Tag Archives: Barack Obama

national news, political news, State news

Lame-duck status might produce some courage

There’s something to be said for being a lame-duck officeholder.

No more elections to face means no more pressure from political action groups. Thus, officeholders are free to do what their gut tells them to do.

President Obama’s gut has been rumbling over this immigration reform matter. Does he or does he not invoke executive action to initiate changes in federal immigration policy which politicians in both major parties say needs repair?

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/11/07/after-election-texas-waits-executive-action/

The Texas Tribune reports that an executive order or three is bound to help the Texas economy. Hey, wouldn’t that be an ironic touch, with a president who is opposed by so many Texans actually doing something to aid this state’s economy?

The Tribune reports: “’For the Texas economy, executive action could be a boon,’ said Ali Noorani, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a Washington-based policy research group. ‘The agricultural and construction industries disproportionately depend on undocumented workers. And I think there are a lot of growers and builders out there who would rest a lot easier if their work force was stable and legal.’”

Imagine that.

House Speaker John Boehner has warned Obama not to do anything by himself, saying it would “poison the well.” Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Mitch McConnell echoes the speaker, preferring to let the next Congress take up the matter.

The president spoke about working with Congress in the wake of the mid-term election that saw the Senate flip from Democratic to Republican control.

Then again, he is a lame duck. His presidency ends in a little more than two years. No more elections need to be run.

Congress has dilly-dallied over this immigration matter. The president wants something done and should he have any trust that the next Congress is going help bring some of these illegal immigrants out of the shadows? I’m betting he doesn’t.

According to the Tribune: “The president is expected to expand and modify his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative. That initiative provides certain younger undocumented immigrants a two-year reprieve from deportation proceedings and gives them renewable work permits. Applicants must have been in the United States continuously since June 2007, must have arrived in the country before they were 16 and must have been 30 or younger in June 2012.”

Being a lame duck has its advantages.

International news

The enemy of my enemy …

To the president of the United States, I offer this cautionary word.

Be very careful, Mr. President, in your attempt to enlist the aid of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/06/politics/obama-iran-isis-letter/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Yes, I know the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Mr. President, do not consider Iran our “friend” by any definition of the word, no matter how loosely one might apply it.

The president recently sent a letter through back channels to the Iranian leadership seeking some advice and help in fighting ISIL. Indeed, Iran has some skin in this game. ISIL is a Sunni Muslim cult bent on restoring the Sunnis to power in Iraq and in toppling the dictatorial government of Bashar al Assad in Syria.

What’s the Iranian stake here? The Iranian government is run by Shiite Muslims, the arch-enemy of the Sunnis; what’s more, the Iranians have been propping up Assad’s regime with weapons and intelligence to use against the rebels seeking to overthrow the Syrian government.

Predictably, Republicans in the United States have been blasting the daylights out of President Obama for even talking to the Iranians. Their government hates the Great Satan and, yes, we detest their intentions as well, particularly their reported desire to acquire nuclear weapons.

Iran, though, can play a role in helping the United States rid the world of ISIL. It has substantial intelligence capabilities; it certainly has the motive to destroy ISIL.

However, does it have the will to make peace with the United States and, even more critically, with Israel if it means the end of ISIL?

Therein lies the multibillion-dollar question.

I don’t have a particular problem with an outreach such as what has taken place — but only if it is devoid of language that promises peace with a nation that first and foremost must renounce virtually its entire foreign-policy doctrine.

Tread carefully, Mr. President.

national news, political news

Lynch deserves confirmation

Allow me to state once again my strong support of presidential prerogative in key appointments.

The current president, Barack Obama, has just nominated Loretta Lynch to become the nation’s next attorney general. The U.S. Senate will vote to confirm or reject the appointment. I join Republicans in wanting the next Senate, the one controlled by the GOP, to have a say in this vote.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/loretta-lynch-eric-holder-attorney-general-white-house-112705.html?ml=la

But I always shudder at the prospect of trumped-up reasons by the loyal opposition coming to the fore during these hearings.

They crop up from both sides of the aisle.

