Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Should POTUS attend ex-FLOTUS’s funeral?

obama

I’m beginning to hear some faint rumbles out there in Social Media Land about President Obama’s decision to forgo attending the funeral of Nancy Reagan.

Someone please tell me this is just “normal” cyberworld chatter. That it’s par for the Internet course. That the twitter-verse is full of too many people with too much time on their hands.

The former first lady died the other day at age 94. President Obama joined other dignitaries around the world in expressing their sympathy to Mrs. Reagan’s family. He said some nice things that paid tribute to her service to the country.

He ordered flags lowered to half-staff at the White House and other federal government buildings.

That should be sufficient, yes?

Ohhhh, no.

Some have said the president should attend the funeral. I have heard reports of some critics poking sticks at Obama because he’s going to a SXSW event in Texas that had been planned for weeks.

The president is sending his wife to Mrs. Reagan’s funeral. Indeed, it’s customary for sitting first ladies to pay their respects at funerals of their predecessors.

Some former presidents might attend the service at the Reagan Library later this week. Then again, perhaps it’ll just be their wives. We’ve got several first ladies still among us: Rosalyn Carter, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush all might attend the funeral.

Then again, Hillary Clinton also has a pretty full plate these days as she runs for president of the United States.

I’m sure the right-wing mainstream media would pounce on her absence if she spends that day campaigning for the office that Mrs. Reagan’s husband once occupied.

This is such a nasty, contentious time.

 

In other news, U.S. kills another ISIL leader

AAekCUC

Americans went to the polls today in a couple more states to vote on the next president of the United States.

Meanwhile, the guy who still holds the office — Barack H. Obama — can claim another victory in the nation’s fight against the Islamic State.

Another ISIL leader has been smoked.

Abu Omar al-Shishani, aka Omar the Chechen, reportedly has been killed in a U.S. air strike, giving the United States another notch in its belt as it seeks to seek out and destroy ISIL leaders.

The strike occurred in Syria, which is where Russian, Jordanian, French and British air forces have joined the Americans in the air campaigns against the monstrous terror organization.

Omar the Chechen was the minister of war for the Islamic State, which I guess means he helped plan the strategies that ISIL is carrying out against those who oppose the organization’s effort to bring misery to anyone on Earth.

According to reports, the strike involved waves of manned and unmanned aircraft targeting Shishani, who reportedly had been sent to Syria to shore up terrorist troops that had suffered setbacks on the battlefield.

Against the backdrop of the presidential campaign, it’s interesting to note what one of the Republican challengers has suggested. Donald J. Trump has actually proposed letting ISIL overthrow the Syrian regime. Yes, let the terrorists take over a sovereign nation. That’s what Trump has suggested.

That, I dare say, is an utterly insane idea.

I’d rather continue doing the course on which we’ve embarked, which is to keep bombing the daylights out of ISIL troops and their key leaders.

We possess the firepower to bring extreme misery to the enemy.

We’ve done so yet again. Would it be the final ISIL leader to be killed if Omar the Chechen’s death is confirmed? No.

Still, it still looks like a victory in our war against the Islamic State.

 

Bibi shows his petulant side

netanyahu.si_

Readers of this blog know — at least I hope they know — that I am a fervent advocate for the U.S.-Israel alliance.

I want it to be strong. I have long understood the Israeli point of view as it regards the war against international terror. I got to spend a month in Israel in May-June 2009 and saw up close the proximity with which the Israelis deal with nations that want to destroy their country.

I get that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seeks to protect his country with all the might he can muster.

Why, though, did Bibi cancel his planned visit to the United States without telling the White House? Why does he keep wanting to stick it in President Obama’s eye?

The White House stands firm on its belief that Netanyahu showed bad manners when he canceled his trip, which was supposed to include a meeting with the president.

Yes, the two men have had a frosty relationship, although they’ve both spoken of their nations’ commitment to each other. President Obama has been clear: We’re going to stand with Israel always when violence erupts. How much clearer does he have to make it?

But the prime minister is still fuming over the Iranian nuclear deal that seeks to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Several nations worked diligently to craft an agreement that seeks to create a safer Middle East.

Bibi isn’t buying it. Oddly, though, I get his reluctance. Iran has stated it wants to destroy Israel and the Israelis aren’t willing for forget that blatant threat.

A meeting, though, between two heads of government need not have been canceled because of it. If anything, Netanyahu could have come here and voiced his displeasure to Barack Obama’s face, in private, with no one else in the room.

He didn’t do that. He chose instead to make a grandstand play.

Maybe it’s all part of the political climate these days. Those Republican presidential candidates have been a pretty petulant pack themselves these days. It must be rubbing off on Bibi.

 

Litmus tests: virtually unprovable

litmus-test-300x199

President Obama has a big decision to make.

Who’s going to become the next nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Now comes the inevitable question: Uh, Mr. President, do you have a litmus test that a nominee must pass?

Gee, how does the president answer that one? “Of course not! I don’t believe in litmus tests. My nominee will be the most qualified person I can find. He or she must be able to interpret law, not make it, and they must be studious as they ponder the constitutional decisions he or she must face.”

Actually, it is my considered opinion that answers like that are full of so much mule dung.

Of course there are litmus tests! The issue facing the politicians doing the appointing is that they dare not call them such.

Does anyone in their right mind believe that when, say, a president of the United States looks across a conference-room table at a prospective nominee that he or she doesn’t ask them The Question?

In a case such as this it might be: “Would you vote to uphold the Roe v. Wade abortion decision?” Or, “would you stand behind the Affordable Care Act?” How about, “would you continue to uphold the ruling that gay couples are guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to be married?”

Do presidents ask those questions? Sure they do. You know it. I know. The presidents know it. The people they interview know it.

Let’s not be coy, either. Presidents of both parties ask them in search of the correct answer. Does anyone really believe, for instance, that President Reagan didn’t at least know in advance how Antonin Scalia would lean on, say, the Roe v. Wade decision when he considered him for a spot on the court? Do you think he might have asked him directly? I believe it would have been a distinct possibility.

Are all these meetings open to public review? Are they recorded for posterity? No and no.

That’s why the “litmus question” is a monumental waste of time. The answers mean nothing to me.

If only presidents would be candid. “Sure, I have tests that candidates must meet. Hey, I was elected to this office and most voters who cast their ballots for me knew what they were getting. Elections have consequences.”

 

What happened to the calamity?

jobs

Just a shade less than a quarter-million jobs were added to the U.S. non-farm, non-government payrolls in February, according to the Labor Department’s latest monthly report.

The unemployment rate remained at 4.9 percent.

The federal budget deficit continues to decline.

But by golly, we keep hearing along the presidential primary campaign trail that Barack Obama is presiding over an economic calamity. We’re heading for the crapper. Bernie Sanders keeps harping on the “1 percent” who are making all that money at the expense of the rest of us.

It’s time to give Barack Obama some credit.

Tim Egan writes in the New York Times:

“By any objective measurement, (Obama’s) presidency has been perhaps the most consequential since Franklin Roosevelt’s time. Ronald Reagan certainly competes with Obama for that claim. But on the night of Reagan’s final State of the Union speech in 1988, when he boasted that ‘one of the best recoveries in decades’ should ‘send away the hand-wringers and doubting Thomases,’ the economic numbers were not as good as those on Obama’s watch.

“At no time in Reagan’s eight years was the unemployment rate lower than it is today, at 5 percent — and this after Obama was handed the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Reagan lauded a federal deficit at 3.4 percent of gross national product. By last fall, Obama had done better than that, posting a deficit of 2.5 percent of G.D.P.”

I’m not going to give the president all the credit for the economic recovery. However, I’m damn sure not going to condemn with the ferocity that we’ve been hearing — primarily from the Republican candidates for president — about all the gloom and doom.

On other side of the great divide, we hear Democratic challenger Bernie Sanders yammering about the richest Americans not paying enough taxes. He wants to enact fundamental economic change.

I can’t help but wonder: Why?

Yes, we’re in the midst of a contentious political campaign. Candidates are bound to say anything to get attention.

Which is precisely, as I see it, what they’re doing when they keep harping on the economic disaster that hasn’t arrived.

Wondering if Romney will express regret over endorsement

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures and declares "You're fired!" at a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, June 17, 2015. REUTERS/Dominick Reuter TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY - RTX1GZCO

Mitt Romney is going to weigh in shortly on Donald J. Trump.

He’s going to call him a few choice names. I’ve heard “fraud” and “phony” kicked around. There no doubt will be more.

I’m not sure why the 2012 Republican Party presidential nominee wants to engage in this boiling intraparty debate over Trump’s ascendancy to become the party’s next nominee. Romney has said he’s not going to run for president again and I believe him. Perhaps he wants to become the gray eminence of the GOP establishment that is now seeking to derail the Trump Express.

Of all the things he can say today when he makes that speech in Utah, I’ll be waiting to hear if he’s going to express any regret over seeking and embracing Trump’s endorsement four years ago when Romney was running against President Obama.

I know that circumstances change in politics.

Trump, though, has always been the showman. He’s never exhibited any philosophical grounding. He’s never offered a constructive and reasonable solution to any problem facing the nation

Build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out and force Mexico — a sovereign nation — to pay for it?

Impose an unconstitutional ban on people entering this country because of their religious beliefs?

Use the power of the presidency to ensure that retail business owners wish customers a “Merry Christmas”?

Is this guy for real? I know the answer to that question.

He’s what he’s always been.

I am looking forward to hearing from Mitt Romney who today is looking a whole lot better as an alternative to Donald Trump than he might have looked — to me, at least — four years ago.

I remain hopeful he’ll admit he goofed back in 2012 in accepting this clown’s endorsement for president of the United States.

 

Mischief possible on Election Day?

Texas-calendar

Texas’ open primary system is going to be on display.

As it should.

The state’s election system provides opportunity for polling-station mischief. There might be some of it played out Tuesday, but in this wacky, unpredictable, topsy-turvy election season it would seem to be the diciest of propositions.

Texans aren’t “registered” with political parties. We go to the polls with unmarked voter registration cards. We choose which primary to cast ballots: Democrat or Republican. We can zig or zag our way to the polling station of our choice.

How does the mischief come into play? There could be those who are loyal to one party but who might venture into the other party’s polling place to vote the candidate they believe will be the weakest against the candidate of their choice.

Parties are able to muster up concerted efforts in that regard, although it’s at times difficult to prove.

In 2008, heavily Republican precincts in Texas saw a huge spike in Democratic primary voter activity as Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battled for their party’s nomination. Clinton won the primary and it was whispered that a lot of Republicans crossed over to vote for her hoping Democrats would nominate her to run against Sen. John McCain in the fall.

Indeed, I spoke to several Republican friends who actually admitted to doing precisely that: voting for Clinton and hoping she would be nominated.

It didn’t work out that way; Obama got the Democratic nod and went on to thump McCain in the general election.

Can such a thing happen on Tuesday? I keep reading about Republican Party “establishment” honchos sweating bullets over the prospect of Donald J. Trump winning their party’s nomination. Might that spur some Democrats to cross over to vote for Trump hoping to push the reality TV celebrity and real estate mogul toward the GOP nomination?

In another time and era, perhaps that could be the case. This  year? Well, it might be a case of being “careful what you wish for” if such a conspiracy materializes across Texas. Democrats wanted Republicans to nominate Ronald Reagan in 1980 — and look how that turned out.

I’ve never been one to “waste” a vote by playing that game. I tend to cherish my vote as something that gives me pride. I’m not seeking to sound righteous. I’m just saying that in my humble view, game-playing with one’s vote cheapens this rite of citizenship.

Of course, I cannot possibly pretend to speak for others.

Let’s just see how it plays out.

 

Lawless? Unconstitutional? Why no impeachment?

impeach

The Republican field of candidates — even when it comprised 17 members — has been using some highly charged language to describe the twice-elected administration of President Barack Obama.

They call his actions “lawless.” They say his executive orders are “unconstitutional.”

Thus, they are accusing the president of two things: of breaking the law and of failing to uphold the oath he took twice when he was sworn in by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

That makes me ask out loud, right here: Why haven’t the Republicans in the House of Representatives impeached the president?

If you really and truly think he’s broken the law or signed unconstitutional executive orders, then you have political recourse. Isn’t that correct?

It’s impeachment.

Two U.S. presidents have been impeached over the course of the nation’s history.

President Andrew Johnson fired his secretary of war without notifying the Senate and got impeached; he came within a single vote of conviction during a Senate trial. President Bill Clinton got impeached for lying to a grand jury about a tawdry relationship he had with a White House intern; the Senate acquitted him on three counts. A third president, Richard Nixon came within a whisker of being impeached because he blocked an investigation into the Watergate scandal; the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment, but the president quit his office.

