Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Who said this about Bibi?

A White House official called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “chickens**t”?

That’s all we know at the moment.

Here’s an idea: How about for once we find out who did the name-calling? Bring this individual out from the shadows and have him or her explain the reference.

US, Israel relations hit new low

This is the kind of thing that’s said behind closed doors all the time in Washington, D.C., and more than likely in Jerusalem as well.

I only can imagine what some of Netanyahu’s more strident inner circle members think of President Barack Obama or perhaps the Congress and what he or she might be saying about all of them in private.

This little term of non-endearment, however, has been let loose and has poisoned — perhaps — the sometimes-testy relationship between the two leaders.

And just when it had been reported that Netanyahu actually had expressed some warm feelings toward Barack Obama, well, this happens.

OK, if we’re not going to learn the name of the individual, perhaps someone on the inside — perhaps the press secretary, Josh Earnest — can tell us at what level this individual operates. Cabinet level? Sub-Cabinet? A member of “diplomatic” corps, for crying out loud? Hey, was it a national security team member? Someone from the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

We need to know who said it and why?

What’s more, the president ought to get on the phone and call his pal Bibi and tell him that the potty-mouth individual was speaking for himself or herself.

Then again, maybe the president should assure the prime minister that he — the leader of the Free World — himself didn’t say it.

 

 

'Clean break' from Obama? Get real, Rick

Texas Gov. Rick Perry — along with many of those on the right — believe Barack Obama’s presidency has been a hallmark of failure.

I do believe they’ve been living in a parallel universe for the past six years.

Perry went to the Ronald Reagan Library in California and spoke of his desire to make a “clean break” from the Obama years. He is sounding more and more like someone who is considering a second run for the White House, in 2016. Perry said: “I believe that come 2016, if the American people are given that choice, they will be ready for a clean break from the Obama agenda or anything like it.”

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/10/perry-proposes-clean-break-from-obama-years/

A clean break, yes?

Let’s look back briefly:

* The economic stimulus package helped stop the free fall in the financial markets that was occurring when the president took office.

* The package saved the automobile industry and it ended the flood of home foreclosures.

* The economy is adding tens of thousands — even hundreds of thousands — of jobs each month, compared to the 700,000 jobs we were losing each month when Obama took office.

* The budget deficit — which Perry and others have decried — has been cut in half.

* Millions of Americans have health insurance for the first time in their lives.

* We continue to kill international terrorists every day.

* The U.S. is striking hard at Islamic State monsters, with the help of allies.

* The U.S. has led an economic crackdown on Russia over its intervention in Ukraine.

That’s a few things worth noting.

Yes, the past six years haven’t always gone smoothly. The health care rollout was rocky; Iraq hasn’t yet figured out how to defend itself after our departure from the battlefield; peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians keep getting derailed; Iran continues to work toward developing a nuclear weapon; the Syrian conflict has morphed into an international crisis.

Has there even been a time in any presidency where everything has gone perfectly? No.

The Obama years have produced their share of disappointments. I’m more than willing to concede that.

However, the so-called “mediocrity” that Perry decries is nowhere to be found.

We remain the strongest, most indispensable country on the planet. Americans are resilient and are proud — even in the midst of struggle.

 

Are we really a second-rate power?

You hear it frequently these days from right-wing talking heads, politicians and a few “expert observers” that the United States is in danger of becoming a second-rate military power.

They express grave concern that the commander in chief, Barack Obama, seeks to “deliberately” reduce America’s standing in the world because of some trumped-up “anti-American bias” they’ve attached to the man.

I heard U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry express those concerns recently, although he did so with a good measure of class and decorum. He isn’t pounding on the same drum that many lunatics on the right are beating.

Thornberry — who’s set to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee next year — did suggest that China is growing its defense budge at a far greater rate than the United States and is concerned that the communist dictatorship may be about to surpass us as the pre-eminent military power on Earth.

He’s not alone in saying these things.

I dug into my World Almanac and Book of Facts and found a few interesting numbers. They relate to defense spending.

In 2012, China spent just a shade less than $90 billion on its defense establishment; Russia — which 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said is our “No. 1 geopolitical adversary” — spent $52 billion. That’s around $142 billion spent between these two fearsome foes.

The U.S. defense budget for 2012? $739 billion.

Are the Russians and Chinese getting so much more bang for the buck — pardon the pun — that we should worry that either of them is going to surpass us in military strength? I hardly think that’s the case.

I totally get, however, that in this new world of vaguely defined enemies and an international war against terror, that it is next to meaningless to measure military strength vis a vis our “traditional” foes.

Let’s cool our jets just a bit, though, when suggesting that the United States of America is no longer capable of defending itself against any foe.

We’re still pouring lots of money into our national defense and we’re still getting a damn good return on that investment.

 

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.

 

Hey, what about that lawsuit?

Politico asks an important question: Why haven’t congressional Republicans filed that lawsuit against President Obama, contending that the president has misused his executive authority regarding the Affordable Care Act?

It’s just a short distance from Capitol Hill to the federal courthouse. The House GOP could file the lawsuit and get this thing started, yes?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/obama-lawsuit-house-republicans-112196.html?hp=t1

Well, I have a two-part theory: First, the lawsuit lacks merit and, second, filing the lawsuit now with the world focused on much more grave issues, such as international terrorism, makes Republicans look petulant.

Politico also points out that the employer mandate, which is what the president delayed through his executive action, is set to kick in on Jan. 1. If the mandate starts — requiring employers to offer insurance to employees — then the lawsuit becomes moot.

House Speaker John Boehner announced his intention to sue Barack Obama with great fanfare. Then the world went up in flames in Syria, Iraq, Gaza, Nigeria, Ukraine — have I missed anything?

The president has been tested time and again by real crises, not pestered by made-up problems brought to bear by political opponents at home whose sole intent is to stick it to him.

I still contend the speaker is a reasonable man. He knows how it would look for him to pursue this lawsuit now.

Almost no one in Washington believes that the ACA will be repealed. It’s working. It is providing insurance to millions of Americans.

If the Republicans were going to strike a blow against what they say is executive abuse of power, well, the time has passed.

Let’s move on to things that really matter.

Let’s try governing.

Davis showing some guts

Wendy Davis is playing the odds, I am guessing, with her declaration that she isn’t backing away from her support of President Obama.

The Democratic nominee for Texas governor is doing the opposite of what a lot of Democrats running for office in Republican-leaning states are doing. She’s embracing the president’s policies.

However, the odds are pretty strong that Barack Obama isn’t likely to show up at a Davis campaign rally in the Lone Star State prior to Election Day.

And that gives state Sen. Davis some cover to make her declaration.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/10/davis-ive-never-backed-away-from-president-obama/

Still, I have to admire her for standing tall on her principles, her party’s principles and her support for a president who has been elected twice by significant majorities of American voters.

It is quite true, of course, that the president isn’t very popular in Texas, where Republicans rule the roost across the board statewide. Davis is a distinct underdog in her campaign to defeat GOP attorney general Greg Abbott in the race for governor.

Davis, though, made it clear that she welcomes the president’s support.

According to the San Antonio Express-News: “‘I would be thrilled if he or the Clintons — anyone — wanted to come and help,’ Davis told reporters. ‘I’m very pleased that Michelle Obama was willing to record a radio ad for me, and I’m very honored to have their support and the support of so many prominent Democrats across the country.’”

The high negative ratings for the president, I believe, are a result of Republicans’ ability to control the debate. They’ve outshouted Democrats. The result has been to bring fear to Democratic candidates.

Given that I am wrong far more than I am right, I won’t take this to the bank just yet. I am pretty sure Davis is right that Obama has more pressing issues that will keep him away from Texas.

But if the president shows up, I am hopeful Davis will be true to her word and stands with him.

Oops! GOP governor tells truth, then backs off

Hey, I always thought Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich was a straight shooter.

Turns out he needs to get his sights re-set.

Kasich told The Associated Press that the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is here to stay, that Republicans have no hope of repealing it, even if they win control of the U.S. Senate after the Nov. 4 mid-term election.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/politics/kasich-obamacare-here-to-stay/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

‘AP reported this: “‘The opposition to it was really either political or ideological,’ Kasich said of Obamacare. “I don’t think that holds water against real flesh and blood, and real improvements in people’s lives.'”

