Tag Archives: Republican Party

national news, political news

Calling it the TEA party from now on

Readers of this blog know that I refer often to the insurgent wing of the Republican Party, the one that gives the so-called “establishment wing” fits.

I am now going to refer to it as the TEA party, not the “tea party.”

TEA is an acronym, meaning “Taxed Enough Already.”

It’s meant to recall the Boston Tea Party, where colonials tossed tea into Boston Harbor to protest the tax they were being forced to pay for it.

The TEA party’s original mission seemed honorable enough. It has morphed into something else. TEA party officials have taken to opposing just about any kind of progressive legislation. Immigration reform? Forget about it. Health care reform? Pfftt!

I’ll simply remind the TEA party loyalists of their original intent in forming this wing of the Republican Party.

To paraphrase an earlier slogan: It’s the taxes, stupid.

 

national news, political news

You go, old friend

My former colleague and still-friend Jon Talton has issued a blistering rebuke of the rebuke.

That is he’s taken to task the Republicans who have opposed Barack Obama since Day One of his presidency for the trashing they orchestrated in winning a Senate majority and strengthening their majority in the House of Representatives.

http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/2014/11/democrats-are-stupid.html

I cannot really add to his excellent analysis of the current political climate and the context in which it continues to exist — strange as it seems, according to Talton.

I’ll note just a couple of points.

First is that presidents never deserve all the credit they seek nor the blame they receive. We have this element in our government called “balance of power.” We split the power among the three branches — executive, legislative and judicial. Take the federal courts out of this argument and we still have two branches of government with co-equal power.

Last time I checked, governing remains a team sport. So, to whatever extent the president deserves the blame for when things go south, then he should take it. But the Congress is supposed to be a player in this game as well.

Second is that Barack Obama is not radical leftist. As Talton noted: “Obama is … a Jerry Ford. With the ‘center’ pushed so far to the right, he accepted the radical fiscal ‘austerity’ that is such a drag on recovery and average Americans. (Reagan kept spending, and not merely on the military).”

The “new center” now seems to exist somewhere to the right of where traditional conservatives used to navigate. We can thank the tea party caucus for that. What’s more, they’ve done a great job of demonizing the president, ascribing all kinds of evil intent at so many levels I cannot even begin to keep track.

I’ll stop now and refer you to Jon’s essay attached to this blog post.

It’s a good read and worth your time.

 

national news, political news

How to define a 'Values Voter'?

3 Comments

It is amusing, although not in a guffawing kind of way.

The Values Voter Summit has declared U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be its kind of politician. They like his “values.”

Good for him.

I am left to wonder, though, why the conservative wing of the once-great Republican Party has laid claim to speaking for American voters’ values.

It must be marketing. The far right wing of the GOP has managed to brand itself as representing “values.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/ted-cruz-values-voter-conference-111363.html?hp=l4

Once-moderate GOP leaders need not step up to the microphone at this Washington, D.C. gathering. Democrats? Don’t even think about it. The podium belongs to those on the far right. It’s their values that count.

My values? Forget about it.

However, let’s look at the values of those who haven’t attended these “summits.”

I’ll gladly stand as an example of one of those Americans. For instance:

* I’ve served my country in uniform, gone to war for the U.S. of A. and served honorably in the U.S. Army.

* I have been married to the same woman for more than 43 years. We love each other deeply.

* My two sons are both upstanding men who now are in their 40s. We see and hear from them regularly. They’re hard-working, industrious, intelligent, well-educated, good-hearted men who make us proud every single day.

* I pay my taxes on time every year.

* I attend church fairly regularly and have served as an elder at the mainstream Presbyterian church my wife and I attend.

* I have voted in every presidential election since 1972. I split my ticket generously between Democrats and Republicans up and down the ballot. But I have voted Democrat for every presidential candidate going back to that first vote, when the Vietnam War was starting to wind down.

Ah, yes. There it is. That’s why I’ll never be seen at one of those Voters Values Summit meetings. I have voted for those dreaded Democrats for president.