The Constitution gives the president the authority to nominate Cabinet officers. It also gives the Senate the power to “advise and consent” to the appointments. I get all of that. I understand fully the “co-equal” aspect of government, which empowers the legislative branch with as much power as the executive.

Now that I’ve laid down those cards, I want to declare that the president is elected by the entire nation. Yes, the Senate — as a body — is elected by the same voter base. But it’s the president’s call on who he wants to serve on the Cabinet.

This president has chosen a highly qualified individual. Lynch is seen by both Democrats and Republicans as a workhorse. She’s fair and dogged in her pursuit of justice.

Now we’re getting some rumblings from the far right wing of the Republican Party that at least two senators want Lynch to state whether she believes a potential executive order from the president on immigration is legal. Well, the president has made no such order, so the demand to know such a thing deals with an extreme hypothetical scenario.

I’ve never backed away from this prerogative issue. I stood behind President George H.W. Bush when he nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court for precisely the same reason I back the current president. He’s elected by Americans who were told what kind of individual would receive these appointments. Thomas was qualified to serve on the High Court when the president selected him, although the American Bar Association’s recommendation was less than sparkling. Still, he was qualified.

I have stood behind President George W. Bush’s appointments of Samuel Alito and John Roberts for all those reasons.

My belief in the Lynch appointment falls in line what I perceive as the president’s prerogative as the chief executive of the federal government.

My sincere hope is that the Senate gives Lynch a thorough but fair hearing.

national news, political news

Lynch for AG; let the new Senate decide

Loretta Lynch by all rights should be sworn in as the nation’s next attorney general.

President Obama made the announcement today nominating the New York U.S. attorney to the post.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/08/politics/attorney-general-nominee-loretta-lynch/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Of course, there are a couple of wrinkles attached to it. One of them is worth supporting, the other is utter nonsense.

Lynch would replace Eric Holder as AG. She’s already drawn the support of one key Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who says Lynch is “qualified.” Well, of course, she’s qualified. She’s been approved overwhelmingly twice by the Senate to U.S. attorney posts and there appears to be little reason to oppose her now as the nation’s next top lawyer.

Here come the wrinkles.

Republicans are insisting the new Senate, which will be run by the GOP, needs to confirm Lynch. That’s the correct call. Lame-duck Democrats who either are retiring or who lost their seats in the mid-term election need not vote on this appointment. Let’s have the new Senate make this call and let us also hope that Republicans who run the upper chamber will give Lynch a “fair hearing,” which the new majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has vowed.

The second wrinkle amounts to a litmus test.

It comes from two tea party Republican senators, Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah, who want Lynch to declare right now whether she believes any potential presidential executive action on immigration is “legal and constitutional.” If she doesn’t tip her hand, does that mean Cruz and Lee will oppose her outright? If she believes the president would be acting legally and constitutionally, does that doom her appointment?

These two men appear to be seeking the “right” answer to the question, which is a litmus test by any definition.

How about examining the scope and breadth of this lawyer’s distinguished career?

By my reckoning, she’s earned her spurs and should be confirmed.

national news, political news

Here's how you start a firestorm

Mention the n-word in the context of someone from a political party using against the president of the United States and you’re bound to start major-league hissy fit.

I did that today by posting something that was broadcast on C-SPAN.

Here it is:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/c-span-scrambles-n-word-article-1.2001484?utm_content=bufferfe0c3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=NYDN+Facebook

An idiot from San Diego, Calif., called in on the “Republican line,” and identified himself as a Republican. He then said “Republicans hate that (n-word) Obama.” Steve Scully, the C-SPAN host, cut the caller off immediately in a remarkable display of dispassion.

My tweet asked whether the moron spoke for “other Republicans.”

Then the fire started blazing on my Facebook news feed, where my tweet was posted automatically.

I have many conservative friends, and a few of them are quite active on Facebook. They took a lot of time suggesting that I labeled “all Republicans” as racists. I didn’t do that.

I asked what I believe is a straightforward, fair and legitimate question: Did the C-SPAN caller represent “other Republicans?”

