Tag Archives: Capitol Hill

International news, national news, political news

Columnist gets it right on immigration battle

Ruben Navarrette is far from being a flaming leftist Barack Obama sympathizer.

He’s a mainstream conservative journalist and commentator who in an essay posted on CNN.com has posited the notion that any talk of impeaching the president over an expected executive order would be a foolish overreach.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/16/opinion/navarrette-immigration-not-impeachable-offense/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

He is so correct. I wish I could shake his hand right now.

At issue is an expected order the president will issue that could do a number of things to improve the immigration system. He’s sought to do it legislatively, but his congressional foes won’t let it happen. They’ve bottled immigration reform up. Obama has warned them repeatedly that he’d take action and now he appears ready to do it.

I’ve noted already that I don’t want him to act just yet.

When he does, though, it’s likely to ignite a fiery response from the tea party wing of the Republicans who control the House and are about to take control in January of the Senate.

An executive order reportedly is going to do a number of things. It would boost border security. It would delay deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants. It’s the deportation delay that has Republicans’ underwear all knotted up.

Navarrette’s main point is that none of this constitutes an “impeachable offense.”

The president would be acting solely within his authority granted by the U.S. Constitution, according to Navarrette.

The essayist notes: “Republicans have no trouble deflecting criticism by reminding Latino voters that Obama is in charge of deportations. So, instead of threatening the suicidal tantrums of a government shutdown or impeachment, conservatives should pipe down and let him be in charge of deportations. That doesn’t just mean deciding who goes but also who stays.”

Let’s can the impeachment rhetoric and get down to the business of governing, shall we?

 

national news, political news

Impeachment for show only?

A thought occurs to me now that impeachment of the president has returned to the arena.

Just suppose the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives is actually is so blindly stupid that it actually impeaches President Obama for exercising his constitutional right of executive authority and tinkers with immigration reform.

Now, let us now suppose that the Republican-run U.S. Senate gets articles of impeachment and puts the president on bleeping trial for it.

The next Senate is going to have a maximum of 54 GOP members, depending on the outcome of the runoff race in Louisiana set for December. It takes 67 votes to convict a president of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and remove him from office.

Does anyone in their right mind think Republicans are going to persuadeĀ 13 Democratic senators to engage in this ridiculous charade?

The thought then boils down to this: The impeachment talk, should it ever come to pass, is meant to put an asterisk next to Barack Obama’s name. The members of Congress who detest him and the policies that got him elected twice to the presidency simply want the word “impeached” next to his name. They want his obituary, when it is finally written, to contain the “I-word.” They want his presidency scarred for life with the notion that the House of Representatives trumped up a phony “crime” upon which to impeach the 44th president of the United States.

Well, the last time the GOP tried that — in 1998 against Bill Clinton — it fell flat on its face. President Clinton walked out of the White House in January 2001 with his standing intact and he has emerged as arguably the nation’s premier political leader.

That won’t matter to the current crop of congressional “leaders” who are insisting that Barack Obama keep his mitts off any executive orders regarding immigration.

House Speaker John Boehner declared not long ago that impeachment won’t happen while he’s the Man of the House. Yet his GOP caucus has been strengthened and made even more strident in the wake of the 2014 mid-term election.

We’ll get to see how much clout he can wield if the nimrod wing of his partyĀ starts getting a bit too feisty.

 

 

national news, political news

You go, old friend

My former colleague and still-friend Jon Talton has issued a blistering rebuke of the rebuke.

That is he’s taken to task the Republicans who have opposed Barack Obama since Day One of his presidency for the trashing they orchestrated in winning a Senate majority and strengthening their majority in the House of Representatives.

http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/2014/11/democrats-are-stupid.html

I cannot really add to his excellent analysis of the current political climate and the context in which it continues to exist — strange as it seems, according to Talton.

I’ll note just a couple of points.

First is that presidents never deserve all the credit they seek nor the blame they receive. We have this element in our government called “balance of power.” We split the power among the three branches — executive, legislative and judicial. Take the federal courts out of this argument and we still have two branches of government with co-equal power.

Last time I checked, governing remains a team sport. So, to whatever extent the president deserves the blame for when things go south, then he should take it. But the Congress is supposed to be a player in this game as well.

Second is that Barack Obama is not radical leftist. As Talton noted:Ā “Obama is …Ā a Jerry Ford. With the ‘center’ pushed so far to the right, he accepted the radical fiscal ‘austerity’ that is such a drag on recovery and average Americans. (Reagan kept spending, and not merely on the military).”

The “new center” now seems to exist somewhere to the right of where traditional conservatives used to navigate. We can thank the tea party caucus for that. What’s more, they’ve done a great job of demonizing the president, ascribing all kinds of evil intent at so many levels I cannot even begin to keep track.

I’ll stop now and refer you to Jon’s essay attached to this blog post.

It’s a good read and worth your time.

 

national news, political news

Slow down just a bit on immigration

Immigration policy needs to be reformed.

Democrats favor reform, as do reasonable Republicans. The outliers appear to be the tea party wing of the GOP, which appears to be calling the shots within the Republican caucus.

The question now is whether President Obama will take executive action to institute reforms during the lame-duck session of Congress. AsĀ much as the tea party — aka nut case — wing of the GOP angers me, I think the president should wait just a while longer before taking unilateral action.

Obama ‘nearing a final decision’ on immigration

Fox News reports Obama might take action next week.

It is sure to enrage Republicans, who already are loaded for bear in the wake of their stunning election victories on Nov. 4.

Obama is said to be considering a 10-point plan that includes deferment ofĀ deportationĀ for 4.5 million illegal immigrants; it also includes a pay increase for Immigration and Naturalization Service employees.

Here’s a thought: Wait for the new Congress to take office; enlist some congressional allies to put forward your legislative proposals; debate it with Congress; let the Republicans have their say along with Democrats.

Then, if nothing gets done, drop the executive action hammer.

This is a fight worthĀ waging … but when the time is right.

 

national news, political news

The sun still rose in the morning

Those on the left are crying the blues.

Their “friends” on the right are jumping with joy.

Lefties are mourning the loss of the U.S. Senate, which after Tuesday night’s mid-term election flipped from Democratic to Republican control come Tuesday.

Righties are utterly gleeful that Sen. Harry Reid will turn over his majority leader gavel — figuratively — to Sen. Mitch McConnell.

My take?

Well, the sun rose the next morning like it always does. President Obama said he wants to “work with” Republicans in both congressional houses. McConnell said he intends to work with the president whenever it’s possible. Obama said he’d like to enjoy a glass of Kentucky bourbon with ol’ Mitch; no word yet on whether McConnell is going to invite the president over for a belt.

We’re going to learnĀ in due course just how well the two sides will get along. I am not worried about things “getting worse” in Washington. From my standpoint, and looking at it through my own admittedly biased prism, it couldn’t get much worse than it’s been since Barack Obama took office in January 2009.

Don’t misunderstand. I continue to believe the country is in much better shape today than it was when he took over. The pasting Democrats took on Tuesday is because their foes on the right outshouted them over the course of the Obama administration. They have persuaded a large number of Americans that the economy remains in dire peril and that the federal government is doing a lousy job of protecting them against foreign enemies.

It’s all baloney.

The country will rock along. The two sides will continue to fight, squabble, bitch at each other — just as it’s always been done.

I’m trying to look at the big picture. We’ve done all right for the past two-plus centuries.

I’ll accept the election results for what they are. Then I’ll just need to get ready for the next election cycle, which has just begun.

 

national news, political news

GOP scores sweep; now let's govern … actually

The deed is done.

Republicans got their “wave” to sweep them into control of the Senate, with an eight-, maybe nine-seat pickup in the U.S. Senate. What’s more, they picked up a dozen more seats in the House to cement control of that body.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-control-at-stake-in-todays-midterm-elections/2014/11/04/e882353e-642c-11e4-bb14-4cfea1e742d5_story.html

The only undecided race will be in Louisiana, which is going to a runoff. Democratic U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu appears to be in trouble there. Big surprise, huh?

What happens now?

Despite all the good economic news, there appears to be rampant discontent out there with a Democratic administration and its friends in Congress. So the voters spoke, tossing out Democratic incumbents and turning seats over where Democrats had retired.

