman to lead the Justice Department.

“When we show the American people the dysfunction that has gripped Washington over the last few years, and add yet another layer of dysfunction, this erodes faith in our institutions. And that’s just not good for the country over the long term,” Holder said.

Dysfunction? Yes, there’s been a lot of it, Mr. Attorney General.

Lynch’s qualifications are yet to be challenge seriously. Some Senate Republicans want her to disagree publicly with the president on his immigration-related executive order. Fat chance, folks.

So now we’re still stuck. Lynch is waiting and waiting for a vote that she — and the country — deserve to take place.

Meanwhile, the man the Senate GOP loves to loathe remains on the job — where I only can suppose these senators want him to vacate.

 

legal news, national news, political news

McConnell up to old tricks in Senate

Mitch McConnell promised to make the U.S. Senate work better if he became its majority leader.

The upper legislative chamber would start governing again, he said.

OK, so how’s he doing on his pledge? Not very well.

The Kentucky Republican has announced he plans to hold up a confirmation vote on Loretta Lynch to become the next attorney general if Democrats don’t play ball on a controversial human trafficking bill.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/235753-mcconnell-will-delay-lynch-unless-democrats-cooperate

What does one thing have to do with the other? Not nearly enough to justify holding up Lynch’s confirmation vote.

Democrats are holding back their support of a trafficking bill that was supposed to be a non-controversial piece of legislation. Then they read some of the fine print in it and are now balking. McConnell said the Senate needs to clear that bill off the table before it considers Lynch’s nomination to succeed Eric Holder as the nation’s AG.

Holy obstruction, Batman!

This nomination needs to move forward. Lynch is highly qualified to be the nation’s attorney general. Republicans keep saying how much they dislike the way Holder does his job. Meanwhile, the Senate majority leader is doing all he can to ensure Holder stays on the job.

What gives?

As The Hill notes, Lynch has been twisting in the wind long enough: “Lynch’s nomination has been awaiting confirmation for 128 days, longer than the past five attorneys general. Holder, by comparison, had to wait only 64 days before receiving Senate confirmation.”

Schedule a vote, Mr. Majority Leader, and allow Loretta Lynch to be confirmed.

legal news, national news, political news

Lynch nomination a cliffhanger? Why?

Sometimes I can be a bit slow on the uptake. I get that. I concede it’s a weakness.

But for the life of me, I do not understand why Loretta Lynch’s nomination to become the next U.S. attorney general is hanging by a thread. Someone will have to explain this one to me.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/loretta-lynch-nomination-close-116032.html?hp=t2_r

Lynch is supposed to replace Eric Holder as AG. She was thought to be set for a relatively easy confirmation. Then the man who appointed her, President Obama, decided to issue an executive order that delayed deportation of some 5 million illegal immigrants; the order allows them to seek work permits while they stay in the United States.

The order enraged Senate Republicans. So what did they do? They began questioning Lynch about whether she supported the president’s executive decision.

What on God’s Earth did they expect her to say?

“Well, senator, since you asked, I think that’s the dumbest damn idea I’ve ever heard. It’s illegal. It violates the Constitution. The president has rocks in his head and he should be impeached just for being stupid enough to issue the order.”

Is that what they want her to say? I’m beginning to think that’s the case.

Instead, she has declared her support of the president’s decision. As if that’s some big surprise to the senators, some of whom said they’d support her initially, but then changed their mind because — gasp! — she’s endorsing a key policy of the man who wants her to become the next attorney general.

Who’da thunk such a thing?

Loretta Lynch is eminently qualified to assume this important post. Republicans have made no secret of their intense dislike of Holder, who said he’d stay on the job until the next AG is confirmed.

I believe Holder has done just fine as attorney general, but he wants to move on, spend time with his family, pursue other interests … all those clichés. So, let him do it.

First, though, confirm Loretta Lynch.

International news

End of bipartisan foreign policy?

Leslie Gelb never has struck me as a crazed, left-wing ideologue.

He still doesn’t, but he’s written a piece for the Daily Beast that paints an extremely grim picture of one of the consequences of the Republican Gang of 47’s letter to the Iranian mullahs.

He said The Letter well might destroy bipartisan foreign policy, the kind envisioned by politicians of both parties until, well, just the other day.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/10/open-letter-to-iran-shows-gop-senators-hate-obama-more-than-they-love-america.html

The headline over Gelb’s essay says that Republicans “hate Obama more than nuclear Iran.”

“Hate” is one of those words our parents have told us we shouldn’t use. Yes, I’ve referred on my blog to “Obama haters,” and I regret the use of that term. I’ll only refer to prior use of it here.

Gelb, though, wonders whether The Letter signals the end of bipartisan foreign policy, the kind that compels politicians to rally around the president as he tries to negotiate deals with foreign leaders, prosecute conflicts, wage campaigns against terrorists, stared down our nation’s enemies.

The Gang of 47 sees it differently. They were led by a wet-behind-the-ears freshman senator, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who drafted The Letter that advised Iran that it should consider rejecting a nuclear prohibition treaty because it could be overturned when President Obama leaves office in January 2017.

The blowback against the senators has been ferocious. Even some Republicans are trying to back away from it.

Gelb writes: “What the 47 did was not a trivial matter or ‘a tempest in a teapot,’ as Senator John McCain has described it. It could well affect possible Iranian concessions in the end game. The ayatollahs could well conclude from that letter that concessions they might have made just aren’t worth it politically, as the agreement would go nowhere anyway. They’d be taking political risks for nothing.”

This interference in a president’s negotiation with a hostile foreign government is unconscionable. Teapot tempest? Hardly.

I hope Gelb is wrong about the future of bipartisan foreign policy. I fear, though, that he’s right.

 

International news

Iranian hardliners find friends on Capitol Hill

Of all the criticism out there aimed at the Gang of 47 who signed The Letter to Iran, urging the mullahs to reject a nuclear deal with the United States, one point rings truer than the rest.

It is that The Letter has given ammunition to the hardline faction within the Iranian government to use against whatever the so-called “moderates” bring to any discussion on this matter.

Who would have thought that the hardline Iranian Islamic fundamentalists would find allies within the Republican majority that controls the United States Senate?

Roll that one around for a bit.

Freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., drafted the letter and sent it to his GOP colleagues. Forty-six of them signed it, with seven Republicans declining to put their names on The Letter.

They’ve interfered directly with a sensitive U.S. negotiation with Iran over how to persuade the rogue nation to discontinue its nuclear development program. The Gang of 47 well might have broken U.S. law prohibiting such unauthorized negotiation with a foreign power, but the gang won’t be punished for it.

Conservatives think they’re doing the right thing. Liberals are angry with them for undermining the president of the United States, the secretary of state, and our allies who’ve joined us in seeking an end to the Iranian nuclear program.

And, yes, they’ve given the Iranian hardliners reason to smile today as they look toward the United States and see that members of our “loyal opposition” are proving to be not quite so loyal. They’ve turned a bipartisan U.S. foreign policy endeavor into a partisan contest.

The late, great Republican U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, who coined the phrase that partisanship “ends at the water’s edge,” is spinning in his grave.

 

 

 

International news, national news, political news, State news

Cotton becomes Senate's new media star

Move over, Ted Cruz. You’ve been supplanted as the U.S. Senate’s media star — by yet another new guy.

I never thought Cruz, a Texas Republican, could be pushed aside so quickly. But he has, by another Republican newcomer, Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

All Cotton has done is draft a letter that has infuriated the White House, created a stir in the international community and perhaps given a handful of fellow Republicans a case of the nervous jerks.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/cotton-storms-the-senate-115960.html?ml=po

The Letter, as I like to call it, was sent to Iranian mullahs, advising them to perhaps reject a nuclear disarmament deal being hammered by their government and the United States. Some have suggested the letter violated a long-standing U.S. law, the Logan Act, that bans unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.

Hey, no problem, says Cotton. He’s just doing the people’s will, he said.

As Politico reported: “Though he clearly has media savvy — he runs a guerrilla-like Twitter account that constantly blasts Obama’s foreign policy — Cotton has little regard for the media relationships of his forebears. He declined — three times — to answer questions for this story when approached in the Senate hallways. Instead, Cotton chose a spate of cable TV interviews and an interview with The Wall Street Journal to push his message this week.”

There once was a time when Senate newcomers thought it was better to be seen and not heard. More senior senators used to frown on the new guys gobbling up so much media air time and print space with their rhetoric.

Former Sen. Phil Gramm, another Texas Republican, became known for his penchant for grabbing a microphone. Then came current Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, who immediately became known as a Senate loudmouth.

Cruz, I thought, set the standard for blowhards when he joined the Senate in 2013.

Now we have Sen. Cotton, elected in 2014. He’s been in office for all of three months, but look at him. He goes and writes this letter, gets 46 of his GOP colleagues to sign it, presents to the Islamic Republic of Iran and causes quite the stir.

These new guys all promised to shake things up in the formerly staid U.S. Senate.

Brother, they sure have.

International news, national news, political news

GOP senators broke the law with The Letter

Let’s remember The Letter.

It was sent by 47 Republican U.S. senators to the mullahs who run the Islamic Republic of Iran. It sought to discourage the Iranians from agreeing to a treaty that would end Iran’s nuclear program.

Some observers have suggested that the letter broke the Logan Act, enacted in 1799 to prohibit unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.

Now we hear from a law professor at American University that the senators may have broken the law.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senators-probably-broke-law-with-iran-letter/ar-AA9BIdI

What’s the punishment? Professor Stephen Vladeck said the senators got away with something. The Logan Act is virtually unenforceable and it might even be unconstitutional, he said.

What’s more, says the professor, House Speaker John Boehner might have broken the law by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington to lobby against the Iranian nuclear negotiation. Should the speaker be punished? In my mind, sure. Will he be punished? Again, no.

The Letter is what’s gotten folks so riled up in Washington.

Freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., came up with the idea. He pitched it to his GOP colleagues, 46 of whom signed it. Seven more GOP senators didn’t sign The Letter. One of the senators whose name is missing is Susan Collins of Maine, who has said The Letter has alienated Republicans even more — if that’s possible — from their Democratic colleagues and, oh yes, the White House.

That doesn’t matter to the Gang of 47. They wanted to make some kind of point about trying to broker a deal with Iran.

They made it, and likely broke the law in the process.

Take a bow, folks.

International news

The Letter is getting kicked around

Let’s call it The Letter.

It has the names of 47 Republican U.S. senators under it. The Letter advises the mullahs who run the Islamic Republic of Iran against approving a treaty banning Iran’s development of nuclear power — or perhaps a nuclear weapon.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/tom-cotton-joe-biden-iran-letter-defense-115925.html?hp=rc2_4

The Letter might violate the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.

And The Letter is becoming a talking point for both Republicans and Democrats.

Vice President Joe Biden has entered the fray. On the other side is a freshman GOP senator, Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

“In 36 years in the United States Senate,” Biden said, “I cannot recall another instance in which senators wrote directly to advise another country — much less a longtime foreign adversary — that the president does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them.”

Cotton responded to Biden. He said that he and the other senators who signed the letter are “simply speaking for the American people.”

The Letter involves whether the senators are meddling in a sensitive negotiation between the United States and Iran. The GOP signees advise Iran that the letter might become irrelevant once President Obama leaves office in January 2017.

From where I sit, the senators have interjected themselves into territory where they don’t belong. OK, so they “are simply speaking for the American people,” as Cotton said. I don’t need to remind the young man from Arkansas about the nature of our government, but I’ll do it anyway.

Ours is a “representative democracy” that places certain power and authority in the hands of elected officials. The president is elected by the entire nation and the Constitution grants the president the authority to negotiated treaties with foreign governments. Yes, those 47 senators also represent their constituents and they, too, have a voice. However, the Constitution doesn’t give them the right to undermine the president’s power to negotiate a treaty. It does grant them the power to ratify or reject a treaty once it’s presented to the Senate for consideration.

I happen to agree with the vice president on this one. The Letter is “beneath the dignity” of the Senate.

 

International news

White House angry over GOP letter to Iranians

Does it surprise anyone that the White House would be steamed over a group of Republican senators seeking to undercut the president’s authority to negotiate a sensitive nuclear disarmament treaty?

If it does, then you need to get out more.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/235067-durbin-rips-gops-letter-on-iran-as-a-political-stunt

White House press flack Josh Earnest was unusually blunt today in responding to the letter signed by 47 GOP senators telling Iran that any treaty it agrees to with President Obama could be voided once the president leaves office in less than two years.

The Obama administration is seeking an agreement that stops the Iranian nuclear development efforts many believe is designed to produce a nuclear weapon for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The president doesn’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and has said so — repeatedly. Republicans don’t want the Iranians to join the “nuclear club,” and they’ve said so as well.

But which of them — the president or the Senate — has the authority to negotiate a deal. That’s right: the president of the United States.

So, why is the Senate GOP meddling in a duty charged to the executive branch of government?

Might it be Senate Republicans want the negotiations to fail so that they push even harder for the military option?

As The Hill reports: Earnest said Republicans have a “long and rather sordid history” of putting military options ahead of diplomatic ones, and called the letter, signed by 47 GOP lawmakers, “the continuation of a partisan strategy to undermine the president’s authority.”

Once more, with feeling: We have one president at a time.