Tag Archives: Capitol Hill

national news, political news

Absence same as 'no' vote? No … it isn't

1 Comment

I really do like having Ted Cruz in the U.S. Senate.

He offers so much grist for folks like me on which to comment.

The freshman Republican senator said this the other day about his absence on a vote that confirmed Loretta Lynch as the latest U.S. attorney general: “Absence is the equivalent of a ‘no’ vote.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/ted-cruz-loretta-lynch-no-vote-explanation-117528.html?hp=l2_4

There you have it. He missed the vote because he had a prior commitment to attend a fundraiser back home in Texas. Cruz had voted earlier on a motion to end a filibuster on Lynch’s nomination; he voted to keep the filibuster going.

The filibuster was broken, the vote took place, Lynch had the votes to win confirmation. So, what was the point of Cruz being there to cast his expected “no” vote on Lynch?

Well shoot, senator. It mattered because you didn’t put it on the record. It’s not part of the Senate’s official voting record.

I’m still uncertain precisely why Cruz disapproves so strongly of Lynch’s ascending to the office of attorney general, other than her support of President Obama’s executive order granting temporary amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. I guess Cruz doesn’t much like the notion of an attorney general supporting the policies of the president who appoints her to the Cabinet, where everyone serves at the pleasure of the president of the United States.

That’s been the mantra of other senators who opposed Lynch, even those who said upon the announcement of her appointment that she is “highly qualified.” Some of those former supporters changed their mind when she declared her backing for the president’s action on immigration.

I think it’s strange. Then again, that’s just me.

What the heck. Sen. Cruz was entitled to attend the fundraiser. He’s running for president, after all. Let’s not assume, though, that this issue of non-voting on this confirmation — as well as other key votes he’s missed while campaigning for the White House — will disappear.

It’s the price a sitting member of Congress pays when he or she seeks the highest office in the land. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton paid it when they ran in 2008. Sen. Cruz can expect the same thing in 2016.

 

 

national news

Oops … congressman caught with assault rifle

Ken Buck is a Colorado member of Congress who, I guess, likes to be photographed with high-powered weapons.

He needs to take care where he records these events.

The Republican lawmaker was photographed recently packing an AR-15 assault rifle. He was posing with fellow GOP U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-congressman-who-posed-with-gun-in-office-could-face-probe/ar-AAbsBnC

What’s the problem?

The District of Columbia prohibits these kinds of weapons. Thus, Buck may have broken the federal district’s gun laws.

Buck calls the rifle a “beautiful, patriotic paperweight.” It’s pained red, white and blue.

Local laws are to be followed, correct? So, if the District of Columbia bans ownership of these firearms, does it prosecute a member of Congress for breaking the law?

Let’s all stay tuned to this one.

 

International news

'Insurrection' is such an insidious term

The word “insurrection” has been raised in the debate over opposition to President Obama’s constitutionally mandated authority.

I looked it up to be sure it is being used in the correct context. The trusty ol’ American Heritage Dictionary says this of the term: “The act or instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government.”

Scary, yes? Absolutely.

Colbert King of the Washington Post suggests and insurrection may be mounting against Obama’s authority in states that are clinging to some notion that they can ignore federal mandates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-rising-insurrection-against-obama/2015/04/03/d00e39f6-d94f-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

The lead in his column says this: “It’s a scary thought, but here it is: If some red states were to openly defy the authority of President Obama in the exercise of his constitutional duties, would today’s Republican Congress side with him? Or would they honor the insurrection?”

King isn’t sure Republicans in Congress would stand with the president. Take a look at his column.

He cites a recent Arizona House of Representatives decision, approved on party lines, that “prohibits this state or any of its political subdivisions from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with an executive order issued by the President of the U.S. that has not been affirmed by a vote of Congress and signed into law as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.”

Do you get it?

It means the Arizona legislature would oppose a constitutionally valid executive order that didn’t have congressional approval.

Arizona’s elected representatives are trying to stick it in the president’s eye.

The state Senate has to approve it before it becomes law.

Suppose it does. Arizona then would claim authority to ignore any federal decision made by the White House that is supposed to affect all 50 states. Arizona is one of the 50.

Colbert wonders why this issue has gotten the silent treatment on Capitol Hill: “The word ‘insurrection’ does come to mind. Yet the resistance out West to federal authority has been received in virtual silence on Capitol Hill. It’s almost as if the GOP Congress wanted an uprising against the president.”

It’s one thing to disagree with a president, or with Congress, on policy matters. The idea, though, that some Americans are pondering the idea of open revolt — an insurrection — simply goes beyond the pale.

Something quite dark and sinister seems to be brewing out West.

 

International news

Iran nuke deal worth the gamble

The more I read about the Iran nuclear deal framework, the more inclined I am to give it a chance to work.

It’s not going to gather much support among Republicans who control the U.S. Congress. They’re going to oppose it no matter what, given that it was hammered out by a negotiating team sent to the bargaining table by President Barack Obama.

The Los Angeles Times has editorialized correctly that the framework requires some patience, but that it does hold the promise of making the Middle East safer.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-iran-nuclear-framework-20150403-story.html

The critical point, according to the Times, lies in the verification process.

Nuclear agency officials will have ample opportunity to ensure that Iran complies with its pledge to reduce its centrifuges. Iran also has agreed to limits on its enrichment of uranium. The economic sanctions? They’ll remain until Iran complies. If it doesn’t, the sanctions remain.

That won’t stop congressional Republicans from a knee-jerk opposition to the agreement. They are dead set against this deal. Their reasons baffle me. They use fiery demagoguery language by referring to the U.S.-led negotiating team to the “appeasers” who gave Europe away to Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s.

How about settling down?

This framework could fall apart. There remain a lot of details to work out. Absent a binding agreement, Iran will be free to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon as it sees fit. What then? Do we bomb them? Do we start a war in the Middle East? Do we really want to let the bombs fly, putting the entire region at risk?

The agreement needs a chance to work.

 

national news, political news

R.I.P., Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate

1 Comment

President Barack Obama was among many dignitaries gathered this week in Boston to honor the opening of an institute that tells the story of the U.S. Senate.

The Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate honors a place that the late Massachusetts Democrat served for more than three decades. The Senate that Kennedy served no longer exists, according to the president.

What a shame.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/letter-from-boston-obama-says-kennedys-senate-is-dead-116516.html?hp=b1_r3

Ted Kennedy was admired and reviled. His friends cherished his loyalty. His foes loathed his ferocity.

Kennedy, though, had this amazing ability to make friends across the political aisle. Many of his former political foes came to Boston to remember him for his wit and for the good cheer he spread among those he met.

Where is that collegiality now? Barack Obama wondered how the Senate functions today.

“What if we carried ourselves more like Ted Kennedy? What if we worked to follow his example a little bit harder?” Obama said. “People fight to get in the Senate, and then they’re afraid. We fight to get these positions and then don’t want to do anything with them. Ted understood the only reason to get these positions is to get something done.”

No, the late Liberal Lion was far from perfect. He had his faults and demons. He behaved badly off the clock at times in his life. Despite his occasional missteps, Kennedy knew how to legislate. He worked well with others, which in a legislative body comprising 100 occasionally monstrous egos is an essential element of good government.

Kennedy also knew about tradition and believed it meant something important. As Politico reported: “Kennedy waited a year to deliver his first speech on the Senate floor, Obama recalled at the institute, noting dryly that ‘that’s no longer the custom.’ (Freshman Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton had barely been sworn in before he riled up the White House over his own maiden speech and his open letter attacking the Iran talks.) The president looked over to former Senate majority leaders Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, joking that they could talk about the time when traditions meant something, though he left out his own impatient ambition that led him to announce a presidential campaign two years into his first term.”

There’s a glimmer of hope, though, for the Senate.

Edward M. Kennedy can’t come back. A constructive U.S. Senate is able to rebuild itself, however, into an institution that relearns how to build consensus across the aisle and avoid demonizing the other side as being an “enemy” of the common good.

national news, political news

No term limits, please

Harry Reid’s announcement that he’s retiring from the U.S. Senate is going to prompt the predictable calls for term limits for members of Congress.

I’ve heard some yammering from my network of social media friends.

Many of them favor term limits, thinking apparently that voters of various states and congressional districts aren’t smart enough to determine whether their elected representatives are doing a good job for them.

One of my pals — who I am certain echoes the views of others on the right — thinks Sen. John McCain, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen. Chuck Schumer, and probably dozens of other congresspeople need to hit the road right along with Reid.

My friend is mistaken.

Republican bomb-thrower Newt Gingrich led the revolutionary Contract With America insurgency in 1994. Republicans took control of both congressional chambers, Gingrich became speaker of the House and Congress sought to limit the terms of its members. It has failed every time.

The one aspect of term limits that I favor has been enacted by the GOP House caucus, which limits the number of terms that House members can serve as committee chairs; Democrats ought to follow suit, but that’s a congressional rules decision.

Voters back home — including those in Nevada who’ve kept sending the Democrat Reid back to the Senate — have the right to decide who they want representing their interests in Washington.

Harry Reid did that for Nevadans. He’s now calling it a career. Good for him.

Term limits? We have them already. They’re called “elections.”

 

national news, political news

GOP dreams come true: Reid to retire

Republicans across the land are awakening this morning to what they are certain is good news: Harry Reid, the man they love to loathe, is retiring from the U.S. Senate at the end of 2016.

Me? I’m not one of the GOP faithful, but I am more or less glad the Senate minority leader is calling it a career.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/reid-retiring-116445.html?hp=t1_r

It’s not because of anything he’s done that’s offended me. It’s that the man is 75 years of age; he’s been in Washington a very long time; he’s enjoyed countless political victories and suffered countless defeats … and he’s recovering from a brutal eye and facial injury he suffered in a fall from exercise equipment.

Reid has gotten stale. It’s likely time for some new representation in his home state of Nevada and I venture to guess that Democrats as well as Republicans are of like minds in calling for that need.

Politico describes Reid style this way: “As leader, Reid developed a no-nonsense, hard-ball style that came to define his stewardship. He muscled through Senate passage of the Affordable Care Act on Christmas Eve in 2009 on a straight party-line vote, when his party controlled 60 seats, enough to overcome a GOP filibuster. In 2013, Reid took the unprecedented step of invoking the so-called ‘nuclear option,’ a move that gutted filibuster rules for presidential nominations that critics said altered the deliberative nature of the body.”

I’m as certain as I am about anything that it doesn’t matter who the Senate Democrats choose as their next leader. He or she will develop sufficient enmity among Republicans to ensure that the upper legislative chamber will continue its level of dysfunction.

Harry Reid will become yesterday’s news in due course.

 

national news, political news, State news

Cruz: I'm no Barack Obama

Of course Ted Cruz is dismissing comparisons to Barack Obama.

Both men served part of their first terms in the U.S. Senate before declaring their presidential candidacies.

That’s where the comparison ends, according to Cruz.

Cruz: Obama was a ‘backbencher’ in Senate

Obama was a “backbencher” in the Senate, according to the Texas Republican. Cruz said he’s been out front during his brief time on Capitol Hill, fighting for “conservative causes.”

Man, he sure has been out front. I’ll concede that point.

I’ll just disagree with his granting himself high marks for effectiveness.

Acknowledging my own bias against Cruz, I choose to describe him as a Senate loudmouth. Obama’s Senate experience didn’t produce much in the way of legislation, but at least he managed to be a lot more mannerly in the way he conduct himself in public.

Let’s not forget that Cruz dismisses the president’s prior experience as a community organizer. That role was meaningless, according to Cruz, who served as Texas solicitor general — arguing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Sure, that’s a big deal. How about acknowledging the importance of getting community groups to unite for common causes? There’s nothing shameful about that work.

Sen. Cruz is a masterful self-promoter, as is President Obama.

I’ll be interested as the weeks and months go by to see how loud Cruz gets in promoting himself. He’s going to be one of many GOP candidates seeking their party’s nomination. They all likely to employ the same strategy: Run hard to the right to appeal to the party’s base.

It’s going to get loud out there on the Republican campaign trail. Listen carefully and you’ll hear Ted Cruz’s voice above the crowd.

I’ll also concede another point he’s sure to make: No, Sen. Cruz, you aren’t Barack Obama.

 

national news, political news

Rep. Schock calls it a career

Aaron Schock was thought to be a Republican superstar in the making.

The Illinois congressman, though, has become a GOP goat. He’s quitting Congress at the end of the month because of a mountain of reports that he spent money lavishly, inappropriately and perhaps in violation of federal law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/17/illinois_rep_aaron_schock_announces_resignation_125960.html

I will not join the Democratic Party chorus that is blasting House Speaker John Boehner to smithereens over Schock’s sudden departure. In reality, none of this is the speaker’s fault. The entire mess falls squarely on Schock’s shoulders.

He said the usual thing politicians say when they are forced to quit because of ethical trouble. The stories of his spending and his alleged failure to report it correctly have become a “distraction,” Schock said in a statement.

He had served in Congress for six years and was thought to be one of his party’s shooting stars.

No more. He’s about to vanish from Capitol Hill.

In truth, the story was more than a distraction. It besmirched the entire House of Representatives, which comprises members who represent all Americans and which enacts laws that affect all of us.

Aaron Schock was one of them and he needed to go.

Later, young man.

national news, political news

House GOP 'survey' loaded with baloney

Nice try, U.S. House Speaker John Boehner.

You sought to ask me my views on how you and National Republican Congressional Committee are seeking to save the country from those reckless and feckless liberals in the White House. I ain’t taking the bait, Mr. Speaker.

You’ll get your State of the Nation Survey back in the mail. I even signed my name to it to validate its findings.

You see, sir, I don’t share your view that President Obama has wrecked the country. Almost every question you pose in your survey presumes that you and your party are right and the president and his party are wrong … across the board.

To be fair, I do agree with a few of the questions you pose. I believe, as you do, that the feds should work “closely with state and local officials to stop border violence and enforce federal immigration laws.” I also believe in the Second Amendment’s guarantee that we have a right “to keep and bear arms.” I agree with you that our legal system should “better protect victims and consumers while also giving manufacturers and small businesses confidence to keep jobs in America.” I even believe in “Republicans’ landmark ban on all earmarks” attached to federal legislation.

So, Mr. Speaker, your survey isn’t a total loser with me.

However, I do not subscribe to your notion that liberal/progressive policies are inherently bad for the country. I happen to be a good-government liberal who thinks the Obama administration has done well to revive the economy and keep us safe from terrorists. I also believe, contrary to your view, that our standing in the world hasn’t been diminished. Furthermore, I believe that the Affordable Care Act, which likely needs more fine-tuning, should remain on the books, as it is providing millions of Americans with health insurance they didn’t have before it was enacted.

Those are my views, Mr. Speaker, and I’m sticking with them.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to vent.

God bless the United States of America.