Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Uncategorized

Button it up, Mr. VP

Dick Cheney continues to astound me.

The former vice president of the United States just won’t go away quietly. He keeps yammering and blathering about what a horrible job Barack Obama has done as president. He proclaims the president has demonstrated “weakness” in the face of foreign threats. He talks about the “danger” posed by the Obama foreign policy doctrine.

What utter crap!

Cheney the chicken hawk — who got all those draft deferments during the Vietnam War — keeps harping on the need for “military response” to any overseas crisis. Give me a bleeping break.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/18/cheney_obama_has_demonstrated_repeatedly_that_he_can_be_pushed_around.html

Cheney was at it again over the weekend, Monday-morning-quarterbacking recent moves by the Obama administration.

My hope would be that one day Cheney would follow the lead of the man in whose presidency he served, George W. Bush, and just clam up and let the one president we have do his job. President Bush, as has his father, George H.W. Bush, have been the models of post-presidential decorum as it regards the men who succeeded them in office.

In fairness, I cannot let slip a slap at President Clinton, who’s spouted his share of criticism at George W. Bush, who succeeded in him in the White House.

Presidents and vice presidents should assume a role of “elder statesmen,” which by definition keeps them elevated from the partisan political posturing that occupies current officeholders.

They’ve all had their time in the arena. They’ve all made mistakes. Yes, that means Vice President Cheney has made them, too — although he is so very loath to admit to the doozies that occurred on his watch.

Cheney’s post-vice presidential arrogance just is too much for me to take.

Put a sock in it, Mr. Vice President.

Uncategorized

Some scandals you take personally

Allow me this admission.

Some political controversies are more personal than others. Some of them skip across my radar and then they’re gone; others have this way of hitting you personally.

The Veterans Administration health care scandal hits quite close to home. White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said today that President Obama is “outraged,” and “mad as hell” over allegations that veterans have died while awaiting health care. The president vows to get to the very bottom of what’s going on, McDonough said, and vows to correct all of it.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2014/05/mcdonough-obama-madder-than-hell-on-va-scandal-188734.html?hp=l1

There had better be some major fixes, even if it requires heads to roll — starting with Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, who I happen to admire greatly. If it turns out he was oblivious to what happened at those VA hospitals, then he should go.

At issue is whether a reported 40-plus vets died while waiting for health care in Phoenix, Ariz., and that their wait times were disguised by phony records.

Why do I take this matter so personally? I enrolled at the Amarillo VA medical center a year ago. My friends tell me it must be nice to get “free medical care.” I correct them: “No, it’s prepaid.” Two years in the Army purchased that health care and I expect the government to take top-notch care of all of us who served.

So far so good at the Thomas Creek Medical Center in Amarillo. I’ve been more than happy with the care I’ve gotten. There’s a provision to add: I haven’t yet gotten sick. I enjoy good health and to date my regular checkups have gone well. I appreciate the respect shown by the VA hospital staff.

But this scandal — and I’ll call it that, because it rises to that level — needs to be resolved quickly and thoroughly all at once.

I’ll accept Denis McDonough’s assessment that the commander in chief is “mad as hell.” He damn well better be angry. He also needs to demonstrate that anger in a timely and highly visible manner.

One top Veterans Affairs official is gone. There well might have to be more of them shown the door. There also should be criminal proceedings launched against anyone shown to be culpable in the deaths of those veterans.

Yeah, some of these scandals pack a more powerful punch than others. This one hurts.

Uncategorized

'W' should have been there

OK, kids. At the risk of incurring the wrath of those who think I’m a member of the “Always Blame Bush” crowd, I’m going to weigh in on what some might perceive to be a sensitive subject.

Former President George W. Bush should have been among those attending today’s dedication of the 9/11 National Memorial and Museum.

He wasn’t there because of what a spokesperson for the former president said was a scheduling conflict.

President Bush had been invited. He couldn’t rearrange his schedule to make room for an event that surely had been on his radar for weeks, if not months.

President Obama was there, as was former President Clinton. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was on hand, as was former Mayor Rudy Guiliani, on whose watch the terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center’s Twin Towers. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo took part, along with former New York Gov. George Pataki and the current NYC mayor, Bill De Blasio.

Lots of dignitaries were on hand.

Not the 43rd president of the United States.

President Bush’s most stellar moments in office likely came in the hours and days after that horrific event, which occurred not quite nine months after he had taken office. The strength of character he exhibited in rallying a grief-stricken nation will be remembered forever. I admired then — and I do to this day — the way he stood in the rubble and declared through the bullhorn that “the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from all of us soon.”

The world today should have heard from the president on whose watch this nation was battered and scarred.

Scheduling conflict? It just doesn’t wash.

Uncategorized

VA mess … now there's a scandal

Internal Revenue Service vetting of conservative political action groups’ claims of tax exempt status?

Pffft. Big deal.

Benghazi … Shmenghazi.

Sure, it’s a bigger deal, but it doesn’t rise to the level of “scandal.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs and allegations that it delayed veterans’ health care so long that vets actually died while waiting? Now that is a hyper-serious matter that needs to be resolved thoroughly.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/eric-shinseki-senate-scandal-veterans-affairs-treatment-delays-106715.html?hp=l6

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki — a Vietnam War combat veteran and a former Army chief of staff — says he is “personally angered and saddened” by the allegations. He’d better be. Shinseki is now fighting to keep his job after the American Legion — in a rare statement of outrage — called for his resignation in light of the growing scandal.

At issue is the death of at least 40 veterans who were awaiting health care at the Phoenix, Ariz., VA hospital. Many of the vets’ names were on a secret waiting list that reportedly was designed to conceal lengthy waits that didn’t meet VA standards.

As a veteran myself who a year ago enrolled as a Veterans Administration patient at the hospital here in Amarillo, I have a number of concerns. The most notable of those concerns is whether such delays are being orchestrated at the Thomas Creek VA Medical Center in the city where I live. There was a time I wouldn’t have dared ask that question out loud, but given what has happened in Phoenix, is it possible that other such disgraceful activities are occurring across the Department of Veterans Affairs’ vast health care network?

The situation at the VA clearly is FUBAR, which in military parlance means — and this is the cleaned-up version — “fouled up beyond all recognition.”

President and Mrs. Obama have made veterans care a signature issue as the administration winds down the Afghanistan War, having already ended U.S. involvement in the Iraq War. Michelle Obama, along with Jill Biden, wife of Vice President Biden, have been champions for the cause of ensuring that our veterans receive the best health care possible.

One only can imagine what the response to this mess has been inside the West Wing of the White House, not to mention in the living quarters upstairs. I’m hoping the president has tossed some furniture around and is demanding answers to what has happened in Phoenix.

Gen. Shinseki, you have some serious explaining to do.

Uncategorized

Health always an issue for national candidates

Rich Lowry is a smart young man.

His essay, published on Politico.com, states clearly an obvious truth about the upcoming presidential campaign. It is that Hillary Clinton’s health will be an issue.

I get that. Indeed, Americans always should have assurances that the commander in chief will be in tip-top shape when he or she takes the reins of government.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/rove-is-right-106694.html?hp=l3#.U3QprFJOWt8

Lowry, smart conservative that he is, defends fellow Republican Karl Rove’s assertion that Clinton might have serious “brain injury” stemming from a fall she suffered in 2012. That’s where I part company with Lowry.

To his fundamental point about the health of candidates, let’s flash back a few election cycles.

Wasn’t Ronald Reagan’s health an issue when he ran for election the first time in 1980? He was nearly 70. When he ran for re-election in 1984, he stumbled badly in his first debate with Democratic nominee Walter Mondale, fueling open discussion that he had “lost it.” President Reagan quelled that talk immediately at the next debate when he said he “would not make my opponent’s age an issue by exploiting his youth and inexperience.”

Sen. John McCain faced similar questions about his health when he ran against Sen. Barack Obama in 2008. Let’s remember that there was some ghastly whispering going on about whether he suffered too much emotional trauma as a Vietnam War prisoner for more than five years. Plus, he had been treated for cancer. His health became an issue.

Hillary Clinton will be roughly the same age as Reagan and McCain when they ran for president. Let’s keep these health issues in their proper perspective. Igniting mean-spirited gossip about potential “brain injury” isn’t the way to examine an important issue.

