Tag Archives: Barack Obama

International news

Hey we may be friends, but we’re not that close

arm raising

Talk about an awkward moment.

It happened today at the end of a joint press conference with President Barack Obama and Cuban leader Raul Castro.

The picture attached here tells it all.

Castro sought to raise President Obama’s hand in some sort of show of bilateral solidarity.

Obama would have none of it. He managed to avoid grasping Castro’s hand and when the Cuban president raised the U.S. president’s hand, he ended up grabbing his wrist.

President Obama’s hand went limp.

It was really a strange sight. Don’t you think?

I suppose President Obama might have taken offense at the scolding Castro delivered to American reporters who had the temerity to ask him about human rights abuses in Cuba. Or maybe it was Castro’s insistence that the United States give back the land it owns at Guantanamo Bay.

Or … maybe it was that it’s just a bit too early in this rebuilt relationship to grasp hands and lift them jointly in a show of unity.

The nations have some distance yet to travel before they get to that point.

Thus, I believe President Obama — without saying a word — delivered a message of his own to his Cuban hosts.

 

International news

Anti-Cuba lobby still flexes its muscle

26editorial-cuban-american-videoSixteenByNine1050

The anti-Castro/Cuba lobby in the United States has been outsized for as long as I can remember.

Perhaps we are witnessing this week the latest manifestation of that muscle-flexing as President Obama tours the tiny island nation and gets skewered by those on the right for doing what many others of us think is the right thing.

Which is to normalize relations  with the communist regime.

It’s a curious thing to watch the head of state of the world’s most powerful nation standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the leader of a dirt-poor Third World state. Then to have that tinhorn lecture the leader of the Free World about whether the United States should keep possession of its naval base at Guantanamo Bay gives the Cubans a dubious and overstated standing — and then to have critics pounce on Obama for taking it!

To what do we owe this strange juxtaposition?

I believe it’s the power of that Cuban-American community that resides mostly in Florida.

The community had its birth in the late 1950s when Cubans fled their nation that had been taken over by Fidel Castro and his gang of communists. They took up residence in Florida and began immediately pressuring the U.S. government to do more to destroy Castro.

President Eisenhower heard them. He formulated plans to invade Cuba and then handed the keys to the Oval Office over to President Kennedy in January 1961, who then launched the Bay of Pigs invasion.

It didn’t turn out well for our side. The Cubans squashed the small force, took prisoners and then crowed about how the big, bad U.S. government was intent on destroying them.

Then we had that missile crisis in 1962. JFK took care of it by blockading the island, forcing the Soviet Union to “blink” and remove the offensive missiles.

By 1991, the Evil Empire had vaporized. Cuba was left without its major benefactor.

Still, five decades after the revolution, Cuba has remained a communist dictatorship. Fidel Castro handed the power over to his brother, Raul, who welcomed President Barack Obama to his nation.

Is Cuba a nation to be feared? Do we tremble at the thought of normalizing relations with this tiny nation? No. Why should we? We’re the big kids on the block. Heck, we’re the biggest kids on the planet!

Our politicians, though, have been told to fear Cubans by that overblown Cuban-American community.

So here we are. The president of the United States is making history simply by visiting an island nation that sits within spittin’ distance of our southeastern-most state.

Sure, the Cubans must do more to improve human rights on their island. The president should tell them so.

I don’t know why we should sweat so much over whether Raul Castro listens to us. He and that backwater government he runs can’t do us any harm.

My own sense is that normalization of relations with Cuba by itself is going to do more to bring reform to a nation that needs it in the worst way. Soon enough, the Cubans will see what the rest of the world really looks like.

They also are likely to see how their giant neighbor just over the horizon relishes the fruits of liberty.

Then they might start demanding it from their leaders.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Well stated, Mr. Chief Justice

chief-justice-roberts

How about that John Roberts?

The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court has rebuked the U.S. Senate — here it comes — for playing politics with the appointment of the next justice on the nation’s highest court.

Chief Justice Roberts did not know he was doing so when he made the remarks, as they came just a few days before the shocking and tragic death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

He noted the partisan nature of the votes for recent appointees to the court. According to the New York Times: “Look at my more recent colleagues, all extremely well qualified for the court,” Chief Justice Roberts said, “and the votes were, I think, strictly on party lines for the last three of them, or close to it, and that doesn’t make any sense. That suggests to me that the process is being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees.”

The court, of course, has a vacancy to fill. President Obama has selected D.C. Circuit Court Chief Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat. Senate Republicans say they want the next president to make the call, denying the current president the opportunity to fulfill his constitutional responsibility.

Chief Justice Roberts, served with Garland, surely must believe his judicial colleague is as “extremely well qualified” as justices Alito, Kagan and Sotomayor — whose confirmations were approved on largely partisan votes.

