Tag Archives: Jimmy Carter

national news, political news

Let's define 'ideal GOP candidate'

The Daily Signal has put out an online survey asking folks who would be their “ideal” Republican presidential candidate in 2016.

It wasn’t until I looked carefully at the bottom of the survey form that I realized it is a sincere question.

Who Is Your Ideal GOP 2016 Presidential Nominee?

It gives poll takers a chance to subscribe to Heritage Foundation material. So, there you have it. The poll comes from one of the nation’s premier conservative think tanks. So, the poll is meant to be taken seriously by those who answer the question.

But regular readers of this blog know my own political leanings place me far from the Heritage Foundation. I lean left. So, when I saw the question, I thought it could be laced with trickery.

I’ll declare here (maybe I’ve done so already; I don’t remember) that I’ve voted Democratic in every presidential election since 1972. I wavered once, teetering between voting for President Ford or Gov. Jimmy Carter in 1976; I ended up voting for Carter and I’ve come close to regretting it in the years since.

I’ve gotten a bit more hardened in my presidential choices over time. I do split my ticket generously, however, and I’ve been proud of the many votes I’ve cast for Republican candidates.

Who would be my favorite GOP candidate in 2016 be? Oh, man. How do I answer that one?

Maybe it would be the most extreme candidate running. Who would that? Ted “The Cruz Missile” Cruz? Marco Rubio? Rand Paul? Mike Huckabee (who’s not really running — yet)?

The more extreme the right-wing candidate the better it appears that a centrist Democrat — such as, oh, Hillary Clinton — would win the election.

I’m acutely aware that the Heritage Foundation is now being run by former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, one of the TEA party godfathers. I’m guessing DeMint personally might favor one of the extremists running for president.

So, think about this one: I agree — potentially — with the guy who runs the Heritage Foundation.

We might want the same candidate to run as the Republican nominee for president next year.

I suspect, though, that our reasons differ wildly.

 

International news

Biden: U.S., Israel 'love each other'

Vice President Joe Biden wants to set the record straight.

The United States and Israel are like “family.” The nations argue with each other, he said, but when the chips are down they “protect each other.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/joe-biden-israel-relationship-117313.html?hp=b1_r2

The vice president sought to tamp down the heated rhetoric of recent months over differences between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His remarks came at a ceremony marking the 67th anniversary of Israel’s independence.

Has the U.S.-Israel partnership been spat free over those six-plus decades? Hardly. Indeed, the differences pre-date the Obama administration. President Carter had difficulty negotiating the Israeli-Egypt peace agreement when he visited played host in 1978 to Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat at Camp David. Carter’s nemesis was Begin. But the deal got done.

Israelis know that the United States stands with them in critical moments. They know their principal ally will not forsake them when they face a direct threat from the neighbors.

“Sometimes we drive each other crazy, but we love each other — and we protect each other,” Biden said.

Isn’t that enough?

media news, national news, political news

Rand Paul plays 'standard shtick'

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul had a prickly interview with an NBC News reporter the other day.

According to another NBC news celeb, the Kentucky Republican is treading on some tricky territory if he keeps it up.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/08/chuck_todd_rand_paul_played_standard_trick_with_savannah_guthrie_base_always_ginned_up_when_you_beat_up_the_press.html

Paul objected to a question posed by Savannah Guthrie and then proceeded to lecture her about talking over him while he tried to answer the question.

It’s not the first time Paul has done that, particularly with female reporters. Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd noted that conservative politicians like baiting the media because it “gins up” their base. Paul, of course, recently announced his candidacy for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2016.

This, of course, plays to the guts of the GOP’s criticism of the “liberal media,” which it contends treat progressive/liberal politicians with kid gloves while they don the brass knuckles when confronting conservative politicians.

Interesting, yes? I don’t believe Bill Clinton would agree with that. Nor would Jimmy Carter. Or former Congressman Anthony Weiner. And, yes, there have been other liberals who’ve taken their share of hits from their so-called “liberal brethren” in the media.