Uncategorized

'Dr.' Rove issues HRC diagnosis

When did Karl Rove get his medical degree?

Oh, he didn’t? He sure could have fooled me, given that the man aka “Bush’s Brain” has speculated aloud that former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has suffered a serious brain injury.

Rove made that speculation a few days ago when he wondered why Clinton — a possible, if not probable candidate for president in 2016 — was wearing eyeglasses after taking a fall in 2012.

He said something about Clinton spending a month in the hospital and then reappearing with the specs, which he said suggests she suffered a brain injury when she took the spill.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-analysis-karl-rove-hillary-clinton-whisper-campaign-internet-20140513-story.html

Rove is engaging in a cheap and ghastly form of smear.

Clinton didn’t spend a month in the hospital; she spent four days. She wore the glasses to correct a bout of double vision she was having as a result of the fall she took.

Rove knows Clinton is considering a run for president. He also knows that she’s cleaning the clocks of any possible Republican contender, according to recent reputable polling data. Rove also understands the value of plant negative thoughts in the minds of voters who might be undecided about who to support for president two years from now.

He’s found a tantalizing opportunity in raising these questions, which seem to be specious at best and malicious at worst.

I’ll stick with White House press secretary Jay Carney’s response to “Dr.” Rove’s diagnosis. Carney said when asked about Rove’s assessment that Rove was the “last person in the country” to accept that President Obama had been re-elected in 2012. You’ll recall his outburst when his Fox News Channel colleagues called Ohio as going for the president when only a few votes had been posted. Why, he just couldn’t believe it. So, the Fox news anchors went to the network’s computer gurus’ headquarters off camera to confirm that they had called it correctly.

Rove is a talented Republican political strategist who helped elect and re-elect George W. Bush president of the United States. He’s also a fierce partisan who is letting his GOP loyalty get in the way of whatever common sense he’s got left.

Everyone gets that presidential candidates are fair game. We need to know if they’re physically able to do the world’s most difficult job. Speculating, though, on matters about which Karl Rove knows nothing is simply shameful.

Uncategorized

Romney switches course on minimum wage

Do you recall the 2004 presidential campaign political ad that lampooned Democratic nominee U.S. Sen John Kerry for saying he was “in favor of the Iraq War before I opposed it”?

Well, 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney once opposed increasing the minimum wage but now he favors it.

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/romney-on-minimum-wage-raise-it-251118147687

Romney spoke correctly on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” broadcast this morning by saying Republicans should be the party of more and better-paying jobs. He reminded his hosts that he parted company with the conservative wing of his party by favoring an increase in the minimum wage.

Indeed, Romney now is aboard the same wagon with a majority of Americans who favor increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour.

His Republican colleagues in Congress need to listen to the party’s most recent presidential nominee who, let’s not forget, received nearly 61 million votes in the 2012 election.

To their discredit, though, congressional Republicans are listening instead to tea party conservatives who don’t want to lift minimum-wage earners who have to support their families out of poverty.

And hasn’t President Obama been saying that no family relying on the minimum wage should live in poverty? Strangely, Mitt Romney’s stance put him squarely in the same corner with the man who defeated him in the 2012 election.

Don’t wait for Romney to extol the president’s correctness on the minimum wage issue. That would go beyond the pale.

Uncategorized

'R-word' surfaces yet again

There goes that pesky “R-word” being bandied about as politicians debate the presidency of Barack Obama.

The latest uttering of it came from former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who used to be a Republican but now is running for his old office — as a Democrat.

Why did he leave the Grand Old Party?

Crist says it is because too many Republicans just can’t stomach the idea of an African-American serving as president of the United States. He calls those critics racist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/charlie-crist-racism-drove-me-from-gop-106442.html?hp=l10_b1

Is it true? Is Crist correct to assert that GOP criticism of Obama is based mostly — if not solely — on the fact that his father was a black African and his mother was a white Kansan?

Crist leveled a pretty heavy barrage against his former party in a TV interview. “They’re perceived now as being anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-education, anti-environment,” he said of Republicans.

Crist told interviewer Jorge Ramos he couldn’t tolerate that kind of view. So he switched parties.