Roberts is on point with his call to consider these nominations on the merits of the individual’s qualifications.

No one has heard hardly a whimper from anyone questioning whether Merrick Garland is qualified to determine the constitutionality of federal law.

The opposition is being mounted for purely political reasons.

John Roberts says such posturing should stop.

I happen to agree with him.

As the chief said in his remarks preceding Scalia’s death: “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans and I think it’s a very unfortunate impression the public might get from the confirmation process.”

 

International news

A new day begins in U.S.-Cuba relations

ct-obama-cuba-visit-20160217

Republicans are hyperventilating over President Obama’s visit to Cuba.

They need to chill out. They need to stop trying to put words in everyone’s mouth and stop trying to read others’ minds.

Barack Obama is paying a visit to the communist-run island nation because it’s the right thing to do, given that the two nations have restored diplomatic relations that had been severed for five decades.

A particular Republican who can’t seem to catch his breath is U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, one of three men running for his party’s presidential nomination. He has written an essay that accuses the president of turning his back on the dissidents who’ve been holed up on prison cells throughout the nation.

Again, young man, don’t seek to know what’s going on behind closed doors when the president meets with Cuban leader Raul Castro.

Yes, I agree that Obama should have scheduled a visit with dissidents in Cuba. Those who disagree with the commies in charge are denied basic human rights that we all believe are inherent throughout the world.

Unless it can be proved beyond a doubt otherwise, I will continue to hold out hope that when the doors are closed and when no one else is listening that Barack Obama will tell Raul Castro something like this:

“Mr. President, the fate of political dissidents here is of grave concern to my country. As their president, I must insist that you give them the freedom to speak their minds, even if it brings criticism of your government.

“We’ve just established relations with you, but you and your government colleagues have known all along about the opposition American presidents and our Congress get every single day. It doesn’t weaken our government; it strengthens it!

“I believe it will have the same effect here.”

I get that communist regimes do not view political dissent the same way free governments do.

Still, I happen to be one American — among many others — who is happy to see this rapprochement occur. It’s been overdue for many years.

May it bring change to our former enemies.

International news, national news

POTUS should meet with dissidents

90

It’s probably way too late to change the itinerary now, but President Obama might want to give it a shot when he lands in Cuba this week.

He’ll be the first U.S. president since The Flood to visit the island nation.

I’ve been supportive for years of efforts to renew relations with the communist dictatorship. To that end, I have applauded Obama for finally taking the step to reopen embassies in our two countries.

I do wish, though, he would have insisted on meeting with Cuban dissidents while he’s on the island. It’s those dissidents who’ve been the subject of the opposition to U.S. efforts to do what should have happened at least two decades ago, when the Soviet Union disappeared from the planet.

None of us knows what the president will tell Cuban leader Raul Castro when the men meet in private. My hope is that he gives him a scolding as it relates to his government’s treatment of those who oppose it. If the Cuban commies are intent on restoring their nation’s status as a world player, they need to atone for their shameful treatment of political dissenters.

Still, the visit is a welcome turn in U.S.-Cuba relations.

If only the president could arrange to meet with those for whom he says he will fight.

 

local news, media news, national news, political news

PBS discussion sheds great light on campaign ’16

maxresdefault

I feel compelled to begin this blog post with a disclaimer.

I am a freelance blogger for Panhandle PBS, the publicly funded television station based at Amarillo College here in the Texas Panhandle.

There. That said, I now want to say that the discussion that was broadcast Friday evening was one of the most intelligent I’ve heard yet about the state of the race for the presidency.

This discussion featuring liberal syndicated columnist Mark Shields and conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks covered three critical points:

The Republican primary campaign, the Democratic primary campaign and, in a related matter, President Obama’s nomination of Garland Merrick to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Shields and Brooks occasionally spar when they appear each Friday on the PBS NewsHour. They disagree on substantive matters from time to time. They were in agreement on several critical issues, though, this week.

Hillary Clinton will not be denied the Democratic nomination; Donald Trump is the likely Republican nominee; Judge Garland deserves to have his hearing before the U.S. Senate.

The most interesting aspect of what was said, though, came in the discussion of Trump and Garland.

Shields noted that Trump has won everywhere. He smoked what is left of a once-huge GOP field in Florida, Shields said, where opponents spent millions of dollars in negative TV ads. They didn’t make a dent in Trump’s juggernaut. Whatever it is that Trump has mastered, he has turned it into an unbeatable — so far! — formula for political success.

As for Garland, Shields also believes that the Republican leadership in the Senate is going to pay a price for refusing to consider the judge’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Brooks agreed that Garland deserves a hearing — and deserves to take his seat on the court — he doubts there will be hell to pay in the campaign for Republicans.

