Uncategorized

‘Court-packing scheme’ is specious argument

The National Review Online is supposed to be a respected publication.

The editorial attached to this post, however, suggests that the folks who run the publication fail to understand a key component of the U.S. Constitution. It’s the part that gives the president of the United States the authority to make critical executive and judicial branch appointments.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364556/nuclear-fallout-editors

The NRO is upset with Senate Democrats’ decision to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” as it relates to the filibuster. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took the highly risky step as a way to allow President Obama to have his appointments cleared from a Senate that had obstructed them through the use of the filibuster. It once took 60 votes out of 100 to break a filibuster. It now takes just 51 votes. The rule change involves all appointments except those involving the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Senate has nuked itself.

The NRO, though, says that the filibuster is secondary to what it says is the real reason for the action. “The filibuster is a minor issue; the major issue is that President Obama is engaged in a court-packing scheme to protect his dubious agenda, and Harry Reid’s Senate is conspiring with him to do so,” the NRO writes.

A number of judicial appointments have been blocked by Senate Republicans that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the men and women selected. Obama seeks to fill them because, well, he is the president and the Constitution gives the person in that office the authority to act. Yes, the Constitution also gives the Senate the right to “advise and consent” to the nominations. That role, though, should be on the basis of whether someone is qualified for the job.

I’ve long believed strongly in presidential prerogative. I’ve also believed that presidents who win elections have earned the right to pick whomever they wish to key positions. This might surprise some readers of this blog, but I supported the nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991 of one Clarence Thomas, despite the uproar that arose from his selection when a woman accused him of sexual harassment.

The complaint was never proved. Thomas was qualified to serve on the highest court. Was he the kind of judge I would have picked? No. That job, though, fell to the man who was elected president in 1988, George H.W. Bush. Therefore, the president had earned the right to seat someone of his choosing on the court.

Barack Obama has precisely the same right as any of the men who’ve served before him. The Senate shouldn’t serve as a place where these nominations are stopped because of some trumped-up scheme manufactured by his political opponents.

Court-packing? Give me a break. President Obama’s job involves making appointments. Let him do that job and let the people he selects be examined on the basis of their qualifications.

Uncategorized

Women hold key to Democrats’ future?

Leticia Van de Putte has become the latest candidate for Texas lieutenant governor.

The biggest news of all simply might be that she isn’t a Republican. She’s a Democratic state senator from South Texas who now stands as the prohibitive favorite to win her party’s nomination in next spring’s primary.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/11/24/women-led-ticket-shows-where-democrats-pin-hopes/

Van de Putte will face a tough challenge if she hopes to break the GOP’s vise-grip on statewide offices. She joins another prominent Democrat, state Sen. Wendy Davis, at the top of the ballot; Davis is an equally prohibitive favorite to be the Democratic nominee for governor.

As the Texas Tribune points out in the link attached to this blog post, Democrats may be targeting suburban women as their essential voting demographic group. Women, Democrats hope, just might be upset enough at Republicans’ view of abortion that they’ll turn out in sufficient numbers next year to elect fellow women to high office.

It’s a big risk. Texas Republicans have good reason to be confident as election year approaches.

Their candidates — namely Attorney General Greg Abbott — are flush with money. Abbott is the clear favorite to win the GOP governor’s primary and he is in strong position to win the big prize next November. Davis presents Democrats with their strongest gubernatorial candidate in many election cycles. Van de Putte joined Davis this past spring in battling legislative Republicans over a restrictive GOP-sponsored abortion laws.

Will these two candidates be able to parlay that notoriety into votes this coming fall?

Democrats hope so. In a state that remains solidly in Republican hands, their hope might resemble a pipe dream.

I do know this: A most interesting lieutenant governor’s race just got even more so with Leticia Van de Putte’s entry.

Uncategorized

Iran nuke deal: mistake or triumph?

Here is what I understand about the deal brokered in the wee hours today to persuade Iran to stop its nuclear development program.

* For the next six months, United States and other nations will be allowed daily access to Iran’s agreement to dismantle some of its nuclear enrichment program.

* There will be a lifting of a tiny fraction of the sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy.

* The six-month interim agreement will enable the great powers and Iran to continue negotiating toward a comprehensive long-term agreement aimed at eliminating the threat that Iran would develop a nuclear weapon.

* If the Iranians do not comply with all the elements of this agreement, the sanctions will be restored and Iran will continue to pay a huge price as a rogue nation.

And this, according to Republicans in Congress and our friends in Israel is a “historic mistake”?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/24/21591860-historic-mistake-israelis-republicans-condemn-iran-nuclear-deal?lite

I happen to have great sympathy for the Israeli point of view here. I got to spend five weeks in Israel in 2009 and saw first hand the damage that has been inflicted on that country by forces dedicated to Israel’s elimination. Iran is one of Israel’s sworn enemies.

However, let’s look at a bigger picture here.

Iran has returned to the negotiating table with much of the rest of the civilized world. That, by itself, must be considered a positive development. Iranians say their nuke program is intended for peaceful purposes. No one believes that contention. I surely don’t.

However, the Iranians understand the price they are paying — through the sanctions imposed by the world — is too great a burden for their people. It is surely plausible for them to want to restore some semblance of normalcy in their dealings with the rest of the world, and agreeing to work toward the end of its nuclear development program is one avenue toward that restoration.

The newly elected Iranian president has declared his intention to change Iran’s relationship with the rest of the world. Is he to be believed? Well, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calls Iranian President Hassan Rouhani a “wolf in wolf’s clothing.”

Netanyahu’s view of this agreement is stained by the blood that has been shed already in his country. I get that. However, from my perch many thousands of miles away, I am interested to see how stern the United States and our allies will be in holding Iran accountable for following through on this huge agreement.

Secretary of State John Kerry says there is “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israeli positions regarding the end of Iran’s nuclear program. Kerry says the United States stands foursquare with Israel.

Let us now move forward on this agreement — and make damn sure Iran complies.

Uncategorized

Share the credit over good energy news

Politics by definition is a competitive sport of sorts, with folks on one side trying to get the advantage over those on the other side.

So it is with the news about U.S. energy production.

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/191163-white-house-gop-battle-over-energy-production-surge

Republicans say they deserve credit for their hands-off policies that have allowed energy producers to explore for fossil fuels on private lands. Democrats hail their policies that have promoted more renewable energy resources, decreasing the demand on fossil fuels.

Who gets the credit for some good energy news?

Both sides deserve a share of it. Why not spread the good cheer around?

Oh, I forgot. Politics gets in the way.

My Republican friends here in the Texas Panhandle aren’t willing to give those blasted Democrats any credit for anything. They contend that Democrats have worked to stifle energy production by seeking to ban exploration on public lands and by creating a tax environment that makes it cost prohibitive for energy producers to, well, produce energy.

Some of that criticism is fair. Some of it isn’t.

Democrats, led by the president of the United States, have sought to incentivize exploration and production of alternative energy. Wind, solar and hydro power are replacing fossil fuel-driven energy plants.

Automakers are getting smarter about building more fuel-efficient motor vehicles.

It’s not that we’re no longer drilling for oil and natural gas. The Energy Information Administration reports that the U.S. energy producers developed 7.7 million barrels per day in October, which means that the country produced more oil than it imported for the first time since 1995.

All of this news, taken together, gives all the principals a hand in this relatively good news.

The Obama administration has helped it along with its push toward greater use of alternative energy sources. Republicans have done their part by pursuing greater exploration for domestic fossil fuel.

There. Share the credit.

Uncategorized

Senate needs ‘anti-bullying ordinance’?

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is continuing to make the high-minded case that Senate Democrats have become “bullies” and that their changing the filibuster rules to take the teeth out of Senate Republicans’ ability to have their voices heard.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/21/rand_paul_harry_reid_is_the_dictator_of_the_senate.html

If that’s the case, then perhaps Sen. Paul can declare as well that if Republicans take over the Senate next year that they’ll give back to the newly minted Democratic minority the same weapons the GOP has been denied.

Democrats this week changed the rules to make it easier to end filibusters that have blocked several judicial and other appointments made by President Obama. The rule used to require a 60-vote majority to end a filibuster; now it only takes a simple majority of 51 votes. The new rule, by the way, will still require a 60-vote majority to end filibusters of Supreme Court appointments.

Why deploy the so-called Senate “nuclear option”? Democratic Leader Harry Reid said he’d grown tired of Republicans’ efforts to stymie the president’s ability to fill key executive and judicial spots.

Republicans have complained that Democrats simply have changed the rules to suit their own political agenda. They have cited the Founding Fathers’ intent to create a “cooling environment” in the Senate that would temper a more “populist” House of Representatives. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says the Senate now looks just like the House, that it will be driven more by partisan anger than by reasonable discourse.

Please.

If that is as Republicans say it is, and if the GOP wins control of the Senate next year, then surely they’ll restore civility, collegiality and fairness to the body, yes? They’ll no doubt want to level the playing field for Democrats to show that they, Senate Republicans, are more fair-minded than their “friends” on the other side of the aisle.

That’ll happen, right?

Do not bet a nickel on it. Revenge will be the order of the day.

Uncategorized

Nation needs to be inspired again

John F. Kennedy wasn’t on the national stage all that long.

His presidency lasted about 1,000 days. He had served in the U.S. Senate a short time before that. He didn’t exactly inspire the nation with a lengthy legislative record. His time in the House was even less inspiring. Yes, he did serve heroically during World War II.

Even though his death — which the nation commemorated on Friday — took him from us much too soon, he did manage to leave behind quite a legacy of inspiration.

My favorite is attached here.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151776993566569&set=a.106316871568.89084.20787991568&type=1&theater

The president challenged a nation from within at a time when it was being challenged from beyond our borders. We were locked in a Cold War with the Soviet Union, which would become known during the Ronald Reagan years as the Evil Empire. The Soviets were our chief geopolitical adversary then, far more than they are now — no matter what one-time Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney might have said a year ago.

We sparred with the Soviets for supremacy on the world stage. We sought to beat them in a race into space. We won that race.

But the remarks JFK gave regarding that challenge — that we do these “not because they are easy, but because they are hard” — spoke far beyond a “mere” race to the moon. He sought to challenge his constituents to accept any challenge.

As we look back on JFK’s limited but still-inspiring legacy, it gives us pause to wonder whether we’re up to that challenge again.

I keep hoping that one day — I cannot predict when — we can set aside the deep partisan differences in government and set our sights on something grander.

It might be that we need a foe we can identify, someone or something with a face, a name, a clearly defined ideology.

Absent that, we need leadership that can take us above the bickering that has stalled the machinery of our government. John F. Kennedy knew how to tap into our innate spirit of challenge.

I believe it’s still there, waiting to tapped once again.

Uncategorized

Keep braggin’ on Texas, governor

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is proud of his state and is unafraid to say so.

Economically, if not politically, I have to agree that Texas has outshone much of the rest of the nation. Does the governor deserve credit for the successes? Partly, yes.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2013/11/rick-perry-texas-wins/

Perry recently got a glowing report on his state from Arthur Laffer, the godfather of supply-side economics, who says the state’s low-tax, business-friendly and low-regulation environment has helped businesses prosper while other states have languished in recent years.

Fair point.

What’s not accurate is for Laffer to say that Perry “is the person who is responsible for the Texas miracle.” Texas government is full of individuals who believe they deserve credit as well. The governor isn’t a one-man job-creation machine.

Still, for the governor to boast at a Texas Public Policy Foundation event in Austin is totally appropriate. It reminds, conversely, of how crass it has been for the governor to take that message into other states’ territory on these highly publicized and — in my view — questionable job-poaching excursions. He’s gone to places like California, Illinois and New York to declare to business executives that they should relocate to Texas, a move that would deprive other states of economic benefit.

Perry has been met with derision by governors of those states. Of course, it’s a highly partisan effort, given that all the states mentioned here are governed by Democrats — as opposed to Republicans, such as Perry.

Indeed, Texas’s economic success is well-known around the world. The governor can brag all he wants about how well the state is doing. I promise, the word will get out.

Uncategorized

Say it ain’t so, airline companies

I awoke this morning, walked out of the bedroom and heard the chatter from the TV and what I heard was the most horrifying bit of travel news I’ve heard in years — and it had nothing to do with crappy weather.

What I heard was that airline companies might be considering lifting the ban on in-flight cell phone use by passengers.

That is the worst news I’ve ever heard as it relates to any form of travel.

The Federal Aviation Administration recently lifted the ban on in-flight use of other electronic devices: I-Pads, laptops, those sorts of gadgets.

But cell phones? Oh, my goodness.

The “Good Morning America” talking heads said this morning that it will take “up to a year” to decide whether to allow this idiocy on board jetliners.

The initial reaction from flight attendants is encouraging: They hate it … with a passion.

Passengers aren’t happy about it, either. One guy compared the annoyance of sitting next to someone blabbing on a cell phone to “sitting next to a crying baby.” I disagree. The cell phone user is much worse. The crying baby doesn’t know any better. The moron flapping his/her gums on a cell phone on a crowded airplane certainly does know better.

The FAA will have to consider this one very carefully if it’s halfway serious about lifting the ban. Any decision to allow this kind of activity aboard a jetliner is going to guarantee that I never — not ever — will fly commercially again.

I hope I’m not alone. Indeed, I suspect the threat of losing millions of other passengers just might be enough to persuade airline companies and federal regulators to scrap this idiotic idea.

Uncategorized

Fallout expected from Senate ‘nuclear’ blast

U.S. Senate Democrats went “nuclear” today.

No one was hurt, at least not physically. There might be some political injury as a result. To whom, though, remains an open question.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/21/harry-reid-likely-to-go-nuclear-today/?hpt=hp_bn3

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid carried through with his threat to employ the “nuclear option” regarding filibusters. Before today’s action, ending a filibuster required 60 votes, out of 100 senators. Today, the rules changed. All it takes after today is a simple majority of 51 votes.

The aim is to push through some appointees whose confirmation had been held up by stubborn Republican senators. The appointees in question were picked by President Obama to sit on the D.C. Court of Appeals, the second-most critical federal bench, after the U.S. Supreme Court. Three highly qualified jurists’ appointments were held up by GOP filibusters.

It’s a pattern that the Republican minority has followed since Barack Obama took office in January 2009. The president today endorsed the Senate Democrats’ action — no surprise there — by declaring “enough is enough.” He noted that four of President George W. Bush’s five appointees to that court were approved by the Senate, while his appointees have been blocked.

Republicans objected — again, no surprise — by using high-minded language about the “tyranny of the majority,” declaring that Democrats were exercising “raw power” in seeking to deny the Senate minority a voice.

Two points need to be made.

First is that the Senate needs to function in its “advise and consent” role. Blocking judicial appointments, or any other presidential pick just because they can is not in keeping with the constitutional provision. Presidents, by virtue of their election to the nation’s highest office, deserve the right to select qualified individuals to serve. That’s a perk that goes with winning an election. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said today that GOP objections to the D.C. court selections had nothing to do with the nominees’ qualifications. To “advise and consent” is supposed to allow senators to determine whether someone is fit for the office to which they’ve been appointed.

The second point is to question whether Senate Republicans are willing to stand by their noble objections should they gain the majority after next year’s election, which is no sure thing. If they believe in the right of the minority party to have a voice in determining the flow of business, would Senate Republicans — if they occupy most of the Senate’s 100 seats in January 2015 — be willing to return to the 60-vote filibuster-busting rule? Would they grant the new Democratic minority the same opportunity to block appointments that the GOP has had since Barack Obama took office?

The Senate has to work for the people. As for the second point, I am not holding my breath on Senate Republicans sticking to their principled objections.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience