Tag Archives: Barack Obama

national news, political news, State news

‘Rampant’ voter fraud in Texas? Not even close

4 Comments

7C2A3553_jpg_800x1000_q100

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott describes the instances of voter fraud in this state as “rampant.”

The state, he said, has sought to curb the epidemic of voter fraud by requiring voters to produce photo ID — driver’s licenses, passports, etc. — when they go to the polling place.

The Texas Tribune’s Ross Ramsey, though, has shot down the governor’s assertion with an interesting analysis of Abbott’s challenge to a President Obama’s critique of Texas’ historically poor voter turnout.

The evidence of fraud is “scant,” according to Ramsey.

Here’s part of what Ramsey writes: “A study done by News21, an investigative journalism project at Arizona State University, looked at open records from Texas and other states for the years 2000-2011 and found 104 cases of voter fraud had been alleged in Texas over that decade.

“Chew on this: If you only count the Texans who voted in November general elections — skipping Democratic and Republican primaries and also special and constitutional elections — 35.8 million people voted during the period covered by the ASU study.

“They found 104 cases of voter fraud among 35.8 million votes cast. That’s fewer than three glitches per 1 million votes.”

Does that fit the description of “rampant” voter fraud?

Not exactly.

Obama made the point at a fundraiser the other evening that Texas remains one of the nation’s poorest-turnout states. I am not going to blame the voter ID push for driving down the turnout. Suffice to say, though, that Texas can — and should — do more to promote greater turnout.

I’ve lived in Texas for 32 years. I have been watching, reporting and commenting on the political process here for that entire time. I have no recollection ever of the state — from the governor’s office on down — launching a concerted effort to drive up voter participation.

There has seemed over all that time to be a sense of complacency, that the state puts little emphasis on greater turnout.

“The folks who are governing the good state of Texas aren’t interested in having more people participate,” the president told The Texas Tribune’s Evan Smith at South by Southwest Interactive.

Abbott’s response? He trotted out the allegation of “rampant” voter fraud. The numbers don’t add up.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Garland gets nod; let’s act on it, senators

2 Comments

BBqxe1o

I’ve written already about why I believe President Obama deserves to have his Supreme Court appointment considered by the U.S. Senate.

It’s his prerogative to appoint someone; it’s the Senate’s prerogative to approve or reject it. The Constitution lays it out there. I understand the idea of “advise and consent.”

If senators object, then they should say so on the record. The idea of obstructing a nomination by refusing to consider it is offensive on its face … at least in my view.

The president today nominated D.C. Circuit Court chief judge Merrick Garland to the high court, replacing the late Antonin Scalia.

The politics of this fight overshadows everything else. It overshadows Garland’s impeccable credentials, his immense standing among legal scholars, his compelling personal story.

Scalia was the court’s leading conservative voice. He was an ideologue. Garland is a moderate. He’s known to be a non-ideologue, but according to conservatives, well, that makes him a flaming liberal.

The court’s balance would shift with Garland joining the court.

And that’s why the Senate Republican leadership is vowing to block the nomination by refusing even to consider it. The GOP won’t even allow a hearing. Hell, GOP senators say they won’t even meet with Garland.

The Republican leadership that says it wants the next president to make the appointment.

What happens, though, if the next president happens to be, oh, Hillary Rodham Clinton? Are they then willing to put this selection in the hands of a president who could appoint a true-life flaming liberal? Or should they give Merrick Garland the hearing he deserves and cut their losses?

Garland’s intelligence and legal knowledge are beyond reproach. Even Republicans said as much when they approved his nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court. If he’s as smart and scholarly now as he was then, it makes sense — or so it seems — that he’d be a fitting choice for the Supreme Court.

The fight has been joined.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the people should have a say in filling this court seat. Mr. Leader, the people have spoken on it — by re-electing Barack Obama as president of the United States.

 

national news, political news, State news

Obama: Trump is GOP creation

POTUS-Austin2016-003A_jpg_800x1000_q100

Count me as one American who was impressed with former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s brutal critique of Donald J. Trump’s rise to political power.

I listened the other morning to every word of Mitt’s 17-minute speech in Utah. (Yes, I’ll call him Mitt because I like the sound of the name.)

Mitt sought to stand for the GOP “establishment” in its effort to stop Trump’s nomination as the party’s next nominee for presidential of the United States.

It didn’t go over universally well, though.

Some folks wondered whether Mitt was the right guy to carry the message forward. After all, he lost fairly handily to President Obama in 2012 and, by the way, he did so even with the coveted endorsement of one Donald J. Trump.

One of the doubters happens to be the president his own self.

Obama said the GOP is just “shocked that there’s gambling” going on here.

Speaking at a Texas Democratic fundraiser, Obama took particular pleasure in reminding donors that the GOP establishment stood by silently while Trump and others promoted the wacky notion that the president was born in a faraway land, that he was an illegitimate candidate for president.

“As long as it was directed at me, they were fine with it. It was a hoot,” Obama told the Austin crowd.

