Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Uncategorized

Booker, Cruz talk; who listens?

U.S. Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ted Cruz of Texas recently had what was described as a three-hour private lunch.

It struck me when I heard this about two of the Senate’s more garrulous members: Who listens when the two of them get together?

Booker, a Democrat, and Cruz, a Republican, both are known to be two of the least camera-shy members of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. They both seem to love the sound of their own voices, particularly when they’re positioned in front of a microphone. So when Booker said he and his fellow junior member of that august body met, I was intrigued by the idea of the two of them sitting down to hear each other out.

In a larger sense, though, the meeting was good for an important reason. It apparently was Booker’s idea. He said he intends to share private meals with every one of the Senate’s Republican members. Why? He wants to search for common ground with them. He wants to restore some level of collegiality to a body that’s been missing it since, oh, about the time Barack Hussein Obama became president of the United States of America.

I won’t get into who’s to blame for this lack of collegiality. It disappeared between Republicans and Democrats within the Senate. It surely vanished between the Senate and the White House, particularly among the GOP senators and the White House.

I hope Booker goes through with his pledge to meet with all of his Republican colleagues. If he can restore some decency among them, so much the better for Senate and for the cause of good government.

As for meeting with Cruz, I have to salute both men presumably for keeping their big mouths shut long enough to hear what the other guy had to say.

Uncategorized

Don't discount pain of economic punishment

Before we let the chicken hawks and armchair generals get too far ahead of themselves in this U.S.-Russia confrontation debate, it’s good to perhaps understand what kind of pain can be delivered via economic sanctions leveled against Russia.

A number of President Obama’s critics want him to do more than just level some specific economic sanctions against Russia. They want some form of military option, such as arming Ukrainian military units and sending troops to NATO nations as a standby warning to Russia.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/03/20/obama_orders_new_round_of_sanctions_on_russia_121998.html

However, the sanctions that Obama has imposed on a number of key Russian leaders with lots of money spread around in banks throughout the world well could put a serious damper on an already-weak Russian economy.

Russia’s economic growth is near zero. The Crimean region that Russia has effectively annexed is an economic basket case. Corruption still runs rampant throughout Russia, with gangsters and thugs controlling an underground economy that dwarfs many aspects of the above-ground economy.

The measures enacted by the White House through executive orders signed by the president are meant to deny access to financial assets by key Russian leaders. It’s going to cause them considerable personal pain. There well might be more severe measures taken against rank-and-file Russians if Russia ratchets up its military involvement in Ukraine.

Let’s be crystal clear about one non-starter of an idea: War with Russia is out of the question, which Obama has declared. There will be no battlefield confrontation between the nations.

Having said that, there’s no way to guarantee what Russia might do to re-annex three Baltic states — Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, all of which are members of NATO. Let us not forget that NATO constitution says that an attack against one member nation is an attack against the entire alliance — which includes the United States of America.

The White House is banking that given the sad state of the Russian economy, the economic punishment just might be enough to give Russia pause if it aims to continue its aggression in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, the chicken hawks ought to pipe down.

Uncategorized

Realism rules in taking military strike off table

World leaders usually say they are leaving “all options on the table” when dealing with crises.

President Obama, though, has taken another — quite reasonable — approach in trying to find a solution to the crisis in Ukraine.

He has ruled out a “military excursion” pitting U.S. armed forces against Russians.

Good call, Mr. President.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/obama-rules-out-military-excursion-ukraine-n57081

The United States does not need another war. It certainly does not need a shooting war with Russia, which — in case anyone needs reminding — is the second-greatest nuclear power on the planet; the United States is No. 1, but the Russians still have the ability to inflict cataclysmic damage.

Thus, the United States will not entertain the idea of engaging Russia on the battlefield.

Critics no doubt will say something about a “timid” U.S. response that “emboldens” Russian President Vladimir Putin. Let them grumble.

The very idea of a U.S.-Russia battlefield confrontation is too chilling to even ponder, let alone discuss out loud.