That sounds pretty darn reasonable. But wait! Gov. Kasich’s people said AP got it wrong. The governor was referring to the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

The ACA should be repealed and replaced, the governor’s office said — speaking for Kasich.

Here’s the deal, folks.

The ACA is working. Millions of Americans have signed up for health insurance who didn’t have it before. It’s providing comfort to those who prior to the law’s enactment couldn’t afford to be insured.

The ACA rollout was a Keystone Kops affair, to be sure. The computerized system crashed. It was a mess.

Then it got fixed. Yes, the rollout likely caused Kathleen Sebelius her job as health and human services secretary.

I’ll stick with Kasich’s initial view that repeal of the ACA ain’t going to happen.

Congressional Republicans, I’m quite certain, will have no trouble finding other issues with which to pick fights with the president. It’s in their DNA.

Hysteria czar? Why not?

Todd Roberson’s blog for the Dallas Morning News is spot on.

The United States doesn’t need an Ebola czar as much as it needs a “Hysteria czar.”

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/we-need-a-hysteria-czar-not-an-ebola-czar.html/

The worst fomenters of the hysteria gripping some Americans appear to be the cable news networks. Roberson singles out CNN, with its endless “Breaking News” alerts and its ominous-sounding music.

He writes about images of men walking around in hazmat suits, helicopters flying over Dallas-area housing complexes and a Nigerian student being denied admission to Navarro College because the school no longer accepts applications from students who come from countries with confirmed cases of Ebola.

I don’t think I’m going to say much more about this hysteria nonsense. I’m spent. No one at CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC or the broadcast networks are paying attention. I feel as though I’m talking to myself.

Ebola is not a “crisis” in the U.S. of A. We’ve had precisely one death of someone who came into this country from a country infected with the deadly disease.

I’m with Roberson. President Obama needs to appoint a Hysteria czar.

Let's quell the Ebola fear

Will we listen to the president of the United States on this one?

Let us not allow fear to overtake the nation as the world seeks a way to head off Ebola, the deadly virus that has killed thousands of people in West Africa.

It has taken the life of precisely one person in the United States. But the media are making it seem as though it is running rampant throughout the country.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/president-obama-ebola-112001.html?hp=l4_b1

President Obama used his weekly radio address today to try to put this issue into its proper perspective.

“Meeting a public health challenge like this isn’t just a job for government,” he said, just days after two Dallas nurses were diagnosed with the disease. “All of us — citizens, leaders, the media — have a responsibility and a role to play.”

That role shouldn’t be to push panic buttons.

“We can’t give in to hysteria or fear, because that only makes it harder to get people the accurate information they need,” Obama said.

As for the administration’s response to this situation (I refuse to call it a “crisis” in the United States), it needs to be tightened up. To that end, the president has selected an Ebola “czar” who is tasked with coordinating the national effort. Ronald Klain is that man. He’s a trusted aide and friend of the president. He is known as a fixer.

I’m willing to let the man do his job. No, he lacks a medical background, but he has access to the best medical minds in the world.

Meanwhile, let’s keep our cool.

Perry is MIA when Ebola hits two Texans

Honest to goodness, I am not going to beat up on Texas Gov. Rick Perry over this situation.

Politico reports that Perry, seeking to burnish his foreign-policy credentials, was out of the state when Ebola turned up in two health care workers who’ve been quarantined.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/rick-perry-ebola-112004.html

He rushed back from Europe seeking to take charge of the situation, but now he’s been, well, sort of caught flat-footed.

Democrats (imagine that!) have been critical of Perry for trying to “look presidential” while a medical emergency was unfolding here at home. Yes, Democrats are trying to make political hay out of this so-called “crisis,” just as Republicans are trying to taint a Democrat, the president of the United States, in much the same way.

Do you think politicians of both parties need to mindful every waking minute of every day to be sure their every move passes the “smell test”?

Gov. Perry is a likely candidate for president in 2016. He tried it once already, but fell on his face before the campaign ever got off the ground. He wants to assure Americans that he’s now immune from future “oops” moments and wants to look like a man in charge.

If that’s the image he wants to project, he’d better be sure he’s in charge of every single issue — large and/or small — right here … in Texas.

My advice to Perry? Stay close to home at least for a little while, governor. The presidential campaign will be there when this Ebola thing passes.