Republicans say they want to work with the president where possible. I’m not yet ready to swill that drink.

Senate Majority Leader-in-waiting Mitch McConnell had declared his primary goal in 2009 was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. It didn’t work out that way. So now he wants to actually govern — he says.

We’ve got this immigration thing hanging over the Congress; that oil pipeline known as “Keystone” needs to be decided; the president has an attorney general appointment to make; and, oh yeah, the Affordable Care Act still is on the table, even though it’s working and insuring Americans.

How is Congress going to get past all those differences? And how is the White House going to reconcile itself with the change in power in the upper legislative chamber?

My friends on the right are crowing this morning that Democrat Harry Reid no longer will run the Senate. They now believe Hillary Clinton’s presidential “inevitability” in 2016 has been damaged by this shifting power base. They think the president has been made irrelevant as he finishes out his tenure in the White House.

I shall now remind my right-leaning friends of something critical.

The 2016 political roadmap looks a bit different than the 2014 map. Democrats will be positioned to take over some key Republican Senate seats in a presidential election year, which historically bodes quite well for Democrats.

This was the Republicans’ year and their time. Nice going, folks.

It’s time now to actually govern and to show that we can actually keep moving this country forward — which it has been doing for the past six years.

 

 

national news, political news

What's in store on Election Day?

Who knows what the future holds in the next four days?

Americans are going to elect a new Congress, several governors and thousands of county commissioners, sheriffs, constables (in Texas at least — ugh!) and assorted lower-level government officials.

Everyone who follows this stuff, though, has their eyes on the U.S. Senate. Will it swing from Democratic control to Republican? Virtually everyone who isn’t a dedicated Democratic Party operativeĀ thinks it’s a done deal.

Here’s what we ought to look for on election night to determine how strong the tide will be.

The earliest poll closings will beĀ back east. In New Hampshire, Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen is being challenged strongly by carpetbagger Republican Scott Brown, who lost his Senate seat in Massachusetts and then moved to New Hampshire because he wants to serve in the Senate from another state. If the race is too close to call when the polls close — or if Brown is declared the winner — in the Granite State, Democrats are going to lose big.

Look for something similar to happen in North Carolina, where Democratic Sen. Kay Hagen is being challenged by tea party Republican Thom Tillis. If Tillis is declared the winner outright when the polls close, turn out the lights — as Dandy Don Meredith used to say — the party’s over.

OK, one more key race to ponder. Down yonder in Georgia could tell us something. If Democratic challenger Michelle Nunn defeats Republican foe David Perdue for that state’s Senate seat, then we’ve got something quite different going on. The seat has been in GOP hands. Both of these candidates areĀ kin to political giants in Georgia: Michelle’s dad is former Sen. Sam Nunn; David’sĀ cousin is former Gov. Sonny Perdue. Talk about dynasty politics, right?

These early races could determine how much of the rest of the country will go.

Texas’s Senate race between GOP incumbent John Cornyn and Democrat David Alameel? That one’s over.

The GOP tide has yet to build in the eyes of many observers. We’ll know in due course whether the swells are growing across the country or whether the Senate flips with a slim majority turning up on the Republican side of the chamber.

If the Senate turns Republican Red when all the ballots are counted, then the game changes. We’ll have to see how these folks intend to actually govern and whether they can rise beyond the role of obstructionists.

I’m waiting anxiously.

 

 

national news, political news

If GOP takes Senate, it'll need to govern

The stars apparently are lining up for a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate, or so the experts are saying.

Let’s assume they’re right. A RealClearPolitics average of all the major polls show a six-seat shift, precisely the number that the GOP needs to become the majority in the Senate.

I’m not clear about the House of Representatives, where Republicans have ruled since 2011. Perhaps their control will tighten.

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-poised-snatch-us-senate-mid-terms-015415687.html

This much is becoming clearer as the mid-term elections approach: If Republicans are destined to control the entire legislative branch of government, then they need to prepare to actually govern, as in enact legislation that President Obama can actually sign into law.

So far since January 2009, when Barack Obama took office, Republicans have done their level best to block just about every major initiative the president has put forward. It started with the financial bailout package which the GOP opposed, but which got enacted over its objections.