Uncategorized

U.S.-Russia relations in freezer

Let’s not call it Cold War 2.0, at least not yet.

The New York Times reports that the Ukraine crisis involving the Russian takeover of Crimea signals a deepening freezing of relations between the world lone superpower and one of its rivals for international supremacy.

The United States won the first Cold War partly because the then-Soviet Union bankrupted itself by trying to out-muscle its American rivals. It didn’t have the resources to keep up. The United States won. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Russia emerged a damaged, highly corrupt nation.

What’s happening now in Ukraine isn’t the first such land grab that the Russians have completed. They did the same thing in Georgia in 2008. Ukraine’s unrest made Moscow nervous for the ethnic Russians in Crimea, which voted to secede from Ukraine.

Where do U.S.-Russia relations go from here? Into the tank, according to the New York Times.

The Times’s Peter Baker reports: “The decision by President Vladimir V. Putin to snatch Crimea away from Ukraine, celebrated in a defiant treaty-signing ceremony in the Kremlin on Tuesday, threatens to usher in a new, more dangerous era. If it is not the renewed Cold War that some fear, it seems likely to involve a sustained period of confrontation and alienation that will be hard to overcome. The next reset, if there ever is one, for the moment appears far off and far-fetched.”

Against this backdrop we have critics of President Obama pushing him to do more than he’s done. Obama’s response has been to rely heavily on international allies to join in condemning the Russians’ efforts to undermine Ukraine’s sovereignty. Russia, of course, is having none of it.

What does the United States do? What can the lone superpower do? The hard reality is that our hands are tied, except to deny Russia involvement in high-level economic summits, such as the G-7 meeting about to occur next week in The Netherlands. It should be the G-8, but Russian strongman Vladimir Putin won’t be there.

The rivalry between the United States and Russia has just gotten a good bit frostier.

Uncategorized

Get tougher with Putin? How … precisely?

You knew it would happen.

President Barack Obama would announce new sanctions against Russia for its incursion into Crimea and its endorsement of a decision by ethnic Russians to separate from Ukraine.

Then the Republican opposition here at home would criticize the president for not being tough enough on the Russians. Of course the GOP would oppose it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/europe/201132-republicans-demand-obama-get-tougher-with-putin-on-ukraine

They want the United States to expel Russia from the Group of Eight industrialized nations. They insist that the United States dramatically boost its exports of natural gas to undermine the Russians’ economy. They want more economic pressure applied.

What’s next? Do we go to war with Russia?

White House press secretary Jay Carney did manage to put the GOP call for tougher action into some perspective when asked today to comment on the Republican criticism. “As others have said, the fact that President George W. Bush invaded Iraq and had two ongoing wars in the Middle East didn’t seem to affect Russia’s calculations when it came to its actions in Georgia. So there’s a problem with the logic,” he said, referring to the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, which also — like Ukraine — is a former Soviet-bloc state.

Barack Obama has limited options, as does the rest of the world that opposes what Russia has done, which is to interfere directly in the affairs of another sovereign nation.

Obama already has declared his intention to impose a heavy cost to Russia for its incursion into Crimea and for its meddling in Ukraine’s political dispute.

The GOP peanut gallery needs to pipe down while our head of state seeks — in conjunction with our allies — a suitable method for making the Russians pay for its blatant violation of international law.

Uncategorized

Sanctions welcome, although likely futile

2 Comments

President Obama today imposed tightening sanctions on Russians who are involved directly with impeding Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Will they work? Not likely. Are they welcome? Certainly.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/russia-sanctions-ukraine-obama-executive-order-104728.html?hp=t1

Obama invoked his executive authority to punish those who are involved in the Russian arms industry or those who provide “material support” to forces involved in the occupation of Crimea, a region in Ukraine that over the weekend voted overwhelmingly to integrate into Russia.

The sanctions do set a new standard for punishing Russia in the post-Cold War era. They are “by far the most extensive sanctions imposed against Russia since the end of the Cold War,” an official said, according to Politico.com.

