Tag Archives: White House

Uncategorized

Take ownership, not possession

Every now and then a politician and/or a pundit with whom I disagree offers a nugget of perspective that I find, well, agreeable.

Such was the case recently in a commentary written for CNN by a former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives who raked President Obama over the coals for what he called the president’s constant trip to “fantasyland.”

I refer to Newt Gingrich, one of the smarter conservatives around – but also one of the more bombastic.

I’ll stipulate up front that I disagree with Gingrich’s wholesale analysis that Obama is a failed president.

But then he offered this tidbit of “truth” as he sees it, and frankly, so do I.

He referred to a recent speech in which the president used the first-person pronoun – “I,” “my” and “me” – 207 times. That was 207 times in a single speech, according to Newtie.

Bingo, Mr. Speaker. The president’s use of that personal pronoun annoys the daylights out of me as well.

I’ve noticed almost from the day the president took office in January 2009.

At the very beginning, it was an impressive display of ownership that the young president had demonstrated as he took office to tackle the horrible economic crisis that threatened to swallow up the nation’s financial infrastructure.

Nearly six years into his presidency, and after a stunning re-election victory in 2012, I am finding the use of the first-person pronoun a bit of a distraction.

Listen to the president’s speeches or off-the-cuff public comments. He refers to “my administration,” “my vice president,” “my attorney general,” “my national security team,” “my economic advisers,” etc., etc., etc.

Let’s not draw any inaccurate conclusions here. I continue to believe that Barack Obama has done a good job in fixing the economic crisis he inherited. I also believe he is correct in relying more heavily on diplomacy than military action whenever crises erupt.

However, I do not believe taking ownership of the responsibilities of a high public office means that you can take possession of the office itself.

The government belongs to us, citizens who take the time to vote on those who seek to operate the government on our behalf. Yes, I mean those who actually vote, although I certainly recognize that non-voters’ tax money is just as important to funding the government as those who have cast ballots.

Therefore, it would seem more appropriate for the president to perhaps use the second-person pronoun – “your” attorney general, “your” vice president and so on – when referring to the tough issues that face those who run “your” government.

All these folks work for us – you and me – not the guy who sits in that big Oval Office.

Uncategorized

Divide over border crisis? Shocking!

Imagine my fake surprise at news that Republicans and Democrats are divided over how to solve the immigration/refugee crisis on our nation’s southern border.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/immigration-reform-congress-closed-door-briefing-109027.html?hp=l1

Republicans who control the House of Representatives are trying to slash President Obama’s $3.7 billion emergency spending request to deal with the flood of young people fleeing Central America.

Democrats who control the Senate are trying to preserve most of what Obama has asked.

My take? If Republicans think the immigration crisis has reached some sort of critical mass, why are they scaling back so much of what the president is asking?

They want more border security? They want speedier repatriation of the immigrants? They want to hold the families and governments sending these young people to the United States accountable for their actions?

I believe the request does all of that. What in the world am I missing?

Yes, this crisis of serious national concern. There once was a time when leaders of the two major parties would lock arms and hammer out solutions — together. Those days appear to have vanished in the dust bin of recrimination that has become a way of life on Capitol Hill.

This is a disgraceful example of representative democracy failing to do what the people it represents want it to do.

Fix the problem.

Uncategorized

Boehner lawsuit comes into focus

2 Comments

So, now we know the basis for Speaker John Boehner’s desire to sue the president of the United States.

He is angry because the president unilaterally postponed the employer mandate provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans want to eliminate altogether, but they’re mad because they didn’t the chance to do it.

I believe that’s what I heard Boehner say today.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/211912-boehner-to-sue-over-obamacare-delay

It’s not that Barack Obama has used executive authority excessively. He hasn’t. Boehner wants to sue the president because of a single act that he had the authority to perform as chief executive of the United States of America.

This foolishness is going to proceed while:

* Veterans health care issues remain unresolved.

* Highway infrastructure plans remain unattended.

* Immigration reform is stuck in the mud.

* The president’s $3.7 billion request for emergency spending on the border crisis remains in limbo.

I’m sure I’m missing some other issues, but you get my drift.

