Tag Archives: White House

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?

Uncategorized

VA boss Shinseki on his way out?

Maybe I’m reading too much into things at this moment, but my trick knee is throbbing and it’s telling me Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki’s time in public life might be nearing an end.

Congressional Democrats have joined their Republican colleagues in urging his ouster in light of the veterans’ health care scandal that is mushrooming across the country. Vets have died while waiting for health care; VA officials reportedly have doctored waiting times to make themselves look good.

All this has been done on Shinseki’s watch.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/206869-dems-break-with-obama-call-for-shinsekis-sacking

President Obama made a strong statement Wednesday in which he condemned the activities about which we already know. He called them “disgraceful” and said they “will not be tolerated.”

He had met with Shinseki privately at the White House and, as The Hill notes, the former Army general was not at the president’s side when he lowered the boom on the agency Shinseki runs.

I refuse to accept the criticism that Obama was too timid in his response. He is looking for all the facts before making any firm decisions. Congressional Republicans, therefore, need to zip it before popping off about what the president should do.

It’s the call for Shinseki’s ouster from congressional Democrats, though, that should have the president’s ear. He did say Wednesday that the outrage spans political partisanship and that all Americans should be angry over the deaths of veterans who were awaiting health care from an agency that made a vow to provide them the best care possible.

This controversy won’t go away until the president gets all the answers he demands — and then acts on the recommendations he receives.

It’s looking to me, though, as if one recommendation — to show the Vets Affairs secretary the door — already is on the table.

Uncategorized

'W' surprises us with records release

George W. Bush presided over one of the more secretive administrations of the past century.

Thus, it is a pleasant surprise to see him prepare to release many of his previously classified presidential papers so openly and quickly after his two terms as president have concluded.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/george-w-bush-white-house-records-105851.html?hp=t1

President Bush is drawing deservedly high praise for this impending document release.

Politico sought the information about the Bush papers in a Freedom of Information request. The papers will reveal plenty of information and “talking points” used by the president and his chief aides.

Why is this important? Because it helps historians gain a fuller picture of a two-term presidency that — during its very first year — was jolted into a war by terrorists who flew those jetliners into buildings in New York and Washington. The war framed the rest of the Bush presidency and created a political climate the likes of which never had been seen in this country.

Observers note that President Bush is planning to be much more forthcoming in the document release than his immediate predecessor, President Bill Clinton. Some have concluded that Bush feels he has little to lose and much to gain by releasing the documents. Whatever the motivation, it is a welcome change from the manner in which the Bush administration at times conducted the affairs of state and government.

As Politico reports, “The high marks Bush is receiving for his letter are startling, since historians and a media coalition complained loudly and bitterly in 2001 about an executive order he issued ceding additional power to former presidents to prevent disclosure of their records. A judge struck down part of the order in 2007.”

The change of heart is welcome. A curious nation will look forward to seeing what’s in the record.

Uncategorized

Booker, Cruz talk; who listens?

U.S. Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ted Cruz of Texas recently had what was described as a three-hour private lunch.

It struck me when I heard this about two of the Senate’s more garrulous members: Who listens when the two of them get together?

Booker, a Democrat, and Cruz, a Republican, both are known to be two of the least camera-shy members of the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. They both seem to love the sound of their own voices, particularly when they’re positioned in front of a microphone. So when Booker said he and his fellow junior member of that august body met, I was intrigued by the idea of the two of them sitting down to hear each other out.

In a larger sense, though, the meeting was good for an important reason. It apparently was Booker’s idea. He said he intends to share private meals with every one of the Senate’s Republican members. Why? He wants to search for common ground with them. He wants to restore some level of collegiality to a body that’s been missing it since, oh, about the time Barack Hussein Obama became president of the United States of America.

I won’t get into who’s to blame for this lack of collegiality. It disappeared between Republicans and Democrats within the Senate. It surely vanished between the Senate and the White House, particularly among the GOP senators and the White House.

I hope Booker goes through with his pledge to meet with all of his Republican colleagues. If he can restore some decency among them, so much the better for Senate and for the cause of good government.

As for meeting with Cruz, I have to salute both men presumably for keeping their big mouths shut long enough to hear what the other guy had to say.

Uncategorized

Worst Congress ever?

Great day in the morning! I think we have an area where congressional Democrats and Republicans actually agree.

They all seem to agree that this is the worst-performing Congress in history.

Worst Congress ever?

Of course, that’s where the consensus ends. They’re blaming each other for the dysfunction that that ails the legislative branch of the federal government.

I’ve long been a good-government kind of guy. I like government to work for the country and believe government has a role to play in helping those who need a hand. Thus, I tend to lean to the left. No surprise, probably.

The Republicans who have run the House of Representatives since 2011 have a different view. Many of them believe Congress shouldn’t do nearly as much as it’s allowed to do. So, when the president has proposed legislation and ideas to help folks, Congress has been prone to resist disposing of those ideas.

“I tell people, we’re not getting anything done and that’s good,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who intends to leave the Senate at the end of 2014.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who has served in Congress since The Flood, recently announced his intention to retire at the end of the year. He said the place no longer is fun, no longer productive and no longer worth his time and effort.

Dingell is not alone.

Does the president deserve some of the blame for this dysfunction? Sure. Governing is a shared responsibility, which is why I get so annoyed at those who blame the president for all that ails the nation’s political system. Barack Obama promised to break the gridlock loose. He hasn’t delivered on that promise. One of the common criticisms of the president is that he isn’t fond of schmoozing with legislators the way, oh, Lyndon Johnson would do. Thus, when he proposes an idea, Obama prefers to let the merits of the idea win the day, without actually working with legislators to persuade them to push the idea into law.

It seems, though, that whenever he reaches out, his “friends” on the other side slap his hand away.

Therein lies the crux of the problem.

Republicans blame Democrats for Congress’s failure to deliver … and vice versa.

At least they agree that the legislative branch is a loser.

Uncategorized

Minimum wage hike not really a killer

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner is on record as saying he’d rather kill himself than vote for an increase in the federal minimum wage.

Now that he’s gotten that off his chest, I surely hope he was just being melodramatic, trying to make some rhetorical point.

However, now the issue ought to turn to whether the House should vote on it. I say, “Why not?”

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/198856-boehner-id-rather-kill-myself-than-raise-the-minimum-wage

At issue is a proposal to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. President Obama wants it, as do congressional Democrats. So might a majority of congressional Republicans. Polling indicates most rank-and-file Americans support an increase from the current rate of $7.25 per hour.

Who’s opposed to it? As my late mother would say, I’ll give you three guesses — but the first two don’t count.

It’s the tea party cabal within the Republican Party congressional caucus, the individuals who have whipsawed Boehner and other establishment Republicans into backing much of their agenda.

Boehner isn’t likely to allow a vote to increase the minimum wage because he’s been buffaloed.

Therein lies the question of leadership. Is the speaker the Man of the House or isn’t he?

As speaker, he isn’t beholden just to a minority within his own caucus. He ought to be looking out for the interests of the entire body, all 435 members — and that includes Democrats as well as Republicans.

I’m not necessarily arguing here for a “clean” minimum wage bill, one that doesn’t have some sweeteners, such as spending cuts or tax breaks. Indeed, White House brass and congressional Democrats ought to be stop digging in their heels by insisting on a clean bill.

What’s more, economic data differ on whether a minimum wage increase is going to cause mass layoffs because employers cannot afford to pay employee wages.

I do know, though, that families cannot rely on minimum-wage income to sustain themselves. They need a boost.

So, Mr. Speaker, allow a vote. It won’t kill you.