Tag Archives: George W. Bush

Uncategorized

LBJ legacy shines brightly

Fifty years ago this week, a long, tall Texan who was new in his job as president of the United States, signed a landmark bill into law that changed the face of the nation — and changed the political landscape in this country.

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It guaranteed the rights of all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/civil-rights-act-50

He had become president under grievous conditions just six months earlier. President John F. Kennedy’s murder was still fresh in our minds and our broken hearts. The new man in the Oval Office took office and took charge of JFK’s unfinished legislative agenda, which included the Civil Rights Act.

It took a master legislator such as LBJ to finish the job. Prior to becoming vice president, Sen. Lyndon Johnson served as majority leader and had built a reputation as, shall we say, a supreme negotiator. He was unafraid to lay his hands on fellow senators to persuade them to vote his way … or else.

He took that skill to the presidency. Meanwhile, he had to persuade southern Democrats who weren’t as keen on the Civil Rights Act as many northern Republicans. LBJ did the deed and was told by one of his best Senate friends, arch-segregationist Richard Russell, D-Ga., that the bill would “cost us the South.”

Johnson perhaps knew what the political stakes were at the time he signed the bill, but he knew it was the right thing to do.

He put his name to it.

The LBJ Library in Austin this week is honoring the late president’s achievement. Four of his presidential successors — Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — will be on hand in Austin to speak to the greatness of the Civil Rights Act.

What’s more, the Johnson family along with the library administration, are working overtime to burnish LBJ’s legacy to include far more than the tragedy and heartache of the Vietnam War.

Let’s hope they succeed. Lyndon Baines Johnson deserves high praise for enacting this law.

Uncategorized

Jeb Bush lays down marker

Conventional Republican orthodoxy bears little resemblance to how it used to look.

It now includes a fairly strong anti-immigrant stance, particularly against those who are here illegally.

Enter a former Florida governor with a famous political name to challenge that common view.

Jeb Bush is considering a run for the presidency in 2016 and he’s laying bare a potential weakness among hard-core GOP voters who’ll nominate their next candidate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/jeb-bush-takes-potential-weaknesses-n73561

Bush wants his party to reform the immigration system that enables those who were brought here illegally by their parents to stay here and to live and work free from the fear of deportation.

“Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony; it’s an act of love,” Bush said over the weekend while declaring that he’ll make up his mind about running for president sometime this year.

Immigration might doom Bush’s candidacy. It plagued Sen.John McCain in 2008 and it helped torpedo Texas Gov. Rick Perry in late 2011 as he was running for the GOP nomination. What do these two men have in common? They both come from border states with large immigrant populations — and they also have realistic views on the best way to treat those who were brought here as children by parents who entered the United States illegally.

The Bush brand, such as it is, carries some heavy baggage. Jeb’s brother, George W., remains a too-hot-to-handle commodity among Republicans. The two men’s father, George H.W. Bush, broke that “no new taxes” pledge in 1990 while crafting a federal budget.

Now comes immigration. Jeb Bush is making the kind of sense on this issue that is flying over the heads of the tea party fanatics who control the party — at the moment.

Uncategorized

Uninsured rate is falling

Politicians of all stripes have this way of spinning news in their favor and against their opponents’ interests.

That’s how the game is played. Take the Affordable Care Act. President Obama has declared something of a victory in that 7.1 million Americans signed up for the ACA before the March 31 open enrollment deadline; he had set a goal of 7 million signups. Republicans on the other hand declared the signup period a failure because of the rollout snafus and clumsiness that followed.

Now comes some interesting news from the Gallup Poll organization. The rate of uninsured Americans is the lowest since 2008, the final full year of George W. Bush’s presidency.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168248/uninsured-rate-lowest-2008.aspx

What does that mean?

Let’s see. The president said when he took office in 2009 that he intended to make health insurance available to more Americans and to bite into the number of uninsured Americans, which stood at 40 million or so, give or take.

The ACA passed. The enrollment period opened up. Americans got signed up through the exchanges. More Americans now have health insurance than before enactment of the law and, according to Gallup, the rate of uninsured Americans is at a six-year low.

The improvement is greatest among poor Americans and African-Americans, says Gallup. The rate of uninsured among all age groups has declined.

Is this an unqualified success for the Obama administration? It is not. The president made a couple of promises he couldn’t keep, such as the infamous “you can keep your doctor” pledge. The law will need to be tweaked, fine-tuned and improved along the way — which is the norm for almost all major pieces of legislation.

However, to say the ACA has “failed” and that it is going to “bankrupt the country” and create “death panels” to determine who lives is dishonest in the extreme.

The survey noted here suggests that the administration’s major goal — to provide health insurance to more Americans — has been met.

Uncategorized

Now it might be Clinton vs. Bush 2.0

Get ready for another Clinton-Bush slugfest for the White House.

Or … maybe not.

Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida and brother and son of two former presidents, has emerged as the Republican candidate of the moment. The Clinton in this matchup is Hillary Rodham Clinton, the wife of the former president sandwiched between the Bushes as well as a former U.S. senator and secretary of state.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/jeb_bush_2016_presidential_run_why_it_would_be_hard_on_the_gop.html

Ask yourself: Is the nation really up for a presidential campaign featuring these two political heirs?

I’m not yet convinced.

Clinton likely is going to run for the presidency. The smart money says she’s a sure-fire lock for the Democratic nomination, Vice President Joe Biden’s interest notwithstanding.

As for Bush, well, the GOP’s establishment candidate du jour once was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — before he got caught up in that bridge lane-closing matter. The lane-closing calamity well might blow over eventually. Christie’s brand as a hands-on, no-nonsense administrator may be damaged beyond repair — and that’s if he escapes the hounds looking for some culpability in the lane-closure or in its aftermath. If he’s dirty, he’s toast.

The GOP has a number of tea party types jockeying for our attention: Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Bobby Jindal all are among the tea party favorites being bandied about.

Jeb’s mother, the always-candid Barbara, once said she hoped her son wouldn’t run. The country is “tired” of the Bush name in politics, Mama Bush said famously.

And as John Dickerson notes in the link attached to this blog, the Bush brand itself might be poison to many elements within the Republican Party. Do you ever hear any of the supposedly potential candidates for 2016 sing George W.’s praises, calling for a return to the good old days of warfare and cataclysmic recession? What’s more, the right wing never will forgive George H.W.’s decision to renege on his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge that in reality was the smart thing to do.

As for Clinton, she brings her own baggage. After all, she is married to the second president ever impeached and as irrelevant as that sordid saga is to her own public service record, the Republicans are sure to remind us that electing Hillary means Bill returns to the White House, where he did those naughty things with that young intern.

Just think: The next presidential election is still more than two years out. We’ve got plenty of time to get sick of it all.

Uncategorized

Opening Day tradition lives on

There can be nothing in all of American sports quite like Opening Day of the Major League Baseball season.

Daytona 500? Indy 500? Super Bowl? Forget about it.

Opening Day has a place all its own. It usually features a presidential first pitch.

God Bless Opening Day

Some presidents, well, have better arms than others. John F. Kennedy had a pretty good arm. So did Dwight Eisenhower.

But the standard for presidential first pitches still belongs to George W. Bush. Allow me this one caveat, though: He didn’t set the standard on Opening Day. He set it instead on the first game at Yankee Stadium during the 2001 World Series, the one that had been delayed by the events of 9/11.

Baseball fans everywhere remember that night. The president strode the mound wearing a New York Fire Department jacket. The crowd roared.

Then the president took the baseball, rubbed it in his hand and from the top of the mound — not in front of it as some presidents do — he wound up and threw a perfect strike.

The crowd noise that greeted the president’s arrival on the mound? It turned into an absolute din as 56,000-plus fans erupted. The pitch symbolized the perfect tonic for a nation that had been grieving, had become enraged at the dastardly deed done to it and sought relief from the anguish.

President Bush, with a simple pitch from a baseball stadium mound, delivered the goods.

There can be nothing like it anywhere else in the world of sports.

Play ball!