Then came the 2010 mid-term election. The House switched to Republican control. Then the fun really began.

Republicans opposed the Affordable Care Act; they’ve conducted an ongoing series of show hearings on Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service’s vetting of conservative political action groups’ request for tax exempt status; they’ve opposed immigration reform; increasing the minimum wage and a host of other White House initiatives.

If the Senate flips, then we’re going to see donnybrooks develop over confirmation of, say, the next attorney general and a series of lower-level appointments the president will seek.

I’ll buy the notion that the legislative branch of government is going to turn Republican.

Will legislators keep trying to stick it in the president’s eye or will they actually compromise when possible on key bills and send them to the White House in good faith? And will the president follow suit and sign these bills into law?

Republicans have mastered the art of obstruction since Democrat Barack Obama became president. Let’s see if they can learn the art of governing.

 

Uncategorized

Time for a declaration of war?

1 Comment

The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to believe it is time for Congress to step up to the plate in this “war on terror.”

As in really step up. As in it should perhaps do its constitutional duty and declare war. Formally. In writing. After a thorough and comprehensive debate.

I have been vacillating on this war vs. counter-terrorism business. Now, though, I am thinking it’s time to take the gloves off with the monsters who claim to be acting on behalf of some religious tenet.

***

The 9/11 attacks signaled a new era in warfare. President Bush committed troops to battle after the terror attacks on New York and Washington. He then took us to war in Iraq by invading a sovereign country after selling us essentially a bill of goods about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and its bogus nuclear weapons development program.

Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but he didn’t pose an imminent threat to the United States. We went to war anyway.

So, we fought that war and then pulled out. Our war in Afghanistan, where we began fighting right after 9/11, is about to wind down.

Now the terrorist group calling itself the Islamic State has decided, in effect, to declare war on the United States.

What should be our response?

It’s time for Congress to get in the game — all the way.

***

Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution lays out the powers of Congress. It says flatly that our legislative branch — and only the legislative branch — can “declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Capture on Land and Water.”

Not since Dec. 8, 1941 has Congress declared war on anyone the way it did on the Empire of Japan after “the date which will live in infamy.” We’ve no shortage of armed combat, though, since the end of World War II. Indeed, we’ve lost more than 100,000 American lives in undeclared wars ever since — with vast majority of those deaths occurring in Korea and Vietnam.

Presidents have gone to Congress to seek permission to fight these conflicts. They’ve also exercised their role as commander in chief when the need has arisen.

This time, as we prosecute this war against terrorists all around the world, it is time for Congress to declare its intention. Does it want to declare war or not?

If we’re going to take this fight to the evil forces around the world, then it ought to be time for the government to commit itself fully to that effort.

Does a war declaration mean necessarily that we commit ground troops to battle? Not at all. It merely states that the United States means business as it seeks to destroy the forces intending to us harm.

Mr. President, get that request written and send it to Capitol Hill. Members of Congress, put up … or shut the hell up.

national news, political news

Pick an AG successor quickly, Mr. President

Here’s a tidbit that will surprise no one.

Senate Republicans are insisting that President Obama delay nominating a successor to Attorney General Eric Holder until after the new Congress takes office in January.

Imagine that.

You see, Republicans smell victory in the mid-term elections. They believe they’ll comprise a Senate majority when the new Congress convenes. That makes it theoretically more problematic for the president to get a nominee confirmed. That’s how it goes these days: Democrats and Republicans look to stick it to each other, no matter what.

It also forces the president to select someone who is, um, less controversial. With Republicans holding the Senate majority, Obama will have to find a safer choice for AG than he otherwise might select.

We’ll see probably in fairly short order what the president is thinking about when to make a nomination announcement. Does he follow the advice of Republicans or does he move quickly while Democrats still run the Senate, which has to confirm whoever is nominated to be attorney general?

If this mid-term election is going to be decided in a Battle of the Political Bases — Progressives vs. Conservatives — then my guess is that the president will move sooner rather than later.

So … why not go for someone who will be as courageous and out-front on issues — such as voting rights — as Eric Holder has been?