These days, candidates for president keep tossing out verbiage that would suggest — if you are to believe it — that the current president has committed a whole array of impeachable offenses. Indeed, when you accuse a president of doing something “unconstitutional,” that by itself implies malfeasance.

Me? I don’t believe it.

I get that it’s campaign rhetoric. Therefore, perhaps they don’t really mean what they’re saying out there — on the stump or on those debate stages.

So, how about saying what you mean, fellas?

Timing determines ‘lame duck’ status

lame-duck

I’ve noted before the importance of timing.

Perhaps it might have something — or everything — to do with the kerfuffle that’s consumed Washington, D.C., over President Obama’s upcoming attempt to fill a critical vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death created a political earthquake within minutes of the announcement that he had succumbed at a West Texas ranch. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, master of proper decorum that he is, declared about an hour later that the Senate would block any nominee that Obama would present for confirmation.

Other Republicans, namely the candidates for president, called Obama a “lame duck” and said the task of filling the vacancy belongs to the next president — who he or she is.

A reader of this blog commented on an earlier post that the president really isn’t a lame duck. He didn’t lose re-election in 2012, the commenter noted. Given that he won, he implied, the president is entitled to fulfill all the duties granted to his office by the U.S. Constitution.

Which brings up a question: Would we be waging this political fire fight had Justice Scalia died during the first year of President Obama’s second — and final — term rather than in the final year?

Surely the president’s foes wouldn’t suggest in early 2013 that filling a critical vacancy on the court — the next pick, after all, is likely to change the philosophical balance — should belong to the next president. The court would be short a justice for the next three years … maybe longer.

As it stands now, if McConnell and Gang succeed in blocking the president’s choice for the high court, the Supreme Court could be short a member until next summer. The court adjourns in June and won’t resume its duties until October 2017.

Hey, what difference does it make, correct? So what if the narrowly conservative court is short a member for the next 18 months?

McConnell showed his hand very early during Barack Obama’s time as president. He vowed to make Obama a “one-term president.” That, he said, would be his top priority as then-minority leader.

He failed to accomplish that mission, so he’s settling for the next-best thing by denying the president the opportunity to ensure the nation’s highest judicial panel remains whole.

Timing. Sometimes it really stinks.

Popular culture overwhelms public policy

Donald-Trump_3372655b

A friend and I were visiting at Amarillo College earlier this week.

I was there to talk to a journalism class about trends in modern journalism and politics. My friend broached the subject of Donald J. Trump’s astounding success in the Republican Party presidential primary.

He calls himself a “conservative,” and then offered this piece of wisdom: It is that we are now witnessing a campaign in which popular culture is determining which candidate might become the nominee of a major political party.

It’s celebrity worship, my friend said. Voters have become smitten with the idea that a pop culture icon actually can become president, he said.

Does this explain the allure that Trump has cast over a Republican primary electorate? I believe my pal is onto something.

Other friends of mine who actually support Trump keep harping on his willingness to “tell it like it is.” They are swept away by his tossing aside what they call “political correctness.” They just love how he is able to say what he wants, when he wants and to whom he wants.

Is this what where we’ve arrived? Are some Americans actually willing to throw their support behind a candidate who demonstrates zero understanding of how government actually works? They’re willing to line up behind someone who believes insulting his opponents passes for legitimate political debate? They are actually going to vote for an individual who sounds very much like someone who believes he is bigger and more important than the office he seeks to occupy?

Popular culture has its place. I grew up during a turbulent time in this country where we all witnessed massive changes in the country’s popular culture. Remember when dead-pan comedian Pat Paulson ran for president — as a joke?

Well, these days we have a bombastic carnival barker seeking to become the head of state of the greatest nation in world history. Forget the crap about how he wants to “make America great again.” We’re still the greatest nation on Earth and his assertion we are not denigrates all the public servants — military and civilian — who pledge to defend us.

Several of the candidates for president keep saying how frightened they have become since Barack Obama became president more than seven years ago.

They’ve persuaded many Americans to join them in that fear.

Other Americans — such as myself — worry what might happen if this election produces the worst result possible.

That would be the election of Donald J. Trump.

I will maintain my hope that reason and rational thinking will overtake this infatuation with popular culture.