Uncategorized

Immigration reform is essential

Vice President Joe Biden is mostly right when he declares that undocumented immigrants “are Americans already.”

He told the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce that all they want to is to become integrated fully in American society. That’s why he supports immigration reform.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/201972-biden-illegal-immigrants-already-americans

I, too, want immigration reform.

I want it especially for a specific category of illegal immigrants: those who were brought to this country when they were children by parents who sneaked in under the radar — and who have grown up, come of age and established their lives as full-blown Americans.

Those are the innocent victims in this debate over how and whether to enact serious reform of our immigration policies.

The effort contains a lot of provisions. One of them is an idea supported, believe it or not, by the likes of Republicans George W. Bush and Rick Perry, two Texas governors who know up close how difficult it is for these quasi-Americans to live in the shadows.

Perry has been criticized unfairly by the tea party/nut-job wing of his party for recognizing that immigrants who are technically hear illegally have assimilated into American culture and deserve to live as Americans openly.

I remain hopeful that Congress eventually will do right by those who want to become Americans by giving them the so-called “pathway to citizenship” contained in the immigration overhaul that is awaiting full congressional approval.

Do I predict it will happen? Not on your life. Eternal optimist that I am, my hope does spring eternal.

Uncategorized

Carter surprises on 'Meet the Press'

Former President Jimmy Carter amazes me.

He’s 89 years young. His voice is still strong. His mind is still sharp. He apparently can still pound a nail with a hammer while building houses for Habitat for Humanity. He also surprises folks with candid answers to difficult questions.

He did so twice today on a “Meet the Press” interview with NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/former-president-jimmy-carter-im-being-spied-on-nsa

First, he said he fears the National Security Agency is monitoring his e-mails. So, when he corresponds with foreign leaders, he does so the old-fashioned way: He writes notes with pen and paper and mails them via the Postal Service. He is concerned about people’s privacy being harmed by NSA snooping.

Frankly, I believe the former president — being who he is and the job he once held — might have reason to be concerned far more than, say, yours truly or almost any other of the 300 million American citizens.

The second thing he told Mitchell was surprising, and disappointing. Does President Obama consult with the 39th president on foreign policy matters? Mitchell asked. Carter said no.

He noted that other men who succeeded him as president — Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush — all have sought his counsel over the years during difficult crises. Barack Obama hasn’t done so.

It’s disappointing to learn that about Obama. It’s not entirely surprising, given what some of his critics have said about his go-it-alone strategy in thinking through some stressful problems. Others in Washington have noted that President Obama doesn’t prefer to dicker and negotiate with legislators and that, too, is in keeping with what President Carter said in the interview broadcast Sunday.

The ex-presidents’ club is one of the most exclusive “organizations” in the world. So few of them are alive at any given time. In Barack Obama’s case, he’s got four of them with whom he can consult. Few men have made decisions as monumental as these men have made and their counsel should be welcome.

I have no knowledge, of course, about who the president calls when the going gets tough. It does sadden me to learn he hasn’t bothered to call one of them with a good bit of knowledge and life experience upon which to lean.

Uncategorized

What would Mitt have done?

Mitt Romney’s hindsight is as good as it gets.

It’s picture perfect. The former Republican presidential nominee can see the past. Can he see the future? Well, no better than the man who beat him in the 2012 presidential election.

Still, the former Massachusetts governor blames President Obama’s “naivete” for the escalating tensions in Ukraine precipitated by the surprising virtual annexation of Crimea by Russia.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mitt-romney-blasts-president-obama-naivete-ukraine-crisis

Romney did tell the world during the most recent presidential campaign that he considered Russia to be this nation’s No. 1 geopolitical foe. I recall thinking at the time that Romney seemed to be selling short the international terror network with which this country has been at all-out war since 9/11.

Did he know in advance that Russia was going to interfere with Ukraine’s internal political squabble? Did he foresee Russian troops moving into Crimea, or did he envision Crimean residents of Russian descent voting to ally the region with Russia and pull out of Ukraine?

I think not.

But more than a year after making that seemingly absurd claim, Romney’s assertion now seems oddly prescient.

Still, it’s fair to ask: How would President Romney have handled the Russian incursion?

He says leaders are able to foresee the future better than Barack Obama foresaw it. I guess he would have been more proactive in working our European allies to head off any Russian threat. That would have worked … how? What would have the Euros been able to do?

Russian President Vladimir Putin is a bully’s bully. My own sense is that he wouldn’t be dissuaded from acting no matter what NATO or the European Union threatened to do. The Russians faced another U.S. president in 2008, George W. Bush, when they invaded Georgia. W’s reputation was that of a no-nonsense guy who was unafraid to use force, right? Well, President Bush’s rep didn’t forestall military action by the Russians, either.

The sanctions that the United States and others have imposed on Russia’s key leaders are beginning to bite. They’re going to hurt. Will they force the Russians to back out? Probably not. Short of going to war with the Russians, I’m thinking the president of the United States is handling it about it right.

Uncategorized

Cheney makes my head spin

My head is spinning.

I just caught up with former Vice President Dick Cheney’s interview on “Face the Nation” in which he ridicules the Obama administration’s efforts to manage the crisis in Ukraine.

President Obama is weak, indecisive, he’s lost the confidence of our allies, he’s wrong to take military options off the table — those are just some of the things Vice President Cheney offered in his assessment of Obama’s handling of the crisis.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/09/cheney_no_question_putin_thinks_obama_is_weak.html

I want to declare that Dick Cheney has no credibility — none whatsoever — on matters relating to managing international crises. How he can assert the things he does blows my ever-lovin’ mind.

Let us remember that Dick Cheney was in the Situation Room when President George W. Bush decided to go to war with Iraq in 2003. Cheney had declared time and again publicly that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein possessed chemical weapons and that he would use them on our allies in the Middle East. Cheney made the case for war, argued that the United States had to invade a nation, topple a sovereign government, rebuild a nation, and create a more democratic society where none ever had existed. We would be seen as “liberators, not occupiers,” he said.

Well, Mr. Vice President, it didn’t quite work out that way.

The weapons were nowhere to be found. We toppled the government and installed one more to our liking. The war went on even after Saddam Hussein had been hanged. We lost more than 4,000 American lives.

Let us also remember that Saddam Hussein played no role at all in the 9/11 attacks. Our “allies” in Saudi Arabia are far more complicit in that heinous and dastardly act than the Iraqis. Why didn’t we topple that government, too, Mr. Vice President?

It’s almost laughable how Cheney glossed over the U.S. response to the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, saying that it occurred near the end of the Bush administration and as the Obama administration was preparing to take over. What’s the implication, Mr. Vice President? Might you be suggesting that Russia’s brass felt more comfortable invading Georgia as President Bush was about to leave office?

The Bush administration was as powerless to stop the Georgia incursion single-handedly as the Obama administration is now with the crisis in Ukraine.

My next task is to get my head to stop spinning.

Uncategorized

Listen to one of your own, GOP

No one ever has accused Robert Gates of being a Barack Obama apologist.

He’s a Republican. Gates served as defense secretary in the George W. Bush administration; he stayed in that post during part of the first term of the Obama administration. He left office, and then wrote a memoir that was quite critical of many aspects of President Obama’s handling of foreign policy and defense matters.

So, when Robert Gates scolds his fellow Republicans for their incessant criticism of the president’s handling of the crisis in Ukraine, well, the man’s got some credibility.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/03/09/former-defense-secretary-robert-gates-admonishe/198417

Gates told Fox News Channel’s Chris Wallace on Sunday that the critics ought to back off. He noted that in 2008, when Russia invaded Georgia, no one accused President Bush of being unwilling to use military force if the need arose.

The current president deserves a bit of breathing room to “manage this crisis,” Gates told Wallace. Indeed, the constant carping from those on the right seem to be giving aid and comfort to an adversary — Russian President Vladimir Putin — who’s unafraid to exploit any perceived weakness from someone on the other side.

Of course, Wallace had to bring up Obama’s golf outing during this crisis. Gates answered that all presidents need time to chill out, given that they often “work 20 hours a day.”

I only would add that presidents of the United States never are off the clock.