This is what happens when we talk about race in America. We’re supposed to be living in what are calling a post-racial period. I don’t believe that’s the case. The election of Barack Obama as president has shown that racial politics is alive and well.

He’s made race an issue on occasion. When the topic comes up, his foes declare he’s a racist. When the president’s foes argue their point, the president’s allies declare that they are the racists.

And when people such as yours truly ask a simple question about a moronic caller who’s use of the n-word was broadcast on a national cable TV news program, then we see that race remains at or near the top of many Americans’ conscience.

I believe I’ll refrain from commenting any further on racial politics for the time being.

I’m a bit worn out from the battering I took today.

national news, political news

The sun still rose in the morning

Those on the left are crying the blues.

Their “friends” on the right are jumping with joy.

Lefties are mourning the loss of the U.S. Senate, which after Tuesday night’s mid-term election flipped from Democratic to Republican control come Tuesday.

Righties are utterly gleeful that Sen. Harry Reid will turn over his majority leader gavel — figuratively — to Sen. Mitch McConnell.

My take?

Well, the sun rose the next morning like it always does. President Obama said he wants to “work with” Republicans in both congressional houses. McConnell said he intends to work with the president whenever it’s possible. Obama said he’d like to enjoy a glass of Kentucky bourbon with ol’ Mitch; no word yet on whether McConnell is going to invite the president over for a belt.

We’re going to learn in due course just how well the two sides will get along. I am not worried about things “getting worse” in Washington. From my standpoint, and looking at it through my own admittedly biased prism, it couldn’t get much worse than it’s been since Barack Obama took office in January 2009.

Don’t misunderstand. I continue to believe the country is in much better shape today than it was when he took over. The pasting Democrats took on Tuesday is because their foes on the right outshouted them over the course of the Obama administration. They have persuaded a large number of Americans that the economy remains in dire peril and that the federal government is doing a lousy job of protecting them against foreign enemies.

It’s all baloney.

The country will rock along. The two sides will continue to fight, squabble, bitch at each other — just as it’s always been done.

I’m trying to look at the big picture. We’ve done all right for the past two-plus centuries.

I’ll accept the election results for what they are. Then I’ll just need to get ready for the next election cycle, which has just begun.

 

national news, political news

GOP scores sweep; now let's govern … actually

The deed is done.

Republicans got their “wave” to sweep them into control of the Senate, with an eight-, maybe nine-seat pickup in the U.S. Senate. What’s more, they picked up a dozen more seats in the House to cement control of that body.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-control-at-stake-in-todays-midterm-elections/2014/11/04/e882353e-642c-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html

The only undecided race will be in Louisiana, which is going to a runoff. Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu appears to be in trouble there. Big surprise, huh?

What happens now?

Despite all the good economic news, there appears to be rampant discontent out there with a Democratic administration and its friends in Congress. So the voters spoke, tossing out Democratic incumbents and turning seats over where Democrats had retired.

Republicans say they want to work with the president where possible. I’m not yet ready to swill that drink.

Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Mitch McConnell had declared his primary goal in 2009 was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. It didn’t work out that way. So now he wants to actually govern — he says.

We’ve got this immigration thing hanging over the Congress; that oil pipeline known as “Keystone” needs to be decided; the president has an attorney general appointment to make; and, oh yeah, the Affordable Care Act still is on the table, even though it’s working and insuring Americans.

How is Congress going to get past all those differences? And how is the White House going to reconcile itself with the change in power in the upper legislative chamber?

My friends on the right are crowing this morning that Democrat Harry Reid no longer will run the Senate. They now believe Hillary Clinton’s presidential “inevitability” in 2016 has been damaged by this shifting power base. They think the president has been made irrelevant as he finishes out his tenure in the White House.

I shall now remind my right-leaning friends of something critical.

The 2016 political roadmap looks a bit different than the 2014 map. Democrats will be positioned to take over some key Republican Senate seats in a presidential election year, which historically bodes quite well for Democrats.

This was the Republicans’ year and their time. Nice going, folks.

It’s time now to actually govern and to show that we can actually keep moving this country forward — which it has been doing for the past six years.