The rest of it? I think I am an individual with pretty sound values — and I am quite sure I speak for many millions of other values-driven Americans who aren’t part of that right-wing fringe of society that shouts about its own values and thinks it speaks for all Americans.

Hardly.

Uncategorized

Bush the Elder under the scope

I’ve been saying for years that in my humble view, George H.W. Bush arguably was the most qualified man ever to serve as president of the United States.

The man’s resume is astounding: naval aviator in World War II who was shot down and rescued from the Pacific Ocean; business executive; member of Congress from Texas; envoy to China; director of the CIA; United Nationals ambassador; chairman of the Republican National Committee; two terms as vice president of the United States.

President Bush served a single term in the White House. He lost re-election largely because conservatives turned on him because he felt it necessary to renege on his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge made at the 1998 GOP convention in New Orleans.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/george-w-bush-book-109621.html?hp=t1

Now come a flurry of books on the 41st president. One of them is by his very own son, the 43rd president, George W. Bush. Another one, by journalist Jon Meacham, is in the works.

We shouldn’t expect W’s book to be an objective analysis. He’s writing about his father and as such he looks at Poppy with understandably affectionate eyes.

It’s worth reading, though, according to early reviews because George W. examines the complicated — but intensely loving — relationship between father and son.

President Bush 41 didn’t write a presidential memoir. He did publish a collection of letters and diary entries that tell the world a great deal about him. Some of which is his modesty and shyness.

That’s OK. Those of us who’ve followed his career know what he was able to accomplish in his long and distinguished life.

As the link attached to this blog notes, though, W’s book about his beloved father well might complicate the Republican presidential campaign lineup for 2016, correct, Jeb Bush? As Politico reports: “The timing of the book won’t be ideal for another Bush: former Florida Gov. Bush, who will have to decide around the release date whether to try to become the third Bush president. He’d be competing for attention with his brother’s book about his dad, and the whole setup might spark yet another round of speculation about the brothers’ rivalries.”

Whatever. I’m glad to see a good man honored by his son’s loving memory.

Uncategorized

Why Warren … and not Clinton?

Conservatives seem to have hitched themselves to a possible candidacy by a leading U.S. Senate liberal.

Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has been wowing crowds at political events lately. She’s been firing up the political base of her Democratic Party. Warren also has gotten the attention of conservative commentators and pundits, such as Byron York, who contends that Warren offers a plan while Hillary Rodham Clinton is running essentially on her resume.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/will-elizabeth-warrens-fight-for-causes-put-hillary-clinton-in-the-shade/article/2551098

I’ll hereby offer my own explanation of why York, a columnist for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News Channel contributor, is so taken by Warren: He wants the Democratic Party to marginalize itself the way Republicans might be willing to do when they nominate their candidate for the 2016 presidential campaign.

You see, Hillary Clinton is a centrist Democrat in the mold of her husband, the 42nd president of the United States. Bill Clinton was the master of “triangulation,” and he parlayed his skill at working the extremes against each other so well that he won two smashing election victories in 1992 and 1996.

Republicans don’t want any more of that.

So some of them have glommed onto Warren’s candidacy, talking her up.

Don’t get me wrong. Elizabeth Warren is a powerhouse. She’s smart and courageous. She’s taking on big-money interests and is talking a darn good populist message about income equality, marriage equality, and financial and tax reform.

York and other conservatives likely don’t give a damn about the content of Warren’s message. They’re just thrilled to have someone out there willing to possibly challenge Hillary Clinton’s perceived inevitability as the Democratic presidential nominee in two years.

She reminds me vaguely of the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy, who in 1968 took on President Lyndon Johnson when it was perceived widely that LBJ would run for re-election. McCarthy stunned the president by nearly beating him in the New Hampshire Democratic primary. On March 31, 1968, LBJ declared he wouldn’t seek “another term as your president.”

