Tag Archives: U.S. Senate

New folks hogging all the air time

Ted Cruz has done it. So has Tom Cotton. The two Republican senators,  from Texas and Arkansas, respectively, have managed to muscle their way onto our TV screens and into our local newspapers with their actions, even though they’ve been on the job such a short time.

Same with Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts. She’s been on the job about two years and she’s everyone’s go-to gal when the subject of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy comes up.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/01/elizabeth_warren_dems_must_emphasize_differences_with_gop.html

I posted a blog earlier this week about the late Edward Kennedy’s adherence to Senate tradition, how he didn’t make a floor speech until he’d been in office for a year.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/04/01/r-i-p-ted-kennedys-u-s-senate/

All bets are off these days. The new folks are not bashful at all about hogging up media air time and space.

Cruz is running for president. Cotton drafted that letter to the Iranian mullahs and recommended they reject a nuclear deal worked out by the United States.

Now it’s Warren.

Didn’t she say she “is not a candidate for president” in 2016? Why are the media still digging around the roots of that story?

Is she going to challenge Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primary or not? I thought she was declarative in her statement about not running. Oh, wait. She spoke in the present tense. “I am not running,” she said, if memory serves. That means the door is still slightly open for her to change her mind.

These new senators — and House members, too — are overshadowing the senior members.

Republican Orrin Hatch? He’s nowhere to be seen or heard. Democrat Barbara Boxer? She’s announced her impending retirement — and that’s been it. Republican Thad Cochran? He almost lost the GOP primary in Mississippi but got renominated on the strength of African-Americans who didn’t want the other guy to win. Democrat Patty Murray? She’s been as quiet as Hatch.

The new folks keep showing up. They’re everywhere.

The “new normal” in Washington is to let the newbies have the floor.

 

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

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.

Cruz the Hawk a no-show at Armed Services

You hear about this occasionally.

U.S. senators or House members take office and immediately become what’s known as “show horses,” not workhorses. A young Illinois Democratic senator, Barack Obama, demonstrated little interest in the nuts and bolts of legislating before launching his bid for the presidency. Flash back to the mid-1960s, and another young Democratic senator from New York, the late Robert Kennedy, showed equally little interest in these matters — unlike his kid brother, Ted, who became one of the Senate’s legislative giants.

So, what gives with Ted Cruz, the Republican from Texas, who’s also running for president?

He’s a serious hawk on defense, but he’s rung up the worst attendance record by far on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/ted-cruz-2016-armed-services-committee-attendance-116522.html?hp=lc2_4

While the young senator has been MIA at the panel’s hearings, many of his colleagues are settling in to do the people’s business. Several of them have perfect attendance. Others have been called away on other official business; Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., missed a key hearing because he was part of a U.S. delegation sent to Saudi Arabia to honor the late Saudi King Abdullah.

Back to the man I like to refer to as the Cruz Missile.

Sure, he’s running for president. These campaigns gobble up a lot of lawmakers’ time. However, just as it matters for all the individuals who’ve run for president before, it matters now for Sen. Cruz.

Is he going to do what he’s getting paid to do, which is study, debate and vote on key issues affecting his country and the state he represents? Or is he going to remain absent from his day job while pursuing another office down the street from the one he already occupies?

 

Schumer headed for minority leader role

Harry Reid apparently has anointed Chuck Schumer as his successor as the leader of U.S. Senate Democrats.

Oh, that’s just great!

Reid, D-Nev., announced he won’t seek re-election next year. Schumer, D-N.Y., mounted a quick campaign to succeed Reid. It worked.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/chuck-schumer-minority-leader-116473.html?hp=rc1_4

It’s not that Schumer is going to be bad for Senate Democrats, or even bad for the country. It’s just that Schumer some years ago inherited a dubious distinction from another senator who decided to retire. The distinction is being identified as part of the “most dangerous place in the world.”

It used to be said of Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, that the “most dangerous place in the world is between Gramm and a television camera.” Gramm left the Senate and handed that unofficial title over to Schumer.

Harry Reid has been called a lot of things; some of them are kind, others are not, depending on who’s saying them. “Camera friendly” isn’t really one of them. He speaks quietly and isn’t known to be a media hog. One cannot say that about Schumer, who’s as garrulous as they come.

Once he becomes leader of the Senate Democrats in 2017 — either as minority leader or majority leader, depending on whether Democrats retake control of the Senate in 2016 — he’s going to be everywhere. Probably at once.

Former Republican U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough said on “Meet the Press” this morning that that he believes Schumer will be a far greater constructive force as Democratic leader than Reid. Scarborough is more of an expert on these matters than a lot of folks. I hope he’s right.

However, we’d better get ready to see a lot of Democratic leader Schumer on our TV screens in the years ahead.

 

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.

 

Cruz plays games with ACA

Ted Cruz wants to “repeal every word” of the Affordable Care Act.

Now the Texas Republican U.S. senator and GOP presidential candidate has enrolled in the act he wants to eliminate.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/03/25/3638697/ted-cruz-wants-believe-hes-legally-required-sign-obamacare-hes-totally-wrong/

What gives with the Cruz Missile?

He says he’s obligated to sign up. He’s either (a) wrong, (b) confused or (c) lying.

Any takers on which one? I’ll pass for now.

