Tag Archives: Barack Obama

First family's kids off limits … period!

Elizabeth Lauten’s dimwitted Facebook post about Sasha and Malia Obama — and a blog I posted on the subject — brought a fascinating response from a dear friend and former colleague.

My friend Sheila noted that “first children” have been unfair targets for decades. She took note going all the way back to Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson’s daughters, Lynda Bird and Luci Baines.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/11/30/this-apology-needed-to-be-made/

Lauten, a staffer for a Republican member of Congress, Stephen Fincher of Tennessee, jabbed at the Obama girls because in her mind they didn’t give the ceremonial pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkeys the respect the event deserved — and you can make that determination for yourself, I reckon.

Anyhow, Lauten’s ridiculous social media post drew fire from all quarters and she apologized.

But my friend’s remark brings to mind another interesting point.

Of all the presidential kids she cited, she mentioned only one male: Ron Reagan. The rest of them are all females.

Why is that?

The twin daughters of George and Laura Bush got battered over some nightclubbing incident; Chelsea Clinton was the on the receiving end of unflattering comments for many years during her dad’s two terms as president; Ronald Reagan’s youngest child, daughter Patti, was criticized because of her near-estrangement — for political reasons — from her parents; Amy Carter received the same kind of unfair media treatment that befell Chelsea Clinton; Tricia and Julie Nixon were scrutinized constantly by the media during their time in the White House.

Who’s missing from this lineup? The children of Gerald and Betty Ford and those of George and Barbara Bush. Except for Susan Ford, the rest of the family all had left the nest; as for the equally sizable Bush brood, they all were grown and gone.

The media and others in public life often don’t distinguish themselves under certain circumstances. The manner in which they treat the children of presidents and their spouses is one of those instances in which everyone ought to take a hard look inward.

Maybe they can ask: Is this how they would want their daughters to be treated?

Oh, for that 'new car smell'

Sometimes a simple throwaway line has this way of sticking to the wall.

President Obama just might have uttered it recently in an interview. He said the next president may need to bring a “new car smell” to American voters.

Former Clinton pollster: Hillary lacks ‘new car smell’

And that brings up the question: Does Hillary Rodham Clinton — the presumptive frontrunner for the Democratic Party nomination in 2016 — have that “new car smell”?

A former Clinton pollster, Doug Schoen, doesn’t think so.

According to The Hill: “‘The president said [last week] that the next president needs … a new car smell, and it’s pretty hard for me to say … that she [Hillary] has a new car smell,’ Schoen told radio host John Catsimatidis in an interview to air Sunday on New York’s 970 AM.”

Yes, she’s been in the public eye for a long time, dating back to 1992 when Bill Clinton told Americans if you elect him as president, “you get two.” She became a highly visible first lady, then became an equally high-visible senator from New York and then became an even more highly visible secretary of state in the Obama administration.

New car smell?

Hardly.

For that matter, Mitt Romney seems a bit musty himself if you consider that he’s run twice for president, been a high-profile governor in Massachusetts and also helped rescue the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah.

A Quinnipiac Poll shows Romney leading Clinton narrowly in a head-to-head matchup. But, hey, the election is two years off.

I’d bet real money that “new car smell” just might become something of a jingle once the next campaign gets going.

 

DHS boss on short list for Defense post

Jeh Johnson has emerged as a favorite to become the secretary of defense.

This could be a most intriguing choice, not so much for the job he could get, but for the job he would abandon.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/jeh-johnson-contender-defense-secretary-113198.html?hp=b2_l1

Johnson is the current secretary of homeland security. He’s a sharp lawyer and a former Air Force general counsel, which is a civilian post. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has submitted his resignation but will stay on until the new defense boss is confirmed by the Senate.

The Senate confirmed Johnson as homeland security secretary in a 78-16 vote and he figures to be confirmed for this new post.

Ah, but what about the homeland security job?

This might cause some serious headaches for President Obama.

The Department of Homeland Security is the lead Cabinet agency on this immigration matter, which Obama inflamed with his executive order the other day that delays the deportation for 5 million illegal immigrants. Senate Republicans — who’ll take control of the Senate in January — might see this as their chance to stick it to the president. They could block whoever the president picks to lead the Homeland Security Department.

It could get tough, bloody, nasty — which well could be the norm for the remainder of Barack Obama’s presidency.

As I’ve said repeatedly, the president deserves to populate the Cabinet with people with whom he feels comfortable. Jeh Johnson is qualified to be the next defense secretary. Barack Obama will find an equally qualified individual to protect the homeland.

It won’t matter to those who are angry over the president’s legal and constitutional executive order on immigration.

 

 

This apology needed to be made

Elizabeth Lauten is on the staff of a Republican member of Congress.

