Tag Archives: U.S. Senate

What has become of Hillary the Invincible?

hillary

There once was a time — not that long ago — when Hillary Rodham Clinton was considered a shoo-in not just for her party’s presidential nomination, but for the office itself.

She was Hillary the Invincible. The 2016 Democratic presidential nomination was, to borrow that clichĂ©, “hers to lose” — although I’ve never quite understood what phrase actually means.

Then came some nasty stuff.

The Benghazi matter doesn’t count. I do not consider the Benghazi tragedy to be a “scandal,” as some media blowhards on the right have called it.

Here’s what is more troubling in my view: the e-mail matter.

The former secretary of state revealed some months ago that she used her personal e-mail server to communicate with others about, um, State Department business. That disclosure troubled me when I heard and I troubles me even more now. Why? Because of reports that — as some have feared — messages sent out into the public domain contained classified information.

The Justice Department has now ordered Clinton to turn over her personal e-mail server to the spooks at DOJ, who’ll look over all the material that went out on it. But as the Washington Post’s Chis Cillizza notes:  “It’s impossible to see this as anything but a bad thing for her presidential prospects.”

The trustworthiness issue is beginning now to dog the former first lady/U.S. senator/secretary of state. Is she for real? Is she authentic? Can she be trusted to tell us the truth all the time?

Yes, I am having doubts about all of that, right along with a lot of other Americans.

The Democratic field already has three other candidates seeking the party’s presidential nomination. I’m waiting to hear whether a fourth non-Clinton will jump in … that would be Vice President Joe Biden, about whom much has been written during his lengthy career in government.

He’s become the target of late-night comedians’ jokes because of his occasional gaffes. No one, though, doubts his authenticity or his motives for seeking a career in public service.

Whether he runs, though, likely might depend on how much damage gets done to Hillary Clinton’s once-seemingly invincible image.

 

Texas AG faces possible indictment

This one seems cut-and-dried, but it’s probably not going to be determined that way.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has actually admitted to securities fraud. He was elected anyway in 2014 as the state’s top lawyer, its chief litigator. He should be above reproach. Isn’t that correct?

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/28/grand-jury-looming-paxtons-team-and-prosecutors-sp/

He’ll be investigated by a Collin County grand jury, which will get evidence presented by the Texas Rangers, the elite investigative arm of the Department of Public Safety.

Cut-and-dried?

The Republican attorney general admits to soliciting investment clients for a friend without notifying the state in accordance with state law.

So, is Paxton guilty as charged?

Let’s walk back a few years to around 1998.

President Bill Clinton took an oath to tell the truth while testifying before a federal grand jury. The panel asked the president some questions relating to his relationship with a young White House intern. The president didn’t tell the truth about that relationship.

What did the House of Representatives do? It impeached President Clinton.

Ostensibly, the impeachment really wasn’t about the inappropriate affair with the intern. It was about whether the president followed the law. The House said his lying to the grand jury constituted an impeachable offense.

The Senate, though, acquitted the president of the counts brought against him.

So, when a state constitutional officer — the attorney general — admits to breaking state securities law, does that constitute an indictable offense?

Cut … and … dried. Maybe.

Cruz launches missile toward majority leader

Let’s see, Ted Cruz has been a U.S. senator for a little more than two years.

He’s a rookie, still serving his first term; he’s not even halfway through his first term, in fact.

So what does the Texas Republican do? Rather than adhere to the Senate’s rather strict rules of decorum regarding besmirching fellow senators’ reputation — let alone that of the majority leader — he calls the Man of the Senate a liar. In public. In a floor speech.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-calls-mitch-mcconnell-a-liar-on-senate-floor/ar-AAdslYE

Oh, boy. Now he’s done it.

Cruz is running for the Republican presidential nomination. But he took some time this week to accuse Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of going back on his word regarding legislating involving the Export-Import Bank, which Cruz wants to see abolished.

“We know now that when the majority leader looks us in the eyes and makes an explicit commitment, that he is willing to say things that he knows are false,” Cruz, said. “That has consequences for how this body operates.”

What’s the issue? McConnell inserted some amendments into a transportation funding bill that included reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank. It angered Cruz, who said McConnell had vowed that wouldn’t happen. But it did. Cruz then accused the majority leader of running the place the same way that Democrat Harry Reid did when he was majority leader.

The Senate rules can be a bit tedious. But they’re pretty clear about a few things. One of them is how senators should talk about fellow senators in public.

Rule XIX says this: “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.”

Is that clear enough? It is to me. Does the Cruz Missile know about that rule? Well, he surely does now.

This is the kind of thing that a lot of veteran senators have implied that they dislike about many of the new folks who take office in the “world’s greatest deliberative body.” They don’t respect the rules of the institution.

And yet, Cruz continues to flout them — to a rousing ovation of those who like the young man’s brashness.

He mentioned his understanding of “how this body operates.” Memo to Ted: It’s a pretty hidebound place. My guess is that there’ll be some hell to pay for the manner in which he called down the Senate’s main man.

Sen. Franken’s ‘joke’ gets a fresh look

Fifteen years ago, before he was a United States senator, Al Franken was a comedian.

And a pretty funny one at that.

He also hosted a radio talk show on the progressive Air America network.

In 2000, he wrote an essay in which he said this about Sen. John McCain: “I have tremendous respect for McCain but I don’t buy the war hero thing. Anybody can be captured. I thought the idea was to capture them. As far as I’m concerned he sat out the war.”

The statement is getting some added attention these days in light of what Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said of his fellow Republican’s service record.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/al-franken-criticize-jon-mccain-captured-donald-trump-120359.html?cmpid=sf#ixzz3gS3qJiW9

Franken was elected to the Senate in 2008 in a razor-thin margin. He has become a leading progressive Democrat in that body. According to his spokesman, he made the statement about McCain as a joke. He told McCain that very thing when McCain was a guest on Franken’s Air America radio show.

Well, whatever Franken’s motives were in his pre-Senate days, I don’t find a single thing funny about what John McCain endured for five-plus years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.

Yes, he’s saluted his Senate colleague since then. I’m sure the tributes have been sincere.

But here’s an example of how one’s words never disappear.

Bipartisan show of respect? Not … really

It’s fair to ask this question now that Beau Biden, the son of the vice president of the United States, has been eulogized and laid to rest.

Why weren’t more Republican political leaders present at the Wilmington, Del., funeral of the son of a prominent Democratic politician?

I was struck by the news coverage this morning of the service, and by the link attached to this blog, by the virtual absence of any prominent D.C. Republican at Beau Biden’s funeral.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244208-beau-biden-funeral-draws-political-heavyweights

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, was the only one mentioned. That’s it. He and the vice president are good friends, going back to their service together in the Senate. Indeed, the vice president served 36 years in the Senate and is known to have many GOP friends in both congressional chambers.

Where were they?

Hey, I’m just asking. These kinds of events almost always bring political foes together.

Almost always …

Now that I think of it, you know what would have been incredibly touching? I would have loved to have seen U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican who made the crass and ill-timed joke about the vice president — only to apologize later for it — showing up to pay his respects in person.

 

McConnell may not block judge picks after all

I’m not going to be so terribly presumptuous to assume that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell read High Plains Blogger recently and may be reacting to its — I mean my — assertion that gridlock regarding judicial appointments is bad for the nation.

Still, I am heartened to hear that despite what McConnell told a radio talk show host, he really and truly doesn’t have plans to block all future circuit court and Supreme Court appointments during the remainder of President Obama’s administration.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/244196-mcconnell-backs-away-from-judicial-shutdown-talk

The president has a number of circuit judge appointments pending in the Senate, which must approve them before the judges take their lifetime seats. A McConnell spokesman said the majority leader really didn’t say all those appointments were toast. They’d get a hearing and a vote, he said.

I’ve noted already that presidents deserve to select judicial appointees to their liking. That’s a consequence of national elections and Barack Obama has won two of them, in a row.

There’s still no word yet on what the Senate would do about a Supreme Court vacancy should one occur. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is said to be in poor health, but she says she isn’t retiring. She’s one of the liberals on the court. Her departure and a replacement wouldn’t shift the balance of power, at least theoretically.

If a conservative justice were to leave the court, well, that’s another matter.

In the meantime, the threat of locking down all future Obama appointments appears now to be lessening.

I’m left to wonder: Did the majority leader actually see my blog?

Nah. Couldn’t be … but it’s fun to wonder.

 

McConnell pledges more judicial gridlock

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laid it out there.

Talking to conservative radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, McConnell said the Senate “likely” won’t approve any more high-level circuit court or Supreme Court judges during the Obama administration.

So … if I understand it correctly, if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, say, in the next 24 hours — and it can happen, given the ages of some of the court’s senior justices — the Senate won’t confirm anyone appointed by President Obama, even though Obama has another 18 months to go before he leaves office.

That’s what the Kentucky Republican senator said, right?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244107-mcconnell-highly-likely-senate-wont-appoint-new-judges-for

I surely understand the politics of these appointments. The highest court in America comprises a slim conservative majority. Should one of the court’s conservative justices suddenly no longer be on the court, that would send the Republican majority in the Senate into sheer apoplexy. GOP senators would go ballistic at the knowledge that the “socialist/Marxist/terrorist-appeaser” president would be empowered to appoint a justice who would swing the balance of power on the court.

And oh yes, the reverse would be true if we had a conservative president appointing a justice who then might have to face confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate.

But that’s what we have.

McConnell seemed to offer himself some cover in his radio interview by noting the “bipartisan” votes the Senate has had and the bills it has approved with bipartisan majorities. So, it’s OK then to stall these appointments because, as McConnell said, the Senate is up and running like a well-oiled machine.

What a crock!

It’s fair to remind everyone — the Senate majority leader included — that Barack Obama has been elected twice by clear majorities of American voters. Part of the president’s authority rests with his ability to appoint federal judges with whom he feels comfortable. It’s in the Constitution. He can do that!

Yes, the Constitution also gives the Senate the power to “advise and consent” to the appointments. But is it truly within the Senate’s purview to obstruct qualified jurists to these posts purely on political grounds, because senators can’t stomach the notion of the high court comprising judges with whom they are uncomfortable?

Before you accuse me of being a partisan hack, I’ve noted this very thing when we’ve had GOP presidents’ high court appointments stymied by Democrats employing the same logic in seeking to block qualified judicial appointees.

I happen to be a strong believer in “presidential prerogative,” and that belief swings in both directions.

Welcome back, gridlock.

Get elected to Congress, and enrich yourself?

Median income of Americans has fallen since 2003.

How about the incomes of their elected congressional representatives? It’s gone the other direction.

http://members-of-congress.insidegov.com/stories/4235/list-congress-members-getting-richer?utm_medium=social.paid&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=ao.sp.fb.dt.4235&utm_term=insidegov

And to think that some members of Congress want a pay raise, that 174 grand a year isn’t enough, that only “rich people” can serve.

That’s the line being pushed out there by U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., along with other members of the House and Senate who gripe that they’re underpaid.

Check out the link attached to this blog and you might get a different idea of just how “impoverished” some of our elected reps and senators have become — which is to say they aren’t impoverished in the least.

Many of them have seen their portfolios increase while serving on Capitol Hill.

How does this happen? In some instances, senators and House members parlay their public standing into positions on corporate boards. All they do, then, is belong to boards of companies that reap tremendous profits and then distribute some of that wealth among board members.

Hey, it’s great “work” if you can get it.

This is the kind of stuff that makes the plea such as what’s been coming from Alcee Hastings sound ridiculous on its face.

Let’s can the give-us-a-raise talk.

Feingold seeks revenge against guy who beat him

Russ Feingold wants his old job back.

He wants to return to the U.S. Senate and he is going to run against the individual, Ron Johnson, who beat him six years ago.

Feingold is a Democrat; Johnson is a Republican. They want to represent Wisconsin in the Senate. Given the poisonous climate in Washington these days, it’s an excellent bet the two of them aren’t exactly close.

I heard today about Feingold’s decision to run for the Senate and I thought about two Texas foes who fought each other twice electorally back in the 1980s. I know they disliked each other.

Bill Clements became the first Republican elected Texas governor since Reconstruction. He defeated Democratic Gov. Dolph Briscoe in 1978.

Then came 1982 and Clements sought re-election. He ran into Democratic Texas Attorney General Mark White. He lost his bid for a second term.

Clements cooled his jets for four years and then decided to try once again. He ran against White in 1986 and scored a mirror-image victory over the Democratic incumbent.

They had built considerable hard feelings toward each going back to the 1982 campaign, which was understandable if you ever met Gov. Clements. He was an irascible fellow, but could be charming in a kind of surly way. Clements spoke bluntly, often in harsh tones, but he, as they say in the world of print journalism, was “good copy.”

Feingold and Johnson come from the farthest reaches of their respective political parties.

This campaign, assuming they both get nominated, should be fun to watch.

 

Welcome aboard, Carly Fiorina

The Republican Party’s presidential field has grown by one — or maybe it’s two — candidate.

Carly Fiorina is running for president next year. She is citing her business experience as the reason for electing her.

She knows the ins and outs of the economy, she says.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-former-ceo-fiorina-enters-white-house-race/ar-BBj9cdO

I’m your woman, Fiorina notes.

Is she? Well, she served as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, the giant techno-firm. Then the company got into some financial trouble. It merged with Compaq and the HP board decided Fiorina was leading the company in the wrong direction, or something like that.

She was forced to resign.

Fiorina, though, portrays her tenure at HP as a success, although it’s a bit of a reach to come to that conclusion. The company jettisoned a lot of jobs. Still, the says the company’s stock value grew during her time in the HP driver’s seat.

Her political career? She was a key adviser to Sen. John McCain in 2008 during the GOP nominee’s losing bid for the presidency. Fiorina then ran for the U.S. Senate in 2010 … and lost that race too.

Oh, but she says she’s not a “professional politician.” Actually, she is, by virtue of her running now for elective office for the second time in five years. Hey, I’m not quibbling, just stating what I understand to be the definition of the term “politician.”

Fiorina’s personal story is gripping. She’s a cancer survivor and she has endured the tragedy of losing a stepdaughter to drug abuse. Those events surely have steeled her for the tough campaign that awaits.

I heard this morning that Ben Carson is about to join the Republican field, so he’s going to take a bit of the attention away from Fiorina, whose poll numbers are pretty low as it is.

I’m now going to wait for her Republican debate opponents to ask her to explain how her checkered business record commends her for the job of running a multitrillion-dollar enterprise called The Federal Government.