Tag Archives: Democratic Party

national news, political news

Rep. Schock calls it a career

Aaron Schock was thought to be a Republican superstar in the making.

The Illinois congressman, though, has become a GOP goat. He’s quitting Congress at the end of the month because of a mountain of reports that he spent money lavishly, inappropriately and perhaps in violation of federal law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/17/illinois_rep_aaron_schock_announces_resignation_125960.html

I will not join the Democratic Party chorus that is blasting House Speaker John Boehner to smithereens over Schock’s sudden departure. In reality, none of this is the speaker’s fault. The entire mess falls squarely on Schock’s shoulders.

He said the usual thing politicians say when they are forced to quit because of ethical trouble. The stories of his spending and his alleged failure to report it correctly have become a “distraction,” Schock said in a statement.

He had served in Congress for six years and was thought to be one of his party’s shooting stars.

No more. He’s about to vanish from Capitol Hill.

In truth, the story was more than a distraction. It besmirched the entire House of Representatives, which comprises members who represent all Americans and which enacts laws that affect all of us.

Aaron Schock was one of them and he needed to go.

Later, young man.

political news

Run, Joe, run for the White House

Hillary Clinton is looking suddenly a bit less invincible as she ponders whether to run for president next year.

Is it time, then, for Vice President Joe Biden to ramp up his own interest in seeking the Top Job?

Sure. Why not?

http://news.yahoo.com/biden-should-run–now-221648790.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw

That’s the case being made by Matt Bai, a veteran political reporter, who writes that Biden should run “and run now.”

There’s something so very un-Democratic Party-like in anointing someone to the presidential nomination when there’s so much over which to argue.

Hillary Clinton does present a formidable record to present to Democratic voters. But as we’ve learned in recent days, she does present some vulnerabilities. The email kerfuffle has revealed an apparent penchant for secrecy that can be exploited.

Biden, given his own penchant for garrulousness, would seem to be the anti-secrecy candidate.

He’s also an experienced politician. Biden served more than 30 years in the Senate before being elected vice president in 2008. He’s held key Senate chairmanships, leading the Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees. Biden is known to be a foreign policy expert and one who has built many relationships over the years with key foreign leaders.

The political equation, though, is getting murky. Clinton is going to speak about the email matter later today. Perhaps she’ll put the controversy to rest — although no one believes the right-wing mainstream media will let the matter go so quickly.

Meantime, the vice president of the United States — who’s let it be known that he’s interested in the working in that Oval Office — should get ready to rumble.

 

national news, political news

HRC looking suddenly vulnerable

What’s the opposite of “invincible”?

Is it, say, “vincible”?

Suddenly and with little warning, the chatterers of Washington and in some key political hot spots are starting to wonder aloud whether the once seemingly invincible Hillary Rodham Clinton might actually not run for president of the United States next year.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/what-if-hillary-clinton-drops-out-115715.html?ml=po#.VPcJFFJ0yt8

I believe a Clinton pullout from the White House contest remains the longest of long shots. She’s invested a lot of her time, money, effort and political capital in getting support on board to bail now.

But oh, man, there’s trouble out there. It has nothing to do, really, with Benghazi.

It has to do with her use of email technology and whether she might have kept the public’s business hidden from public view.

Politico is reporting that Democratic strategists aren’t yet considering the idea of Clinton dropping out of the race: “What if The Unthinkable did happen and she actually dropped out? What would be the Democrats’ response? ‘Panic,’ says Democratic consultant Chris Lapetina.”

Some questions have emerged of late about whether the then-secretary of state broke federal rules by communicating exclusively with her private email account. The way I see the trouble is that using private channels leaves open the possibility that she conducted non-classified public business in private. More murkiness has emerged as well, with some Clinton supporters suggesting that the rules weren’t put in place until after she left the State Department.

Clinton’s advisers have said she broke no laws and followed the “spirit and letter” of the rules governing such communication.

Suddenly, though, the smooth sailing Clinton has enjoyed so far has given way to some choppy waters. Have the waves built enough to capsize the Good Ship Hillary? Not yet, but factions on the Democratic Party’s left and most certainly those on the right and far right aren’t about to throw her many life lines.

Democratic Party “panic” needs to give way to some planning in the event that The Unthinkable actually occurs.

 

national news

Jefferson, Madison … and Bill Press?

Who does Bill Press think he is?

The one-time CNN news commentator and Democratic Party “strategist” posted a Facebook message today in which he blasted the idea behind the National Prayer Breakfast. He called it a right-wing attempt to blur the line between church and state.

“The last thing I want to see is Republicans and Democrats saying how much they believe in the Bible,” Press said with an apparent scorn on his face.

He said President Obama has been “suckered” into attending the annual event.

Holy mackerel, Bill. You need to take a deep breath.

Presidents who attend these events always are careful to maintain a certain ecumenical air about their remarks. The National Prayer Breakfast is open to people of all faiths and the prayers recited are universal in nature, given that they aren’t Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Shinto or Buddhist in nature.

That’s the spirit of the Constitution that participants seek to preserve at this event.

The most hilarious part of Press’s screed against the Prayer Breakfast was this: “Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would never attend the National Prayer Breakfast. And neither will Bill Press.”

OK, not only did this clown place himself side by side — symbolically — with two of the greatest Americans who ever lived, he referred to himself in the third person. I can’t decide which of those things is more offensive.

Knock it off, Press.

Note: Here’s Press’s Facebook post.

PARTING SHOT

OK, I know what you’re thinking: Bill, why are you on the air today? Why aren’t you at the National Prayer Breakfast with President Obama and the Dalai Lama?

Are you kidding? I’ve been in Washington 15 years now. I’ve been invited to the National Prayer Breakfast every year. And I’ve never gone – and never will.

…

In fact, I hate the National Prayer Breakfast. Because I think it’s nothing but a right-wing attempt to tear down the wall of separation between church and state, which too many Democrats – including President Obama – get suckered into.

The last thing I want to see are Republicans and Democrats standing up and telling everybody how much they believe in the Bible. I don’t care whether they believe in the Bible.

I want to see Republicans and Democrats standing up and telling us how much they believe in the Constitution. And I want to see Republicans hiding behind the Bible to try to undermine the Constitution – like they did on slavery yesterday, and like they do on gay rights today.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would never attend the National Prayer Breakfast. And neither will Bill Press.

That’s my parting shot for today. I’m Bill Press.

political news

'Candidate' Jeb quits boards

Jeb Bush sure looks like a presidential candidate to me.

The former Florida governor has announced he is quitting all the for-profit boards on which he is a member in preparation for his now-expected run for the presidency in 2016.

Smart move, Jeb.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/jeb-bush-quits-all-private-sector-non-profit-boards-113914.html?hp=l1_3

Another possible Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, has expressed concern about Bush’s financial dealings. Hey, if anyone knows something about personal financial controversy, it’s Mitt — with his own Bain Capital history serving as something of a drag on his own 2012 presidential campaign.

Bush has been out of public life for more than a decade. He’s got that “Bush brand” with which he must contend. Not the one set by his father, George H.W. Bush, the 41st president, but the one of his brother, George Dubya, the 43rd president.

Is the nation ready for yet another Bush in the White House? I think not.

But Jeb is doing what he needs to do to start setting the stage for another Bush candidacy.

Actually, he’s a pretty good Republican wannabe-candidate, particularly on immigration. He’s a moderate on that issue, presenting a far different approach to immigration reform than his TEA party rivals within the GOP.

My hunch is that he’s going to run. Will he be nominated? I won’t predict that outcome.

If nominated, can he beat the presumptive Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton? I most assuredly won’t go there, either.

Stay tuned.

 

national news, political news

How to define a 'Values Voter'?

3 Comments

It is amusing, although not in a guffawing kind of way.

The Values Voter Summit has declared U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be its kind of politician. They like his “values.”

Good for him.

I am left to wonder, though, why the conservative wing of the once-great Republican Party has laid claim to speaking for American voters’ values.

It must be marketing. The far right wing of the GOP has managed to brand itself as representing “values.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/ted-cruz-values-voter-conference-111363.html?hp=l4

Once-moderate GOP leaders need not step up to the microphone at this Washington, D.C. gathering. Democrats? Don’t even think about it. The podium belongs to those on the far right. It’s their values that count.

My values? Forget about it.

However, let’s look at the values of those who haven’t attended these “summits.”

I’ll gladly stand as an example of one of those Americans. For instance:

* I’ve served my country in uniform, gone to war for the U.S. of A. and served honorably in the U.S. Army.

* I have been married to the same woman for more than 43 years. We love each other deeply.

* My two sons are both upstanding men who now are in their 40s. We see and hear from them regularly. They’re hard-working, industrious, intelligent, well-educated, good-hearted men who make us proud every single day.

* I pay my taxes on time every year.

* I attend church fairly regularly and have served as an elder at the mainstream Presbyterian church my wife and I attend.

* I have voted in every presidential election since 1972. I split my ticket generously between Democrats and Republicans up and down the ballot. But I have voted Democrat for every presidential candidate going back to that first vote, when the Vietnam War was starting to wind down.

Ah, yes. There it is. That’s why I’ll never be seen at one of those Voters Values Summit meetings. I have voted for those dreaded Democrats for president.

The rest of it? I think I am an individual with pretty sound values — and I am quite sure I speak for many millions of other values-driven Americans who aren’t part of that right-wing fringe of society that shouts about its own values and thinks it speaks for all Americans.

Hardly.

national news, political news

Clinton's going to run, period

One of my many pet peeves is when folks try to read the mind of public figures.

Therefore, I am going to get angry at myself for what I’m about to write: I believe Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to run for president in 2016 and that the only decision left is to decide the best time to announce her intentions.

http://news.msn.com/us/clinton-2016-decision-likely-by-early-next-year

Clinton is in Mexico City, as is Gov. Chris Christie, R-N.J., another possible candidate for president.

The former U.S. senator/secretary of state/first lady said she’ll decide by early next year whether she’ll seek the Democratic nomination for president.

Sure thing, senator/Mme. Secretary. My trick knee is throbbing a good bit right about now and it’s telling me she’s told her husband, former President Bill Clinton, that she wants to run for the office he once held. She has sworn him to secrecy and if the 42nd president has a brain in his head — and I believe he does — he’ll keep quiet about it.

If I were a bettor, I’d bet all HRC has to decide now is when to announce it. Indeed, you can parse her language just a little bit to conclude that’s the decision left to make. She’s spoken hypothetically about a presidential run; she’s been mildly critical of President Obama’s foreign policy doctrine; she said in Mexico City that her background gives her “unique” qualifications to be president.

I’m still baffled, of course, over why she’d want to run for the White House, given the intensely harsh, personal and in some case unfair criticism she’s received over many years. You can bet the mortgage the critics will be out in force when she makes her intentions known.

Is it blind ambition or a sense of public obligation that drives her? Perhaps it’s both. We’ll be able to make that determination for ourselves in due time.

 

Uncategorized

Why Warren … and not Clinton?

Conservatives seem to have hitched themselves to a possible candidacy by a leading U.S. Senate liberal.

Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has been wowing crowds at political events lately. She’s been firing up the political base of her Democratic Party. Warren also has gotten the attention of conservative commentators and pundits, such as Byron York, who contends that Warren offers a plan while Hillary Rodham Clinton is running essentially on her resume.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/will-elizabeth-warrens-fight-for-causes-put-hillary-clinton-in-the-shade/article/2551098

I’ll hereby offer my own explanation of why York, a columnist for the Washington Examiner and a Fox News Channel contributor, is so taken by Warren: He wants the Democratic Party to marginalize itself the way Republicans might be willing to do when they nominate their candidate for the 2016 presidential campaign.

You see, Hillary Clinton is a centrist Democrat in the mold of her husband, the 42nd president of the United States. Bill Clinton was the master of “triangulation,” and he parlayed his skill at working the extremes against each other so well that he won two smashing election victories in 1992 and 1996.

Republicans don’t want any more of that.

So some of them have glommed onto Warren’s candidacy, talking her up.

Don’t get me wrong. Elizabeth Warren is a powerhouse. She’s smart and courageous. She’s taking on big-money interests and is talking a darn good populist message about income equality, marriage equality, and financial and tax reform.

York and other conservatives likely don’t give a damn about the content of Warren’s message. They’re just thrilled to have someone out there willing to possibly challenge Hillary Clinton’s perceived inevitability as the Democratic presidential nominee in two years.

She reminds me vaguely of the late Sen. Eugene McCarthy, who in 1968 took on President Lyndon Johnson when it was perceived widely that LBJ would run for re-election. McCarthy stunned the president by nearly beating him in the New Hampshire Democratic primary. On March 31, 1968, LBJ declared he wouldn’t seek “another term as your president.”

The news thrilled Republicans in ’68. I suspect similar news from Hillary Clinton this time around would have the same effect on the GOP if Warren jumps in and then mounts a serious challenge to Clinton’s perceived invincibility.

Uncategorized

Hillary is too 'centrist'?

What a strange problem to have.

Hillary Rodham Clinton likely will run for president in 2016. The right wing detests her, which is a given. Now we hear that the left wing isn’t crazy about her, although she’d be a far better alternative to whomever the Republicans likely will nominate in two years.

Hillary leaves left cold

The way I see it, the former first lady/U.S. senator/secretary of state is positioning herself in a position to actually win the White House. By my calculation, that means she’ll have to reach toward the center — which by definition means she’ll lean away from those on the far left of the Democratic Party.

Does this remind you of anything or anyone? I’m reminded a bit of her husband, the 42nd president of the United States, Bill Clinton. Do you recall the term “triangulation,” which defined the tactic of playing both extremes against each other to craft a centrist domestic and foreign policy? My trick knee suggests Mrs. Clinton might be willing to perform the same sort of balancing act.

Will the left-wing base of the party find a suitable alternative candidate? There’s talk of Sen. Elizabeth Warren or of Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who really is a thinly veiled Democrat.

I consider it a pipe dream if those on the left think they’re going to derail the Hillary Juggernaut.

The only possible way Hillary Clinton would appease anyone on the right would be for her to switch parties and become a Republican. That’s not a sure thing, though, as some GOP folks would concoct some goofy conspiracy theory.

In the end, the left will come around, just as the right comes around whenever the Republicans seek to nominate a centrist for president.

My own view is that centrist policies speak to what Colin Powell once referred to as the vast ocean of middle-ground opinion where most Americans find themselves.

It’s also a formula for winning an election.

Uncategorized

'R-word' surfaces yet again

There goes that pesky “R-word” being bandied about as politicians debate the presidency of Barack Obama.

The latest uttering of it came from former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, who used to be a Republican but now is running for his old office — as a Democrat.

Why did he leave the Grand Old Party?

Crist says it is because too many Republicans just can’t stomach the idea of an African-American serving as president of the United States. He calls those critics racist.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/charlie-crist-racism-drove-me-from-gop-106442.html?hp=l10_b1

Is it true? Is Crist correct to assert that GOP criticism of Obama is based mostly — if not solely — on the fact that his father was a black African and his mother was a white Kansan?

Crist leveled a pretty heavy barrage against his former party in a TV interview. “They’re perceived now as being anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, anti-gay, anti-education, anti-environment,” he said of Republicans.

Crist told interviewer Jorge Ramos he couldn’t tolerate that kind of view. So he switched parties.

Republicans, not surprisingly, say Crist left the party to become an independent initially because he couldn’t beat GOP Sen. Marco Rubio in the 2010 election. Again, I cannot know someone’s motives.

Crist, though, is speaking aloud about a chronic, nagging problem that is dogging the Republican Party. Are Obama critics fueled by racism? At the very least, is the president’s racial background factoring at some level into the intensity of the criticism being leveled at him?

I haven’t a clue. The issue, though, is worth a thorough national discussion.

Bring it on.