Both men also believe that Garland is the best candidate for the court the Republicans are likely to get — particularly if Trump is the GOP nominee for president. Trump will lose the election to Hillary Clinton, who then will be free to appoint someone of her liking — and could present that nominee to a Senate led by Democrats.

And so it will keep going throughout this crazy election cycle.

You’ve got to relish — and share — intelligent discussion whenever you hear it.

That’s what I’m doing here.

* * *

If you’re of a mind, please accept my invitation to look at my blog at PanhandlePBS.org; it’s called “A Public View” and it focuses on public affairs programming aired on Panhandle PBS.

http://www.panhandlepbs.org/blogs/public-view-john-kanelis/

 

 

 

legal news, national news, political news

Does the GOP really want a mainstream jurist on the court?

imagesM3AI6GFF

We hear it constantly from the right side of the political spectrum.

Courts shouldn’t be full of “judicial activists.” The culprits, in their eyes, usually come from the left. Those liberals are just too prone to “legislate from the bench.” Or so it goes from the right-wing mantra machine.

How did Barack Obama answer that with his choice for the U.S. Supreme Court? The president chose as mainstream, moderate and even-tempered a fellow as he could find. Merrick Garland deserves to take his seat on the nation’s highest court.

His record is exemplary. His temperament and judicial philosophy would seem to fit the bill perfectly for Senate Republicans who hold the key to whether Garland even gets a hearing, let alone a vote by the full Senate.

Now, though, all those qualities that conservatives say they admire in a judge don’t apply. Garland must be too, uh, moderate. Too measured. Too studious. Too mainstream.

Compared to the individual he would replace — the late Justice Antonin Scalia — perhaps there’s some merit to the criticism in the eyes of the Senate Republican caucus.

What they want is another Scalia.

Yes, the late justice was a brilliant legal scholar. He called himself a “strict constitutionalist”; to be honest, I’m not smart enough to argue that point.

I am reasonably intelligent enough, though, to know that he was rigid in his approach to interpreting the Constitution. He was an ideologue. However, his ideology fit nicely with the politicians who control the Senate.

Garland’s doesn’t. He’s too centrist. Too moderate and mainstream.

One man’s ideological purist is another man’s near-perfect fit for the job of interpreting the Constitution.

So, it’s fair to ask: Do the Senate Republicans who keep insisting that the next president make this pick really oppose the current choice on judicial and philosophical grounds, or are they just playing politics?

 

legal news, national news, political news

Garland the perfect choice for SCOTUS … normally

Caplan-Merrick-Garland2-1200

Under normal circumstances — without such historic potential consequences on the line — President Obama’s choice for the U.S. Supreme Court would be considered damn near perfect.

Merrick Garland fits the bill — to the letter.

Brilliant legal scholar; strict adherent to the Constitution; moderate judicial philosophy; meticulous writer; tremendous personal story; varied legal career in private practice and as a federal prosecutor; many years of experience on the federal bench; virtually unanimous admiration among his peers.

Then again, he’s got this particular problem that is not of his making.

He’s been chosen to the highest court in the land during an election year. That, by itself, isn’t a deal breaker. Except that Republicans who control the U.S. Senate, which must confirm the appointment, have made it one.

They’ve declared that Obama shouldn’t get to pick someone to replace the late conservative ideologue Antonin Scalia during the heat of a presidential election campaign. They want to hand that duty over to the next president who, they hope, will be a Republican.

They’ve declared that the current president doesn’t get to his job, which the U.S. Constitution says includes making appointments to the federal bench. He’s made a big choice. Garland is been named to fill some huge shoes on the Supreme Court.

His only drawback, if you want to call it that, is that he isn’t the rock-ribbed, ironclad conservative in the mold of Scalia. Oh, no. Garland is a moderate. He’s a mainstream, thoughtful jurist with a gleaming reputation for careful legal scholarship.

What, do you suppose, will be the American Bar Association’s rating of this guy, when the ABA decides to make that declaration? I’ll predict he’ll get the highest recommendation possible from the bar.

So what in the world is holding up his confirmation? It’s the obstruction of the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, who vows to block any attempt even to conduct a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

And to think that McConnell had the brass to say that the president is “politicizing” this pick by criticizing Republicans’ effort to block it.

The stunning lack of self-awareness here is beyond belief. It’s McConnell and his Senate lieutenants who have politicized this process by stating that the 44th president of the United States shall not have his judicial appointment even considered for confirmation.

Why? Because they hope to get one of their fellow Republicans elected president this November.

Something tells me McConnell and his gang of Senate GOP obstructionists are flirting with political disaster if they insist on continuing to play this foolish game.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Let’s talk, Mr. Senate Majority Leader

48604710.cached

Every effective American politician has a consigliere — a wise man, or perhaps a wise woman — who’ll tell them the unvarnished truth.

