GOP governor draws angry fire … from Republicans

haleynikki_090215getty2

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley isn’t angry enough to suit some within what used to be known as the Republican Party.

No. She instead called on her party brethren to not listen to the “siren call of the angriest voices.” She offered that advice in her response on behalf of her party to President Obama’s State of the Union message delivered Tuesday night.

What was the reaction among the conservatives within her party?

Anger. Lots of it. Some of it, well, bordering on hateful.

Is this what the Grand Old Party has become? The party of intense, seething anger?

She aimed her fire, without mentioning him by name, at Donald J. Trump, the GOP frontrunner who has tapped into some vein of anger within his party. The call to ban all Muslims? That suits the Republican “base” just fine, irrespective of its being totally outside the principles on which this country was founded.

Haley sought to quell that kind of rhetoric in her GOP response. It was met with hostility.

This is a remarkable set of circumstances facing the Republican Party. It is about to commence its nominating process in just a little more than two weeks with the Iowa caucuses, followed immediately by the New Hampshire primary. Its leading candidate has stirred up some intense anger among the party’s most fervent voters.

Then the party — at the invitation of House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — listens to Gov. Haley talk sensibly while offering criticism of the Democratic president’s vision . . . only to have its most conservative members go ballistic!

The Republican Party appears to be morphing into something few us recognize.

 

You go, Gov. Haley!

160112-nikki-haley-rd-1240a_8b761c93c15a723b6244a57473578e61.nbcnews-ux-600-480

If I were inclined to form a political fan club, I think I’d start with South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

The Republican governor delivered a response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech last night that — get ready for it — was not filled with the rancor we’ve heard from so many of the president’s critics.

Haley hits the right note

Is it any surprise, then, that the sharpest criticism of her speech came from conservatives within her party?

Oh, no. She saved her sharpest barbs for one of her political brethren, GOP presidential campaign frontrunner Donald J. Trump.

Gov. Haley cautioned against listening to the “angriest voices” who rail against immigrants.

The daughter of Indian immigrants talked of how the nation was built by people just like her parents.

She showed herself to be an impressive politician who — were I inclined to advise Republican presidential candidates — should be considered a top-drawer vice-presidential possibility.

Except, of course, if the GOP presidential nominee is Donald Trump.

 

Critiquing final SOTU for this POTUS

694940094001_4701170660001_8b918e30-055c-4dfa-81e5-d7baf77451dc

This won’t be a thorough point-by-point critique of President Obama’s final State of the Union speech, but I want to offer a few observations of what I believe to be the high points . . . and a particular low point of his speech.

Generally, I believe he hit the right tone and sent the correct message on a number of points.

Such as:

Our political system needs an overhaul. The president sought to quell the “toxic” atmosphere that lingers over Capitol Hill and along the presidential campaign trail. He acknowledges that a State of the Union during a presidential election year is going to run headlong into partisan divisions. But it need not result in turning adversaries into enemies, he said.

This toxicity isn’t new. It’s shown itself at times during the entire existence of the Republic. Its victims have been politicians of both political parties — and more than that if you want to count the Whigs, which morphed into today’s Republican Party.

But just because we’ve had this kind of loathing of individuals with whom we differ for as long as any of us can remember doesn’t negate the need to change it.

The anger has spread to those who worship certain religious faiths and who are victimized solely because of their beliefs. Such hatred must cease. It is, as the president said, “not who we are.”

Obama is right, however, to lay the bulk of the responsibility for that change on us out here in Voter Land. The politicians do our bidding. If we demand a change, then they’ll have to heed us.

Correct?

The economy has turned around. He hit on something most of us knew he would say. The nation’s economic standing is far better now than it was when Barack H. Obama took office.

We’ve cut joblessness in half; reduced the annual budget deficit by 75 percent; our auto industry is setting records; our banks and other financial institutions are healthy again.

Does the president deserve all the credit? No. It did happen on his watch.

We remain the world’s indispensable nation. The presidential candidates have been making hay on the stump about the United States’ lack of “greatness.” They contend we are weak, that we cower in the face of danger.

The president said, though, that the world “doesn’t turn to Moscow or Beijing” when times get dicey. “It turns to us.”

Why is that so, if we’re such a basket case?

We’re continuing to fight the war on terror aggressively. The president told us of how more than 10,000 air strikes have killed Islamic State leaders and fighters, disrupted command and control operations, obliterated ISIL’s oil supplies — and is doing so with the help of 60 nations allied behind our effort to destroy these terror networks.

Yet his foes keep saying we should “do more.” One of them, U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, said the president isn’t doing enough. What, then, does Chairman Thornberry propose? Oh, yeah. Let’s put “boots on the ground,” which is a cleaned-up way to say, “Let’s put even more young American lives in jeopardy.”

No one should be naïve to think this concentrated air campaign against ISIL, al-Qaeda or al-Shabaab is going to go smoothly all the time. Wars never do.

As for the nature of this war . . .

It is a world war, Mr. President. Obama sought to downgrade this conflict into something less than a global conflict. He is mistaken.

It is true that we aren’t engaged on battlefields around the world the way we were from 1941 until 1945. This war, though, is different in every conceivable way. We aren’t fighting nation-states. We are fighting ideologies, whose practitioners live among us and who prey on innocent victims, so-called “soft targets.”

I believe it is a world war, but not in the historical sense of the term.

* **

Barack Obama didn’t likely change many minds last night. His approval ratings might tick up just a bit, but then they’ll settle back down to where they have stood for years. His foes will be sure to keep beating the drums of pessimism and gloom.

Me? I’m as concerned as the next guy about the future. Then again, I’ve lived long enough and seen enough political turmoil — and warfare — to understand that we are truly are an exceptional nation.

Well done, Mr. President.

What will president say about his tenure

right_way

President Obama vows a different kind of State of the Union speech.

Such events usually involve a lengthy laundry list of policy proposals. Frankly, they bore the daylights out of me.

I prefer loftier rhetoric for these events.

What might the president say? The pessimists have laid down their marker. The country is going to hell; we’re in danger of being attacked; the economic recovery isn’t as good as it should be; most Americans think we’re heading along the “wrong track.”

My hunch is that Barack Obama is going to sound significantly more optimistic. To wit:

  • We’ve added millions of new jobs over the past seven years.
  • Joblessness has been cut in half.
  • The budget deficit, which was more than $1 trillion annually when Obama took office, has been cut by more than half.
  • Automakers, the housing industry and financial institutions are back.
  • Stocks are way up (the recent correction notwithstanding).
  • We’re still the most powerful nation on Earth . . . by a long shot.
  • We haven’t been attacked by a terrorist group.
I’m not naïve to think there are no problems. Yes, the Middle East remains a powder keg. Then again, when has it not been?
Barack Obama will have much on which to hang his hat by the time he leaves office.
But he’s not going to assuage the critics. Not for a second.

Democrats conspiring to nominate Trump?

ted-cruz-sexy-eyes

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz might be on to something.

He seems to believe that Democrats are conspiring to ensure that Donald J. Trump is the Republican presidential nominee. Thus, it’s the Democrats who are floating the Cruz-ain’t-eligible-to-run notion . . . allegedly.

Trump’s been making hay of late over the fact that Cruz, R-Texas, was born in Canada. Therefore, the idea goes, he isn’t eligible to run for the presidency, let alone actually occupy the office.

I happen to think Trump’s argument is more basic than that. He’s delusional and, I believe, he’s so much of an entertainer that he’d say anything to get Americans to talk about him.

My own belief is that Cruz’s citizenship was settled the moment he was born to an American mother. End of argument, as far as I’m concerned.

However, pundits keep raising the Cruz citizenship issue simply because it comes from Trump, who for the moment is the GOP frontrunner. Trump’s standing at the top of the polls gives his words a certain gravitas.

As for whether Democrats are working in cahoots with Trump, though, seems to suggest a certain fear of running against, say, Ted Cruz.

I tend to think Democrats would relish the idea of running against Cruz.

Having declared my disbelief in a Democrat-Trump co-conspiracy, absolutely nothing — not a damn thing — would surprise me at this point.

This campaign has taken so many twists and turns I’m getting motion sickness watching it unfold.

 

Conservatives dig in against Obama appointments

90

U.S. Senate Republicans had better hope that the nine men and women who comprise the U.S. Supreme Court are still on the job when President Obama checks out of the White House.

Politico is reporting that conservative lawmakers are set to all but block future presidential appointments for the remainder of Obama’s term.

Why am I not surprised?

They’ve been holding up presidential appointments all along, so it doesn’t come as any shock that they’d lay down that marker.

I keep coming back to the highest court in the land.

The president already has selected two members of that court — Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. It still has a narrow conservative majority, but some of the conservatives on the court — as well as some of the liberals — are getting a bit long in the tooth. Don’t misunderstand me here. I do not wish ill on any of them.

But suppose the president must make an appointment . . .

That’s just a single example of how the legislative branch can gum up the process that allows the president to make these critical selections.

I totally understand that the Constitution gives the Senate the power to “consent” to such appointments. I honor that provision. However, as one who long has stood behind the principle of presidential prerogative, I believe the “advise and consent” constitutional clause can be abused.

If Senate conservatives are merely intending to stick it in the president’s ear just because they can, well, that’s not in keeping with the concept of good government . . .  in my humble view.

Tanya Couch becomes face of parental dysfunction

CCrav9

Ethan Couch needs to be punished the fullest extent of Texas law.

The problem, though, lies with the law itself. The so-called “affluenza” teen likely won’t spend much time behind bars for violating the conditions of his parole when he fled to Mexico after taking part in a drinking game.

Couch, you’ll recall, is the teenager convicted of killing four people in that hideous drunken-driving wreck in Tarrant County. HIs defense team threw out a defense that his ritzy lifestyle — and his wealthy parents — were responsible for his failing to understand right from wrong.

He should have spent time in juvenile detention, as he was 16 when he committed the crime.

Two years later he’s an adult.

But . . . what about Mommy Couch, Tanya?

She’s more of a villain than that goofball son of hers. She enabled his escape to Mexico and, in fact, fled with him.

Is there a better example than this of parental dysfunction that what Tanya Couch has provided? I’m hard-pressed to find one.

She’s out of jail now, but is confined to her residence; she’s wearing an ankle monitor to track her whereabouts.

Mommy Couch needs to do some serious jail time, although I don’t really know what the maximum sentence is for the crime for which she is likely to be charged with committing.

Whatever it is, she deserves it.

While we’re at it, let’s take a look at the role Daddy Couch might have played in this ridiculous drama.

 

El Chapo interview continues to provoke debate

photo

I heard a media analyst make an astonishing comparison this afternoon on National Public Radio.

The discussion on NPR was about actor Sean Penn’s interview — published in Rolling Stone — with Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the despicable drug lord who was on the lam from his escape from a Mexican prison.

This analyst seemed to make a direct comparison between El Chapo and Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Moammar Gadhafi, all of whom were interviewed by the media before they met their deaths.

Hmmm. There’s something of a difference here.

Hussein and Gadhafi were heads of state; bin Laden hadn’t been convicted of anything, even though the entire world knew of his involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Guzman was an escapee from a maximum-security prison. Mexican authorities had been scouring the country looking for him since his escape six months ago.

Penn’s access to this individual — whose drug activities have produced so much death and misery — was a function of his own celebrity status as an Oscar-winning film actor.

I keep coming back to what I believe is a central question: Doesn’t an American citizen such as Penn have an obligation to assist authorities in their search for a notorious drug dealer?

Sen. Marco Rubio was asked over the weekend to comment on the interview. The Republican presidential candidate said Penn is entitled to his First Amendment rights, but then he used a term with which I agree.

He called the interview “grotesque.”

 

What we might expect from a winning ticket?

games_of_chance

OK, I’m about to offer a not-so-bold prediction.

One day, maybe soon, someone — or some people — is going to win the Powerball prize that totals more than $1 billion.

That’s a billion bucks, man.

The prediction? The place where the winning ticket was purchased will become the target of suckers seeking to win the next big payoff.

It happens whenever they give out a lot of money.

I recall it happening in Amarillo not many years ago when someone here won a Texas Lottery payoff; I think it totaled a paltry $100 million, or something like that.

The convenience store — the location escapes me — where the guy bought the ticket became flooded with customers looking to buy the next winning ticket.

It’s an amazing aspect of human nature, I suppose. Those who like the play these games of chance are drawn to where the winning ticket is sold.

They apparently forget that the chances of the same outlet selling a winning ticket twice in a row are infinitely more remote than the outlet selling a winning ticket in the first place.

Whatever . . .

This Powerball mania is getting serious, folks.

I hope the winner — or winners — are ready to fend off the overtures from their millions of new best friends.

 

SOTU won’t fill us with warm, fuzzy feelings

2011_State_of_the_Union

It never really had to be this way.

Barack H. Obama took office in January 2009 as the 44th president of the United States after an election that many had hoped would be a “transformational” political event for a country that had just elected its first African-American president.

Not long afterward, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that his top priority would be to make Obama a one-term president. Yes, that’s right. McConnell said that defeating the president’s re-election effort would be his No. 1 priority.

That set the tone — right off the top — for the kind of relationship that the White House would have with Congress.

It hasn’t gotten any better, even as President Obama prepares to deliver his final State of the Union speech to a joint congressional session.

Ugly relationship coming to an end

To be blunt, the president didn’t do his part to develop a good working relationship with Congress. I’ve lamented before how the young president never learned how to build upon those relations with his congressional friends. To be honest, the president arguably served too little time in the Senate to have crafted a lot of friendships and political alliances among his fellow legislators.

I had hoped the president could have followed the Lyndon Johnson model of transferring his Senate experience into effective legislative accomplishment.

He didn’t.

However, Congress made it clear that it had no intention of giving any quarter to the president.

So, the president’s final State of the Union speech — which the White House says will be an “unconventional” presentation — isn’t expected to produce any bright lights of hope for a smooth and successful final year of the Obama presidency.

Republicans almost unanimously say that next to nothing will get done in this final full year of Barack Obama’s administration.

Perhaps, then, it will be left to the president simply to declare victory on the accomplishments that his presidency has delivered.

I’m wondering now if the president is going to remind us that Sen. McConnell’s top priority never came to pass.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience