Tag Archives: GOP

political news

Palin now 'seriously' considering a WH run

Sarah Palin has gone from “considering” a campaign for the presidency to “seriously considering” it in 2016.

Oh, boy. This is getting fun.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/27/palin_hits_quasi-conservative_fox_on_fox_dings_oreilly_for_calling_potential_candidacy_reality_show.html

Palin dinged Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly for having the temerity to refer to a possible Palin campaign as a “reality show.” She went after who she calls “quasi-conservatives,” who, I guess, aren’t like her, which I suppose is a “true conservative.”

Truth be told, I no longer recognize the modern version of conservatism as I’ve always understood its political meaning.

A part of me laughs off a possible Palin candidacy. It cannot possibly be serious. Indeed, in the book “Game Change,” a chronicle of the 2008 presidential campaign, key advisers to Republican nominee Sen. John McCain acknowledged not vetting Palin after her name emerged as a possible pick to join McCain on the Republican ticket. McCain’s senior political adviser Steve Schmidt acknowledges now that it was a huge mistake to select Palin to run with McCain.

Yet, another part of me would welcome a Palin campaign, perhaps for the same reason I’m cheering for Mitt Romney to run again. Mitt made some goofs while running for president in 2012. Palin has written the book on gaffes, blunders and foul-ups since her 2008 campaign for VP. So, maybe this is her chance at redemption.

Sounds good, yes? Sure, except that Mitt is a serious politician, while Sarah Barracuda is not.

Mitt can redeem his reputation. Palin is a lost cause.

 

political news

Welcome aboard the GOP 'clown van'

Roger Simon isn’t some left-wing, squishy liberal pundit who genuflects at the sound of Barack Obama’s name.

But he’s written an essay that sums up what many are beginning to sense already: The race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination well could provide as many laughs as the 2012 campaign did.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/gop-clown-car-runs-into-ditch-114565.html?hp=c1_3

Simon’s commentary ticks off the dog-and-pony show that was known as the Iowa Freedom Summit, hosted by U.S. Rep. Steve “Cantaloupe Thighs” King. You’ll remember this goof, saying a couple of years ago that illegal immigrants are able to smuggle heavy loads of drugs across the border because they’ve got “thighs the size of cantaloupes.”

Sheesh, already!

It shouldn’t be this way. Most of the serious Republicans who might be running for president stayed away from the King-hosted circus. One of the serious guys, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, got criticized from the TEA party crowd because he threw his arms around Barack Obama, who ventured to the Jersey Shore in October 2012 to assess the damage done by Super Storm/Hurricane Sandy and vowed to provide federal help to New Jersey as it sought to recover from the destruction.

There were plenty of clownish moments at the Freedom Summit, as Simon revealed in his column.

A friend of mine, satirist and political commentator Rick Horowitz, noted that Republicans want to be considered thoughtful and capable of governing … then they trot out Donald Trump and Sarah Palin at this event.

The Republican Party is full of thoughtful and reasonable men and women. Why, though, do we keep focusing our attention on this collection of clowns?

I’m waiting to hear more from the grownups.

 

political news

Go for it, Sarah!

Sarah Palin says “of course” she’s interested in running for president of the United States in 2016.

I don’t know how many potential candidates have made such a declaration. I think I’ve lost count.

This one, though, is laughable on its face.

Yet here I am. Commenting, albeit briefly, on it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/sarah-palin-possible-2016-run-114534.html?hp=r3_3

Palin is the former half-term governor of Alaska. She was the Republican nominee for vice president in 2008. Then she “went rogue,” and might have cost the ticket led by Sen. John McCain millions of votes the GOP otherwise might have gotten.

She won’t run for president. Not this year. Not ever.

Palin is, shall we say, damaged goods.

The reality TV show? The strange behavior of her family getting involved — allegedly — in a fight at an Anchorage house party? The absolute absence of any knowledge of anything beyond TEA party talking points?

Republicans are going to be blessed in 2016 with a relatively stellar field of potential candidates. It’ll be filled with heavyweights, individuals of actual accomplishment. Some of them are reasonable, rational, intelligent and articulate.

Sarah Palin? Not … a … chance.

Then again, why not? She’ll liven it up, yes? You betcha.

 

business news, national news, political news

'Transfer of wealth' talk likely to surface

Can we now discuss one of President Obama’s key points in his State of the Union speech?

It’s about that tax cut for the middle class.

He took considerable pain Tuesday night to extol the virtues of middle-class Americans and the work they do to make our country strong economically. He wants to give middle classers — folks like my wife and me — a break on their taxes. To pay for it he wants to ask more of wealthy Americans. They need to pay more in taxes to finance the tax relief he’s planning for the rest of us.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-have-one-word-for-president%e2%80%99s-proposals-and-veto-threats-%e2%80%98no%e2%80%99/ar-AA8pnAq

Those on the right and far right have a term for it. We’ll hear it. It’s called “transfer of wealth.”

Let’s try to set the record straight.

As I understand the meaning of the term “transfer of wealth,” what would have to occur is that the federal government would have to actually take money earned by rich folks and give it to not-so-rich folks. Legend has it that Robin Hood did that in medieval England when he “took from the rich and gave to the poor.”

That’s wealth transfer.

What I heard the president propose Tuesday night was nothing of the kind.

A tax cut for the middle class wouldn’t deprive rich Americans of their wealth. They’d still be rich. They’ll get to keep their yachts, fancy cars, summer/winter homes and all their bling.

The middle class would get to pocket a little more disposable income to spend on things they want or need.

All this being said, I do understand GOP criticism of the president for proposing something he knows won’t ever be enacted into legislation he can sign into law. On that score, Barack Obama has proved his political deftness, as his proposal was met in the congressional chamber with applause from Democrats and silence from Republicans. How do you suppose that looks to millions of middle-class Americans watching who actually favor a tax break?

I don’t intend to tolerate any demagoguery about wealth transfer in describing what the president has pitched.

How about debating the proposal on its merits: Do the folks who control Congress favor a tax break for middle-class Americans or not?

 

national news, political news

Now it's Santorum, again, thinking about '16

Good grief. Now we have a former senator from Pennsylvania climbing aboard the GOP Presidential Bandwagon.

Rick Santorum is considering another run for the Republican Party presidential nomination.

That’s right. Rick Santorum!

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/rick-santorum-criticizes-mitt-romney-114374.html?hp=r3_3

This is a big deal. The senator ran for the White House in 2012 and declared war against those who use contraception to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancy. Santorum, a devout Catholic, doesn’t believe in contraception — in accordance with church doctrine. Contraception became his signature issue, to the dismay of Republicans who actually employ contraceptive measures to prevent pregnancy.

Santorum washed out of the 2012 GOP primary season, but he might be coming back for more.

I believe Republican primary voters need to ask one critical question: If the voters of his own state refuse to re-elect him to the U.S. Senate in 2006, why should he ask all Americans to cast their presidential vote for him in 2016?

Santorum lost his re-election bid to Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat.

When the ballots were counted, Casey had 59 percent of the vote; Santorum had 41 percent.

Where I come from, that’s what I call a landslide loss.

 

 

national news, political news

GOP plans fewer debates in 2016

3 Comments

Even though I generally like to see candidates for high office mix it up in public, I have to applaud the Republican National Committee’s decision to scale back the number of debates its presidential candidates will wage in 2016.

It’s down to just nine of them, about half the number of debates that took place prior to the 2012 GOP convention.

The 2012 GOP primary campaign was an exercise in ridiculousness as the field kept showing up weekly prior to elections in states. The field was winnowed down as candidates dropped out from the previous primary voting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/16/rnc_announces_nine_presidential_debates_125285.html

Even stranger was the stagecraft associated with many of these joint appearances. The candidates would stride onto the stage to applause from the audience, and to shrieks and shouts from their particular fans in the crowd.

They’d wave and point to people they recognize — which always is an odd sort of gesture that politicians do to “connect” with voters.

The GOP is expecting a large field of candidates. RealClearPolitics indicates as many as two dozen Republicans currently are considering a run for the White House. Holy cow! What if all of them declare their candidacies?

The field will narrow quickly, although I’m quite certain it’s going to be a stronger field of contenders than the gaggle of goofballs that ran for the presidency in 2012. Yes, there were serious candidates among the field, but Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann? C’mon.

I’m happy to see the RNC coming to its senses on the number of debates. Now it has to figure out how to lend seriousness and decorum to each of them.

Let’s start by eliminating the show-biz entrance.

national news, political news

'Spunk' drives Obama's poll spike? Perhaps

Polls are fun to follow. I do so regularly.

The most interesting and authoritative poll is actually a compilation of public opinion surveys. RealClearPolitics.com compiles the results and publishes a running average of all the polls. The key subject of these polls is President Obama’s approval ratings.

Lately, they’re going up … significantly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/14/obamas_new_spunk_lifted_ratings_white_house_says.html

As of this morning, the president has earned a rating of just less than 45 percent of Americans who approve of the way he’s doing his job.

Two quick points about these findings.

(1) They belie the notion that Obama’s poll numbers are “plummeting, skidding, spiraling downward” or whatever nasty verb the right-wing media keep using to describe his standing among Americans.

(2) White House aides believe the polls reflect his newfound “spunk” in dealing with the loyal opposition that now controls both legislative houses of the U.S. Congress. I agree with that, to a point. I think they reflect Americans’ continuing distrust of Congress, whose approval rating is still languishing at around 14 percent, according to RealClearPolitics’ poll average.

Juxtaposed with Congress’s dismal standing among Americans, the president is looking pretty good.

What does all this mean for the future? My strong hunch is that it means Congress needs to govern more and obstruct less. Believe it or not, view is that Americans actually want their federal government to work for them. It takes cooperation between the two governing branches — the White House and Capitol Hill.

Pay attention, folks.

 

political news

'Candidate' Jeb quits boards

Jeb Bush sure looks like a presidential candidate to me.

The former Florida governor has announced he is quitting all the for-profit boards on which he is a member in preparation for his now-expected run for the presidency in 2016.

Smart move, Jeb.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/jeb-bush-quits-all-private-sector-non-profit-boards-113914.html?hp=l1_3

Another possible Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, has expressed concern about Bush’s financial dealings. Hey, if anyone knows something about personal financial controversy, it’s Mitt — with his own Bain Capital history serving as something of a drag on his own 2012 presidential campaign.

Bush has been out of public life for more than a decade. He’s got that “Bush brand” with which he must contend. Not the one set by his father, George H.W. Bush, the 41st president, but the one of his brother, George Dubya, the 43rd president.

Is the nation ready for yet another Bush in the White House? I think not.

But Jeb is doing what he needs to do to start setting the stage for another Bush candidacy.

Actually, he’s a pretty good Republican wannabe-candidate, particularly on immigration. He’s a moderate on that issue, presenting a far different approach to immigration reform than his TEA party rivals within the GOP.

My hunch is that he’s going to run. Will he be nominated? I won’t predict that outcome.

If nominated, can he beat the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton? I most assuredly won’t go there, either.

Stay tuned.

 

national news, political news, State news

No 'oops' for Perry next time around

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is soon to be a “former” governor — and a likely current candidate for the president of the United States.

He vows there will be no repeat of the infamous “oops” moment in late 2011 when he couldn’t name all three of the federal agencies he said he would cut from the federal government.

In an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, Perry said he’ll be better prepared if he decides to run again for the White House.

He’s also got that felony indictment alleging abuse of power to get worked out one way or the other.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/rick-perry-oops-wont-be-my-obituary/ar-BBgD52T

The most interesting element in the story attached to this blog post is how Harwood sizes up the potential 2016 GOP field with the 2012 cast of characters. The next Republican field is likely to include some serious politicians with serious ideas about how to solve serious problems.

That clearly wasn’t the case in 2012. The GOP field included a cabal of clowns: Herman “9-9-9” Cain? Michelle “Democrats are Communists” Bachmann? Rick “Say ‘No’ to Contraception” Santorum? Newt “I Impeached an Unfaithful President While I was Cheating On My Wife” Gingrich?

The next field, which might include Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, is much more credible than the previous field of candidates.

Perry will have to do battle with a much more serious band of GOP brothers (and maybe) sisters.

Oh, but he says he’ll be ready.

We’ll see about that.

 

International news

GOP fires back at torture report

To no one’s surprise, U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Republicans have their own version of whether “enhanced interrogation techniques” made America safer in the wake of 9/11.

They say the tactics saved lives and protected the country against further harm.

The GOP senators say the tactics were necessary to gather intelligence that led eventually to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/gop-senators-defend-cia-alternate-report-113434.html

Intelligence panel Democrats are standing by their assertion — correctly, in my view — that American intelligence officials and military leaders could have obtained all of that information and protected Americans without subjecting terror suspects to torture.

So there it is: yet another political schism has erupted on Capitol Hill.

As Politico reports: “The GOP report decried the (Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne) Feinstein study, arguing that it contained ‘faulty analysis, serious inaccuracies, and misrepresentations of fact’ to create a series of false conclusions about the counterterrorism program’s effectiveness and the CIA’s interactions with Congress and the White House.”

So, the other side has responded with what it contends is accurate analysis and objective examination of the facts. Is that what they’re saying?

I’ve noted already that this discussion is going to turn into a liar’s contest over time. One side is going to accuse the other of deceit. It’ll go back and forth.

I’ll just stick to my assertion that “enhanced interrogation” can — and should — include tactics that do not include the physical torturing of enemy captives. I’d even allow for sleep deprivation that would include round-the-clock badgering of detainees as a way to make ’em squeal.

Still, the debate rages on.