The news thrilled Republicans in ’68. I suspect similar news from Hillary Clinton this time around would have the same effect on the GOP if Warren jumps in and then mounts a serious challenge to Clinton’s perceived invincibility.

Uncategorized

Next up in tea party sights: Sen. Graham

Lindsey Graham might be the next sitting Republican U.S. senator headed to a runoff courtesy of a tea party challenge from his right.

Last week we saw Mississippi U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran forced into a runoff with challenger Chris McDaniel. The smart money, such as it is, says Cochran’s in trouble in the June 24 runoff. McDaniel is well-positioned to knock off the six-term Republican incumbent, who the tea party says isn’t conservative enough for Mississippians.

Instead, the Mississippi Republicans may nominate someone backed by fanatics who broke into a nursing home where Cochran’s wife has lived for more than a decade and who sought to produce an anti-Cochran campaign video that included images of his bed-ridden wife. Disgusting.

And what about Graham, another conservative who’s been deemed too squishy because he has the audacity to work across the aisle at times? Why, that turncoat even has supported some of President Obama’s judicial nominees, which angers the tea party faction in South Carolina to no end.

He’s got a boatload of challengers. The South Carolina GOP primary is Tuesday. The question there is whether Graham can be re-nominated without having to go to a runoff. If he doesn’t get the requisite 50-percent majority, can he prevail in a runoff in which the turnout usually is a whole lot lower than it is in the primary?

This is big news just about everywhere, it seems, but Texas. The tea party wing of the GOP is running strong here, so it’s no big deal to see “establishment” incumbents getting thumped.

Elsewhere? That’s another matter.

Stay tuned for the latest drama to play out Tuesday in South Carolina.

Uncategorized

Hillary is too 'centrist'?

What a strange problem to have.

Hillary Rodham Clinton likely will run for president in 2016. The right wing detests her, which is a given. Now we hear that the left wing isn’t crazy about her, although she’d be a far better alternative to whomever the Republicans likely will nominate in two years.

Hillary leaves left cold

The way I see it, the former first lady/U.S. senator/secretary of state is positioning herself in a position to actually win the White House. By my calculation, that means she’ll have to reach toward the center — which by definition means she’ll lean away from those on the far left of the Democratic Party.

Does this remind you of anything or anyone? I’m reminded a bit of her husband, the 42nd president of the United States, Bill Clinton. Do you recall the term “triangulation,” which defined the tactic of playing both extremes against each other to craft a centrist domestic and foreign policy? My trick knee suggests Mrs. Clinton might be willing to perform the same sort of balancing act.

Will the left-wing base of the party find a suitable alternative candidate? There’s talk of Sen. Elizabeth Warren or of Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who really is a thinly veiled Democrat.

I consider it a pipe dream if those on the left think they’re going to derail the Hillary Juggernaut.

The only possible way Hillary Clinton would appease anyone on the right would be for her to switch parties and become a Republican. That’s not a sure thing, though, as some GOP folks would concoct some goofy conspiracy theory.

In the end, the left will come around, just as the right comes around whenever the Republicans seek to nominate a centrist for president.

My own view is that centrist policies speak to what Colin Powell once referred to as the vast ocean of middle-ground opinion where most Americans find themselves.

It’s also a formula for winning an election.

Uncategorized

'R-word' surfaces yet again

There goes that pesky “R-word” being bandied about as politicians debate the presidency of Barack Obama.

The latest uttering of it came from former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who used to be a Republican but now is running for his old office — as a Democrat.

Why did he leave the Grand Old Party?

Crist says it is because too many Republicans just can’t stomach the idea of an African-American serving as president of the United States. He calls those critics racist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/charlie-crist-racism-drove-me-from-gop-106442.html?hp=l10_b1

Is it true? Is Crist correct to assert that GOP criticism of Obama is based mostly — if not solely — on the fact that his father was a black African and his mother was a white Kansan?

Crist leveled a pretty heavy barrage against his former party in a TV interview. “They’re perceived now as being anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-education, anti-environment,” he said of Republicans.