Is this all the world can do in response to what has become a virtual Russian invasion of a sovereign nation? Probably yes, short of a military strike against Russia. No one in their right mind is calling for a “military option” in response to this crisis — although former Vice President Dick Cheney keeps suggesting that those options do exist “without putting boots on the ground.” What hogwash.

All that’s really left for the world is to isolate Russia, which President Obama insists is going to inflict pain on the one-time Evil Empire.

Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t likely to reverse course just because of these sanctions. He’s already invested too much of his own reputation in this incursion to back out now.

The hope on this side of the dispute, though, should be that the United States follow through with what it already has announced and then ratchets it up even more if Russia intensifies its interference in the affairs of what used to be an independent nation.

Uncategorized

Obama kills it on 'Between Two Ferns'

A few conservatives, not all of them, need to find a sense of humor.

Some of them are criticizing President Obama — no surprise there — for appearing on a mock talk show with a comedian, Zach Galifianakis. “Between Two Ferns” aired recently on the Internet and it showed the president of the United States engaging in a bit of repartee one doesn’t usually see involving the commander in chief and the Leader of the Free World.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/18e820ec3f/between-two-ferns-with-zach-galifianakis-president-barack-obama

He took to this forum to sell the Affordable Care Act to young Americans who so far have been reluctant to sign up for the exchanges offered by the law.

Conservatives, though, have tweeted some messages about how FDR, Reagan, Ike, Truman or JFK never would do such a thing. This kind of stunt is beneath the office of the presidency, they say.

You know what? I could see The Gipper or JFK doing it. Maybe not Truman, Ike or FDR. President Reagan surely had a flair for the dramatic, given his movie career before he entered politics in the mid-1960s. And President Kennedy, you’ll recall, made presidential press conferences something of an art form during his 1,000 or so days in the White House.

I’m reminded of what the late great East Texas congressman, Charles Wilson, once said about those who criticized his well-known reputation as a lady’s man. He said his constituents were actually envious of his lifestyle. “They don’t want their congressman,” Wilson once was quoted as saying, “acting like a constipated hound dog.”

I see nothing wrong at all with my president showing a bit of his human — and humorous — side while discussing a serious national policy issue.

Lighten up out there.

Uncategorized

HRC sick of the media? Duh!

Sometime around late 1999, I offered a prediction.

Hillary Rodham Clinton would not run for the U.S. Senate in New York, I said then. Why? Well, my notion was that she had grown weary of the constant battering she and her husband, President Bill Clinton, had taken from the right-wing media, not to mention the members of the Senate who voted to convict her husband of “high crimes and misdemeanors” relating to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

She ran anyway — and won handily — in 2000.

The columnist Roger Simon, one of D.C.’s smarter political analysts, writes that Clinton is sick of the media.

Will that prevent her from running for president of the United States in 2016? Part of me says “yes,” but I now know better than to suggest that HRC doesn’t have the stomach for another campaign.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/hillary-clinton-media-simon-says-104497.html?hp=l18

I cannot quite figure Clinton out. Her husband cheated on her with a White House intern less than half his age. She forgave him — apparently. The House of Representatives impeached the president for lying to a federal grand jury about the affair. The Senate then put the president on trial, but acquitted him on all three counts relating to obstruction of justice and abuse of presidential power.

The then-first lady decided she wanted to serve with those individuals in the Senate after she and her husband vacated the White House. By all accounts, she became a stellar senator from New York and earned the respect of her colleagues. Interestingly, one of her best friends in the Senate happens to be John McCain, R-Ariz., who was among those senators who voted to convict the president. Go figure.

The media beat her up as she ran for president in 2008. Her campaign ended just before the convention that year and then — wouldn’t you know it? — she ended up serving as secretary of state in the Obama administration.

The media kept dogging her. She had at least one major misfire, her handling of the Benghazi consulate tragedy. Again, the media poured it on.