She’s apologized apparently for a ghastly message she posted on Facebook. The reaction to it initially, though, was ferocious — and deserving.

Lauten’s targets were — get ready for it — the daughters of President and Mrs. Obama. Malia and Sasha Obama came under fire from Lauten because they were, um, acting like teenagers at a public event.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/republican-staffer-says-obama-daughters-are-disrespectful-and-dress-like-bar-sluts/#.VHokqfQkpPg.facebook

Dad made a joke; the girls rolled their eyes. They apparently made some faces that signaled boredom. Then Lauten took aim at the clothing the girls wore, suggesting they were more fitting for a bar than for a White House event, which incidentally was the traditional presidential pardoning of Thanksgiving turkeys.

Of course, Lauten just couldn’t resist taking a shot at the first couple. She wrote: “Dear Sasha and Malia, I get that you’re both in those awful teen years, but you’re part of the First Family, try showing a little class. At least respect the part that you play. Then again your mother and father don’t respect their positions very much, or the nation for that matter, so I’m guessing you’re coming up a little short in the ‘good role model’ department.”

Give … me … a … break.

Lauten’s boss, U.S. Rep. Stephen Fincher, R-Tenn., hasn’t commented publicly on what his staffer wrote in the open letter. He needs to scold the dickens out of Elizabeth Lauten for taking pot shots at two teenage girls.

If anyone demonstrated a lack of class — which she has acknowledged in her apology — it was Lauten.

 

 

That's the liberal caucus we have known

Well now. It appears that Democratic liberals in Congress are rising up to give their leaders as much grief as the tea party Republicans are set to do to their leaders.

Excellent! That’s the Democratic Party with which I came of age back in the 1960s.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/keystone-xl-senate-liberals-113009.html?hp=r1_3

The defeat of the Keystone XL pipeline in the Senate seems to have juiced up the lefty caucus on Capitol Hill. They’re set to do battle with the more, um, “establishment” members of the Democratic minority in both congressional houses.

It’s looking like we might have two intraparty squabbles erupting in Congress when the next body convenes in January.

The president is stuck having to deal now with two warring factions within each party. He’s bound to anger the extremists on the left, too.

As Politico reported:

“I will use whatever tools I have as a senator to protect the environment,” said Sen. (Jeff) Merkley, a liberal from Oregon. Asked if he could ever envision himself performing a Rand Paul-style talking filibuster in the Republican Senate, (Sheldon)

Whitehouse of Rhode Island replied: “Oh, of course. We will have more tools in the minority than we had in the majority.”

The liberals don’t like President Obama any more than the conservatives do, or so one might be led to think.

Which begs the question: If Obama is ticking off conservatives so much, how is it he can do the same thing to liberals?

A truism in journalism is that if you’re angering both sides of an argument, then you’re doing a good job.

Not so in politics.

Obviously.

 

 

No stunts with Officer Wilson, please

Congressman Peter King is prone to performing rhetorical stunts on occasion. He pops off when he would do better to remain quiet.

The New York Republican did it again this week when he suggested President Obama should invite Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren Wilson to the White House to receive, in effect, a public apology from President Obama for the “slander and smear” he has endured in the media for the past four months.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/peter-king-obama-ferguson-reaction-113168.html?hp=b1_r2

Here’s a better idea. Why not just let Darren Wilson go back to doing his job, if that’s possible now that he’s become an international celebrity/pariah?

Wilson was no-billed by that grand jury in the August shooting death of Michael Brown. Wilson is white, Brown was black. The shooting touched off riots in Ferguson. Then came the grand jury decision, which set off some more riots, not just in Ferguson but in other communities across the country.

The president does not need to engage in a publicity stunt here. He has spoken his piece about the decision. He urged calm and restraint in its aftermath; his plea fell on deaf ears.

Now comes Rep. King to insert himself into this story by suggesting something patently ludicrous on its face.

Let’s have a national discussion about the nature of police-community relations, particularly among the African-American community.

But we can have it without some kind of grandstand play by the president of the United States.

His plate is quite full already, Rep. King.

 

Government shutdown? That's the ticket!

The old saw about defining “insanity” seems appropriate.

It’s when you keep doing the same thing and hoping for a different result.

I believe some members of the congressional Republican caucus are certifiably nuts if they think shutting down the government is going to produce a positive result — for them!

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/the-anxieties-of-the-gop-majority-113113.html?hp=b3_r2

That’s the dilemma facing some GOP leaders as they ponder how to respond to President Obama’s executive order this past week on immigration.

Some of them believe shutting down the government, which could happen when the money runs out on Dec. 11, is going to produce sufficient payback for the “imperial” and “monarchial” actions of “Emperor Obama.”

Memo to the GOP: You have tried this before — and it blew up in your face!