Crist told interviewer Jorge Ramos he couldn’t tolerate that kind of view. So he switched parties.

Republicans, not surprisingly, say Crist left the party to become an independent initially because he couldn’t beat GOP Sen. Marco Rubio in the 2010 election. Again, I cannot know someone’s motives.

Crist, though, is speaking aloud about a chronic, nagging problem that is dogging the Republican Party. Are Obama critics fueled by racism? At the very least, is the president’s racial background factoring at some level into the intensity of the criticism being leveled at him?

I haven’t a clue. The issue, though, is worth a thorough national discussion.

Bring it on.

Uncategorized

'Cruz Missile' for president?

Shall I weep uncontrollably or jump for joy at this bit of political news?

A former staffer for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas may be planning a Draft Cruz for President within the Republican Party.

Why weep? I suppose I would weep for a once-great political party if it actually committed the foolish act of nominating someone so, um, polarizing. Why be joyful? A Cruz candidacy and a thumping by the Democratic Party nominee in November 2016 likely would spell the welcome end of the movement this media hog is leading within the Republican Party.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-on-the-potomac/2014/03/ted-cruz-may-be-drafted-for-president/

Raz Shafter, a former regional director for Cruz, is heading up a political action committee that — under federal election law — will be able to raise unlimited amounts of money to promote Cruz’s possible presidential bid.

Cruz has been circumspect about this notion, which is a bit ironic given that he’s hardly exhibited any form of rhetorical reticence since joining the Senate in January 2013. He’s been blathering incessantly about the so-called evils of the Affordable Care Act, debt increases, Barack Obama’s presidency itself and wondering whether Vietnam War combat veterans John Kerry and Chuck Hagel had enough appreciation for U.S. military commitments.

I guess my first reaction to this draft Cruz movement — whether I should weep — is a bit premature.

Maybe I ought to start my happy dance at the idea that Republicans actually might nominate the Texas Cruz Missile.

Uncategorized

Yes, GOP needs to ‘change’

Rand Paul says the Republican Party needs a radical makeover if it hopes to win the presidency in his lifetime.

Interesting, coming from a Kentucky senator whose philosophies have played a part in the GOP’s losing strategy the past two presidential election cycles.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rand-paul-without-change-gop-will-not-win-again-in-my-lifetime/

Paul says the party cannot “tinker around the edges.” It needs radical change, he said.

Here’s an idea: Why not return to the ways of the Republican old guard, you know, the guys who won while running behind the likes of George H.W. Bush, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush?

They’re all different, to be sure. Ike was a war hero who was destined to win the presidency in 1952. He governed from the middle and helped oversee a period of unprecedented prosperity during the bulk of the 1950s. Richard Nixon he turned out to be a disgrace and doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with Ike, Reagan or the Bushes.

Ronald Reagan was a true-blue conservative. However, he didn’t demonize his foes. He befriended them after hours and worked with Democrats whenever opportunities presented themselves.

George H.W. Bush — in my mind — was arguably the most qualified man to serve as president. War hero, ambassador to the U.N., congressman, special envoy to China, party chairman, CIA director and vice president. He also was a mainstream politician who also could work with the other guys.

W. campaigned as a “compassionate conservative” and while he made some mistakes — the Iraq War and his hands-off financial policies that contributed to the economic collapse at the end of his presidency — also sought to govern reasonably.

The change Paul has called for cannot take his party down the do-nothing road. Government has to play a role in helping people. Republicans and Democrats need to look proactively common ground instead of looking for reasons to oppose one another.

Paul is calling for a “more diverse party.” How he’ll seek that diversity remains a mystery, given the GOP’s insistence on laws that make voting more difficult, seeking to block efforts to improve the immigration system, continuing to meddle in people’s personal lives and putting the interests of wealthy Americans above those of the rest of us.

I want the Republican Party to reshape itself. Honest. It’s got to emerge in the manner that Rand Paul says he envisions, and not in the form of some crazy cabal of kooks — many of whom have taken the Grand Old Party hostage.