Now, at least one leading Republican, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky — a possible presidential candidate himself in ’16 — is dredging up the Lewinsky matter as a way to besmirch Hillary’s reputation. Give me a break.

Still, the media keep digging into all this stuff.

Why should Hillary Clinton want any part of this?

Beats me. I remain baffled that she ran for the Senate in the first place.

Uncategorized

Worst Congress ever?

Great day in the morning! I think we have an area where congressional Democrats and Republicans actually agree.

They all seem to agree that this is the worst-performing Congress in history.

Worst Congress ever?

Of course, that’s where the consensus ends. They’re blaming each other for the dysfunction that that ails the legislative branch of the federal government.

I’ve long been a good-government kind of guy. I like government to work for the country and believe government has a role to play in helping those who need a hand. Thus, I tend to lean to the left. No surprise, probably.

The Republicans who have run the House of Representatives since 2011 have a different view. Many of them believe Congress shouldn’t do nearly as much as it’s allowed to do. So, when the president has proposed legislation and ideas to help folks, Congress has been prone to resist disposing of those ideas.

“I tell people, we’re not getting anything done and that’s good,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who intends to leave the Senate at the end of 2014.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who has served in Congress since The Flood, recently announced his intention to retire at the end of the year. He said the place no longer is fun, no longer productive and no longer worth his time and effort.

Dingell is not alone.

Does the president deserve some of the blame for this dysfunction? Sure. Governing is a shared responsibility, which is why I get so annoyed at those who blame the president for all that ails the nation’s political system. Barack Obama promised to break the gridlock loose. He hasn’t delivered on that promise. One of the common criticisms of the president is that he isn’t fond of schmoozing with legislators the way, oh, Lyndon Johnson would do. Thus, when he proposes an idea, Obama prefers to let the merits of the idea win the day, without actually working with legislators to persuade them to push the idea into law.

It seems, though, that whenever he reaches out, his “friends” on the other side slap his hand away.

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

Republicans blame Democrats for Congress’s failure to deliver … and vice versa.

At least they agree that the legislative branch is a loser.

Uncategorized

Cheney makes my head spin

My head is spinning.

I just caught up with former Vice President Dick Cheney’s interview on “Face the Nation” in which he ridicules the Obama administration’s efforts to manage the crisis in Ukraine.

President Obama is weak, indecisive, he’s lost the confidence of our allies, he’s wrong to take military options off the table — those are just some of the things Vice President Cheney offered in his assessment of Obama’s handling of the crisis.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/09/cheney_no_question_putin_thinks_obama_is_weak.html

I want to declare that Dick Cheney has no credibility — none whatsoever — on matters relating to managing international crises. How he can assert the things he does blows my ever-lovin’ mind.

Let us remember that Dick Cheney was in the Situation Room when President George W. Bush decided to go to war with Iraq in 2003. Cheney had declared time and again publicly that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons and that he would use them on our allies in the Middle East. Cheney made the case for war, argued that the United States had to invade a nation, topple a sovereign government, rebuild a nation, and create a more democratic society where none ever had existed. We would be seen as “liberators, not occupiers,” he said.

Well, Mr. Vice President, it didn’t quite work out that way.

The weapons were nowhere to be found. We toppled the government and installed one more to our liking. The war went on even after Saddam Hussein had been hanged. We lost more than 4,000 American lives.

Let us also remember that Saddam Hussein played no role at all in the 9/11 attacks. Our “allies” in Saudi Arabia are far more complicit in that heinous and dastardly act than the Iraqis. Why didn’t we topple that government, too, Mr. Vice President?

It’s almost laughable how Cheney glossed over the U.S. response to the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, saying that it occurred near the end of the Bush administration and as the Obama administration was preparing to take over. What’s the implication, Mr. Vice President? Might you be suggesting that Russia’s brass felt more comfortable invading Georgia as President Bush was about to leave office?

The Bush administration was as powerless to stop the Georgia incursion single-handedly as the Obama administration is now with the crisis in Ukraine.

My next task is to get my head to stop spinning.