Tag Archives: Newt Gingrich

national news, political news

What became of a strong House speaker?

1 Comment

John Boehner seems like a decent enough fellow. I’ve long thought of him as someone whose instincts lead him toward working with Democrats, not against them.

But the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives has this problem: It is that some of his fellow Republicans don’t like working with the other party. There seems to be enough of those types to make governing quite difficult for the once-affable speaker.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/boehner-house-congress-rambunctious-115634.html?hp=c1_3

Boehner today said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the House is a rambunctious place. It’s full of members with competing ideas on how to get things done. He said “I think” I can lead the House.

Interesting, yes? Well, yes.

The speaker was handed a big defeat this past week when the House defeated his plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security for three weeks. The “rambunctious caucus” of the House, aka the TEA party wing, bolted from his idea, along with a number of Democrats. Some last-minute scrambling enabled the House to approve a DHS funding bill that expires at the end of this week. Then we get to do this all over again.

I’m trying to imagine how past speakers would handle all this rambunctiousness. Would Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas allow it? How about Speaker Tip O’Neill of Massachusetts? Hey, do you think Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia would stand still for this foolishness?

These three gentlemen — two Democrats and a Republican — were among the stronger-willed men to run the House. They all governed with considerable effectiveness. Their secret? My belief is that they all knew how to work with members of the “other party.” They also worked well with presidents of the other party, working overtime to search for common ground.

Speaker Boehner is being whipsawed by his own caucus. It’s not a pretty sight.

By definition, Speaker Boehner is the Man of the Entire House, not just of his or her political party. The partisan roles are filled by the majority leader and the majority whip of the party in charge. The speaker, though, is supposed to look after the interests of all House members.

Boehner has to figure out a way — in a big hurry — to get the rowdy bunch in line.

I have an idea: Pick up the phone, call Newt Gingrich and ask him: “Newt, how in the world can I corral these clowns?”

national news, political news

Mitt is out; eyes now turn to Jeb

Jeb Bush’s worst nightmare may have come true with Mitt Romney’s decision to forgo a run for the presidency in 2016.

With Mitt out of the picture, that puts the frontrunner’s bulls-eye on Jeb’s back.

It’s not going to be fun running from the front, according to Matt Latimer, writing for Politico.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/mitt-romney-gop-2016-114787.html?hp=c2_3#.VM6ns1J0yt8

Indeed, we’re beginning to get just a taste of what lies ahead for Bush. Stories about his partying, alleged bullying and an apparent disinterest in all things political at the fancy prep school he attended are starting to surface.

Not that it’s a deal-breaker, mind you. To my mind, it paints this son of a wealthy, patrician family as a fairly normal guy — sort of the way his big brother, George W., behaved when he was going through the same period in his life. W’s life got a bit more twisted along the way, what with alcohol abuse — but he straightened out in time to be elected governor of Texas in 1994 and to be elected president of the United States in 2000.

Jeb’s probable run for the presidency next year will face similar obstacles. But now he’s the apparent frontrunner and he’s got some fiery foes breathing heavily to catch him.

Romney would have been one of them, given his own penchant for going for the throat (see Newt Gingrich in the 2012 GOP nomination campaign).

Sure, Mitt is out of the picture, so that saves Jeb Bush from suffering from Mitt’s slings and arrows.

However, he’s going to take some serious hits from the bevy of other contenders seeking a shot at the spotlight.

Be careful of what you seek, Jeb. It might find you.

 

political news

Bank it: Trump isn't running for president

My former colleagues at the Amarillo Globe-News have run a column by a guy who fancies himself as a player in Republican political circles.

He is Matt Towery, a former Georgia GOP state legislator and a pal of Newt Gingrich. He’s also a friend of the Globe-News’s corporate ownership, which is the major reason he is published occasionally in the local paper.

Towery thinks Donald Trump is considering seriously whether to run for president in 2016. What’s more, Towery is infatuated with the notion of Trump actually becoming president.

Let’s clear the air.

Trump isn’t running. He’ll never run for president. He is talking like this because he likes — no, he loves — the sound of his voice. He loves getting people all worked up over the goofy things he says and he takes himself far too seriously on these matters.

However, the real reason he won’t run is because he has a lucrative TV deal that he cannot surrender. It’s that apprentice show of his on NBC-TV, the one where he tells celebrities “You’re fired.”

He’s going to give that up to earn a paltry 400 grand a year making decisions involving the future of the nation?

Towery took pains in a column published this week in the Globe-News to poke a little fun at President Obama’s experience prior to moving into the White House. He belittled his community organizing experience and noted that Obama served briefly in the Illinois Legislature and then the U.S. Senate before being elected president in 2008.

Meanwhile, Trump keeps bellowing about whether the president is constitutionally qualified to serve in the office he holds. You know, the “born in Kenya” crap. Give me a break.

Towery equates Trump’s “star quality” with Ronald Reagan. Sure. Except that Reagan actually governed a huge state for eight years. Trump’s government experience? None.

And let’s not look askance at the importance of actually working with government.

No, Donald Trump is among the least-suited men possible for this incredibly nuanced and sophisticated job. He should keep his day job “firing” washed-up celebrities.