There’s nothing to suggest that this time will produce a different result for the Republican majority that’s about to take over the Senate and will control the House of Representatives with an even stronger hold than it had prior to the Nov. 4 mid-term election.

House Speaker John Boehner doesn’t want a shutdown. Neither does incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. At least that’s what they’re saying. I believe them. They’ve both endured the agony of prior shutdowns before and they know how much Americans rely on government services to work for them. When they don’t work, then all hell breaks loose.

I’m wondering if Republicans, so split among themselves about how to govern, are wondering if this majority they’ve achieved on Capitol Hill will be worth it if they cannot figure out how to find unity among themselves.

Flash back a couple of generations to when the Democratic Party was split over how — or whether — to fight the Vietnam War. Their division cost them dearly through two presidential election cycles and gave rise to five Republican presidencies from 1969 to 1993.

There’s another axiom worth repeating.

It’s the one that warns that those who don’t learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

 

Lieberman for defense chief? Fat chance, Ted

Leave it to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz to provide a laugh amid a serious discussion about national defense policy.

The freshman Republican from Texas thinks former Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., would make a wonderful choice to become the next secretary of defense, replacing Chuck Hagel, who announced his (forced?) resignation Monday.

President Obama might make his pick later today, so I have to get this thought out quickly.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/11/cruz-proposes-lieberman-to-replace-hagel-at-pentagon/

Lieberman might make a good choice except for one little thing.

In 2008, Lieberman — who campaigned as Al Gore’s vice-presidential running mate on the 2000 Democratic ticket — bolted from the party in 2008 when he backed Sen. John McCain for president against, yes, Sen. Barack Obama.

I guess Lieberman is still a Democrat, but I hardly think the president would select someone who’s on record as backing one of the president’s most vocal foreign-policy critics to lead the Pentagon.

Does a president of either party deserve to have folks loyal to him and his policies? Would a President Cruz — perish the thought!) — demand loyalty were he to sit in the Oval Office? “Yes” to the first question. “You bet he would” to the second question.

So, I’ll creep just a tiny bit out on the limb here and predict that Barack Obama will ignore Ted Cruz’s advice and go with someone with whom he feels most comfortable in helping shape American defense policy in this difficult and trying time.

 

 

About that calm response in Ferguson …

Well, so much for calmness and reason in the wake of a grand jury’s decision.

A panel returned a no-bill in the case involving Police Officer Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown to death in Ferguson, Mo. Wilson is white, Brown was black. The incident touched off a series of protests, often violent. The cops made a mess of putting down the initial unrest. Questions have arisen about whether the African-American community gets a fair shake in Ferguson.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/with-no-indictment-chaos-fills-ferguson-streets/ar-BBfJTrf

The case went to the grand jury, which Monday night returned its non-indictment. Wilson won’t be prosecuted for any crime.

The most tragic part of the response has been the damage done to innocent people. Their businesses have been looted, destroyed by stones and fire. People have been physically injured. The rage goes on. And for what purpose?

Michael Brown’s father pleaded for calm, asking residents to resist the temptation to strike back. Don’t like Michael die “in vain,” he said. President Obama echoed the sentiment late Monday after the decision came down, but noted that the nation can have a rational conversation about police-community relations.

Where has the reason and the calmness gone?

 

Hagel was 'up to the job'

Chuck Hagel’s departure today as secretary of defense has the look of a forced resignation.

It now appears, at least to me, that Hagel was the one who forced the issue. That’s too bad. The Pentagon and the Obama administration have lost a good man who knows and understands the needs of the men and women who do all the heavy lifting … in the field.

How Obama and Chuck Hagel reached the end of the line

President Obama talked today about how then-Sen. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, took the young Sen. Obama under his wing and showed him the ropes in a body prone to cliques. He heaped praise on the defense boss and wished him well, which is what one would expect.

Now comes word that Hagel tried to crack the president’s tight inner circle, but couldn’t get in. He had difficulty making his defense policy opinions heard by the commander in chief and those who form that tight-knit circle around him.

If Sen. Hagel was such a trusted ally to the man who would be president, how is it that he was left on the outside looking in when key policy decisions and critical shifts in defense policy were occurring?

Sen. John McCain, one of Hagel’s best friends in the Senate, is set to lead the Senate Armed Services Committee next January. He will chair the panel that will decide whether to confirm the next defense boss. I hope McCain can set aside his personal animus toward Obama — who beat him in the 2008 presidential election — and conduct a thorough but fair hearing of the next nominee.

One of the questions that needs answering, though, is whether the new person will have the access to the commander in chief he or she will need to operate at maximum efficiency. The nominee won’t know that with certainty. The president will and he should make that clear when he announces his next defense secretary nominee.