Sen. Paul has enough to offer Republican primary voters — and perhaps the general electorate — without getting in the face of reporters whose job is to probe and push for answers to difficult questions.

International news

What if the bin Laden mission had failed?

You hear this on occasion from conservative critics of President Obama.

The president “had nothing to do” with the killing of 9/11 terror attack mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly repeated the preposterous notion this week on an edition of his “O’Reilly Factor” talk show.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/03/18/oreilly-obama-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-killin/202957

I’ve heard it from others on the right, many of them right here in the Texas Panhandle, where the president is about as popular as … oh, let’s see, bin Laden.

O’Reilly said the Navy SEALs had everything to do with killing bin Laden in May 2011. Well, yes they did. The brave men risked everything by flying into Pakistan on a moonless night, landing their helicopters in bin Laden’s compound, looking for bin Laden, finding him, killing him and then hauling his corpse out of there.

However, to say that a commander in chief who issues the order “had nothing to do” with its success ignores the truth of what would have happened had the mission failed.

Did President Carter have “nothing to do” with the mission to rescue the Iran hostages in April 1980, the one that failed, costing eight American lives in the middle of the desert? He wasn’t at the controls of any of the helicopters that crashed. But he certainly got the blame — chiefly from those on the right — for the mission’s failure.

Did President Truman have “nothing to do” with ending World War II when he issued the order to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What if the Enola Gay B-29 bomber had crashed on its flight over Japan? Give ‘Em Hell Harry would have caught plenty of hell himself.

This ridiculous notion that presidents don’t risk enormous political capital when they make these difficult decisions is the stuff of nonsense.

Barack Obama had to weigh the risks of sending in the commandoes when he ordered the hit on bin Laden. He could have ordered air strikes that could have killed innocent civilians. He didn’t. He could have passed, deciding the risk was too great. He didn’t do that, either.

The president did what presidents get paid to do. He made the difficult call.

Thus, he, too, had everything to do with the success of the raid to kill Osama bin Laden.

 

International news, national news, political news

Foes 'all too willing to test us'

Here’s a tiny part of what former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said before a crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“Here’s the simple truth of our foreign policy: Our allies doubt us and our adversaries are all too willing to test us. No one should be surprised, no one should be surprised that dictators like Assad would cross the president’s red line because he knows the president will not even defend the line that separates our nation from Mexico.” 

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/perry-compares-middle-east-troubles-texas-border

Did you get what he’s inferring here? Perry is possibly going to run for the Republican nomination for president of the United States — again — in 2016. To make the case to GOP voters, he must lambaste the president from the other party.

I understand how it works. Democrats do the same thing to Republican presidents as well, as U.S. Sen. Barack Obama demonstrated when he won the presidency in 2008.

But is this “testing” of U.S. power and prestige limited to just this president?

Let’s see: President Richard Nixon was tested when Arab nations executed an oil embargo in 1973, causing near-panic at gasoline service stations throughout this country. President Ronald Reagan was tested in 1983 when terrorists blew up the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, killing 241 of our young Marines. President George H.W. Bush was tested in Panama when the dictator Manuel Noriega kept looking the other way while drugs were pouring into this country from Panama. President George W. Bush certainly was tested when terrorists flew those hijacked jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11.

Yes, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were tested too. Carter faced the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979-80  and Clinton had to deal with those warlords in Somalia.

Testing of U.S. presidents has been the norm perhaps since the end of World War II, when this nation emerged from that global conflagration as the world’s pre-eminent military and economic power.

It goes with the territory. It’s part of the president’s job description.

 

national news, State news, Uncategorized

Who are you calling ‘crazy,’ Rep. Hastings?

It’s one thing to be called “crazy” by someone whose very presence commands respect and dignity.

It’s quite another to be labeled as such by someone who, shall we say, has a bit of a checkered past himself.

All that said, it’s bizarre to the max to see such an eruption of anger at a congressional rules panel hearing between Republican and Democratic members of Congress, the people’s representatives in the government of the world’s most powerful nation.

U.S. Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., called Texas a “crazy” state and said he wouldn’t live here “for all the tea in China.”

