Tag Archives: Tea party

national news, political news

You go, old friend

My former colleague and still-friend Jon Talton has issued a blistering rebuke of the rebuke.

That is he’s taken to task the Republicans who have opposed Barack Obama since Day One of his presidency for the trashing they orchestrated in winning a Senate majority and strengthening their majority in the House of Representatives.

http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/2014/11/democrats-are-stupid.html

I cannot really add to his excellent analysis of the current political climate and the context in which it continues to exist — strange as it seems, according to Talton.

I’ll note just a couple of points.

First is that presidents never deserve all the credit they seek nor the blame they receive. We have this element in our government called “balance of power.” We split the power among the three branches — executive, legislative and judicial. Take the federal courts out of this argument and we still have two branches of government with co-equal power.

Last time I checked, governing remains a team sport. So, to whatever extent the president deserves the blame for when things go south, then he should take it. But the Congress is supposed to be a player in this game as well.

Second is that Barack Obama is not radical leftist. As Talton noted: “Obama is … a Jerry Ford. With the ‘center’ pushed so far to the right, he accepted the radical fiscal ‘austerity’ that is such a drag on recovery and average Americans. (Reagan kept spending, and not merely on the military).”

The “new center” now seems to exist somewhere to the right of where traditional conservatives used to navigate. We can thank the tea party caucus for that. What’s more, they’ve done a great job of demonizing the president, ascribing all kinds of evil intent at so many levels I cannot even begin to keep track.

I’ll stop now and refer you to Jon’s essay attached to this blog post.

It’s a good read and worth your time.

 

national news, political news

Is Jeb right for the GOP base?

All this chatter about Jeb Bush seeking the Republican presidential nomination has a lot of us wondering.

Is the GOP base ready to back another Bush for the White House, especially one who swims against the base’s tide on immigration?

Bush is the former governor of Florida. He’d be the third member of this famous political clan to seek the presidency. His dad and older brother got there.

Jeb is a bit different from either of the two presidents, George H.W. and George W., although “W” also is seen by some in his party as “soft” on immigration, meaning that he has staked out reasonable positions on the subject.

Jeb Bush is married to a Hispanic. His children, therefore, share their mother’s ethnic background.

Who can forget, Grandpa Bush — the 41st president of the United States — referring to Jeb’s kids as “the little brown ones”?

Well, the little brown ones are grown up and one of them, George P. Bush, is running for Texas land commissioner and is likely to win that seat to start his own climb up the political ladder.

Jeb is seen by some critics as a “Democrat light,” meaning that he’s too moderate to fit the mold of what has become of the modern Republican Party. It’s that immigration matter that keeps getting in the way of many in his party from endorsing him outright.

Here is a news flash: Republicans need someone like Jeb Bush if they have any hope — ever! — of winning over the Hispanic vote in this country. Thus, if the GOP continues to toe the hard line on immigration by threatening to round up and deport all illegal immigrants, presumably from Latin America, then the once-great party will find itself peering into the White House from the street.

Jeb Bush takes a more compassionate view of immigration and that, precisely, is the kind of message his party needs to convey.

George P. Bush thinks his dad is going to run for president. Good. I hope he does — and delivers plenty of heartburn to the hard-core base within the Republican Party.

 

 

 

national news, political news

If GOP takes Senate, it'll need to govern

The stars apparently are lining up for a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate, or so the experts are saying.

Let’s assume they’re right. A RealClearPolitics average of all the major polls show a six-seat shift, precisely the number that the GOP needs to become the majority in the Senate.

I’m not clear about the House of Representatives, where Republicans have ruled since 2011. Perhaps their control will tighten.

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-poised-snatch-us-senate-mid-terms-015415687.html

This much is becoming clearer as the mid-term elections approach: If Republicans are destined to control the entire legislative branch of government, then they need to prepare to actually govern, as in enact legislation that President Obama can actually sign into law.

