Tag Archives: Barack Obama

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

It's getting even messier on Capitol Hill

Winston Churchill had it exactly right when he sought to describe a democratic form of government.

He lamented its messiness and inefficiency when he said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

I wish he was here today to see what’s transpiring on Capitol Hill. Republicans are fighting among themselves in a TEA party vs. establishment conflict. Now the Democrats have begun cannibalizing each other in a progressive vs. centrist fight.

At the center of it all is a $1.1 trillion spending bill that extremists in either party don’t like, for differing reasons, obviously.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/elizabeth-warren-budget-cromnibus-2016-elections-113561.html?hp=t4_r

Just as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has become the face of the TEA party insurgency within the Republican Party, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has assumed the Democratic mantle of gadfly in chief.

They both have at least one thing in common. They’re freshmen legislators. Neither of them has much Capitol Hill seasoning under the belts. Cruz is more of a loudmouth. Warren doesn’t bellow her dislike of Democratic comprises, but she’s becoming a tiger in the Senate.

Warren has become the liberals’ latest best hope for a possible challenge to prohibitive Democratic presidential favorite Hillary Rodham Clinton. They see Warren as a spokeswoman for the common man and woman who distrusts the power brokers who are lining up behind Clinton’s still-unannounced presidential candidacy.

Cruz, meanwhile, has become the darling of the conservative movement within his own party. Will he challenge, say, Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination?

Let’s think about this for a moment: Cruz and Warren both catch fire enough to snatch their parties’ nomination from the favorites. Clinton lost in 2008 to a young senator with zero name ID nationally. Barack Obama went on to win the presidency in a near-landslide and then score a decisive re-election victory four years later. Will history repeat itself? I doubt it — for now.

As for Cruz, the GOP establishment will fight him tooth and nail if he keeps roiling the waters, demanding government shutdowns and insisting on outcomes that won’t occur.

Our form of representative democracy, Sir Winston, is about to get a whole lot messier.

 

Cruz doesn't play well with GOP 'team'

You just have to love the way Sen. Ted Cruz is antagonizing his fellow Senate Republicans.

They want to finish a budget deal so they can go home for Christmas, finish their shopping, kick off their shoes and relax with their families.

What does the freshman lawmaker from Texas do? He launches a procedural move that keeps the Senate in session through the weekend because, by golly, he wants to undercut President Obama’s executive action on immigration.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/ted-cruz-does-it-again-113560.html?ml=po

His Republican pals, even some of his TEA party allies, are having none of it.

What gives with this showboating grandstander?

Oh, I forgot. He wants to run for president of the United States eventually and he might jump into the 2016 race. It’s all about Cruz. Forget that the government needs money to function, you know, do things like entertain visitors who visit our parks and do perform certain essential services that citizens demand.

As Politico reports, the GOP leadership is unhappy with this new guy: “Senior Republicans say there’s a problem with Cruz’s strategy: The GOP lacks the votes to stop Obama on immigration now, the $1.1 trillion spending package was speeding to passage, and they won’t resort to shutting down the government to mount their objections. Plus, the weekend session could allow Obama to get even more of his nominees confirmed.”

According to Politico, some Republican senators are openly angry with the Cruz Missile. Even fellow TEA party advocate, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., is ticked off. So is Susan Collins, R-Maine. Oh, and how about the incoming Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.?

Suffice to say that McConnell is likely to have a few four-letter words with the young Lone Star blowhard.

Keep yammering, Ted. Some of your fellow Texans — such as me — are enjoying this sideshow.

 

Congress makes sausage-making look appealing

Watching the U.S. Congress stumble and bumble its way through legislating a budget makes the act of sausage-making look downright attractive.

The old saying about how legislating resembles sausage-making seems somehow kind of quaint. Turning a poor little piggy into something edible now doesn’t seem so grotesque.

Congress avoided yet another government shutdown on Friday. The House of Representatives approved a $1.1 trillion spending package over the objections of the TEA party wing of the Republicans and the leftist/progressive wing of the Democrats.

As President Obama noted, the legislation represents a classic “compromise.” You remember that, right? That’s when both sides give up something for the greater good. In this case the greater good amounted to keeping the government functioning.

Now the Senate is going to convene a weekend session and will begin to resolve its own differences. Meanwhile, senators are supposed to start processing some of the dozens of presidential appointments that have been languishing since the Beginning of Time.

That won’t come easily, though. The TEA party senators want to punish the president for that immigration executive action and want to defund it legislatively. Democrats, who for now still own the majority, won’t have any of that.

