Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Uncategorized

Democrats asking to unleash Michelle for campaign

2 Comments

Not long after he was elected in 2008, I mentioned to friends and family that I thought Barack Obama’s secret weapon would be his wife, Michelle.

She had as much charisma, maybe more smarts and at least as much political skill as her husband. You can choose to believe I said as much, or you can choose to believe I’m making this up. Whatever. It’s true and I’m sticking to my guns on that one.

Why not put her to work?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/democrats-urge-michelle-obama-to-hit-the-trail-1411342576?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

It turns out Democrats around the country are beginning to clamor for the first lady to hit the campaign trail on behalf of beleaguered candidates. She’d be better at drumming up support than her husband, whose poll numbers continue to languish in the low to mid-40 percent range.

Michelle Obama’s poll numbers? They’re a lot higher than her husband’s. That’s for certain.

The Democrats are clinging to a thin hope of retaining control of the U.S. Senate. Recent polls in North Carolina and Alaska suggest the Democrats might be turning the tide. And the Democrats got an unexpected break in, of all places, Kansas, where the Democratic Senate candidate dropped out, paving the way for an independent who likely will side with Democrats to beat the Republican incumbent.

So, why unleash the first lady in those states where Democrats have a puncher’s chance of holding on?

“She just tells a different story, because she’s not a politician and she’s not an elected official,” said a Democratic official in New Hampshire, where Sen. Jean Shaheen is locked in a tough fight against former Massachusetts Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who recently moved to New Hampshire to run against the Democratic incumbent.

Bring it, Michelle.

International news, national news, political news

BHO 'ignores' military advice at some risk

Lawrence Korb is far more qualified than I am to discuss the ins and outs of military advice given to presidents of the United States.

He did so during the Reagan administration and he’s now suggesting something quite interesting to the current commander in chief, Barack Obama.

It’s that it’s all right to “ignore” the advice of military leaders at times of international crisis.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/09/why-its-ok-obama-ignore-military-advice/94649/

Korb understands a fundamental truth about U.S. government. Civilians run the military. It’s written into the Constitution and that’s the way it should be.

It’s interesting to me, though, that Korb cites several examples of presidents ignoring the advice of top military leaders:

* Harry Truman dismissed Gen. Douglas MacArthur after the U.S. military commander popped off and said U.N. forces should take the fight to China.

* Dwight Eisenhower ignored the advice of commanders who wanted the United States to get involved in Vietnam while the French were fighting for their lives at Dien Bien Phu.

* John F. Kennedy said “no” to calls to strike at Cuba during the missile crisis.

What do these presidents have in common? They all were combat veterans.

Barack Obama doesn’t have that kind of background on which to rely. I’m not saying it’s a requirement for the office, but it serves as a cautionary tale for a president who chooses to ignore the advice of individuals who’ve worn their country’s uniform, let alone been to battle.

Sometimes presidents ignore advice at their own risk. Korb writes: “Certainly, there have been instances where presidents had overruled the advice of military leaders, with dire consequences. The most recent examples occurred under President George W. Bush. He not only ignored Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s advice that several hundred thousand ground troops would be needed to remove Saddam Hussein and restore order in Iraq after his removal. Not only was Gen. Shinseki ignored, he was publicly derided and undermined by the president and the secretary of defense when they appointed his successor early, even though Shineski still had a year left in his term. Ironically some of the same people now calling on Obama to listen to his generals and keep the door open to having combat ground troops in Iraq did not speak up for Shinseki. Bush also ignored the advice of his military commanders by diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, before the mission of restoring stability in Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden and destroying al-Qaeda was completed.”

The Constitution grants the president the final say in all military matters. That’s as it should be.

Still, the commander in chief should listen carefully to what the brass has to say. They’ve been there. They understand the consequences of war better than most.

national news, political news, State news

Perry to be 'better prepared' next time

So, lame-duck Texas Gov. Rick Perry vows to be “better prepared” to run for president of the United States — if he decides to do so.

My gut tells me he’s made up his mind, just as Hillary Rodham Clinton has made up her mind to run for president in 2016.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/09/eyeing-white-house-again-perry-knows-to-be-prepared-this-time/

The only decision left for either of them is when to make the announcement.

We’ll get back to Clinton another day.

I am hopeful Gov. Perry will be prepared for this next run. No more “oops” moments; no more tantrums; no more strange soliloquies that have people asking, “Is this guy drunk, stoned or what?”

If he keeps his wits about him, I am hopeful the national media will probe one important thing about Perry’s interminable time as Texas governor: his governing style.

I’m referring specifically to the way he would mass-veto legislation after the Legislature ended its session. I believe he set some kind of record for vetoes after the 2009 or 2011 sessions. What was most astonishing about the vetoes is that they included legislation that had passed both legislative chambers by unanimous or near-unanimous votes.

With Republicans in Congress upset that the Democrat in the White House is allegedly misusing his executive authority, I’ll be waiting to hear how some GOP lawmakers will react to the knowledge that as governor, Rick Perry has used his own executive authority as governor with more than a touch of zeal.

Then again, Republicans won’t mind that one little bit. Perhaps the Democrats in Congress can raise the issue.

I’ll await the governor’s well-prepared answer.

Uncategorized

Bipartisanship returns … for a time at least

President Obama got what he asked for from Congress: authorization to train and arm Syrian rebels.

The vote in both congressional chambers crossed party lines, with a majority of Democrats and Republicans supporting his request.

Does this mean Congress is going to set aside its partisan differences among its members and with the president and start actually governing? I’m not holding my breath.

But I was struck by a comment I heard in the wake of the Senate vote from a lawmaker who said that the fact that Congress actually passed something with a bipartisan vote ought to send chills up the spines of the bad guys we’re trying to destroy in Syria and Iraq.

Indeed, the vote is a tricky one.

U.S. national security officials say they’ve identified “moderate” foes of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Those are the people who’ll get the arms and the training to use them. The Islamic State will be isolated and wiped out eventually, they contend.

Obama also said that he’s lined up a coalition of about 40 nations. France is going to start flying sorties over targets in Iraq and aiding in our bombing campaign against the Islamic State.

Great. But what about the Sunni Arab states that have pledged to aid in this effort?

They need to get in the game — quickly.

national news, political news

No outcry over congressional break

It’s certain that many Americans remember the outcry when President Obama took time off this summer to relax with his family.

“How dare he leave town with all this important work to do?” came the outcry from conservatives. He had crises to manage, they said.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/nice-work-if-you-can-get-it-0

OK, now the other side has taken a powder — to campaign for re-election.

The GOP-run House of Representatives has left town, leaving a ton of important work still undone. It doesn’t matter to them that they are now the slackers in this equation.

Yes, the House did stick around long enough to vote on a Syrian-training-and-arming resolution, as did the Senate. Obama praised them for their votes and the bipartisan support his request receives in both congressional chambers.

Then Congress said, “You’re welcome, Mr. President. We’re outta here.”

Take a look at the graphic attached to this post and you’ll see why Congress has earned its moniker as the latest edition of the “Do Nothing Congress.” They’ve done, well, virtually nothing. They’ve passed little legislation.

Now the legislative branch has split. They’re running for re-election. How will the incumbents frame their “accomplishments” to voters?

local news, national news, political news

Will lame-duck status signal end to incessant griping?

Barack Obama becomes a lame-duck president officially on Nov. 5, the day after the midterm elections.

He in fact became such the moment he won re-election in November 2012, given that the Constitution prohibits him from running for a third term.

That hasn’t stemmed the constant carping about his presidency and his alleged “failures” as the nation’s chief executives.

I have a friend who keeps yammering about the president being an “empty coat.” Other conservatives keep blathering about how his economic policies have “failed the country,” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Still others right-wingers blame the president for the myriad international crises that that keep flaring up all around the world, as if the United States has the power to put them all down — all at once.

I’m wondering when the constant griping will start to subside. My best guess is that the midterm elections might provide some relief for those of us out here who actually support the president, who voted for his re-election and who believe he’s done a good job given the horrible circumstances he inherited when he took office.

I live smack in the middle of Anti-Obama Country. The Texas Panhandle voted 80 percent against him in two presidential elections. So I get that he doesn’t have much cache in this part of the nation.

Here’s what I don’t get: I don’t get why the Obama haters — and they truly hate the man, perhaps for reasons they dare not acknowledge publicly — can’t start looking ahead to the next election and start scouring the landscape for a suitable alternative.

Are they out there? Is there a Republican on the horizon who can do better at reducing the budget deficit, reducing the jobless rate, helping private business hire more Americans, help provide health insurance for millions of Americans who didn’t have it, protect us against terrorist attacks, round up illegal immigrants and end two costly wars?

Barack Obama’s lame-duck status ought to be good news for his enemies.

Come on, folks. Cheer up. The nation is still standing. And we’re still the strongest nation on the planet.

International news, national news, political news

Syria aid is on its way

Well, it looks as though the United States of America is going to enter the Syria conflict after all.

Congress likely will approve President Obama’s request for authorization to train and equip “moderate” Syrian rebels as they prepare to take on the Islamic State — and the government forces led by Bashar al-Assad.

Lawmakers: We will pass Syria aid

Yes, it will come with some complaints from both sides of the aisle.

Obama was right to ask for authorization. Congress is right to grant it.

Is it the right call to equip the rebels? That remains to be seen.

The Syrian civil war is getting complicated in the extreme. We don’t yet know fully who the “good guys” are in this fight. We’ve identified some definite evil forces — two of whom are fighting each other. ISIL is battling the government led by the dictator. We hate the dictator, but we hate ISIL even more, given the gruesome murders the terrorists have committed against two American journalists and a British aid worker.

