Tag Archives: Barack Obama

national news, political news

Should the VP run … or call it a career?

biden

My trick knee is throbbing again.

It’s telling me that Vice President Joe Biden is going to run a third time for president of the United States. It’s also telling me he likely should forgo the 2016 and call it a career.

Truth is, I don’t have an actual trick knee. But if I did it would suggest that the vice president needs to think as deeply about this possible campaign as he has thought about any key political decision he’s ever had to make.

One analysis suggests a Biden candidacy depends on an implosion by Hillary Rodham Clinton. The e-mail controversy keeps nipping at her. Will it forestall her expected nomination? Is the vice president the person to carry a similar message — whatever it is — forward onto the campaign trail?

I happen to like and admire the vice president. I believe he and the president have formed a true friendship; I also believe President Obama’s relationship with Hillary Clinton is, well, not nearly as warm.

But warm-and-fuzzy relationships with an incumbent president aren’t enough.

Clinton is going to remain a formidable opponent for anyone — be they Democrat or Republican. As someone noted last night on MSNBC, which political demographic group does Biden take away from Clinton?

The vice president has run twice already for the White House. His 1988 campaign cratered over reports that he was lifting statements from a British pol and using them in his own stump speeches. His 2008 campaign ran into a buzzsaw operated by a young U.S. senator from Illinois, Barack H. Obama.

That ol’ trick knee is telling me he doesn’t want to lose a third time.

As much as many of us out here would like to see him run, my hunch is that the vice president is going to call it career.

 

national news, political news

Trump continues to confound

So help me, I was certain that Donald Trump sank his presidential campaign when he made light of John McCain’s heroic service during the Vietnam War.

It didn’t happen.

I was certain that he would implode during that first Republican joint appearance with nine other “leading” GOP candidates.

That didn’t happen, either.

Then he got into that public feud with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly over that ghastly remark he made about the source of “the blood.”

Hey, no problem.

Trump said “I’ll build a wall” to keep illegal immigrants from entering the U.S. through its southern border. Yep, he’s going to do all this all by his ownself.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on this stuff.

The latest poll numbers show that Trump is putting some distance between himself and the rest of the GOP field — which comprises some serious, intelligent and accomplished individuals.

What in the world is happening here? Have we become so celebrity conscious that we (meaning the Republican Party’s most faithful voters) place celebrity above actual knowledge of things, such as, say, the limits of the office at stake?

Trump is sounding like someone who wants to take singular control of the federal government. All those first-person singular references to all the action he intends to take suggest he doesn’t understand that the U.S. Constitution inhibits the power of the presidency.

Checks and balances, Donald?

The current president, Barack Obama, has used his own executive authority rationally and in accordance with the law … and yet we keep hearing from GOP leaders about the “lawlessness” they insist pervades the Obama administration.

Just wait’ll they see what a President Trump might try … not that it’ll matter to them.

And yet the man continues to set the pace in a field of highly qualified GOP contenders.

What in the world gives?

 

political news

Birthers now targeting Sen. Cruz

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) speaks during the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, on Aug. 10.

Ted Cruz wants to be president of the United States.

Is he constitutionally qualified to run for the office, let alone occupy it?

That is the question of the moment.

The birther movement has returned. This ought to be fun.

The freshman Republican senator from Texas was born in Canada. His mother is an American citizen; Daddy Cruz is from Cuba. My understanding of the U.S. Constitution tells me that Momma Cruz’s U.S. citizenship makes him eligible, regardless of the fact that he was born in another country.

But what the heck. That apparently isn’t quite as clear as it seems.

Mom and Dad Cruz might have become Canadian citizens prior to young Ted’s birth. The question that needs to be answered is this: Did Ted’s mother surrender her U.S. citizenship if she became a Canadian citizen?

If she didn’t, then there’s no problem. If he did, well, then Sen. Cruz has a problem.

This problem has dogged Barack Obama ever since he emerged as a possible presidential candidate prior to the 2008 election. Those on the right insisted he needed to prove he was born in Hawaii and not in Kenya, where his father was born. If we apply the same logic to Cruz’s citizenship — that he earned U.S. citizenship merely because his mother is an American — then such a question never should have mattered as it regarded Barack Obama; his mother was an American, too.

The birthers are back.

They’ll pursue Ted Cruz with the same passion they pursued Barack Obama … I’m quite sure.

national news, political news, Uncategorized

Trump: Deport ’em all … now!

alg-donald-trump-jpg

Donald Trump is going to unveil his immigration reform package.

It shouldn’t take long for him to tell us his plans if he is elected president of the United States. As I understand it, the plan will look something like this:

Build a wall and then deport all the undocumented immigrants immediately.

If there is anything that resembles a centerpiece of the Trump campaign, immigration appears to fit that description. He made quite a splash regarding immigrants when he announced his candidacy in June. Mexico, he said, is “sending” criminals to the United States. Murderers, rapists and drug dealers are being sent here. “Some, I assume, are good people,” he added as an afterthought.

Trump said he plan to rescind President Obama’s executive order granting temporary amnesty for as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, which of course has drawn high praise from Republican audiences. “We will work with them. They have to go,” Trump said. “We either have a country or we don’t have a country.”

I have just a couple of thoughts regarding the Trump Immigration Reform Plan.

How much will it cost to build an impenetrable wall across our southern border? Do we have the money?

How does he intend to search for and locate every one of the undocumented immigrants who are living here? And what does he intend to do with the children of those undocumented individuals who were born in the United States and have earned U.S. citizenship just by being born in this country?

And what might Trump propose to do with those individuals who entered the country illegally but who have become successful businessmen and women?

All of this is going to require the detail, nuance and thoughtfulness that’s been missing in Trump’s campaign to date.

Then again, why should he provide it now? Those polls that show the real estate mogul leading the GOP field suggest many of the party’s primary voters don’t care about those things.

 

national news, political news

Open White House race = many candidates

alGore_1515233c

Here’s a fact of political life in America.

When there’s no incumbent involved in a campaign, you invite all comers to seek the office that’s being vacated. Everyone, or so it seems, becomes interested in the office at stake.

Such is the case with the White House. A two-term president, Barack Obama, is prohibited from running again. He’s bowing out in January 2017. The Republican field is as full as I’ve seen it in more than four decades watching this stuff; 16 men and one woman are running on the GOP side. It’s becoming quite an entertaining spectacle — to say the very least.

The Democrats? Well, until about two, maybe three weeks ago, it seemed that Hillary Clinton had that nomination in the bag. She still is the heavy favorite.

But she’s not going to anointed as the party nominee next summer, or so it appears. Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has closed a once-huge gap. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley is taking aim at Clinton, as is ex-Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee. We haven’t heard much yet from ex- Virginia U.S. Sen. Jim Webb.

But now we hear of a couple of big names — as in really big names — possibly entering the Democratic Party primary field.

One of them is Vice President Joe Biden.

The other? Get ready: It might former Vice President Albert Gore Jr.

Some media outlets are reporting that “insiders” are discussing the possibility of a Gore candidacy. My reaction? Holy crap!

He damn near was elected in 2000, winning more popular votes than George W. Bush, who was elected because he won a bare majority of electoral votes. What many folks have forgotten about that election is this: Had the vice president won his home state of Tennessee in 2000, there would have been no recount controversy in Florida, no “hanging chad” examination, no narrow Supreme Court ruling to determine who won that state’s critical electoral votes. Gore lost his home state to Bush. There you have it.

This election already is shaping as the most entertaining in at least a couple of generations. The thundering herd of Republicans is being overshadowed by a billionaire hotel mogul/entertainer/wheeler-dealer. The Democratic field is being dominated by a self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” drawing huge crowds and a former secretary of state with growing problems stemming from her use of a personal email account to conduct State Department business.

Will two men who’ve served a “heartbeat away” from the presidency now join the field?

We know that Vice President Biden is considering it. As for Al Gore? Stay tuned and hang on … maybe.

 

International news, political news

ISIL’s rise: It’s Obama’s fault?

2 Comments

 

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush is trying a remarkable misdirection play as he seeks the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2016.

The former Florida governor sought in a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library to blame former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama on the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and, I presume, in Syria as well.

Well now. Let’s look at the record for a moment.

The Iraq War began in March 2003 when President George W. Bush launched the invasion of that country, which at the time was governed by a Sunni Muslim tyrant, the late Saddam Hussein. (Hang with me for a moment; the Sunni reference is critical.)

Americans were told by those high up in the Bush chain of command that we’d defeat the Iraqis easily and we’d be welcomed as “liberators.”

Didn’t turn out that way.

Yes, we defeated the so-called “elite” Iraqi forces. We drove Saddam from power. We caught him later in that spider hole, pulled him, jailed him, put him on trial, convicted him and then hanged him.

All of this was done on Jeb’s brother’s presidential watch.

Then came the new government. Iraqis elected a Shiite leader, who formed a Shiite government.

Oh yes. The Sunnis hate the Shiites and vice versa. The Islamic State — aka ISIL — is a Sunni cult.

Thus, ISIL was born — on President Bush’s watch.

Now, though, the next Bush who wants to be president, says it’s Obama’s fault. It’s Clinton’s fault.

Why? We didn’t maintain a sufficient troop garrison in Iraq to keep ISIL in check. I ought to mention that the Bush administration set the deadline for full withdrawal from Iraq.

Jeb Bush now says he would send troops back into Iraq, in effect restarting a war that we shouldn’t have fought in the first place. Weapons of mass destruction? Hideous chemical weapons? The threat of a “mushroom cloud”? It was bogus.

I’m not yet ready to declare that the pretext for war was concocted deliberately by the Bush administration high command.

Let’s just say for now that “faulty intelligence” isn’t much of an excuse for sending thousands of American service personnel to their death in a war designed to overthrow a sovereign leader who we had kept in check through a series of tough economic sanctions.

Jeb Bush is treading on some squishy ground whenever he mentions the words “Iraq War.”

 

 

 

national news, political news

Perry seeks unity in primary? Good luck

Gov. Rick Perry gives a speech during the Texas GOP Convention in Fort Worth, Texas on Thursday, June, 5, 2014. In his address, the longest-serving governor in the state's history focused more on the future and national issues than his political legacy at home. (AP Photo/Rex C. Curry)

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry is seeking a noble goal among the thundering herd of Republicans seeking to become the 45th president of the United States.

Sadly, it cannot happen.

He told a crowd of conservative activists that fellow conservatives need to unite, to speak with one voice as they campaign against the Democrats.

That’s an interesting notion being put forth by the ex-governor.

But it’s impossible.

Sixteen men and one woman are running for the GOP nomination. They’re all trying to be more conservative than everyone else. It’s a fascinating spectacle. To position themselves to the right, they necessarily have to draw distinctions and differences between themselves and the rest of this still-large field of candidates.

At the RedState Gathering in Georgia, Perry said: “I don’t believe the answer to a Democratic divider is to have a Republican divider. It’s time for leadership that repairs the breach.”

That’s the kind of “leadership” that should present itself after the candidate has been nominated to face whomever the Democratic Party nominates.

However, first things first. Republicans have to spell out their differences among themselves, just as Democrats are likely to do during their primary campaign.

You can’t be singing off the same hymnal page if you’re trying to say that you’re the best candidate out there.

International news

Netanyahu says it’s ‘not my job’ to dictate Iran vote

FILE - In this March 3, 2015, file photo, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures as he speaks before a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington. House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, left, and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, listen. Relations between President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans have hit a new low. There has been little direct communication between Obama and the GOP leadership on Capitol Hill since Republicans took full control of Congress in January. Obama has threatened to veto more than a dozen Republican-backed bills. And Boehner infuriated the White House by inviting Netanyahu to address Congress without consulting the administration first. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — I dare say — is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

He told a delegation of congressional Democrats visiting him in Israel this week that it’s “not my job” to tell them how to vote on the Iran nuclear deal hammered out by Secretary of State John Kerry and representatives of five other world powers.

However, that doesn’t quite square with what he did earlier this year when, at the invitation of Republican U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, Netanyahu stood before a joint congressional session and — yep — told them in effect how they should vote on a deal designed to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Lawmakers visiting Netanyahu said the prime minister was respectful and frank.

He doesn’t like the deal. In many ways, I understand Netanyahu’s reluctance to deal with the Iranians. Their regime has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. The Islamic Republic of Iran isn’t to be trusted at any level, according to Netanyahu.

But President Obama, Kerry and all the participants say the same thing about the deal: It blocks “every pathway” Iran has to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Congress is going to take up the issue next month. A resolution calling for defeat of the deal is likely to pass. It’s also likely to lack the votes to overturn an expected veto from the president.

Never mind, though, that the Israeli prime minister isn’t telling members of Congress how to vote.

Wink, wink.

Actually, yes he is.

 

national news, political news

Where were you on Sept. 10, 2001, Gov. Christie?

Chris-Christie

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie needs to come clean on a statement he made during Thursday night’s joint appearance with nine other Republican candidates for president.

He said something about being “appointed U.S. attorney” on Sept. 10, 2001, a day before “the world changed forever” during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Oops, governor.

Not so, sir.

President Bush appointed Christie to be U.S. attorney in New Jersey on Dec. 7, 2001. But to make some kind of argument against U.S. Sen. Rand Paul during the Thursday night “debate,” he said he’d been named to the job the day before those attacks and that on the day of the attacks he was “hugging” family members of victims.

Look, I happen to like Gov. Christie. I hope he does well during the upcoming GOP presidential primary campaign. I like his no-nonsense approach to problem-solving, his sometimes-blunt talk, his can-do attitude — and I even like the fact that he hugged Barack Obama when the president came to the Jersey Shore to inspect the damage done by Hurricane/Super Storm Sandy on the eve of the 2012 presidential election.

However, he need not inflate his resume by putting himself a tad too quickly into a federal office just to score political points.

It’s unbecoming.

 

media news, national news, political news

Any outrage over moderator correcting Trump?

1 Comment

Let us try to balance two similar episodes involving debate moderators.

Then we can wonder: Are we treating them in a “fair and balanced” manner?

In the 2012 debate between Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, Romney asserted that Obama failed to refer to the attack in September of that year on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, as a “terrorist” event.

Moderator Candy Crowley of CNN corrected Gov. Romney, telling him at that moment that the president did make such a declaration.

Political conservatives went ballistic, saying Crowley had no business interjecting herself into a political debate.

Then last night, Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly asked GOP candidate Donald Trump about statements he has made about women. She told Trump: “You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”

Trump interrupted Kelly, responding, “Only Rosie O’Donnell,” to which Kelly said, “For the record, it was way beyond Rosie O’Donnell.”

OK, did Kelly interject herself into the debate in the manner that Crowley allegedly did in 2012? If so, where’s the outrage — from the right?

And, for the record, both Crowley and Kelly acted appropriately in both instances — in my oh-so-humble view — in setting the record straight.