So far since January 2009, when Barack Obama took office, Republicans have done their level best to block just about every major initiative the president has put forward. It started with the financial bailout package which the GOP opposed, but which got enacted over its objections.

Then came the 2010 mid-term election. The House switched to Republican control. Then the fun really began.

Republicans opposed the Affordable Care Act; they’ve conducted an ongoing series of show hearings on Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service’s vetting of conservative political action groups’ request for tax exempt status; they’ve opposed immigration reform; increasing the minimum wage and a host of other White House initiatives.

If the Senate flips, then we’re going to see donnybrooks develop over confirmation of, say, the next attorney general and a series of lower-level appointments the president will seek.

I’ll buy the notion that the legislative branch of government is going to turn Republican.

Will legislators keep trying to stick it in the president’s eye or will they actually compromise when possible on key bills and send them to the White House in good faith? And will the president follow suit and sign these bills into law?

Republicans have mastered the art of obstruction since Democrat Barack Obama became president. Let’s see if they can learn the art of governing.

 

local news, political news

Sucking it up for an early vote

Grumble, grumble.

That’s me, griping about a task I have to perform this election season.

Duty calls and I’m going to be forced to vote early in this year’s Texas mid-term election.

A polling research company has hired me as an exit pollster on Election Day. I’ll be working at a Randall County precinct, giving confidential questionnaires to voters as they leave the polling place. It’s a 12-plus-hour gig that day and I’ll be unable to go to my regular polling place to cast my ballot.

Readers of this blog know how I feel about early voting. I detest it. No, I actually hate voting early. My fear is that voting early exposes voters to being surprised when their candidate gets caught doing something naughty, or illegal — or both — before Election Day. Yes, I know that an Election Day vote doesn’t prevent someone from misbehaving between that day and the day he or she takes office, but I want to hedge my bet as much as is humanly possible.

Texas secretaries of state have proclaimed the virtues of voting early. They want to make it easier for Texans to cast their ballots, even though the state now has a voter identification law that — some have said — will make it more difficult for some Texans to exercise their rights as citizens. But that’s another story.

The blunt truth about early voting, though, is that it doesn’t boost the total number of voters. Texas still ranks among the lowest-turnout states in the Union. All it does is enable more Texans to vote early rather than wait this year until Nov. 4.

So …

I’m going to suck it up and vote early. Just to be true to my belief in hedging my bet against something bad happening to the candidates of my choice, I’m going to wait until the very last day of early voting.

See? Pay attention, tea party Republican members of Congress: This proves you can compromise without sacrificing your principles.

national news, political news

McCain might run again … for the Senate

John McCain confounds me .

The Arizona Republican is at once an admirable man, a genuine war hero, an annoying gadfly, a petulant loser and a real-life expert on foreign policy.

The senator, who’s 78, says he might run for a sixth term in 2016 but observers say he’s going to get a serious tea party challenge if he suits up for another senatorial campaign. He got a stout challenge in 2010, but thrashed former U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth by 25 percentage points.

McCain gets ready for race of his life

I think he ought to run at least once more if he’s up to it.

McCain’s biography is well-known. He was a Navy aviator, shot down over Hanoi during the Vietnam War and held captive for more than five years. He suffered terrible torture at the hands of his captors.

His career in public office has been marked by amazing ups and downs.

McCain has run twice for president, nominated by the GOP in 2008, when he lost to Barack Obama.

He’s been a friend of the “liberal” media, which has ticked off conservatives to no end. He’s no liberal, however. He’s voted consistently with the right wing of his party throughout his lengthy career.

Yet … when he carps about President Obama’s decisions he sounds like a sore loser.

Still, he maintains friendships with colleagues on the other side, particularly those with whom he shares combat experience. He has defended the character of his friends John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, both of whom now serve in the president’s Cabinet.

Indeed, my favorite McCain moment might be the time he scolded Senate newcomer Ted Cruz, R-Texas, when Cruz questioned Hagel’s patriotism when Hagel was being examined by the Senate to be defense secretary.