Instead, the speaker of the House wants to ask for permission from his colleagues to sue the president because of action he took that seeks to give employers some flexibility in following through on the ACA.

This is baffling in the extreme.

Here is what former White House press secretary Jay Carney said: “The ability to postpone the deadline is clear,” Carney said. He urged reporters to “read the Federal Register,” the official docket for federal regulations, to survey similar examples of delays.

“The fact of the matter is this is not unusual, and it is evidence of the kind of flexibility and deference to the concerns and interests of, in this case, a small percentage of American businesses with more than 50 employees that you would think Republicans would support,” Carney said.

I concur with Barack Obama’s assertion that Congress wants to sue him for doing his job while the legislative branch dawdles.

Uncategorized

VA scandal: worse than we thought

You’re probably wondering: Will the bad news ever stop piling up on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs?

I know this: I’m wondering when it’ll stop.

CNN uncovered a major scoop this week with revelations that the Phoenix, Ariz., VA clinic had covered up the number of veterans who died because of too-long wait times to obtain health care.

The number of deaths is worse than we thought!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/23/us/phoenix-va-deaths-new-allegations/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Until the Veterans Affairs Department, the White House and the president of the United States himself get to the bottom of this mess and fix it, I am going to be leery whenever I go to the Amarillo VA hospital and clinic for my routine checkups.

The Thomas Creek Veterans Medical Center in Amarillo hasn’t been fingered specifically in any of this investigation. The problems with wait times, though, appear to run throughout the vast VA health care network.

Whistleblower Pauline DeWenter told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that “deceased” notes on patients were removed from files to make the clinic’s job performance look better. As CNN.com reports: “DeWenter should know. DeWenter is the actual scheduling clerk at the Phoenix VA who said for the better part of a year she was ordered by supervisors to manage and handle the so-called ‘secret waiting list,’ where veterans’ names of those seeking medical care were often placed, sometimes left for months with no care at all.”

The government has said for decades that veterans deserve the best medical care possible. They’re not getting it. Even though I, too, am a veteran I’ve been blessed with good health, so I’ll refer to the vets in jeopardy as “they” or “them.”

Until we get this situation repaired to everyone’s satisfaction, I am going to pray for the good health of all veterans who seek medical care every one of our VA clinics. That includes the Thomas Creek VA Medical Center right here in good ol’ Amarillo, Texas.

Uncategorized

Not 'truly well off,' Mme. Secretary?

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s book tour has hit another pot hole on the road to her probable 2016 presidential candidacy.

The former U.S. senator, first lady and secretary state now says she and her family aren’t like the “truly well off.” She means that even though she has lots of money now, she somehow doesn’t qualify as rich the way, well, the really rich people would define the term.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/06/22/hillary-clinton-says-shes-not-truly-well-off/

Here’s where Clinton might get into trouble.

Suppose she announces her campaign for president and starts hitting the trail. She runs into her political base of voters, which traditionally comprises working-class, lower- to middle-income, possibly union-affiliated and ethnic minority voters. How is she going to explain to them that she’s not “truly well off”?

For that matter, how is she going to explain that to other Americans of means who believe they’ve done well for themselves and consider their lot in life to be one of relative privilege?

First she said she and her husband, President Clinton, were “dead broke” when they left the White House in January 2001. All they did after that was buy a significant home in New York, where Hillary Clinton was elected to represent in the U.S. Senate. How does a “dead broke” couple secure the financing to make such a purchase?

Poor choice of words there, Mme. Secretary.

Now she’s saying she’s not “well off” the way the mega-rich are?

The Independent newspaper reported: “A CNN analysis found that Bill Clinton earned more than $106 million in speaking fees since the end of his presidency in 2001 through January 2013. Since leaving the State Department early last year, Hillary Rodham Clinton earned as much as $200,000 per event through speaking engagements before trade groups and businesses.”

By my definition of the term “well off,” the Bill and Hillary Clinton fit the bill.

Uncategorized

IRS controversy lives on … and on

The Internal Revenue Service controversy hasn’t yet blown up into a full-scale scandal, no matter how hard the right wing tries to make it so.

Now the talking heads and pols on the right are clamoring for a special counsel to investigate the matter. Recall, now, that it began with revelations that the IRS was vetting conservative political action groups’ requests for tax-exempt status. It does the same thing for liberal groups, too, but the conservative chattering class got all wound up over it and have raised a stink ever since.

Now there’s been further revelations about two years worth of emails that went missing from IRS honcho Lois Lerner’s computer. What the heck happened to them?

Republicans, not surprisingly, are trying to tie the IRS matter to the White House, even though no evidence has been uncovered that the IRS was doing anything under White House orders. They want to implicate the president — naturally! — for all this. So far they’ve come up empty.

A special prosecutor might be a good idea if Congress could limit the scope of his or her probe. The last notable special prosecutor hired was one Kenneth Starr, who was brought in to investigate the Whitewater real estate dealings involving President and Mrs. Clinton. Starr, though, went rogue and discovered the president had engaged in a tawdry relationship with a young White House intern.

The House of Reps impeached him because he lied to a federal grand jury about that relationship; the Senate acquitted the president at trial.

Is a special prosecutor needed in this case? I believe the GOP-led House of Representatives has looked thoroughly into this matter and has found zero evidence of White House complicity in anything involving the IRS.

That, of course, will not end the clamor.

Uncategorized

Hoping for a smooth handoff

Political traditions often consist of unwritten rules of decorum and courtesy.

One of them involves the transition from one elected official to another in a particular office. Let’s take, just for kicks, the Potter County judge’s office.

Will courtesy be the rule of the day when Nancy Tanner takes over at the end of the year from her former boss, Arthur Ware?

Tanner — who served as Ware’s administrative assistant during his tenure as judge — won the Republican Party primary in March in the race to succeed Ware, who didn’t seek re-election after serving as county judge for 20-plus years. Tanner’s road to victory got a little bumpy right off the start.

She declared her intention to seek the office before Ware announced this would be his final term. She didn’t officially declare her candidacy, just let it be known she was thinking about it.

Ware then fired Tanner from her job. You’re out! he told her. Pack your stuff up and hit the road. Ware then announced he would retire from public office at the end of the year and endorsed former Amarillo Mayor Debra McCartt in the GOP primary.

Ware never has explained precisely why he fired Tanner.

Tanner won the primary outright. No Democrats are on the ballot, so pending the outcome of November election — which Tanner will win — she’ll become county judge-elect.

One of the more interesting facets of the campaign is that Tanner ran on her experience as Ware’s top hand. During a Panhandle PBS-sponsored candidate forum, Tanner declared that “only two people on Earth” know the details of the job of county judge: Arthur Ware and Nancy Tanner.

So, I cannot help but wonder if Tanner and Ware will be able to set their acrimony aside long enough for Ware to show Tanner all the ropes, the hidden tasks and responsibilities and perhaps share a secret or two with her that even she doesn’t know.

I hope for a smooth transition and seamless handoff. Hey, if presidents of the United States can be beaten senseless by challengers and then leave nice notes in the Oval Office desk drawer for them when they depart …

Surely a county judge in Texas can show some grace as he leaves the public arena.

Uncategorized

Congressional overreaction?

Congress’s reaction to the way President Obama brokered the deal to release Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl certainly is a serious matter.

But is it worth a loss of sleep in the residential quarters of the White House? I don’t think so.

The anger is a result of what I believe has been a nearly six-year estrangement between the White House and Capitol Hill. It’s been brought on by both sides.

Republicans who run the House of Representatives dislike Barack Obama for a lengthy list of reasons. Most of it is because of policy reasons. Some of it, though, seems to go beyond what most of us considerable to be reasonable. A handful of GOP lawmakers have gone to extreme lengths to insult the president, question his integrity, his qualifications for office, you name it.

Shall we recall, also, that the leading Senate Republican declared during Barack Obama’s first year in office that his “No. 1 goal is to make Obama a one-term president”? Mitch McConnell failed in that quest, as the president won re-election.

OK, there’s where Capitol Hill is to blame.

President Obama did not bother to learn the fine art of legislating during his brief time in the Senate. Therefore, he entered the White House believing in his way only. He hasn’t developed the kind of personal relationships presidents need when the chips are down.