I understand where the president is coming from on this matter. Indeed, it continues to boggle my admittedly feeble mind that Obama’s place of birth was even an issue in the first place, given that his mother was an American citizen, which by my reading of the U.S. Constitution granted U.S. citizenship to Baby Barack the moment he took his first breath.

But the GOP brass didn’t care to silence the idiocy being spewed by Donald Trump and others.

So now they’re shocked and dismayed at what they’ve helped create?

I still stand behind Mitt’s criticism of Trump. If only, though, he would acknowledge the mistake he made in seeking Trump’s endorsement.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Is it better to deal with the ‘devil you know’?

Supreme_Court_US_2010

The word this morning is that President Obama might reveal his selection for the U.S. Supreme Court as early as, oh, Monday!

Excellent. Let’s get this going-away party for the president started.

He reportedly has narrowed the field to three men. One is an African-American, one is an Indian-American, one is a Caucasian. They’re all reportedly able individuals who’ve been confirmed to spots on lower federal appellate courts. The president said he’s going to consider someone whose credentials are impeccable. Moreover, he appears to be zeroing in on someone who’s already passed GOP muster in the Senate.

But, hey. Hold on. Republicans who control the Senate — which must approve the nominee — say they ain’t budging in their refusal to even consider an Obama selection. They want to wait until after the November election.

Here’s where it might get dicey for the Republican leadership in the Senate that is digging in its heels and refusing to do its job — which is to consider and decide whether to confirm a Supreme Court nomination.

Suppose the Republican nominee is Donald J. Trump, who the GOP “establishment” despises. Suppose the Democrats nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton, who the GOP despises perhaps even more.

Suppose, too, that Clinton wins the election in November. Suppose she wins big, as in really, really big.

Do the Republicans believe they’re going to get a more suitable nominee from a President Clinton than they would from the current president? After all, the next justice is going to replace the iconic conservative jurist Antonin Scalia, who died a month ago while on a hunting trip in West Texas.

The balance of the court is likely to change, meaning that the appointment is, shall we say, h-u-u-u-u-u-u-ge!

We might know a thing or two about how this shakes out on Tuesday, when voters in five states decide in primary elections in both parties. Clinton might be able to tighten her vise grip on the Democratic nomination. And Trump could establish himself even more firmly as the GOP frontrunner.

So, with a Clinton-Trump contest shaping up in the fall — and with Republican power brokers scared spitless at the prospect of their party being led by a demagogic know-nothing blowhard — the GOP might want to rethink its resistance to whomever Barack Obama selects for the nation’s highest court.

As someone said this morning on one of those Sunday news talk shows, it might be better to “deal with the devil you know than the one you don’t.”

Let’s all stay tuned. This week well could shake the political ground under our feet.

 

national news, political news

Trump needs to start acting like a ‘unifier’

A supporter of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump scuffles with a protestor during a rally in Richmond, Va., Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2015. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)

Donald J. Trump today postponed a campaign rally because of the threat of violence.

Hmm. Where do I begin?

The Republican presidential campaign frontrunner has been the focus of some unseemly and potentially dangerous confrontations of late. Protestors have shown up at his campaign events; they’ve been shouted down by Trumpsters seeking to silence the anti-Trump voices; fights have broken out; one man has been arrested for assault after he sucker-punched a protestor being escorted out of a rally location in North Carolina.

Trump’s reaction to all of this? Well, it’s been — shall we say — a bit muted. Except, of course, when he’s exhorted his supporters to punch protestors in the face or exhibit some other form of forceful retaliation.

I listened to some commentary this evening after the postponement of a Trump rally in Chicago. An interesting thought came from David Gergen, a CNN political analyst and a former official in several presidential administrations: Nixon, Ford, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Clinton.

Gergen’s advice to Trump: If you’re going to proclaim yourself to be a unifier, then you need to do a lot more to tamp down the anger upon which you’ve built your (so far) successful campaign for president.

Gergen said tonight previous campaigns have drawn hu-u-u-u-u-ge crowds.

He mentioned Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign and John F. Kennedy’s 1960 campaign.

None of them fostered the violence we’ve seen at these Trump rallies, Gergen noted. Why? “They were positive,” he said. All three men promoted positive agendas for change and they all sought to appeal to the voters’ better angels.

Gergen noted he disliked including Trump with Reagan because, he said, “It does a disservice to President Reagan.” Indeed, it does. Trump, though, needs to heed the words of this bipartisan wise man.

The violence has to stop. One individual has it within his power to restore order, civility and decorum to the important task of delivering a campaign message.

That would be the candidate who is seeking the votes of Americans across the land.

Tone down the angry talk, Donald Trump.

national news

Should POTUS attend ex-FLOTUS’s funeral?

1 Comment

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.

 

International news, military news, national news, political news

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.

 

International news, national news, political news

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.

 

legal news, national news, political news

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.”

 

business news, national news, political news

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.