McCain is one of those senators I’d like to meet one day. It won’t happen. If I had the chance I’d likely ask him: Senator, do you confound and confuse some of us intentionally, or is that just a byproduct of a complex personality?

Uncategorized

You go, ex-VP Cheney

Say what you will about Dick Cheney — and I’ve said more than my share in recent months — he’s a serious politician with serious ideas.

OK, so I cannot stand the former vice president’s constant carping about the administration that succeeded the one in which he was a key player. I cannot stomach that he cannot keep his trap shut about foreign policy issues, as he is undermining President Obama and Vice President Biden.

But this serious man said a serious thing about impeaching the president.

He calls such talk a “distraction.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/dick-cheney-sarah-palin-impeachment-distraction-108944.html?hp=r4

Cheney was referring specifically to an unserious politician’s talk about impeachment. That would be the former half-term Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who’s weighed in with some notion that the president needs to be impeached. She hasn’t specified the high crimes and misdemeanors of which he is supposedly guilty.

It doesn’t matter, frankly. There aren’t any misdeeds that rise to anything close to an impeachable offense.

Still, Cheney is right to call down his GOP colleague — if only gently. He said he likes the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee. Cheney says she has a right to her opinion, which of course is quite correct. It’s just that she’s wrong on almost everything that flies out of her mouth.

For that matter, so is Cheney.

On this issue, though, he is right … to the extent he has spoken out at all about impeaching Barack Obama.

Cheney told CNN: “I’m not prepared, at this point, to call for the impeachment of the president. I think he is the worst president of my lifetime. I fundamentally disagree with him. I think he’s doing a lot of things wrong. I’m glad to see House Republicans are challenging him, at least legally, at this point, but I think that gets to be a bit of a distraction just like the impeachment of Bill Clinton did.”

He’s not going to give President Obama any kind of a break, to be sure. That’s expected.

Still, he’s trying to quell the nut-case talk among those on the right wing of his once-great political party. I’ll give him a modicum of credit for that.

Uncategorized

Do we ignore our guys’ missteps?

A friend of mine passed on a bit of wisdom this morning at the Amarillo Town Club that I’d like to share here.

All this give-and-take on social media — particularly Facebook — he says, makes him think about whether he is looking critically enough at his “guys'” missteps, mistakes, goofs and blunders.

He was speaking about some of the Facebook threads that have developed among people of differing political points of view. I’m happy to report that some of the threads to which he refers is in response to posts that appear on this blog.

I’ve given some thought to what he said and his wisdom makes sense.

We all have our own bias. I tilt to the left and I recognize my bias there. Many of my friends in the Texas Panhandle tilt the other way — no surprise there, right? I like sharing ideas with them, even though I recognize they’re always wrong and I’m always right.

OK, back to the seriousness. My pal, a well-educated man who works in the public sector, takes note of the need to assess whether we’re being as analytical as we can be when assessing some of these issues.

Some of the social media posts do twist off in irrational directions. Barack Obama is seen by many on the right and far right as a traitor who intentionally seeks to degrade America’s ability to defend itself. I try to restrain myself when I see that kind of opinion tossed into cyberspace. My friends on the left and far left are equally perverse, suggesting for example that George W. Bush actually sanctioned the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to get us into a war with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. I also restrain myself on that nonsense as well.

The vast middle ground between those extremes is where we need to focus our attention.

I’m willing to talk sensibly with anyone. I’m also willing to acknowledge that I tend to look differently when my guys mess up than when the guys on the other side mess up. I’m not going to apologize for that. It’s my bias and I’m entitled to wear it on my sleeve, just as the other side is entitled to display its own bias.

My friend’s point about taking care to look critically at my side, though, holds up.

I hereby pledge to seek to do so — even if it produces the same response.

Uncategorized

Butt out, Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz needs to shut his pie hole.

The junior Republican senator from Texas is calling for an investigation into possible voter fraud in Mississippi. His colleague, veteran GOP Sen. Thad Cochran won the runoff there despite signals he’d lose to tea party challenger Chris McDaniel.

Cruz, the loudmouth freshman senator from way out here, thinks some fraud took place. He wanted McDaniel to win the race and he just can’t believe Cochran pulled off a victory.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/ted-cruz-mississippi-gop-primary-thad-cochran-108643.html?hp=l9

Here’s what happened, Ted.

African-American Democrats in Mississippi became alarmed that McDaniel actually might win. So they crossed over — which is as legal in Mississippi as it is in Texas — to vote for Cochran. These crossover voters aren’t exactly enamored of Cochran, but they saw him as far more palatable than the fiery McDaniel, who’s been known to utter racially tinged comments on his radio show.

Those voters put Cochran over the top and positioned him to win a seventh term as senator from the Magnolia State.

Was there actual fraud? I doubt it seriously. There instead was a concerted effort by the Cochran campaign to recruit support where no one expected to find it.

It was a brilliant strategy.

Now, Sen. Cruz, tend to business back home.

Uncategorized

Impeachment talk makes me crazy

All this impeachment poppycock is making me nuts.

Some goofball right-wing members of Congress — not to mention a few bystanders perched in the political peanut gallery — are saying the House of Representatives needs to impeach President Barack Obama.

For what, you say? I don’t know exactly. For issuing executive orders in keeping with his constitutional authority? For the flood of illegal immigrants who are coming into the country, as if the president himself could order it stopped? For tweaking the Affordable Care Act after it became law?

The right-wing loons contend he’s broken laws. They haven’t cited specific laws — because he hasn’t broken any law.

Many of us have lived through two impeachable events involving presidents.

* The first one occurred in the early 1970s. President Nixon’s re-election campaign hired a team of goons to break into the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate office complex. When word got out that they were captured, Nixon then ordered the FBI to block the investigation. Then that became known and all hell broke loose.

The House Judiciary Committee and a select committee of senators conducted hearings. The Judiciary Committee then approved articles of impeachment. Nixon resigned in August 1974 rather than face certain impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.

* Then came the episode involving President Clinton. A special prosecutor was hired by Congress to examine the Whitewater real estate dealings allegedly involving President and Mrs. Clinton. The prosecutor then began snooping around allegations that Clinton fooled around with a young White House intern. A federal grand jury asked Clinton about it. He lied when he denied any involvement with the woman. Oops. You can’t perjure yourself. The House impeached him on those grounds, but the Senate acquitted him.

Two specific incidents resulted in a near impeachment and the real thing.

The stuff involving President Obama? It’s all political hucksterism, meant to inflame the Republican base, get ’em riled up.

Sure, the president has made mistakes. Has any president skated through office without blundering here and there? Of course not.

Do these blunders require an impeachment? No.

To his credit, House Speaker John Boehner says he disagrees with the impeachment yammering.

Good. Now he needs to take the tea party yahoos within his caucus who keep fomenting this nonsense to the woodshed.

Uncategorized

Impeachment talk is ridiculous

Put a sock in it, Sarah “Barracuda” Palin.

You too, U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Loony Bin. Same for the rest of the clowns on the far right wing of the Republican Party who believe Barack Obama has committed an impeachable offense.

At least one leading Republican, the speaker of the House of Representatives, is sounding a note of sanity.

Boehner says no to impeachment

John Boehner knows better. He was there when the House commenced impeachment proceedings against President Bill Clinton and then watched as Republicans took it on the chin in the 1998 mid-term election.

Palin, the ex-half-term Alaska governor, says Obama should be impeached because of the immigration crisis on our southern border. Someone needs to ask the former GOP vice-presidential nominee: What “high crime” and “misdemeanor” has the president committed?

I think I know the answer: none.

She wrote in an op-ed: “The many impeachable offenses of Barack Obama can no longer be ignored. If after all this he’s not impeachable, then no one is.”

Let’s allow the grownups to run the country. Speaker Boehner said simply to the impeachment calls, “I disagree.”

Enough said.