 

 

national news, political news

Obama poll numbers aren't 'sinking'

Listen to the talking heads on some cable news channels, or read reports in mainstream newspapers and you get a dire picture of President Obama’s political standing.

Why, those troublesome polls show his popularity “plummeting,” “sinking,” “spiraling downward.”

Media Matters — an acknowledged left-wing media watchdog group — disagrees.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/31/obamas-approval-rating-remains-unchanged-this-y/201396

The organization points out correctly that Barack Obama’s standing among Americans has remained unchanged for the past year.

Unchanged!

His numbers are stable. They aren’t sinking or plummeting. They aren’t spiraling anywhere, let alone downward.

Why do the media keep harping on something that’s, well, untrue?

Media Matters examines some poll number averages: “According to the cumulative ratings posted daily at Real Clear Politics, which averages together an array of national polls to come up with Obama’s composite job approval rating, the president’s approval on January 1, 2014 stood at 42.6 percent. The president’s approval rating on October 30, was 42 percent. So over the course of 10 months, and based on more than one hundred poll results in 2014, Obama’s approval rating declined less than one point.”

Holy smokes! Does that constitute a president whose standing is headed straight for the dumper? I think not.

It’s interesting, too, that Media Matters isn’t targeting just the right-wing media — a favorite target — in critiquing the bogus reports of Obama’s standing. It cites mainstream media across the spectrum, even those dreaded “liberal media” outlets that supposedly can say nothing critical of the president or his friends in Congress.

The link attached is most interesting and it puts the president’s standing in a context that bears little resemblance to what the media are reporting.

 

national news, political news

GOP lawsuit takes another hit

That much-hyped lawsuit that congressional Republicans planned to file against President Obama has taken another body blow.

Imagine that.

A second law firm has backed out, apparently succumbing to pressure from Democratic groups. The firm declared that Republicans have little or no chance of winning a lawsuit, which they say they’ll file to challenge the president’s use of executive authority to change the Affordable Care Act.

http://news.yahoo.com/house-republicans-cant-anyone-sue-president-160655337.html

Turns out that the law is working. It also turns out that the appetite for suing the president is being abated.

The lawsuit that Speaker John Boehner announced would occur is being exposed little by little for what it has been all along: a political stunt intended to fire up the base of the GOP.

World events and the attention they have demanded of the president and Congress have eclipsed the silliness of such a lawsuit, given the gravity of issues abroad and the goofy intention of Republicans to stick it to the president over a law that’s looking more and more as if it’s here to stay — for keeps!

Yahoo.com reported: “House leaders have now all but given up on finding a new lawyer who will take the case, and Boehner is instead considering assigning the work to the chamber’s in-house counsel, which is a position appointed by the speaker.”

The lawsuit, which lacked merit from the get-go, appears headed for oblivion, where it belongs.

 

Intgernational news

Israel's self-defense policy under attack once more

Whoever in the Obama administration who delivered the scathing critique of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to understand a fundamental truth about Israel.

The nation is under attack constantly from forces right next door and it is obligated to defend itself using whatever means are necessary.

So says the prime minister himself.

I happen to agree with him.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.623356

Netanyahu says the U.S.-Israel alliance remains strong despite the comments from an unknown U.S. official who has been quoted as calling Netanyahu a “chickens**t.” I’m betting the prime minister has been called worse things by his enemies and even by his political foes inside his country.

Of course, given the testiness that existed at times between Netanyahu and President Obama, this particular comment is drawing even greater scrutiny.

Still, Netanyahu isn’t shying away from his country’s efforts to protect itself against forces dedicated to its destruction.

Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda? We know who they are and what they stand for, correct?

So do the Israelis and they’ve been living in the same neighborhood with these terrorist monsters.

Here’s Netanyahu’s take, according to Haaretz: “I am not prepared to make concessions that will endanger our state. Understand, our national interests, topped by security and the unity of Jerusalem, are not what top the interests of those anonymous forces attacking us, and me personally. I am under attack simply because I am defending the State of Israel. If I didn’t stand firm on our national interests, I would not be under attack.”

The name-calling can stop now.