Tag Archives: Ronald Reagan

Uncategorized

R.I.P., James Brady

1 Comment

The New York Times article attached to this blog post commemorates James Brady for what he was: an advocate for gun control and a friend of those who sought to curb the gun violence that struck him down.

He was all of that.

Brady, who died Monday at age 73, was grievously wounded in the March 1981 assassination attempt on President Reagan. He was hit in the head by a bullet fired by John Hinckley, suffering paralysis, speech loss and short-term memory loss.

As the president’s press secretary, he was standing just a few feet from the president when Hinckley opened fire.

But what likely won’t be told in the days in the ahead about James Brady was that in the brief time he served as press spokesman for the White House — Reagan had taken office just three months prior to being wounded in the shooting — is that Brady had enormous respect among the men and women who covered the president.

Brady was known as a straight-arrow. He understood his “clientele,” the hard-core press hounds who could sniff out BS when it presented itself. He didn’t get them any baloney. From what I’ve heard over the years from those who covered the White House, the folks in the press room really took an instant liking to Brady.

Compare that with the testiness in White House-press relations that has emerged before and since Brady’s brief stint at the press room microphone.

His real legacy, certainly, will be that of a passionate advocate for gun control. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his view, James Brady came by it honestly. He took a bullet in the brain and paid a terrible price while serving the nation.

His national service, while too short, was stellar.

Uncategorized

Tax cut … with no spending offsets?

I’ll have to admit that I’m a little slow on the uptake at times.

Folks have to explain some things to me on occasion to help me make sense of trends and decisions.

This decision by the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives falls into that head-scratching category.

http://www.kxly.com/news/politics/house-republicans-vote-for-business-tax-cut/26906060

The House has approved a $287 billion business tax cut. It hasn’t included any spending offsets to pay for it. Speaker John Boehner boasts that the House is working to create jobs. Maybe it will. Then again, maybe those businesses benefiting from the tax cuts will take that money straight to the bottom line. That’s been happening quite a bit lately, you know?

What’s got me puzzled is why the House GOP keeps insisting on spending offsets whenever the Obama administration proposes job creation ideas. Infrastructure spending? Can’t afford it unless we cut spending in other places.

Another thing needs noting. The deficit is coming down in rather dramatic fashion. A tax cut of the size just approved by the House is going to blow up the deficit yet again.

My memory isn’t perfect, but I do remember a time when Republicans belonged to the party of “fiscal responsibility.” They loathed deficits, while Democrats blew them off. Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980 partly because President Carter and Congress ran deficits of a whopping $40 billion annually; there was some other stuff also that contributed to Carter’s defeat.

Memory also reminds me of how quick congressional Republicans were to share in the credit for the balanced budget and the surpluses run up during the final years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. They made sure we all knew that their spending restraints were more responsible for the surplus than the modest tax increases proposed by the president — and, oh yes, approved by Congress.

The new age of Republicanism, though, sees the party in control of one half of one branch of government talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Spending offsets only count when the other guys want to do something. Tax cuts for business? Who cares?

In the meantime, President Obama is asking for $3.7 billion in emergency spending to help deal with that crisis along our southern border. The GOP response? It costs too much money.

Go figure.

Uncategorized

Third time a charm for Mitt?

The political chattering class is clattering these days about a possible Mitt Romney run for the presidency — again.

The more I think about it, the more sense it makes.

History might be on Mitt’s side.

I think I’ll refer, incidentally, to the 2012 Republican presidential nominee by his first name from now on, given the media’s insistence on referring to the presumed Democratic frontrunner as Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/the-case-for-mitt-romney-in-2016-108532.html?hp=l7#.U7Vc31JOWt8

Mitt captured nearly 61 million votes in 2012, the highest total ever for a losing presidential candidate. He cut into President Obama’s electoral vote count from four years earlier. He had a serious chance to win the White House two years ago, but then stumbled badly when he was overheard talking about that dreaded “47 percent” of the population who’ll vote for Democrats no matter what, as they depend on government to do everything for them.

Some other stuff got in the way, too, such as Hurricane Sandy — which provided Barack Obama a chance to do some highly visible presidential things, such as go to New Jersey and put his arm around Gov. Chris Christie while promising all kinds of federal assistance.

History may foretell another Mitt candidacy.

Richard Nixon lost narrowly to John Kennedy in 1960; two years later he got thumped in the race for California governor and declared the media wouldn’t have “Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.” He came back to win the White House in 1968, got re-elected in a landslide in ’72 and, then, well, resigned because of that scandal called Watergate.

Ronald Reagan became president on his third try. He threw his hat into the ring at the 1968 GOP convention. He then challenged President Ford in 1976 and nearly took the nomination away from him. He came back in 1980 to be nominated and then went on to defeat President Carter in a blowout.

Republicans seem willing to give their show horses second and third chances.

Mitt’s capable of running a stellar campaign. He’s got the pedigree, the money and now the experience. He lost the GOP nomination in 2008, won it against a field of Republican weirdos — e.g., Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain, to name just two of them — in ’12.

The 2016 field might not be so tough to conquer if he were to try one more time. Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie? They all have soft spots in their armor.

Bring on Hillary vs. Mitt in 2016!

Uncategorized

'Think of these men'

Presidents of the United States often are called upon to pay tribute to their forebears, the people who made it possible — to a large degree — for them to hold the office they occupy.

President Reagan stood on a bluff overlooking Normandy’s Omaha Beach in 1984 to salute “the boys of Pointe du Hoc,” the U.S. Army Rangers who scaled the cliffs on June 6, 1944 to assault Nazi machine gun posts while launching the greatest amphibious assault in world history.

Today, one of President Reagan’s successors, President Obama, reminded the world of the courage of those men who stormed ashore that day 70 years ago, “wave after wave” of men seeking to liberate people “they had never met.”

“When you lose hope,” he said today in commemorating that monumental day, “think of these men.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/208446-obama-americas-claim-written-on-d-day

Indeed, cynics everywhere should think of what those men did that day — and what they had done for years prior and what they would do for another year after that landing.

Maybe a little reflection might wash away some of that cynicism.

Those brave young men saved the world from tyranny.

What’s left to say to those who are left?

Thank you.

Uncategorized

President preaches success

Barack Obama was preaching to the choir the other day.

He declared during a Democratic Party fundraiser that Americans “are better off now than when I came into office.”

Do you think?

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/206591-obama-americans-better-off-under-his-presidency

That the president would say such a thing is no surprise. Incumbents make these proclamations when they’re out raising money for their party in an election year.

But … wait for it.

The other side is going to level the equally non-surprising broadsides at the president for dredging up that bad old recession he inherited when he took office on Jan. 20, 2009.

You remember that time, right? The job market was hemorrhaging jobs by 700,000 — give or take — a month. Unemployment was heading toward a peak of around 10 percent. Banks were failing. Auto dealerships were tanking. Oh, and we were fighting two wars and were losing American lives on Iraq and Afghanistan battlefields daily.

Have we returned to some Nirvana after that terrible experience? No. We’re still on the road back.

Joblessness is down. The private sector is adding jobs instead of losing them. The auto industry has returned to fighting trim. Bank failures have ceased. The budget deficit — which accelerated as the government sought to jump-start the economy — is receding. Congress has enacted a health care overhaul that is working.

I believe the president has reason to crow about the state of things in the country, despite the continuing rhetoric from the opposition that is scouring the landscape for anything on which to stain Barack Obama’s record.

Hey, that’s politics. Republicans want to control the Senate as well as the House of Reps; Democrats want to keep control of the Senate. Both sides seek to exploit advantage where they find it.

Not quite two years after a bruising re-election campaign in which Republicans sought to focus on the economy, the president now can turn to that very issue as a signal that we’re on the right track.

To paraphrase GOP presidential nominee Ronald Reagan’s famous query during the 1980 campaign: Are we better off now than we were six years ago?

I’d have to say “yes.”

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

'Benghazi' a fundraising tool? Shocking!

Stop the presses!

Congressional Republicans have been raising the issue of the impending Benghazi hearings to raise money for their political campaigns. What a revoltin’ development! Who knew?

And yet the GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives just keeps insisting that the probe isn’t about politics. It’s about the truth, they tell us. They want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Let’s back up a moment.

House Speaker John Boehner announced the creation of a House select committee to be chaired by Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., to examine the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. What did the State Department know and when did it know it? Did State know it was a premeditated terror attack or did it assume wrongly it was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video? Did the U.S. do enough to protect the four Americans who died, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/07/gowdy_gop_should_not_fundraise_off_the_backs_of_four_murdered_americans.html

To his credit, Chairman Gowdy has said Republicans shouldn’t raise money “on the backs of four murdered Americans.” Good going, Mr. Chairman.

This investigation can be wrapped up in fairly short order, just as the congressional probe of the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon was able to do. You’ll recall that attack killed 241 Marines, but other attacks followed and many questioned whether the Reagan administration was doing enough to protect our interests, and our people, against terrorists. The Democratic-led Congress concluded its probe, made constructive recommendations and finished the job with a bipartisan report.

Can this investigation proceed like that one? Let’s hope so.

It needs to start down that path, however, by ensuring that Republican lawmakers stop using the upcoming probe to raise political campaign money.

Uncategorized

Yes, GOP needs to ‘change’

Rand Paul says the Republican Party needs a radical makeover if it hopes to win the presidency in his lifetime.

Interesting, coming from a Kentucky senator whose philosophies have played a part in the GOP’s losing strategy the past two presidential election cycles.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-without-change-gop-will-not-win-again-in-my-lifetime/

Paul says the party cannot “tinker around the edges.” It needs radical change, he said.

Here’s an idea: Why not return to the ways of the Republican old guard, you know, the guys who won while running behind the likes of George H.W. Bush, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush?

They’re all different, to be sure. Ike was a war hero who was destined to win the presidency in 1952. He governed from the middle and helped oversee a period of unprecedented prosperity during the bulk of the 1950s. Richard Nixon he turned out to be a disgrace and doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with Ike, Reagan or the Bushes.

Ronald Reagan was a true-blue conservative. However, he didn’t demonize his foes. He befriended them after hours and worked with Democrats whenever opportunities presented themselves.

George H.W. Bush — in my mind — was arguably the most qualified man to serve as president. War hero, ambassador to the U.N., congressman, special envoy to China, party chairman, CIA director and vice president. He also was a mainstream politician who also could work with the other guys.

W. campaigned as a “compassionate conservative” and while he made some mistakes — the Iraq War and his hands-off financial policies that contributed to the economic collapse at the end of his presidency — also sought to govern reasonably.

The change Paul has called for cannot take his party down the do-nothing road. Government has to play a role in helping people. Republicans and Democrats need to look proactively common ground instead of looking for reasons to oppose one another.

Paul is calling for a “more diverse party.” How he’ll seek that diversity remains a mystery, given the GOP’s insistence on laws that make voting more difficult, seeking to block efforts to improve the immigration system, continuing to meddle in people’s personal lives and putting the interests of wealthy Americans above those of the rest of us.

I want the Republican Party to reshape itself. Honest. It’s got to emerge in the manner that Rand Paul says he envisions, and not in the form of some crazy cabal of kooks — many of whom have taken the Grand Old Party hostage.

Uncategorized

Mandela was no pork-barrel politician

They’re burying Nelson Mandela today in his hometown of Qunu, in a remote eastern region of South Africa.

Indeed, the remoteness of the great man’s home brings me to an interesting point. Listening to NPR on Friday, I heard something that caught me by surprise. A Qunu villager actually was critical of Mandela for — are you ready for this? — failing to bring more modernity and infrastructure to his hometown.

The news report detailed how much hassle it would be for Qunu to prepare for this event that is drawing worldwide attention. The village lacks many modern amenities. Roads are unpaved. There’s virtually no lodging available for visiting dignitaries. Qunu lacks much of the sewage and fresh water infrastructure that is needed to accommodate the visitors.

The individual being interviewed wondered why “Madiba,” as Mandela is called, would have neglected his hometown while basking in the glory of international acclaim and reverence.

Interesting, I thought.

I’ve tried to ponder the implications of that criticism.

Imagine, then, this scenario playing out. Suppose Barack Obama would steer road and bridge development to his south Chicago neighborhood, or perhaps to Hawaii, the state of birth. Imagine if you will George W. Bush directing federal money to Crawford, Texas, where he vacationed often while he was president and where he has a small ranch; Crawford could use some highway improvements, too. What if Bill Clinton had done the same for his hometown of Hope, Ark., or George H.W. Bush done so for Houston (which doesn’t need as much federal help as many small towns in America)? Hey, Ronald Reagan came from a small town in Illinois, Dixon. Couldn’t that town have used a little presidential push to build infrastructure? Same for Plains, Ga., Jimmy Carter’s hometown.

Any of those men would have been accused of promoting pork-barrel politics above the national interest.

Might that have been the case for Nelson Mandela, who presided for a single term — from 1994 to 1999 — over what’s been called a “developing country”? Its gross domestic product goes only so far and it well might have raised more than a few eyebrows if Qunu had received money that could have been spent in other struggling villages.

Mandela will be buried today. The town will erect a suitable monument to its iconic son.

My hunch is that Nelson Mandela eventually will bring much in the form of tourist money to Qunu now that he’s gone.

His greatness lives on.

Uncategorized

Presidential term limits need to go

Jonathan Zimmerman, a history professor at New York University, says it well.

Let’s repeal the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms.

He wants to allow presidents to serve as long as the public can stand them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/end-presidential-term-limits/2013/11/28/50876456-561e-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html

His Washington Post essay lays out the case quite well. As one who opposes congressional term limits, I understand where Professor Zimmerman is coming from. Term limits already exist, in the form of elections.

Only one president ever has been elected more than twice consecutively: Franklin D. Roosevelt won a third term in 1940. He was elected to a fourth term in 1944, but died shortly after taking the oath in early 1945. His cousin Teddy was the first president to seek a third term. He served two terms consecutively after becoming president in 1901, after President William McKinley was murdered. He was elected in his own right in 1904, then walked away in 1909. He sought the presidency in 1912 as the Bull Moose candidate, but the office went to Woodrow Wilson.

Zimmerman takes note of President Obama’s low poll standing. It’s highly unlikely, at this moment at least, that he would be elected to a third term if he had the chance. Indeed, most presidents burn out after two terms. President Reagan lamented late in his second term that he would have liked the chance to run again. President Clinton said much the same thing near the end of his presidency.

The 22nd Amendment was enacted in 1947 by a Republican-controlled Congress to head off what some feared would be an imperial presidency. They didn’t like that FDR served seemingly forever. But he was the voters’ choice — four elections in a row!

As Zimmerman notes, even the Father of Our Country, George Washington, disliked the idea of term limits. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote to Marquis de Lafayette, according to Zimmerman.

Let these people serve until the voters say otherwise.