JFK had Bobby; George H.W. Bush had Jim Baker; Ronald Reagan had Nancy.

I’m wondering this morning who in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s inner circle fills that role. Hmm. It might be his wife, Elaine Chao, a former labor secretary during W’s administration.

Whoever it is, are they having a serious, candid and frank discussion with the boss? Are they hunkered down in some ante room in his spacious office in the Senate wing of the U.S. Capitol Building?

Here’s a thought, offered from the Flyover Country Peanut Gallery, on how that talk might proceed:

McConnell: OK, I sense we have a problem with this Supreme Court pick. I’ve declared my intention to block whoever Barack Obama nominates. I’m trying to stand on some sort of principle but my knees are buckling just a little.

Wise Man: And they should, Mitch. You’ve boxed yourself into a corner. Did you think Obama was going to pick some flaming, judicial activist liberal? He didn’t. He went with this Merrick Garland fellow. Everyone loves the guy. You love the guy. Hell, Mitch, you voted to confirm him to the D.C. court nearly 20 years ago.

McC: True. But that was then. The stakes this time are gigantic. They’re y-u-u-u-u-ge! (Laughter). I hope you don’t mind my saying it that way. Antonin Scalia’s death upset everything. He was one of our guys. Now Obama has picked one of their guys to replace Scalia. The balance of the court will change.

WM: So, what’s your point? Did you think Obama was going to select an archconservative like Scalia? We all knew this would happen if one of our guys died. But hey, he didn’t pick a flamer, Mitch. He picked a mainstream moderate judge. Hasn’t he done well on the D.C. court?

McC: Yeah, he has. He’s been the kind of judge I said he was when I spoke in his favor in 1997. I get that he’ll be that kind of justice on the Supreme Court, too. But it’s different now. I’ve got those TEA Party yahoos who want me to dig in. They insist — in that way of theirs — that Barack Obama’s re-election doesn’t really count. And you don’t need to remind me of what I said early in Obama’s presidency about making him a “one-term president” being my top priority. I get that it didn’t work out.

WM: So, consider this, too. We’re about to nominate Donald Trump as our candidate for president. The Democrats are going to nominate Hillary as their candidate. Trump vs. Clinton. One of them will get to pick the next Supreme Court justice if we continue to obstruct this selection. Who between them do you want? Trump, who you’ve criticized before for the outrageous accusations he has made along the campaign trail? Or Clinton, who the TEA Party wing hates nearly as much as it hates Obama? Don’t you think maybe that Merrick Garland is going to be the best choice we’re going to get?

McC: I get your point. But what about the principle we’re standing on here? What about giving in to the Democrats? I’m going to get fried if I cave in.

WM: Well, Mitch, a lot worse is going to happen to you if we obstruct this nomination, Hillary makes a huge campaign issue of it, wins in a landslide and the Democrats retake the Senate.

McC: How do you propose I back off? How do I justify this to my base — our base?

WM: Look, Mitch. I might be a wise man. But I’m not a magician. You figure it out.

 

legal news, national news, political news

‘American people’ have spoken, Mr. Leader

mitch

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is really starting to tick me off.

He keeps harping on this idiotic notion that “the American people” deserve to have a voice in determining who the president should nominate to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Their voice has been heard, Sen. McConnell. It was heard four years ago when the country re-elected President Obama.

Thus, he greeted today’s nomination of an eminently qualified jurist — Merrick Garland — with his vow to block it out of hand. Judge Garland will get no hearing; Republican senators won’t meet with him; there will be no vote.

The Senate won’t do its job. It won’t follow through on President Obama’s nomination. Why? Because, according to McConnell, Barack Obama’s time as president is about up and the next president should make the appointment.

So, with that, the majority leader of the Senate has decided that Barack Obama’s second term will be cut short by nearly a year. No need to consider an appointment that the incumbent president sends to the Senate, because the legislative body’s upper chamber won’t do anything about it.

This is an outrage of the first order.

Merrick Garland is a first-class jurist. Senators thought so when they confirmed his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court in 1997. Republicans joined Democrats in praising Garland’s credentials.

Now, though, it’s different. McConnell said today it’s not “personal.” Of course it is! He and Senate Republicans don’t want Garland to fill a court vacancy created by the untimely death of the court’s leading conservative ideologue, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Garland is not a flaming liberal. His judicial record is the model of judicial moderation. Indeed, leftists today expressed disappointment with the president over his selection of someone who is not a favorite of the Democratic Party’s liberal base.

American citizens have spoken already, Mr. Leader, about who should sit on the Supreme Court. They spoke clearly in the November 2012 general election.

Five million more Americans voted for Barack Obama than voted for Mitt Romney. Case closed.

For the Republican leader of the Senate to suggest that the president’s pick should be stalled because GOP senators don’t want him to do his job is an outrage.