President Trump? Perish the thought. Forever.

national news, political news, State news

No 'oops' for Perry next time around

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is soon to be a “former” governor — and a likely current candidate for the president of the United States.

He vows there will be no repeat of the infamous “oops” moment in late 2011 when he couldn’t name all three of the federal agencies he said he would cut from the federal government.

In an interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, Perry said he’ll be better prepared if he decides to run again for the White House.

He’s also got that felony indictment alleging abuse of power to get worked out one way or the other.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/rick-perry-oops-wont-be-my-obituary/ar-BBgD52T

The most interesting element in the story attached to this blog post is how Harwood sizes up the potential 2016 GOP field with the 2012 cast of characters. The next Republican field is likely to include some serious politicians with serious ideas about how to solve serious problems.

That clearly wasn’t the case in 2012. The GOP field included a cabal of clowns: Herman “9-9-9” Cain? Michelle “Democrats are Communists” Bachmann? Rick “Say ‘No’ to Contraception” Santorum? Newt “I Impeached an Unfaithful President While I was Cheating On My Wife” Gingrich?

The next field, which might include Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, is much more credible than the previous field of candidates.

Perry will have to do battle with a much more serious band of GOP brothers (and maybe) sisters.

Oh, but he says he’ll be ready.

We’ll see about that.

 

Uncategorized

Professor Gingrich lectures on ISIS

Good Saturday morning, students.

Professor Newt Gingrich is going to lecture you on the link attached here about how little President Obama understands about the international terror threat being posed to the United States and, of course, he implies that he — the professor — gets it.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/22/opinion/gingrich-isis-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

I don’t deny that the professor is smart. He knows how to win elections, he knows how to rouse them rabbles. He’s just not that good at governing, as his stint as speaker of the House of Reps demonstrated back in the late 1990s.

Here’s in part what he writes about the president’s remarks on the beheading of American journalist James Foley by ISIS terrorists: “I urge you to read President Obama’s full text. It isn’t very long. The most delusional line is his assertion that ‘people like this ultimately fail. They fail because the future is won by those who build and not destroy.’ Of course it is freedom and the rule of law that have been rare throughout history, and tyranny and lawlessness that have been common. ISIS and the ideology it represents won’t just wear themselves out.

“One has to wonder whether the President understands how serious a threat ISIS presents. ISIS is a fact. It is a religiously motivated movement that uses terror as one of its weapons. Beheading people is nothing new in history.”

One has to wonder? No, one need not wonder whether Barack Obama “understands how serious a threat” ISIS is to the rest of the world. He’s living with it. He is hearing constantly from his national security team, his diplomatic team, the Joint Chiefs of Staff — and from critics such as Professor Gingrich — precisely how dangerous this group of monsters is to the United States.

Gingrich has posed some fascinating notions about ISIS’s reach into mainstream cultures, such as Great Britain. He’s correct to suggest we’d better take this organization seriously.

However, he ought to stop there. Let’s not presume that the president of the United States doesn’t understand these things. The nation has one commander in chief at a time.

At the moment, it is not Professor Newt Gingrich.

Uncategorized

Impeachment talk is driving me insane

For the ever-loving life of me I cannot fathom how on God’s Earth Republicans around the country think Congress should impeach the president of the United States.

A new poll from CNN-ORC says two-thirds of Americans oppose the notion of impeaching President Obama. Yet the nutcases on the far right keep fueling this idiocy by suggesting the president has committed some specified impeachable offense.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/213323-majority-opposes-impeachment-calls-and-lawsuit-poll-finds

House Speaker John Boehner says impeachment is a non-starter. Other key Republicans say they oppose it, too. One of them, most interestingly, is former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who got himself entangled in an earlier impeachment effort against President Clinton. It didn’t work out too well for Gingrich and his House GOP brethren. The House impeached the president, but the Senate acquitted him on all the charges. Gingrich, meanwhile, resigned hi speakership and then left the House because of his own shabby personal behavior and because he lost the confidence of his House colleagues.

The pro-impeachment cabal has even less on Obama than the goons on the right had on Clinton. With Clinton, at least they could say the president lied under oath to a federal grand jury about his fling with that young woman who worked in the White House. Perjury is a felony.

President Obama’s alleged misdeed? He’s using the power granted him by the Constitution to invoke executive authority? What else is there?

Republicans are playing with some serious fire if they keep up this nonsense.

Can’t we get back to the business of governing, for crying out loud?

The mid-term elections might give Republicans control of the Senate — but it’s not nearly a sure thing. They’ll likely retain control of the House. If Capitol Hill goes fully Republican, then the GOP will have to settle into the role of co-equal partners in the process of running the richest, most powerful country on Earth.

Impeachment rhetoric from the GOP peanut gallery is an utterly ridiculous exercise.

It is irresponsible and reprehensible in the extreme.

***

Gosh, I now am asking my own congressman, Republican Mac Thornberry: What say you, Mac, about this idea of impeaching the president? Please tell me you haven’t swilled the GOP goofball Kool-Aid.

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

Ready for a GOP takeover?

Many of my friends, if not most of them, think I live, breathe and eat politics 24/7.

They may be right. One of them posed the question to me this afternoon: “Are you ready for a Republican takeover of the Senate?”

Yes. I am.

Do I predict it will happen when the midterm elections are concluded this November? Not necessarily, but it’s looking like a distinct possibility.

A few Democratic Senate incumbents might be in trouble. What’s more likely, though, is that Republicans will pick up seats that had been held by Democrats in GOP-leaning states. South Dakota is likely to from Democrat to Republican; so might West Virginia.

Meanwhile, Louisiana’s Democratic incumbent could lose to a GOP challenger. Arkansas was thought to be vulnerable to a GOP switch, but the Democratic incumbent there is making a comeback.

I’m not sure a GOP takeover of the Senate will be a bad thing. The Rs already control the House and pretty much have made a hash out of the governing process by its obstructing so many constructive initiatives.

If the GOP grabs the Senate, we’re looking at the possibility of Capitol Hill actually trying to govern. Recall the 1995 Congress, which turned from fully Democratic control to fully Republican. A Democrat, Bill Clinton, occupied the White House. The speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, turned almost immediately from fire-breathing zealot to someone who actually could deal with the president. He also had the Senate at his back.

Will history repeat itself? The current speaker, John Boehner, seems capable of striking deals — even though he has to say some mean things about the White House to placate the tea party wing of his party. If the Senate flips to GOP control, then we’ll see if the Republican-controlled Capitol Hill can actually produce legislation the president will sign.

Warning No. 1: If you seize control of Capitol Hill, you rascally Republicans, don’t try to toss the Affordable Care Act overboard. The president does have veto authority and you’ll need far more than a simple majority to override a presidential veto. The Supreme Court has upheld the law, which now is working.

Having said all this, I think it is simply wise to see what the voters decide in November.

The current crop of Republicans has shown quite a talent for overplaying its hand — e.g., the on-going ACA repeal circus, not to mention the IRS and Benghazi nonsense.

Although I am prepared for a GOP takeover, I am far from ready to concede it is a done deal.

Uncategorized

Do as I say, not do

Vance McAllister is a Louisiana Republican member of Congress who campaigned in 2012 for an office while touting his deep Christian faith, his devotion to his wife and children and his vow to make Washington a more moral place.

Then he got caught in a lengthy and reportedly passionate kiss with a female (who’s also married) member of his staff.

The stuff, shall we say, is hitting the fan down yonder in Louisiana.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/caught-kissing-staffer-rep-vance-mcallister-asks-for-forgiveness/

This is what happens when you campaign as one thing and perform in another manner.

It happened to former U.S. Sen. and one-time Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards, who professed his devotion to his wife, Elizabeth, while producing a child with another woman.

It also happened when former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich was among the leaders in the impeach Bill Clinton movement during the president’s scandal over an affair of his own. Then we learned that as Gingrich was blasting Clinton to smithereens over his conduct, the speaker was having actual sex with a House staff member.

The bipartisan list of moral hypocrites is too long to list here. Those two jumped immediately to mind.

Rep. McAllister has some explaining to do to (a) his wife and (b) the good folks of Louisiana who elected him thinking they were getting someone with the record of a Boy Scout.

How he handles the trouble with his wife will be his business alone. How he settles it with the people who are paying his salary is quite another.

“There’s no doubt I’ve fallen short and I’m asking for forgiveness. I’m asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff, and my constituents who elected me to serve,” McAllister said in a statement. “Trust is something I know has to be earned whether you’re a husband, a father, or a congressman. I promise to do everything I can to earn back the trust of everyone I’ve disappointed.”

How’s he going to make good with his constituents? Will he vow never to do it again? If so, can he be believed?

Good luck, congressman.

Uncategorized

Obama has learned: You need to keep tabs on folks

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said it well this morning on “Meet the Press” while commenting on President Obama’s National Security Agency reforms.

He said Obama ran for president as someone “inclined to support civil liberties,” but has learned that “after five years” he has to depend on surveillance techniques to keep Americans safe.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/19/22358363-congressional-intelligence-chairmen-applaud-obama-for-backing-surveillance?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

The chairs of the Senate and House intelligence committees understand that as well in backing Obama’s reforms while acknowledging the president has developed a keen appreciation for spying on potential bad guys.

This came from the Republican House chairman, Mike Rogers: “The most important victory was the president standing up and saying, ‘Hey, the program did not have abuses. This wasn’t sinister. It wasn’t a rogue agency. It was legal and proper.’”

And this came from the Democratic Senate chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein: “A lot of the privacy people perhaps don’t understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan. New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness. We need to be prepared. I think we need to do it in a way that respects people’s privacy rights.”

The president has recommended putting NSA efforts to listen to phone conversations under more intensive judicial review.

I’ve noted already that NSA activities don’t get me too worked up. I’ve got not a single thing to hide from those guys. Besides, Obama has said the NSA is listening only to those who it believes are up to no good.

That works for me.

As the former speaker — no shrinking violet when it comes to criticizing the president — has said, Barack Obama has learned to appreciate the need to keep eyes and ears on those who would do us harm.