I totally understand that a representative democracy by definition is supposed to be messy and inefficient.

But this is taking messiness and inefficiency to new levels.

Isn’t there a better, less-heartburn-producing method of doing something so essential as approving a budget that keeps the government working for those who are paying for it?

 

 

Merry Christmas … and let's bomb Iran?

Lame-duck U.S. Rep. Michelle Bachmann chose a fascinating venue to lobby the president of the United States to take military action against Iran.

She was attending a Christmas party.

At Christmas party, Bachmann lobbies Obama to bomb Iran

Yes, the TEA party favorite was celebrating Christmas with the president and his family when she broached the subject of Iran.

The Hill newspaper reports that Obama gave her a condescending look and then laughed, according to Bachmann.

Imagine that.

I am trying to imagine a less appropriate occasion to bring something like this up to the commander in chief. A state funeral comes to mind.

A Christmas party — at the White House — ranks right up there in the ranks of inappropriate times and places to talk about bombing a stated enemy of the United States with the man who’d order such a mission.

A part of me rather wishes Rep. Bachmann was staying on for the 114th Congress. She’s so darn entertaining.

A bigger part of me, however, is glad she’s leaving. I’m glad for the people of her congressional district, who in my view will benefit much more when they’re no longer represented by this clown.

 

Wait for it: Obama to get blame for oil prices

A recent blog I posted wondered how President Obama could get so much blame when oil prices were skyrocketing and so little credit now that they’re plummeting.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/12/11/presidents-get-the-blame-not-the-credit/

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 300 points today, reportedly over concerns about those falling oil prices that are producing dramatic declines in the price of gasoline at the pump.

A USA Today headline suggested this week that the oil price decline threatens the U.S. economic recovery that’s now under way.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/dow-drops-more-than-300-as-oil-continues-to-plunge/ar-BBgGViU

Then it came to me.

Obama’s critics now have a hook on which to hang blame on the president.

They just might start harping about those declining prices, which are a result of too much supply and too little demand. They can gripe that the price decline is harming the recovery, which of course had nothing at all to do — in the minds of the critics — with Obama’s economic stimulus package enacted shortly after he became president.

So if they’re going to insist on blaming the president for every single bad thing that happens in the world, they can turn to the declining oil prices as one more sign of a “failed presidency.”

 

Run, Mitt, run!

The word is leaking out in dribs and drabs.

Mitt Romney is thinking about running for president one more time in 2016.

I think that’s pretty cool.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/mitt-romney-2016-run-113518.html?hp=t1_r

Mitt’s most recent run for the presidency came up short, of course. Ann Romney, the GOP nominee’s much better half, was said to have dismissed the notion of yet another presidential campaign. Now, however, Politico reports that insiders think Mitt’s giving serious thought to one more run for the White House.

(FYI: I want to refer to the former Massachusetts governor by his first name because everyone in America has done that with Hillary Rodham Clinton. If Democrats can claim a first-name-only potential candidate, then Republicans deserve one, too.)

Why do I want Mitt to run again? Well, it’s not that I think he’s the best Republican considering a run. Nor is it that I intend to vote for him in 2016 were he to be nominated.

It’s because I think he’s a lot smarter than he demonstrated during his 2012 effort, starting with that awkward primary campaign and his performance in some of those talent show/debates with the likes of Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann.

Who can forget when he offered lay down a $10,000 bet with Texas Gov. Rick Perry? Who in the world would blurt out a 10 grand wager offer? Most of us out here in Flyover Country would settle for a steak dinner or six-pack of beer. Not Mitt, the man with bulging money bags.

Or how about the time he said the $300,000 he earned one year in speaking fees amounted to just a little bit of money? When you’re worth zillions, then I suppose that is just walking-around money.

I’m a firm believer in redemption. Everyone deserves a chance to correct the record, or perhaps even rewrite the record.

That includes politicians.

Mitt thinks the potential GOP field is weak. He wants his party to win back the White House. He thinks he’s the man to restore his party’s standing. According to Politico: “He has assessed various people’s strengths and weaknesses dispassionately, wearing what one ally called his ‘consultant cap’ to measure the field. He has said, among other things, that Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, would run into problems because of his business dealings, his work with the investment banks Lehman Brothers and Barclays, and his private equity investments.”

I don’t know about that. All I do know is that I want Mitt to run. All he has to do now is persuade Mrs. Romney that the time has arrived once more.

Mitt was a sometimes-entertaining candidate in 2012. I’m ready for his return to the arena.

Do it, Mitt!