Uncategorized

Bush's name no longer golden in GOP

John Ellis Bush is finding that his family name is beginning to sound tired — even among Republicans.

Will that stop the man known as Jeb from running for president next year?

Hardly.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/235638-walker-bush-is-like-other-failed-gop-candidates

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, another probable GOP candidate, said of Bush that his name is “of the past.” The party and the nation need new names, meaning new blood, to lead it.

Walker said he wouldn’t speak ill of Jeb Bush … but then he did. According to The Hill, Walker said: “You’re not going to hear me speak ill will of Jeb. He’s a friend of mine. He called me two days before (announcing) his PAC, I think highly of him. I just think voters are going to look at this and say, ‘If we’re running against Hillary Clinton, we’ll need a name from the future, not a name from the past, to win.’ ”

So, what I’m reading from that is Bush’s name will hurt him if he gets his party’s nomination.

I’ve long said you shouldn’t ever criticized anyone’s appearance or anyone’s name.

Walker has just gone mildly negative against the family name of Jeb Bush.

That is “speaking ill will” of someone.

 

International news

Allies join in criticism chorus of Gang of 47

Now it’s the allies who are weighing in with criticism of the Republican Gang of 47’s letter to Iran.

Our nation’s European allies have chimed in with a blistering critique of the Senate GOP letter that says it’s OK for Iran to ignore whatever treaty that’s negotiated to get rid of Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/european-allies-join-criticism-of-gop%e2%80%99s-iran-letter/ar-AA9HLKf

“Suddenly, Iran can say to us: ‘Are your proposals actually trustworthy if 47 senators say that no matter what the government agrees to, we can subsequently take it off the table?’ ” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said during a visit to Washington.

What’s Germany’s stake in this? The Germans, along with the United States, Great Britain, France, China and Russia are negotiating with the Iranians for a way to rid the Islamic Republic of its nuclear ambition.

A large portion of the U.S. Senate’s Republican caucus has decided to take matters into its own hands by seeking to persuade Iran to ignore whatever agreement is worked out. Without congressional approval of a treaty, the Gang said, it becomes merely an executive agreement that can be wiped out when the next president takes office in January 2017.

Technically, it’s true. But the letter constitutes an egregious interference in a high-stakes negotiation.

Welcome aboard the criticism train, allies.

 

national news

Have we seen enough from Secret Service?

Isn’t the Secret Service supposed to be the elite of the elite? The cream of our national security apparatus? The individuals charged with protecting the Most Powerful Person on the Planet?

What in the name of Homeland Security is going on with these individuals?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-agents-disrupted-bomb-investigation-at-white-house/2015/03/12/0eb74590-c8c4-11e4-aa1a-86135599fb0f_story.html

Two more agents have been accused of driving under the influence of alcohol and taking their vehicle through an active investigation scene involving a bomb.

The Secret Service has a new director who was supposed to turn the agency around after it went through a series of shameful incidents involving disgraceful behavior and serious breaches of security at the White House.

Joseph Clancy hasn’t turned anything around.

The Secret Service used to be run by the Treasury Department. Since 9/11, it’s been handed over to the Department of Homeland Security. Did we hear of these kinds of screw-ups when Treasury was in charge? Maybe once in a while, but not with this kind of chilling regularity.

Any thoughts of returning the Secret Service to the Treasury Department? Well? Are there?

 

political news

Sanders sounding like a non-candidate

It’s not a stretch to equate running for president to deciding to get married.

You’d better be all in on both counts, or else you’re doomed to fail in both endeavors.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who sounds like a left-leaning Democrat, now says he’s not so sure about running for president, which many liberals in his party want him to do.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/bernie-sanders-isnt-so-sure-about-this-2016-thing-116031.html?hp=l3_3

Don’t hold your breath on this one, lefties. I don’t think Sanders is going to do it.

“If I run it has to be done well,” Sanders said in an interview with POLITICO this week. “And if it’s done well, and I run a winning campaign or a strong campaign, it is a real boon to the progressive community, because I believe that the issues I talk about are issues that millions and millions of people believe in. On the other hand, if one were to run a poor campaign, didn’t have a well-funded campaign, didn’t have a good organization, did not do well, because of your own limitations, then that would be a setback for the progressive community.”

Sanders is sounding, with those comments, as if he’s full of doubt about whether it’s worth it.

Politico noted that he hasn’t raised much money, has hired virtually zero key campaign advisers, has done next to no groundwork in any of the early crucial primary and caucus states.

Now he’s talking like someone who seems to question whether he has the fire in his gut to go all the way.

The late Sen. George McGovern once said that the first thing a presidential candidate needs is a huge ego. Sanders likely possesses the requisite ego to mount a campaign. He needs the rest of it — all of it — to make it a reality. I’m talking about commitment.

 

national news, political news

No charges against Gang of 47

An interesting petition is being circulated by those who think, as I do, that the 47 Senate Republicans who sent The Letter to the Iranian mullahs asking them to reject a nuclear deal worked out by the president of the United States.

The petition calls for charges to be filed against the senators.

I don’t sign petitions. I didn’t sign this one. Indeed, even if I did sign petitions, I wouldn’t sign this one. Why? The Gang of 47 needs only to suffer political embarrassment for stepping into territory where it didn’t belong. The gang doesn’t need to be brought up on charges.

Here’s how former Labor Secretary Robert Reich discusses it in his Facebook post: “A petition calling for charges to be filed against 47 U.S. Senators who sent an open letter to the leaders of Iran, in alleged violation of the Logan Act (a law that forbids unauthorized citizens to negotiate with foreign governments) has already collected over 165,000 signatures. I can’t imagine the Justice Department actually going after the 47, or the constitutional and political crisis that would ensue if it did. Yet I think it important that our voices be heard on this matter. Allowing a political party to conduct its own foreign policy undermines the authority of the President and poses a threat to the peace and security of all Americans. I urge you to add your name, and send a clear signal that this behavior is unacceptable.”

Reich is correct to assert that it’s important for Americans’ voices to be heard on this matter.

The Gang of 47 has committed a serious political miscalculation. Let them stew in the embarrassment they’ve brought onto themselves.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Lynch nomination a cliffhanger? Why?

Sometimes I can be a bit slow on the uptake. I get that. I concede it’s a weakness.

But for the life of me, I do not understand why Loretta Lynch’s nomination to become the next U.S. attorney general is hanging by a thread. Someone will have to explain this one to me.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/loretta-lynch-nomination-close-116032.html?hp=t2_r

Lynch is supposed to replace Eric Holder as AG. She was thought to be set for a relatively easy confirmation. Then the man who appointed her, President Obama, decided to issue an executive order that delayed deportation of some 5 million illegal immigrants; the order allows them to seek work permits while they stay in the United States.

The order enraged Senate Republicans. So what did they do? They began questioning Lynch about whether she supported the president’s executive decision.

What on God’s Earth did they expect her to say?

“Well, senator, since you asked, I think that’s the dumbest damn idea I’ve ever heard. It’s illegal. It violates the Constitution. The president has rocks in his head and he should be impeached just for being stupid enough to issue the order.”

Is that what they want her to say? I’m beginning to think that’s the case.

Instead, she has declared her support of the president’s decision. As if that’s some big surprise to the senators, some of whom said they’d support her initially, but then changed their mind because — gasp! — she’s endorsing a key policy of the man who wants her to become the next attorney general.

Who’da thunk such a thing?

Loretta Lynch is eminently qualified to assume this important post. Republicans have made no secret of their intense dislike of Holder, who said he’d stay on the job until the next AG is confirmed.

I believe Holder has done just fine as attorney general, but he wants to move on, spend time with his family, pursue other interests … all those clichés. So, let him do it.

First, though, confirm Loretta Lynch.

International news

End of bipartisan foreign policy?

Leslie Gelb never has struck me as a crazed, left-wing ideologue.

He still doesn’t, but he’s written a piece for the Daily Beast that paints an extremely grim picture of one of the consequences of the Republican Gang of 47’s letter to the Iranian mullahs.

He said The Letter well might destroy bipartisan foreign policy, the kind envisioned by politicians of both parties until, well, just the other day.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/10/open-letter-to-iran-shows-gop-senators-hate-obama-more-than-they-love-america.html

The headline over Gelb’s essay says that Republicans “hate Obama more than nuclear Iran.”

“Hate” is one of those words our parents have told us we shouldn’t use. Yes, I’ve referred on my blog to “Obama haters,” and I regret the use of that term. I’ll only refer to prior use of it here.

Gelb, though, wonders whether The Letter signals the end of bipartisan foreign policy, the kind that compels politicians to rally around the president as he tries to negotiate deals with foreign leaders, prosecute conflicts, wage campaigns against terrorists, stared down our nation’s enemies.

The Gang of 47 sees it differently. They were led by a wet-behind-the-ears freshman senator, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who drafted The Letter that advised Iran that it should consider rejecting a nuclear prohibition treaty because it could be overturned when President Obama leaves office in January 2017.

The blowback against the senators has been ferocious. Even some Republicans are trying to back away from it.

Gelb writes: “What the 47 did was not a trivial matter or ‘a tempest in a teapot,’ as Senator John McCain has described it. It could well affect possible Iranian concessions in the end game. The ayatollahs could well conclude from that letter that concessions they might have made just aren’t worth it politically, as the agreement would go nowhere anyway. They’d be taking political risks for nothing.”

This interference in a president’s negotiation with a hostile foreign government is unconscionable. Teapot tempest? Hardly.

I hope Gelb is wrong about the future of bipartisan foreign policy. I fear, though, that he’s right.

 

International news, national news, political news

GOP's letter to Iran? It's Obama's fault

You knew it would come to this, didn’t you?

Republican U.S. senators, trying to put some distance between themselves and what’s looking like a monumental cluster-bleep regarding The Letter that was sent to Iran regarding the nuclear negotiations, have done the impossible.

They’ve gone from irresponsible to ridiculous. They’re blaming President Obama for their decision to fire off that message to the Iranian mullahs, encouraging them to oppose any nuclear treaty that gets hammered out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/gop-obama-cotton-letter_n_6843204.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Blame Obama! That’s the ticket!

Here’s how the Huffington Post, which I concede isn’t a friend of the GOP, reported it: “Those who support the letter — even some who didn’t add their names — deflected the blame. If it weren’t for Obama’s failure to consult lawmakers about the negotiations, or his threatened veto of a proposed bill to give Congress the final vote on a nuclear agreement, senators wouldn’t have had to speak out in the first place, they argued.

“’I think that, no doubt, the fact that the president, you know, issued a veto threat on a very common-sense piece of legislation, probably evoked, you know, a good deal of passion,’ Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Huffington Post Tuesday. Corker, who is leading the push for a veto-proof majority on the bill to grant Congress oversight of a nuclear agreement, did not sign letter, which was organized by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). Nevertheless, he showed no signs of ill will toward his junior colleague.

“’No, no, no,’ Corker responded, when asked if he was concerned Cotton’s letter would cost the bill much-needed Democratic votes.”

There’s more on the link attached to this post, but you get the idea.

The Gang of 47 sent The Letter because President Obama didn’t consult with Republican lawmakers about the negotiations, the GOP line of defense goes.

I applaud Sen. Corker for remaining part of a dwindling Reasonable Republican Senate Caucus; he was one of seven GOP senators who didn’t sign The Letter.

However, his assertion — along with those who did sign the document — that this is Barack Obama’s fault is about as “funny” as the statement by GOP congressional aides reported in The Daily Beast that the senators were being “cheeky,” that they meant The Letter to be something of a joke.

I’m trying real hard right now to pick up the sound of laughter. I don’t hear anything.

 

national news

'Free speech' at OU goes off deep end

The question has arisen: Should those nimrod students caught on video shouting racial epithets be allowed to say those things because it’s “free speech” guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution?

Here’s my answer: No.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/03/from-greek-life-at-ou-to-a-broken-ferguson-mo.html/

The University of Oklahoma has acted on several levels in response to this hideous video in which white students are shouting the n-word and making references to lynching while saying bad things about black students on the campus.

The students have been expelled; the fraternity, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, has been disbanded; University of Oklahoma President David Boren has issued the strongest statement possible in condemning such conduct.

Will it end this kind of despicable behavior on college campuses across the land? Don’t hold  your breath.

This isn’t a free speech issue. Students ought to be held to some standard of conduct. What the nation has seen coming out of that video at OU is a demonstration of crass behavior that stoops to unspeakable levels.

Jim Mitchell’s blog for the Dallas Morning News, which is attached to this post, doesn’t address the free speech issue directly, but he presents an interesting view of what happened that day when the SAE students went berserk.

One of the aspects of modern life, and the OU students should know this, is that nothing — not a single act that anyone commits in public — is immune from technology’s prying eyes. Everyone has a camera these days; it’s contained in that little telephone we’re carrying around with us. You start chanting things you don’t want the world to hear? Be careful, because someone’s going to record it and send it out there.

Free speech? Not even close.

As Mitchell writes in his blog: “These students deserved hefty punishment and they received it, unlike previous generations of Sigma Alpha Epsilon students who apparently learned the same vile song in an age without social media. But these students have absolutely no power to impact lives — yet.”

 

national news, political news

Did Kerry 'mock' protester? I don't think so

The media are reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry “mocked” a young woman who shouted during his testimony at a congressional hearing that the United States should stop killing innocent people while striking out against the Islamic State.

I believe the media have it wrong. The link attached to this brief post is of Kerry’s response to the protester.

Kerry mocks protester during ISIS hearing

I didn’t hear a mocking tone in his stern lecture to the individual about the damage that ISIL is doing all by itself to innocent victims.

The Hill also takes note of Kerry’s own anti-war protests during the Vietnam War, in which he served heroically as a U.S. Navy swift boat commander. He came home to take up the cause for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and he testified eloquently before Congress about why the United States should get out of that terrible conflict.

OK, so he protested once. He then went on to serve in the Senate and in 2004 ran as the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.

He knows war. He knows the damage it does. He knows of its insanity. And he most certainly understands the rights of citizens to protest against U.S. policy.

He didn’t “mock” the protester.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience