Tag Archives: John McCain

military news, national news, Uncategorized

Finally! A clarification of 'natural-born citizen'

Where were these fellows, say, in 2007, 2008 and for most of Barack Obama’s first term a president of the United States?

Two former solicitors general of the United States have settled — in my mind, at least — the issue that polluted the political atmosphere until the time Obama was re-elected in November 2012. They’ve defined the term “natural born citizen” as stated in the U.S. Constitution.

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, writing for the Harvard Law Review, say with virtually zero reservation that “natural  born citizen” applies to anyone who becomes an American immediately upon  birth, irrespective of where that birth occurred. At issue is whether that circumstances affects the qualifications of anyone seeking to run for president. Is that constitutionally qualified yes? Katyal and Clement say “yes.”

The issue has been discussed at times. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before Arizona became a state. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone when it was a U.S. territory. George Romney was born in Mexico. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Three of those men already have run for president; Cruz is expected to run for the 2016 Republican nomination.

All four men were U.S. citizens upon birth. Goldwater’s parents were citizens, as were McCain’s and Romney’s. Cruz’s mother is an American. Therefore, that qualifies them to hold the highest office in the land.

Oh, and what about Barack Obama?

Remember all that baloney about whether he was constitutionally qualified, that he was born in Kenya and that, according to the yahoos who sought to make a big deal out of his birthplace? Katyal and Clement say none of that mattered one little bit.

Obama’s mother was an American, which meant he was bestowed full U.S. citizenship the moment he was born to her and his Kenyan father — in Honolulu, Hawaii, the 50th state to join the Union.

A cousin of mine sent me the attached link to let me know that Ted Cruz also is qualified to run for president. My cousin is likely to support Cruz’s president.

But in truth, I’ve long believed that Cruz was qualified under Article II of the Constitution to hold the office, just as I was certain that Goldwater, McCain Romney and Obama could serve in that office.

I just wish the Harvard Law Review article could have settled this issue long before now.

Better late than never, right?

International news

Lighten up on the formality thing

Michael Strain needs to relax a little, maybe meet some folks and get on a first-name basis with them.

Strain is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and has written an essay for the Washington Post in which he express disgust that President Obama referred to German Chancellor Angela Merkel several times by her first name. It occurred during a joint press conference.

Strain was aghast at what he calls “false intimacy.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/02/18/please-address-me-as-mister-i-insist/?tid=sm_fb

Holy mackerel, Mike! Get a grip.

I’ll call him Mike, even though I don’t know the fellow. What’s he going to do in the remote chance he reads this? Will he come unglued the way he did over Barack’s faux familiarity with Angela?

I doubt it.

These kinds of exchanges don’t bother me. As a friend of mine, Dan, noted on a Facebook post, it might not have bothered Mike when President Bush rubbed Chancellor Merkel’s shoulders during a G-8 Summit some years back. For that matter, I recall only a few snarky comments about the moment that was video recorded for the world to see. Then it passed. Nothing else was said. No harm, no foul, right?

I have noted before, though, that the president does have a habit of referring to fellow members of the U.S. government by their first names while they refer to him publicly as “Mr. President.” I recall a meeting held at the White House with congressional leaders and Sen. John McCain was protesting a policy initiative coming from the White House. He referred to Obama as Mr. President, and the president referred directly to his 2008 campaign foe simply as “John.”

The exchange seemed oddly disproportionate and it bordered on disrespectful.

But such an exchange between heads of government? Hey, no problem.

Besides, has anyone bothered to ask the chancellor if she objects? Believe me, if she did, she’d say so and the president would refer to her differently.

So, lighten up, Mike.

 

national news, political news

Second thoughts on 'scum' comment

We’re all entitled to having second thoughts, aren’t we?

I put a tweet out there a few days ago in response to Sen. John McCain’s angry comment at protesters who were holding up signs while several former secretaries of state were testifying before McCain’s Senate Armed Services Committee.

He called them “low-life scum.” I said they were entitled to protest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/01/mccain-im-still-outraged-by-kissinger-protesters-at-hearing/?tid=sm_tw

Well, McCain’s anger was justified in one important sense.

One of the former diplomats they were accosting in the hearing room was 91-year-old Henry Kissinger, who served Presidents Nixon and Ford and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating an end to the Vietnam War. Also testifying with Kissinger were Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice.

Yes, the demonstrators had a right to protest. They should have demonstrated at least a bit of decorum and kept their distance from Kissinger, Rice and Albright. Kissinger in particular was actually threatened physically by the demonstrators, who were carrying signs that declared Kissinger to be a “war criminal.”

McCain made no apologies for his outburst. In retrospect, I wouldn’t have apologized, either.

“Of course, I was outraged, and I’m still outraged. It’s one thing to stand up and protest. It’s another to physically threaten an individual,” Chairman McCain said.

You were right to be angry, Mr. Chairman.

 

national news, political news

Palin's non-speech sours GOP base

Can it really be that the hard right wing of the Republican Party has come to its senses regarding a former half-term Alaska governor who for the past half-dozen years or so has been its darling?

Sarah Palin stood before the Iowa Freedom Summit and delivered what can only be described as a rhetorical goulash of blather.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/palin%e2%80%99s-speech-draws-fire-from-the-right/ar-AA8HGpj

It didn’t play well in Peoria, let alone in GOP strategists’ living rooms.

Her TelePrompter, loaded with prepared remarks, went pffftt. Left to her devices, Palin stammered her way through a bizarre litany of nonsensical sentences.

As the Washington Post described it: “Her address was a 31 1/2-minute roller coaster ride of cliches, non sequiturs and warmed-over grievances. One line that stood out: ‘GOP leaders, by the way, you know, ‘The Man,’ can only ride ya when your back is bent. So strengthen it. Then The Man can’t ride ya.’”

Huh?

The Post reports that the critiques from those who heard Palin were harsh and unforgiving.

Darn! I was hoping she’d make a go of it, that her “serious” consideration of a White House campaign in 2016 would turn into the real thing.

Silly me. I guess I had forgotten — if only for a moment or two — about how miserable a campaigner she turned out to be when Sen. John McCain selected her as his vice-presidential running mate in the 2008 White House campaign. Or that she’d gotten twisted up in that goofy reality TV show. Or that she’s making a lot of money as a Fox News “contributor”; her precise contribution to Fox remains something of a mystery.

I suppose there’s some other stuff to mention, but I’ll just let it lie.

With that, I’ll bid adieu to Sarah Palin. It was nice while it lasted.

 

political news

Palin now 'seriously' considering a WH run

Sarah Palin has gone from “considering” a campaign for the presidency to “seriously considering” it in 2016.

Oh, boy. This is getting fun.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/27/palin_hits_quasi-conservative_fox_on_fox_dings_oreilly_for_calling_potential_candidacy_reality_show.html

Palin dinged Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly for having the temerity to refer to a possible Palin campaign as a “reality show.” She went after who she calls “quasi-conservatives,” who, I guess, aren’t like her, which I suppose is a “true conservative.”

Truth be told, I no longer recognize the modern version of conservatism as I’ve always understood its political meaning.

A part of me laughs off a possible Palin candidacy. It cannot possibly be serious. Indeed, in the book “Game Change,” a chronicle of the 2008 presidential campaign, key advisers to Republican nominee Sen. John McCain acknowledged not vetting Palin after her name emerged as a possible pick to join McCain on the Republican ticket. McCain’s senior political adviser Steve Schmidt acknowledges now that it was a huge mistake to select Palin to run with McCain.

Yet, another part of me would welcome a Palin campaign, perhaps for the same reason I’m cheering for Mitt Romney to run again. Mitt made some goofs while running for president in 2012. Palin has written the book on gaffes, blunders and foul-ups since her 2008 campaign for VP. So, maybe this is her chance at redemption.

Sounds good, yes? Sure, except that Mitt is a serious politician, while Sarah Barracuda is not.

Mitt can redeem his reputation. Palin is a lost cause.

 

political news

Go for it, Sarah!

Sarah Palin says “of course” she’s interested in running for president of the United States in 2016.

I don’t know how many potential candidates have made such a declaration. I think I’ve lost count.

This one, though, is laughable on its face.

Yet here I am. Commenting, albeit briefly, on it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/sarah-palin-possible-2016-run-114534.html?hp=r3_3

Palin is the former half-term governor of Alaska. She was the Republican nominee for vice president in 2008. Then she “went rogue,” and might have cost the ticket led by Sen. John McCain millions of votes the GOP otherwise might have gotten.

She won’t run for president. Not this year. Not ever.

Palin is, shall we say, damaged goods.

The reality TV show? The strange behavior of her family getting involved — allegedly — in a fight at an Anchorage house party? The absolute absence of any knowledge of anything beyond TEA party talking points?

Republicans are going to be blessed in 2016 with a relatively stellar field of potential candidates. It’ll be filled with heavyweights, individuals of actual accomplishment. Some of them are reasonable, rational, intelligent and articulate.

Sarah Palin? Not … a … chance.

Then again, why not? She’ll liven it up, yes? You betcha.

 

political news

Now it's Sen. Graham thinking about '16 bid

Oh boy, I can hardly contain my enthusiasm for the upcoming presidential campaign.

The potential Republican field just got another name to ponder: Lindsey Graham, the senior U.S. senator from South Carolina.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/lindsey-graham-2016-elections-south-carolina-114362.html

Why is this such an interesting development?

Graham is a noted conservative from a deeply conservative state. He and fellow Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona take turns bashing the dickens out of President Obama, particularly on foreign policy — which is understandable, given that the domestic economy is starting to rock along. Heck, sometimes Graham and McCain are singing together.

However, Graham has had this annoying tendency — if you’re a Republican — to say nice things about some of the appointees the president puts forward to fill key administration posts. While many other GOP senators were slamming Loretta Lynch as the next attorney general, Graham said she’s a solid pick, highly qualified and he indicated his intentions to vote to confirm her when the time comes.

This is the kind of thing that’s going to make him a target among other GOP White House contenders when they line up to debate — if Graham decides to run, of course.

He’s a sharp lawyer. Remember when, as a member of the House, he managed the Republicans’ successful effort at impeaching President Clinton? Well, the Senate decided correctly to acquit the president of those “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

So, as he told “Meet the Press” today, he’s thinking seriously about a presidential bid. He told NBC’s Chuck Todd that he has “set up a testing-the-waters committee under the IRS code that will allow me to look beyond South Carolina as to whether or not a guy like Lindsey Graham has a viable path.”

Just one request, Sen. Graham, if you take the plunge: Stop referring to yourself in the third person.

national news, political news

If you can't lick 'em, get rid of 'em

John McCain is getting ready, it seems, for yet another run for re-election to the U.S. Senate from Arizona.

What’s more, he’s launching a pre-emptive strike against the wing of the Republican Party that is likely to challenge him. I’m talking about the TEA party wing of the GOP.

McCain is making an effort to purge the Arizona Republican Party of TEA party activists and replacing them with mainstream Republicans — like himself.

Not that he cares what a Texas liberal thinks, but hey — go, John, go!

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/john-mccain-arizona-tea-party-113849.html?ml=po

As Politico reports: “The ambitious effort — detailed to POLITICO by nearly a dozen McCain operatives, donors, and friends — has stretched from office buildings in Alexandria, Virginia, where strategists plotted and fundraisers collected cash for a super PAC, to Vietnamese-American communities across Arizona, where recruiters sought out supporters eager to help the incumbent defeat the tea party.

“Team McCain’s goal? Unseat conservative activists who hold obscure, but influential, local party offices.”

I believe that’s how you play hardball politics in Arizona.

Arizona political rules are a bit strange, according to Politico. It allows for the election of precinct committee men, who then elect party chairs — who then assume powerful roles in recruiting candidates to seek public office. As of this past August, most of those party chairs and precinct committee folks were considered McCain foes. He’s working now to replace them with friends, allies, loyalists — those who favor his re-election to his umpteenth term in the Senate.

TEA party activists and other Republican conservatives consider McCain to be too moderate. He’s just not tough enough on immigration, for example. They want his head on a platter — so to speak, of course — because he’s just too darn chummy with some Senate Democrats. I would hasten to add that the media love McCain because he’s, well, quite quotable. He makes “good copy,” to use the journalist’s parlance.

Many conservatives consider McCain to be washed up, past his prime, part of the problem. He knows the Senate. He understands the art of legislation.

I hope he’s just getting warmed up.

 

national news

McCain vs. Cheney on torture

An interesting face-off is occurring within the Republican Party over the definition of torture.

In one corner is Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war and a serious expert on torture.

In the other corner is former Vice President Dick Cheney, who’s never been subjected to torture but who supports the use of what’s called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

McCain says the United States shouldn’t use those “EITs” on suspected terrorists because they aren’t in keeping with American values.

Cheney says he’d do all it all over again if given the chance and says the EITs do not constitute torture.

Let’s see. Who’s more credible? I think I’ll go with McCain.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/gop-heavyweights-mccain-cheney-opposing-203948345.html

I’ll be clear. I didn’t vote for McCain when he ran for president in 2008. Nor did I vote for the George W. Bush/Cheney ticket in either 2000 or 2004. Politics isn’t part of my leaning.

What informs me here is McCain’s stature as a war hero and a POW who endured torture at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors from 1967 to 1973. The man knows torture. He says without hesitation that waterboarding, rectal feeding, sleep deprivation and stress positions constitute torture.

Cheney’s first-hand knowledge of torture? He doesn’t have any. However, he speaks with an equal lack of hesitation that we gained knowledge from the bad guys by using the EITs.

McCain disputes that assertion, saying that captives will “say anything” to avoid further pain and suffering.

How does McCain know that? Again, he speaks from brutal and intense personal experience.

Yep. I’m siding with McCain on this one.

 

International news, national news

It's Cheney who's 'full of crap'

Richard Bruce Cheney doesn’t believe, apparently, in the same America many millions of others do.

Oh sure. Many millions of other Americans support the former vice president’s world view. I respect that. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with Cheney. No surprise there, right?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/cheney-slams-senate-torture-report-says-practices-were-effective?CID=sm_FB

It’s that report on torture that’s got Cheney all wadded up.

The report released by Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats asserts that the United States employed illegal interrogation techniques on alleged terrorists taken captive immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Cheney’s view — as if anyone expected otherwise — is to say the “enhanced interrogation techniques” produced “actionable intelligence” that protected Americans from further attacks.

The report says otherwise.

I also am going to climb aboard the same wagon as a bona fide American war hero, Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain, who speaks from personal experience in expressing his support for what the Intelligence Committee Democrats say about torture techniques. McCain’s view of those “EITs” is formed by his own experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. He said that captives will say anything to stop the pain and that the information they give to the enemy is more bogus than believable.

Cheney continues to defend tactics that are not in keeping with the values we hold dear in this country. Yes, we’re at war with some loathsome organizations that employ equally loathsome tactics on the people they capture. Does that mean we should sink to that level of barbarism? No.

It means we employ our own sophisticated interrogation techniques to glean information.

And no, no one is saying we should kiss the captives on the cheek, as some have suggested.

What the Senate panel is saying, as I understand it, is that the United States must be true to its claim of being better than the enemy we’re seeking to destroy.