Republicans, not surprisingly, say Crist left the party to become an independent initially because he couldn’t beat GOP Sen. Marco Rubio in the 2010 election. Again, I cannot know someone’s motives.

Crist, though, is speaking aloud about a chronic, nagging problem that is dogging the Republican Party. Are Obama critics fueled by racism? At the very least, is the president’s racial background factoring at some level into the intensity of the criticism being leveled at him?

I haven’t a clue. The issue, though, is worth a thorough national discussion.

Bring it on.

Uncategorized

Democratic U.S. Senate runoff on tap

David Alameel is running against Keesha Rogers in the May 27 primary runoff for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

I’ll admit that this one has gotten past me.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/05/05/democrats-rally-around-alameel-sideline-obama-crit/

It appears Democrats actually could nominate a wacky pretender to run this fall against Republican Sen. John Cornyn.

Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.

The wack job happens to be Rogers, who finished with 22 percent of the primary vote in March, enough to deny Alameel the outright majority needed to be nominated to run against Cornyn.

“There must be people who don’t know what she stands for,” Alameel told the Texas Tribune.

And she stands for? Well, she wants President Obama to be impeached. That’s right, a Democrat is calling for the impeachment of a fellow Democrat, the guy in the White House, the 44th president of the United States.

Rogers reportedly makes the point about impeachment at the rare public appearances she makes as she, um, campaigns for the Senate.

Alameel was supposed to win the Democratic primary outright. He has the backing of the party apparatus. He has been endorsed by the Democratic nominee for governor, Wendy Davis. He is independently wealthy and is ready to spend a lot of his own money to get elected.

First, though, he has to fight off a goofball candidate for his party’s nomination.

Rogers suggested recently that the president is a closet Republican. That’s right. He’s one of them.

“Obama is right in line with the Republicans as he’s supporting Wall Street financial interests, as he’s supporting this drive toward thermonuclear war, and as he’s destroying the physical economy of this nation,” Rogers said in a Houston speech, according to the Tribune.

Earth to Rogers: The economy is improving; and thermonuclear war isn’t on anyone’s horizon except your own.

Rogers’s surprising success just might say something about the still-dismal state of the Texas Democratic Party. Yes, Democrats are nominally hopeful that Davis might be able to upset Republican nominee Greg Abbott in the governor’s race; they also have hopes for Leticia Van de Putte’s chances in the race for lieutenant governor.

But boy, howdy. If they nominate someone like Keesha Rogers to run against John Cornyn, well, the party’s in more trouble than many of us ever imagined.

Uncategorized

Benghazi explodes once again

The Sunday news talk shows were all over the Benghazi story this past weekend.

Big surprise, huh?

I didn’t catch all of them, but I did see what I think was one of the better debates on the subject. It occurred on ABC’s “This Week” segment and featured some fiery partisans on both sides arguing their respective cases over what the Obama administration knew about the September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/04/this_week_roundtable_heated_benghazi_investigation_debate.html

It’s pretty good stuff.

Former GOP U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham argued for the right wing’s version of the story, which is that the White House and/or the State Department knew in advance that the attack on the compound was a terrorist deed and did little or nothing to protect the people inside. Former Obama campaign guru and senior policy wonk David Plouffe and former Obama administration adviser Van Jones argued the opposite view, which is that the administration erred in issuing its initial talking points, but didn’t conspire to keep the truth from the public.

ABC News correspondent Cokie Roberts also was present and while she tended to favor the Plouffe-Jones view, she sought to bring some balance to the discussion.

The U.S. House of Representatives is going to convene a special committee to determine whether the administration deceived the public on purpose. It’ll be led by a tea party guy, Rep. Trey Gowdy, who no doubt has an agenda of his own. He said something over the weekend about having “evidence” of a cover-up. Congressional Democrats are weighing the possibility of sitting this one out, letting Republicans make fools of themselves.

The debate Sunday was lively and often angry — and it provided an apt metaphor for the tone of debate in Washington regarding the Benghazi attack. Republicans want to keep hammering at an old story. Democrats want to refocus on some other things, such as, oh, the improving economy. Neither side is willing to give the other side any leeway.

The talkers on “This Week” followed that script to the letter.