The ACA doesn’t require members of Congress to sign up for health insurance. He could buy the coverage without having to participate in the District of Columbia health exchange set up under the ACA.

Does the former Texas solicitor general know this? Let me think. I’m guessing he knows that, sharp Harvard Law grad that he is.

Cruz is gaming the system and in the process is playing Republican voters for fools.

'Schock and awe' probe could expose others

Aaron Schock is about to leave his congressional office.

The Illinois Republican quit his House seat amid swirling controversy over how he spent lots of public money on extravagant outings around the world. The young man has expensive taste and now it might be that he accepted gifts illegally … allegedly.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/aaron-schock-fbi-probe-spending-116257.html?hp=r1_3

A grand jury is looking into it. Congress should examine it, too.

Indeed, the Aaron Schock story suggests there might be a giant iceberg under that ethical tip.

Is he the only member of Congress to live large? Might he be the lone member of either legislative chamber to, um, take staffers on outings that go far beyond their official duties?

A part of me seriously doubts he’s alone in this kind of alleged misbehavior.

I don’t intend here to beat up on Aaron Schock. He’s going to face authorities back home in Peoria, Ill. What’s more, his resignation from the House stunned his colleagues; Speaker John Boehner didn’t know Schock was leaving until he actually announced it publicly.

The one-time rising GOP star, though, is leaving some questions that need answers.

Is he the only one who has done the things he’s been accused of doing?

I doubt it. Is Congress ever going to look inward and start a thorough House-and-Senate cleaning?

 

Talk nicely to babies, Sen. Cruz

It appears likely that U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is about to embark on the second political campaign of his career, but it also appears obvious that the young man needs some instruction on how to talk to children.

The first-term Texas Republican, who was elected to the Senate in his first political campaign in 2012, was talking to a crowd of supporters in New Hampshire — where the first presidential primary of 2016 will take place — when he said the “world is on fire.”

Cruz’s comment apparently startled a 3-year-old who heard him. The little girl asked him if he meant the “whole world” was on fire. He said, by golly, yes it is. His warning frightened the toddler.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ted-cruz-to-3-year-old-your-world-is-on-fire/ar-AA9Q0bT

Cruz then sought to assure the little girl that her mother would seek to make the world a better place.

Cruz is going to meet a lot of youngsters between now and when his campaign for the presidency ends — whenever that occurs. He’ll have to perform his share of baby-kissing, mugging for cameras … those kinds of things. He needs to tone the rhetoric down for the little ones out there.

His pitch startles a lot of grownups as well. Count me as one who gets a little alarmed at some of the things that fly out of the Cruz Missile’s mouth.

But you don’t tell kids their “world is on fire,” any more than you should yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater.

 

And what if Hillary doesn't run?

This notion of a congressional investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email accounts while she was secretary of state is beginning to sound laughable.

Some of us out here will break out into hysterical howls if Clinton does the improbable — and doesn’t run for president of the United States next year.

Why the guffaws?

Congress will drop the story like a bad habit.

House Speaker John Boehner is considering a congressional probe. House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy is going to peek into whether Clinton’s personal account email use somehow is related to the Benghazi mess of September 2012, the fire fight that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

This has all the apparent earmarks of a political hatchet job.

Clinton is likely to run for president. Her Republican critics in Congress and elsewhere don’t want her in the White House. She’d be a formidable candidate and as it stands right at this moment she remains a strong favorite to defeat almost any GOP challenger.

But what if she doesn’t run? What if she decides, “You know, I just don’t think I have the stomach for this. I’ve taken enough of a battering over this Benghazi thing, during my time in the U.S. Senate and, oh yeah, when I was first lady and trying to push through my husband’s health care overhaul — which went nowhere.”

My hunch is that all these probes, these searches for the truth, these quests to find an email scandal where none exists will disappear.

The opposition will pat itself on the back, say “so long” to Hillary Clinton and go about looking for demons behind other closet doors.

 

 

In a word, the Hillary email story is about 'trust'

You can sum up the difficulty that is building around Hillary Rodham Clinton’s probable presidential campaign in a single five-letter word: trust.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-press-conference-115989.html?hp=b3_r1#.VQaz71J0yt8

Can she be trusted to tell us the truth all the time?

The Politico story attached here talks about the history she and her husband, the former 42nd president, Bill Clinton, had in using the English language to wiggle their way out of difficulty.

President Clinton sought to tell Americans that he “did not have sexual relations” with the young White House intern. It turned out that likely did have what almost anyone describe as a sexual relationship with her — but not in the way he defined it.

Does anyone recall how the president defined the word “is”?

Hillary Clinton’s email mess, on its face, likely isn’t a huge story. It’s becoming one, though, because of her own seemingly slippery use of language to define what she did and when she did it.

The Politico essay refers to her talking about “not saving” email communications. What happened to the word “delete”? Did she delete the messages, send them to the trash bin on purpose?

It’s that kind of imprecise language that seems to be getting the former secretary of state/U.S. senator/first lady into a bit of a jam as she ramps up her 2016 presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton once seemed like the inevitable 45th president of the United States. She remains the prohibitive favorite to become the Democrats’ next nominee for the office.

That aura of White House inevitability, however, suddenly is needs some major repair.

Straight talk would help build some much-needed trust.