As some of my veteran Texas political observer friends have reminded me over the years, Barack Obama needs a healthy dose of Lyndon Johnson. LBJ was a product of the Senate. He knew how to legislate. He knew how to cajole, persuade, threaten, compromise, surrender — all at the same time. He took those skills to the White House when he became president on Nov. 22, 1963.

Had the current president developed better relationships with Congress, he wouldn’t find himself being pounded incessantly now over this latest matter — the alleged failure to consult fully with Congress before agreeing to the release of the bad guys from Gitmo in exchange for Bergdahl’s freedom.

Whose fault is all this?

From my perspective — and recognizing my own bias — I would have to lay the bulk of the blame here on Congress. The leadership there has been bereft of ideas of their own. They’ve been intent on undoing the president’s agenda at every possible turn. From health care, to environmental policy and lately — and this one just slays me — to rolling back the first lady’s guidelines on serving healthy lunches to our school children attending public schools, congressional Republicans have dug in their heels.

None of that excuses the president’s refusal to build better relationships, but in my mind it suggests that Barack Obama has grown tired of fighting over every single issue that needs to be resolved.

Bergdahl’s release needed to occur. It came after some tough decision-making at the White House. It has enraged members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

Should we take their outrage seriously? Sure. But it doesn’t mean that Planet Earth will spin off its axis if they don’t get their way in this latest public quarrel.

Uncategorized

What say you, Col. North?

Allow me to stipulate right off the top that I am acutely aware that the source of this blog post is an admittedly progressive pundit who routinely criticizes conservatives on her nightly TV talk show.

However, the point made here is a valid one.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/oliver-north-and-maximum-absurdity

Many Americans are steamed over the terms of the deal that brought about the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. One of them — are you ready? — who’s really angry about it is former Marine Corps Lt. Col. Oliver North, the former principal character in another hostage-release deal that, um, drew a lot of attention to a Republican president.

As it is stated in the link attached here, it is almost beyond comprehension that this guy, of all people, would have anything to say at all publicly about a deal that involves “negotiating” with enemy agents. He was involved up to his armpits in precisely such a deal. It brought shame and, yes, scandal to President Reagan’s administration. He also was actually convicted of a crime, although his conviction was overturned on appeal.

Still, for Ollie North to weigh in … well, there’s your benchmark for absurdity.

Uncategorized

What if we'd left Bergdahl behind?

1 Comment

As the feeding frenzy continues over the release of a one-time prisoner of war in Afghanistan, a lot of key questions have arisen.

I’ve covered some of them already in this blog. Another one has popped up.

What would the reaction have been had the United States — knowing the history of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s views on the Afghan War and perhaps suspecting he had left his post, as has been alleged — left him behind?

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/208213-reid-charges-gop-with-hypocrisy-on-bergdahl

The demands for answers have been loud, clear and largely justified.

Bergdahl was released by his Taliban captors after he’d been held for five years. In exchange, we released five high-ranking Taliban thugs from Gitmo on the condition they be restricted from traveling out of Qatar for a year. After that, well, it’s anyone’s guess, I suppose.

Bergdahl reportedly opposed our Afghan War effort. He said so in emails back home. Those views allegedly were known by the Army. We went after him anyway. President Obama said Americans “don’t leave soldiers behind” in war.

What we gave up to get him and the allegations that he “deserted” his comrades have raised a huge uproar.

Some of my very own friends here in the Texas Panhandle have called Bergdahl a traitor. They want him punished, thinking they know all the facts already. One fellow even said we ought to send him back to his captors.

Whatever.

Still, the question remains: What would be the tone of the criticism if we’d turned our backs on a soldier who some Americans already believe committed an act of treason? Would those people who today are critical of the recovery effort applaud an abandonment?

My strong suspicion is that they would be screaming themselves hoarse at the notion that the United States actually would leave one of our warriors behind, in the hands of a ruthless enemy.

Perhaps that takes us directly into the excruciating decision made at the White House, the Pentagon, the CIA, the National Security Council and the Oval Office itself.

It hardly, therefore, seems fair for peanut-gallery pundits to draw premature conclusions about a delicate matter about which they know next to nothing.

Yes, there are many questions to answer. How about first getting those answers?