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2015/02/crazy-texas-republicans-to-alcee-hastings-dont-mess-with-texas/

Hastings made the crack during a House Rules Committee hearing on the Affordable Care Act and whether Texas would participate in its implementation.

His remark drew a sharp rebuke from Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, who said Hastings had “defamed” the great state of Texas. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but the remark seemed a bit of a diversion from the issue at hand.

I won’t get into defending the state where my family and I have lived for the past 31 years — except to say this: Yes, the politics here aren’t quite to my liking, but the state is chock full of decent, hard-working, caring, compassionate folks who don’t nearly fit the stereotype that many Americans attach to Texans.

The sunrises and sunsets ain’t bad, either.

As for Hastings, I just wish he wouldn’t have brought up that crazy talk.

This individual once sat on the federal bench. President Carter appointed him to be a U.S. District Court judge — and then he got himself impeached on perjury and bribery charges by a Democratically controlled House of Representatives. The vote was 413-3. How did he fare in a Senate trial? Senators convicted him and he got tossed out of office.

Never fear. Congress welcomed him in 1993 when he won election.

So, let’s stop throwing “crazy” talk around out there, Rep. Hastings. Shall we?

 

national news

Huckabee turns into a goofball

Honest to goodness, I never thought of Mike Huckabee as a right-wing goofball — until just a couple of days ago.

Maybe I missed the warning signs. He went wildly off the rails, though, with some kind of weird critique of President and Mrs. Obama’s parenting skills. Former President Carter came to the Obamas’ defense. Huckabee, who left his job at Fox News to explore another run for the Republican presidential nomination, needs an intervention … maybe.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jimmy-carter-defends-obamas-parenting-wake-huckabee-attack

The former Arkansas governor and one-time Baptist preacher said the Obamas deserve criticism because — hold on, now — they let their daughters listen to BeyoncĂ©. President Carter, who also has some credibility as a man of deep religious faith, said the “president is doing a good job” raising his daughters in the fish-bowl environment in which the family is living.

The first daughters, Malia and Sasha, are being poisoned by their exposure to BeyoncĂ©’s raunchy lyrics and her dance moves, which Huckabee says are more appropriate “in the bedroom.”

Huck did offer a tepid disclaimer to the blistering he gave the first couple when he said they are “are excellent and exemplary parents in many ways.” Ah yes, “in many ways.”

That’s like saying, “I love that death, but …” Without fail, whatever comes after the word “but” is going to drop the hammer with a negative assertion of some sort.

The Obama daughters are growing up to be fine young women, just as the Bush twins — Barbara and Jenna — have done and just as virtually all children who come of age while living in the White House have done.

Stick to public policy, Rev. Huckabee, particularly if you’re going to run for president of the United States of America — again.

 

International news

Study your history, Sen. Rubio

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio needs a refresher course on 20th-century American history.

The Florida Republican — quite naturally — was critical the other day of President Obama’s decision to begin normalization of relations with Cuba, a nation with which we’ve had zero diplomatic contact for the past five decades.

Rubio ventured into Fox News Channel’s right-wing echo chamber and declared that Obama is the “worst negotiator since Jimmy Carter.”

I heard that and thought, “What in the world is that young man saying?” Chris Matthews noted correctly that Rubio was 7 years of age when President Carter worked some diplomatic magic.

Worst negotiator, eh?

To the young senator, here’s a bit of history for you to ponder.

President Carter summoned two enemy heads of government to the White House in 1978. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat sat down with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to hammer out a historic peace treaty between the ancient enemies.

They went to Camp David, took off their jackets and ties and worked day and night to agree to a peace treaty. Carter reportedly got along much better with Sadat than he did with Begin. Sadat and Begin couldn’t find their way past their ancient differences, dealing mostly with how their people could live together in places like Gaza.

Finally, after several days in the Maryland mountains, Carter got the two men together and the three of them agreed on a peace treaty that holds up today, nearly four decades later. It’s now known as the Camp David Accords.

The deal ended up costing Sadat his life when Muslim extremists assassinated him during a parade. An Israeli extremist would kill Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for hammering out a peace deal with Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

For the young Florida Republican senator to suggest Jimmy Carter is a terrible presidential “negotiator” is to ignore the historical record.

Hit the books, senator, before popping off.

 

Uncategorized

Looking peachy for Democrats in Georgia?

So many interesting political races around the country … it’s difficult to focus on just one.

Let’s look briefly at Georgia.

Democrats think they have a chance of recapturing a U.S. Senate seat and the governorship there. How? With two familiar names running in that state.

One of them is Michelle Nunn, candidate for the U.S. Senate, and daughter of the great former Sen. Sam Nunn; the other is Jason Carter, grandson of the 39th president of the United States, Jimmy Carter.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-23/democrats-make-their-stand-in-georgia

According to Bloomberg’s Al Hunt, Nunn and Carter are running ahead of their Republican opponents, David Perdue and Nathan Deal, respectively.

Can they turn the tide? Well, time will tell.

Neither Nunn or Carter represents what conservatives are fond of calling the “radical left” of the Democratic Party. If Nunn is anything like Daddy Sam, she would be able to work nicely across the aisle with Senate Republicans, provided they are willing to reciprocate. Indeed, Michelle Nunn was a soldier in President George H.W. Bush’s “Points of Light” program.

As for young Carter, who’s running for governor against a wounded incumbent, he too represents a more centrist core of his party. Grandpa Jimmy, one must remember, was elected in 1976 partly on the strength of his appeal to middle America. He lost re-election, of course, to Ronald Reagan in 1980 after the economy tanked and after suffering through that 444-day hostage siege at the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Jason, though, is no flaming liberal that is such a popular target for right-wing Republicans.

The Georgia political landscape might be ripe for a change. Carter vs. Deal is going to feature some discussion about the governor’s business dealings, which have caused him some grief at home.

As for the Senate race, the GOP might rally from its bitter primary runoff between Perdue and U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston. I’ll say this, though, about Nunn: She comes from a conservative pedigree herself. No one ever accused Sam Nunn of being soft on defense — or soft on anything or anybody, for that matter.

Like father, like daughter? Democrats hope so.

Uncategorized

Tax cut … with no spending offsets?

I’ll have to admit that I’m a little slow on the uptake at times.

Folks have to explain some things to me on occasion to help me make sense of trends and decisions.

This decision by the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives falls into that head-scratching category.

http://www.kxly.com/news/politics/house-republicans-vote-for-business-tax-cut/26906060

The House has approved a $287 billion business tax cut. It hasn’t included any spending offsets to pay for it. Speaker John Boehner boasts that the House is working to create jobs. Maybe it will. Then again, maybe those businesses benefiting from the tax cuts will take that money straight to the bottom line. That’s been happening quite a bit lately, you know?

What’s got me puzzled is why the House GOP keeps insisting on spending offsets whenever the Obama administration proposes job creation ideas. Infrastructure spending? Can’t afford it unless we cut spending in other places.

Another thing needs noting. The deficit is coming down in rather dramatic fashion. A tax cut of the size just approved by the House is going to blow up the deficit yet again.

My memory isn’t perfect, but I do remember a time when Republicans belonged to the party of “fiscal responsibility.” They loathed deficits, while Democrats blew them off. Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980 partly because President Carter and Congress ran deficits of a whopping $40 billion annually; there was some other stuff also that contributed to Carter’s defeat.

Memory also reminds me of how quick congressional Republicans were to share in the credit for the balanced budget and the surpluses run up during the final years of Bill Clinton’s presidency. They made sure we all knew that their spending restraints were more responsible for the surplus than the modest tax increases proposed by the president — and, oh yes, approved by Congress.

The new age of Republicanism, though, sees the party in control of one half of one branch of government talking out of both sides of its mouth.

Spending offsets only count when the other guys want to do something. Tax cuts for business? Who cares?

In the meantime, President Obama is asking for $3.7 billion in emergency spending to help deal with that crisis along our southern border. The GOP response? It costs too much money.

Go figure.