I remain concerned deeply about whether we should send in troops while bombing the daylights out of ISIL military positions in Iraq. That discussion has been broached by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, who today said he’d consider sending in special ops forces if the need arose, pending approval by the commander in chief, Barack Obama.

Congress has a role to play here. Its members need to sign on and take ownership of a conflict that is beginning to take on the look of a new war.

Heaven help us.

national news, political news

GOP saying 'yes' to Obama

Hey, what gives here?

Congressional Republicans, those guys and gals who made it their mission to make Barack Obama a “one-term president,” are starting to sound accommodating to the president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/house-republicans-say-yes-to-obama-110987.html?hp=t1

They’re set to extend the Ex-Im Bank charter, approve a budget next year without a fight and they appear ready to approve a request to authorize U.S. air strikes while arming and training rebels in Syria, according to Politico.

It might be that Republicans are sensing they’re going to win control of the Senate after the mid-term election. So perhaps they’re feeling a big magnanimous toward their foes on the other side of the aisle.

I’m not holding my breath that the GOP will start to actually govern rather than obstruct the president’s efforts at crafting an agenda.

Here’s how Politico reports it:

“The forthcoming deals represent a big swing on Capitol Hill. Just a year ago, House Republicans were locked in a bitter battle with Obama over repealing his signature health care law, leading to a 16-day government shutdown that left both sides bruised.

“Now — with less than 50 days until the midterms — Speaker John Boehner, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise want nothing to do with Washington and its potential drag on Republicans’ sunny electoral fortunes.”

So it appears to be a pragmatic turn. Whatever the case might be, Republicans seem to grasp the political risk associated with continuing the gridlock that shuts down the government that is supposed to serve the people who send them to Capitol Hill.

International news, national news, political news

Iraqi slope getting slippery

That slope that leads into Iraq is getting more slippery all the time.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, said it is “possible” that American ground troops will be brought back into Iraq to fight the Islamic State.

http://news.yahoo.com/congress-scrutinizes-obama-military-strategy-070816643–politics.html

I believe this is the kind of thing the commander in chief, President Obama, said won’t happen.

“To be clear, if we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific ISIL targets, I will recommend that to the president,” Gen. Dempsey said in a testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Will the president heed the advice of his top military adviser? Therein lies the stickiest of wickets possible for the president.

His critics say the United States cannot defeat the Islamic State with just air power. They also suggest that our coalition-building, which worked pretty well in advance of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, is insufficient as well.

So, does the president act on his instincts and stay the course, which means “no boots on the ground” in Iraq? Or does he follow the advice of a team of four-star military brass — all of whom have substantial combat experience — and send “advisers” in with Iraqi troops to root out ISIL terrorists?

Can you say “conundrum”?

It’s my fervent hope that whatever “boots” hit the ground in Iraq remain on the feet of advisers and not on those of infantry or other troops trained in the combat arms.

Meanwhile, keep dropping bombs on the bad guys.

International news, national news, political news

Put lawsuit on hold, Mr. Speaker

Dear Speaker of the House John Boehner:

You don’t know me, nor do you likely care what I have to say about how you do your job. That is the business of the voters in your Ohio congressional district. Still, I’m going to offer you some unsolicited advice from out here in Flyover Country.

That lawsuit you plan to file against the president of the United States over his alleged misuse of executive authority? Put on the farthest back burner you can find.

You know this already, Mr. Speaker, but the country is going to war — again. The enemy this time is the Islamic State. They’ve beheaded two American journalists and a British aid worker. They mean business. They’re the nastiest of the nasty elements of society.

President Obama is trying mightily to craft an international coalition of nations — including Sunni Arab states in the Middle East — to join the United States in this fight to destroy ISIL. You, sir, should join the fight as well.

The lawsuit you said you want to file is a mere distraction at a time of national crisis. It smacks of partisan petulance. A lot of us out here in the heartland know what gives with the suit. You want to fire up the Republican Party base in advance of the 2014 midterm elections. You want your party to take control of the Senate. That likely will happen no matter what you do regarding that silly lawsuit. I can grasp your anger over the president’s use of executive authority to tinker with the Affordable Care Act. Given the international stakes, though, it all seems so damn petty.

To file suit now would serve as the Mother of All Distractions. It would take the president’s eyes off the ball he needs to watch, which is the one involving the protection of Americans. That’s his No. 1 duty as president and commander in chief. You agree with that, right?

As for your own job as speaker of the House, you’ve got to rally the entire body — not just Republicans — to some form of unity behind the president as he undertakes the task of fighting this despicable enemy.

Picking a court fight now, with the nation’s attention turning to ISIL, disserves the country you say you love.

I believe you do love America, Mr. Speaker. So do I.

So, from one patriotic American to another: Let go of that goofy lawsuit idea.