Tag Archives: White House

Intraparty squabble good for political soul

President Obama says Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., “is wrong” to oppose him on a free trade proposal with a dozen Asian countries.

OK. So, the Democrats are now squabbling.

Meanwhile, Republican candidates for president are taking pot shots at each other over a wide range of issues, with tax policy and immigration leading the way.

There. Now the Republicans are fighting.

Is this bad? Do these intraparty squabbles harm our form of government?

Not in the least.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-obama-is-happy-to-fight-elizabeth-warren-on-118537612596.html

So far it’s been mostly a GOP fight. Democrats have been fairly quiet in assessing each other.

Until now.

Warren has emerged as the far left’s champion — oh, maybe co-champ, along with independent socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, who ‘s running for president as a Democrat. A lot of lefties want Warren to run. She’s said everything but the categorical refusal to run for president in 2016. She keeps couching her intentions in the present tense — “I am not running” or “I have no interest” in running. None of those responses eliminates the possibility of her changing her mind.

She disagrees with a free trade deal with Asian nations. The president stands by his insistence that freer trade with our Pacific partners is a good deal for the country.

So, let’s continue to debate this issue.

It strengths our political process to have these fights within our respective major parties.

It’s going to test the mettle of the parties’ nominees when they emerge from their party fracases.

And, yes, that includes you, too, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

Islamic state takes 'credit' for Garland attack

Bet on this: If the State Department and the spooks at the CIA prove that the Islamic State actually is responsible for the Garland shooting involving the “Muhammad cartoon contest,” we’ll hear from those who will contend that the terrorists have infiltrated the United States.

Except that the White House says it’s too early to know whether the terrorist monsters can legitimately claim credit for the shooting.

http://news.yahoo.com/claims-texas-attack-via-official-radio-station-084314386.html

This brings to mind something I consider whenever I hear such claims of credit.

Can anyone make such a claim? Just because the Islamic State says it’s responsible for something, are we supposed to assume the worst instinctively?

Two Muslims opened fire in Garland when a right-wing group sponsored a “contest” for illustrations showing the Islamic prophet Muhammad, which is offensive under Islamic tenets. The sponsoring group knew that it was offensive, but it sponsored the event anyway, provoking the two men to open fire.

Garland police shot them both to death on the spot.

The Islamic State is taking credit for it. Did the terrorist hierarchy order the men to open fire?

I prefer to wait for proof that the terrorist cult is responsible before believing what it says.

These hideous monsters are capable of saying — let alone doing — anything.

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.

 

Let's define 'ideal GOP candidate'

The Daily Signal has put out an online survey asking folks who would be their “ideal” Republican presidential candidate in 2016.

It wasn’t until I looked carefully at the bottom of the survey form that I realized it is a sincere question.

Who Is Your Ideal GOP 2016 Presidential Nominee?

It gives poll takers a chance to subscribe to Heritage Foundation material. So, there you have it. The poll comes from one of the nation’s premier conservative think tanks. So, the poll is meant to be taken seriously by those who answer the question.

But regular readers of this blog know my own political leanings place me far from the Heritage Foundation. I lean left. So, when I saw the question, I thought it could be laced with trickery.

I’ll declare here (maybe I’ve done so already; I don’t remember) that I’ve voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1972. I wavered once, teetering between voting for President Ford or Gov. Jimmy Carter in 1976; I ended up voting for Carter and I’ve come close to regretting it in the years since.

I’ve gotten a bit more hardened in my presidential choices over time. I do split my ticket generously, however, and I’ve been proud of the many votes I’ve cast for Republican candidates.

Who would be my favorite GOP candidate in 2016 be? Oh, man. How do I answer that one?

Maybe it would be the most extreme candidate running. Who would that? Ted “The Cruz Missile” Cruz? Marco Rubio? Rand Paul? Mike Huckabee (who’s not really running — yet)?

The more extreme the right-wing candidate the better it appears that a centrist Democrat — such as, oh, Hillary Clinton — would win the election.

I’m acutely aware that the Heritage Foundation is now being run by former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, one of the TEA party godfathers. I’m guessing DeMint personally might favor one of the extremists running for president.

So, think about this one: I agree — potentially — with the guy who runs the Heritage Foundation.

We might want the same candidate to run as the Republican nominee for president next year.

I suspect, though, that our reasons differ wildly.

 

Malala gets justice

Malala Yousafzi has gotten the justice she deserves … I hope.

Ten men who attacked the then-15-year-old child activist were sentenced in a Pakistani court to life in prison. Malala, who suffered a grievous gunshot wound to the head has recovered.

She’s gone on with her life and, oh by the way, winning the Nobel Peace Prize this past year for her work in advancing the cause of children in her native Pakistan.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32530324

The men who attacked here were Taliban terrorists — and, yes, I’ll call them “terrorists,” even though the White House declines to use that term to describe the monstrous men who align with the Taliban.

What troubles me, though, is that a Pakistani court has convicted these men. Why the concern? Pakistan hasn’t exactly been the most reliable U.S. ally in our fight against international terrorism. The Pakistanis haven’t committed themselves fully to the fight against the Taliban, al-Qaeda and now the Islamic State.

Remember, too, that Osama bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALs in May 2011 in his compound in the middle of a major Pakistani city.

Should we expect Malala’s assailants to spend the rest of their lives in prison?

The hope is that they will. The expectation, though, well … let’s just wait and see.

Politicians cut money for schools, then knock them

Those of us who know Shanna Peeples are still a bit awestruck by the recognition that has come her way.

She teaches English at Palo Duro High School in Amarillo and has been honored as the National Teacher of the Year for 2015. A new adventure awaits her as she prepares to carry the torch for public educators across the nation.

A comment came the other day from Jon Mark Beilue, a columnist at the Amarillo Globe-News — where Peeples worked before answering her calling as a teacher — that rings so very true.

Beilue noted, while praising the work of good and great teacher everywhere, how some of the sharpest criticism of public education comes from politicians who have voted to cut money from public school systems.

Peeples, in accepting her crystal apple from the president at the White House this week, thanked him for his unwavering support of public education.

http://agntv.amarillo.com/news/president-obama-awards-shanna-peeples

But every so often, we hear politician here at home decry public education, saying things about the quality of education our students are getting even a they cast vote to slash money aimed at improving schools.

How can they say these things with a straight face?

Oh, I almost forgot: Politicians say a lot of things without understanding or comprehending the irony of their statements and actions.

It’s good to remember what a politician — a state legislator, for example — does for the record while railing about the shortcomings of a valuable beneficiary of state government.

While we’re at it, we ought to hold those politician to account for their actions.

 

Yes, Brady should have been at the White House

Tom Brady is taking some heat for missing a ceremony honoring the pro football team of which he is a member.

You’ve heard of Brady? Sure. He’s the quarterback of the New England Patriots, who won this year’s Super Bowl in stunning fashion against the Seattle Seahawks. He’s also the face of the team. He’s its field leader. He’s the Main Man of the offense.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/stephen-a-smith-blasts-brady-for-missing-white-house-visit/ar-BBiFBgr

Stephen A. Smith, an ESPN commentator, has taken serious umbrage over Brady’s absence from the ceremony, which is a tradition at the White House. Presidents long have honored NFL champs, World Series champs, NBA champs and even occasionally NHL champions, if the franchise that wins the hockey title is based in the United States.

I don’t buy Smith’s tirade that Brady “disrespected” the president, or that he skipped out because of political reasons. Then again, Smith is a blowhard and a grandstander who often says things that have little basis in reality.

I do agree, though, that Brady should have been there.

He’s a member of a team comprising 53 men that won the Big Game — as a team.

The writer of the essay attached to this blog notes that in previous post-Super Bowl ceremonies at the White House, Brady was single and that now he’s married, with children — and that maybe he couldn’t fit the event into his busy schedule.

C’mon.

Brady knew for many weeks the event was coming up. Brady had ample time to schedule this appearance. Heck, he’s got a secretary who could have taken care of the details. Brady could have taken some time away from his kids’ activities and his super-model wife to attend a light-hearted event at the White House.

My sense is that Brady’s absence from this event suggests he thinks of himself as bigger than the game and more important than his team.

The young man would be sadly mistaken on both counts.

 

President, Congress head for rocky stretch run

There ought to be little doubt left that President Barack Obama’s final laps at the White House are going to be full of bitter quarrels with another “co-equal branch of government,” the U.S. Congress.

It didn’t need to come to this. But it has.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/barack-obama-delaying-loretta-lynch-vote-embarrassing-gop-117081.html?hp=b1_r1

The president took particular umbrage the other day at the Senate’s inexcusable delays in confirming Loretta Lynch to become the next attorney general.

“Nobody can describe a reason for it beyond political gamesmanship in the Senate,” Obama said during a news conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. “I have to say that there are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it.”

As Politico reports, part of the reason for this dysfunction appears to be that the previous Congress opted out of deciding Lynch’s nomination, preferring to hand the job over to the current Congress. I’ll admit to supporting that view, given that the 113th Congress was leaving office. I put some measure of faith in the 114th Congress being able to do right by Lynch, the president and the cause of ensuring that we have a fully functioning Justice Department.

I guess I should have known better. My bad.

The delay now has nothing to do with her qualifications, which are superlative. It has everything to do with side issues that Senate Republicans have concocted as a pretext.

And the president calls it an “embarrassment.” Do you think? I do.

And get this, also from Politico: “Lynch was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 26, so her nomination has lingered on the Senate floor for 50 days. That is longer than the previous seven attorneys general had to wait from committee approval to floor confirmation vote — combined.”

No wonder the president is angry.

It’s not going to get any better, Mr. President. Bet on a rough ride until the end of your presidency.

 

Rubio joins growing GOP field for 2016

Marco Rubio is now running for president of the United States.

The freshman Republican U.S. senator from Florida has joined the swelling chorus of GOP voices seeking to take the White House back from those mean ol’ Democrats.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/marco-rubio-2016-presidential-bid-116914.html?hp=t1_r

What the Rubio candidacy is beginning to illustrate in even more stark terms is that Republicans are going to face the donnybrook while Democrats appear headed for a coronation of sorts when the parties convene their nominating conventions in the summer of ’16.

Those of us who’ve been around long enough remember when the reverse was true. Democrats carved each other up while Republicans rallied behind the suitable heir apparent.

Not this time.

Rubio joins a GOP primary campaign that already includes fellow Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ted Cruz of Texas. Others — many others, in fact — are waiting in the wings. I keep hearing different numbers, but the roll call of Republican presidential candidates varies between 12 and 25. Hey, the more the merrier.

The Democrats? They’ve got their prohibitive frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has the deep pockets, the organization, the party machinery and some quite favorable poll numbers backing her up.

The Democratic Party is likely to anoint Clinton as its nominee.

The Republican Party is going to engage in a knock-down, drag-out brawl through the winter, into the spring and possibly right up until the GOP convention.

Some of us remember another time, era and set of circumstances that reversed the roles.

This campaign, from my perspective, is going to be much more fun to watch.

 

HRC really is going to 'hit the road'

I do not intend to comment on every little thing Hillary Rodham Clinton does as she launches her second bid for the presidency of the United States, but this development is rather intriguing.

She’s driving — actually riding — in a van to Iowa.

No fancy jet. No limo. A van.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-hits-the-road-116911.html?hp=t2_r

This might be a sign of her attempt to connect with everyday Americans, folks who perhaps really and truly understand what it means to be “dead broke,” or those who struggle meet monthly financial obligations.

Clinton’s announcement Sunday that she’s running for president has been seen as wildly different from when she declared her candidacy for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

It was the absence of the letter “I,” as in the first-person pronoun that so many politicians are prone to use. Commentators noted today that she didn’t even mention herself until about halfway through her remarks. Might that, too, be a sign of newfound humility? OK, it well might be stagecraft, calculated to make observers like yours truly take note.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is fraught with some unique characteristics. Perhaps the most unique — as some have noted — is that she’ll have to put distance between herself and not just one president, but two: the current president, Barack Obama, and the man to whom she’s been married for nearly 40 years, Bill Clinton.

President Obama is now heading into the final turn of his time in office and he’s seeking to build his legacy. Former President Clinton remains arguably the nation’s most recognizable and political force of nature. It’s that relationship and its proximity to the Hillary Clinton’s campaign that presents the most potential trouble.

Hillary Clinton will have to demonstrate she’s her own woman, with her own ideas, world view and that she cannot  be overshadowed by the Democrats’ Big Dog.

But hey, first things first.

She’s going to climb into that van and ride through the Midwest to Iowa. It’s time to connect with folks out here in Flyover Country.