Posts Tagged US House Of Representatives
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee Has Become A Total Lunatic By Predicting That Barack Obama Will Not Finish Second Presidential Term!
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee was one of many Republicans who sought the Presidency in 2008, and while not winning the nomination, he came across as a strong conservative with somewhat reasonable views, seen as in the mainstream of the party for that election year. He even came across as likeable and pleasant in personality.
However, once Huckabee gained a radio talk show and an hour on the weekend on Fox News Channel, he went berserk, the best term that can be applied to a man who moved to the “hard” right and has emerged as a delusional and whacky man in his statements, making him a lunatic to any reasonable, rational human being!
And now, Huckabee has declared that the Benghazi, Libya tragedy makes it likely that Barack Obama will be impeached, and be unable to finish his second term as President!
Think about just how loony that statement is! Could Obama be impeached by the Republican controlled House of Representatives? YES, for certain, similar to the 105th Congress under Speaker Newt Gingrich which impeached Bill Clinton on December 19, 1998!
But Clinton ended up, even with a Republican controlled Senate, having votes to remove him from office on two impeachment counts, with a 50-50 tie and a 55-45 vote to remove, making it 17 and 12 votes short of removal from office by a two thirds vote!
And now, the Senate is Democratic 55-45, and even if a Senate trial came in 2015 or 2016, with a possible Republican controlled Senate, there would still be no more than, say, 53-54 Republican Senators, and where would the GOP gain anywhere from 13 Senators then to 22 Senators this year or next to convict and remove Obama from the Presidency?
Huckabee is a true lunatic, therefore, and even if it were to happen, all it would do is give Vice President Joe Biden the Presidency, and an edge for the Presidential Election of 2016, which no one should think would lead to his likely defeat as a sitting President. So what would be gained by the GOP removing a term limited President?:
The answer is, simply, race hatred, pure and simple! There is NO justification to impeach and remove Obama, anymore than there was for Bill Clinton, and just as with Clinton, an impeachment would besmirch Obama in history, but he would still survive in office, and leave more popular as a result, just as with Clinton, who has become a “rock star” in his post Presidency!
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is a treasure to behold, and the legislation she has just introduced, to give college students the same low loan interest rate that the big banks get from the Federal Reserve when they borrow money, is a wonderful idea!
Instead of a doubling of student loan interest rates from 3.4 percent to 6.8 percent, Warren suggests that the rate be what Wall Street gets from the Federal Reserve–0.75 percent!
Why not, as the big Wall Street banks have caused the Great Recession of 2008, and are still victimizing mortgage holders and credit card owners with outrageous rates, and also forcing many into bankruptcy by intimidation and manipulation?
The big banks need to be put under tight regulation, but of course the Republicans in the House refuse any such thought, and if this is not enough to convince sane people that the GOP is out for the wealthy alone, then what will?
Warren should be applauded for her effort on student loan rates, and fight for fairness, even though it is a long term battle!
And if Hillary Clinton decided ultimately not to run for President, then Warren needs to become the alternative female candidate for President of the United States! She would be an inspiring leader for the American middle class and the poor!
The Republican Party and the conservative movement have been out to get President Barack Obama from the day he took office, just as they were with President Bill Clinton.
The right wing was able to impeach Bill Clinton over his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, but was unable to remove him from office, even with a majority Republican Senate in 1999.
Now, the tragedy of the death of the ambassador and three support staff in Benghazi, Libya, is being conjured up to be a scandal on the level of Watergate under Richard Nixon, Iran Contra under Ronald Reagan, and the sex scandal under Clinton.
And Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, now a right wing talk show host gone mad, are suggesting that impeachment of Barack Obama is possible, a totally lunatic concept!
NOTHING about Benghazi is worthy of impeachment, and it would simply be another “lynch mob” as occurred with Bill Clinton, making a mockery of the impeachment provision of the Constitution, by utilizing it for the third time in 40 years, when only the Richard Nixon case was worthy of impeachment!
It would undermine the ability of the government to deal with the many domestic and foreign policy issues this nation faces, and be a waste of time and money, as even with an impeachment, which would stain the reputation of Obama permanently, as it did with Clinton, the reality is that NO WAY would a two thirds vote of the Senate be possible to remove the President from office, any more than it was with Bill Clinton!
It is an exercise in futility, unjustified, and clearly is just a political ploy that would reverberate on the Republican Party and the conservative movement, leading to just more political confrontation, and cause disgust among the American people!
South Carolina, and particularly, its more “advanced” area, Charleston, had a chance to prove that they have moved beyond the Civil War, and they have failed miserably tonight!
In bringing back the political life of disgraced former Governor Mark Sanford, putting him back in the Congressional seat he held in the 1990s, they have proved that South Carolina is the worst, most embarrassing state in America in the year 2013!
Certainly, South Carolina has had competition from states, including Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Arizona, but a state which could elect such individuals as Governor Nikki Haley, Senator Lindsey Graham, Congressman Joe Wilson, and former Congressman Tim Scott, appointed to replace an equally horrible Senator, Jim DeMint, wins the competition hands down! Now Mark Sanford has been added to the mix!
Meanwhile, the state remains way behind the national average economically and socially, but no worry, as the voters throughout South Carolina seem willing to stick in their Civil War mold, and support the Tea Party Movement, which wishes to bring South Carolina back to the “glory days” of Strom Thurmond, and even further back, John C. Calhoun!
Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, the center of a lurid sex scandal, is trying to restart his career by going back to the Congressional seat in Charleston which he held before he became Governor.
Once having Presidential ambitions, which fell by the wayside once he was involved with an Argentine beauty, and disappeared for days without explanation, Sanford now faces the challenge of the candidacy of Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the sister of Stephen Colbert, the comedian on Comedy Channel, who is one of the best political comedians in America, along with Jon Stewart of the same channel.
The race is very close, but if Sanford wins, his political career would be revived, and if he loses, he is done with politics, and would go back to his former real estate career.
Can a disgraced politician survive a sex scandal? Well, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana has done so, but that is an exception.
Of course, former President Bill Clinton did so, although not running for office again.
Former New York Congressman Anthony Weiner is considering running for Mayor of New York City, which will be another test of ability to come back from a sex scandal.
Realize that in almost all cases, a sex scandal destroys the career of a politician for good, so the Sanford and, possibly, Weiner cases will be very telling to see if the voters are willing to forgive, if not forget, their transgressions.
We shall see regarding Sanford tomorrow night, and Weiner making a decision to run in the next month before the deadline to file for the New York Mayoralty!
Maureen Dowd of the NY Times has complained that Barack Obama needs to be more like Lyndon Johnson, and others would say Franklin D. Roosevelt.
This is preposterous, as both LBJ and FDR had MASSIVE majorities in the US Senate, while Obama has to deal with having only 55 members of his party in the Senate, plus a Republican House of Representatives for the past two and a half years, the next year and a half, and likely beyond that!
Johnson had 68 Democrats at the time of the Civil Rights Act, and 64 for the Voting Rights Act, and FDR had 75 Senators at his peak.
It is true that LBJ had to deal with segregationist Southern Senators, but he also had moderate and liberal Northern Republicans he could count on, and FDR had progressive Republicans, including those that this author published about in his monograph, TWILIGHT OF PROGRESSIVISM (1981), who were willing to cross party lines to back him on many issues!
Obama has found the opposition party unwilling, in either house of Congress, to back him on almost anything he promotes, with an occasional few Senators helping out, but with the filibuster requiring 60 votes, the result is a total stalemate, something he has not been able to overcome, even after having lunches and dinners with Republicans, particularly in the Senate, as they are dedicated to prevention of any legislation that might make him look good in history.
But despite that, Obama is accomplishing a record that will make him look good in history, even with the opposition of conservatives and Republicans, and the criticism of Maureen Dowd and other unrealistic liberals and progressives!
If Hillary Clinton Decided NOT To Run For The Presidency, What Other Women Would Be Potential Presidential Nominees?
It is assumed by everyone that Hillary Clinton, former First Lady, former New York Senator, and former Secretary of State, will run for the Presidency in 2016, and has an excellent chance to be the first woman President.
But nothing is certain at this point in 2013, and were Clinton to decide NOT to run, the question arises as to whether any other woman politician would be a potential Presidential candidate, and possibly the first woman President.
While Republicans may imagine that New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez or South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley could be future Presidents, or that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota might try again for the Presidential nomination, one would have to be delusional to the extreme to believe that would be an eventuality in the real world. There is no Republican on the horizon who could be seen as a future, serious candidate for the White House!
However, there are four Democratic women Senators who should be looked at in a serious manner, IF Hillary Clinton were to decide to bow out of the Presidential race, and two of them could be considered serious potential future candidates, even after a two term Hillary Clinton Presidency.
The two women Senators who have an opportunity for 2016 but not in the next decade, due to age, would be Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Claire McCaskill of Missouri.
And the two longer range potential candidates are Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.
The most exciting possibility would be Elizabeth Warren, who Wall Street hates, and who is most loved by the liberals in the Democratic Party, with McCaskill, seen as more moderate, and Klobuchar and Gillibrand seen as to the left of McCaskiil, but not as much to the left as Warren.
As long as Hillary Clinton decides to run, these women will be in the background, but all bets are off if she ends up deciding to continue speaking for $200,000 a speech, and to write her memoirs, and avoid the political fray.
Former First Lady Barbara Bush is disarmingly frank and outspoken, and her statement that her son Jeb Bush, the former Florida Governor, was very well qualified to run for President, but should not, as there have been enough Bushes in the Presidency, is an assertion which will reverberate through the Republican Party, and not for the good of the party’s future!
The fact that the former First Lady said this on the day of her older son’s opening of his Presidential library, with just about everyone knowing that his administration was a near total disaster, is telling.
It is clear that Jeb Bush is smarter, more competent, and would have made a better President than George W, but that is water over the dam!
The fact is that she is correct that a family should not have a monopoly of the Presidency, and that we should not have dynasties, and the reality that the Bushes took up twelve years in the White House, plus eight years in the Vice Presidency, is certainly enough for any family, more than any other family in history!
But when one looks at the potential Republican field of Presidential candidates for 2016, one has to say that, in many ways, Jeb Bush MIGHT be the best candidate the party could field, other than Jon Huntsman, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China, but it is clear Huntsman has ZERO chance to be the GOP nominee for 2016, because he is too smart, too qualified, too mainstream, too sane, to be chosen by this disaster of a party in 2013!
What is left is Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Chris Christe, Scott Walker and a few other also rans, and when one looks at this list, it is clearly pitiful for a great political party with a dignified and distinguished history of great Governors, Senators, and even a few Presidents!
So if a sane, competent guy, who can also appeal to Hispanics and Latinos, but sadly has the wrong last name, and a mother telling him not to run, decides to stay out of the Presidential race, then ANY chance of a real Presidential competition in 2016 is totally over, and the GOP might as well concede to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat who might be the alternative!
The Immoral, Cynical Sequester: Backing Off On Air Travel, But Not On Seniors, Children, The Sick, Unemployed!
The $85 billion dollar sequester forced on the nation by the House Republicans has been a tragedy for the helpless, the vulnerable, but once it affects businessmen and air travelers, the Congress is quick to react, but only for that special interest group which tends to have a larger voice politically!
Yes, even this author travels, and will a number of times this summer, and was not thrilled about airline delays caused by furloughs forced on air traffic controllers.
But what about the indigent seniors who will not be fed by the Meals on Wheels program?
What about the children who are in Head Start, and will now have no summer program, and will force their mothers who have work to quit work that barely keeps the family out of poverty?
How about the sick in nursing homes who will not get government services, and will have medications and nursing care dramatically cut?
How about the unemployed, who will have a cut in coverage which allows them to keep a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs?
How about the victims, the people at the bottom of the social scale, who are told that life is to be protected, but only enough to be born, but not any guarantees beyond that?
And this is all so because corporations must get government welfare who should not get it, such as oil companies!
And this is so because those at the top of the economic pyramid cannot be expected to pay more, when they have had the massive tax cuts of the past decade!
And this is because the Republican Party is willing to cater to special interest groups that support their campaigns, including so called “religious” groups who are out to promote their agenda, despite the concept of separation of church and state!
Who gives a damn for the powerless, over the powerful? Certainly NOT the GOP!
And the sequester which they forced through is now being blamed on Barack Obama, rather than where it belongs–with John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and the rest of their despicable excuse for a political party!
The US Senate was a very undemocratic institution a century ago, controlled by special interests, including the oil, steel, banking and other trusts and monopolies, and its membership selected by the vote of corrupt state legislatures across the nation.
The Senate was exposed for its faults and corruption by David Graham Phillips in his article in 1906 in Cosmopolitan Magazine, which has been reprinted in 2012, an article of 108 pages, a small book, exposing the corruption of Senate Majority Leader Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island. This was followed up by other articles in muckraking periodicals, exposing the corruption of other US Senators.
These articles motivated a reform movement, leading to the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, establishing popular vote elections for the US Senate. It did not mean that every Senator elected was brilliant, or a positive force, but at least the people had the final say on who would represent them, as in the US House of Representatives!
Now, a century later, the US Senate is in paralysis, greatly due to the abuse of the filibuster system, which now requires 60 Senators to end a filibuster, while it used to be even worse, 67 before reforms in 1975. The filibuster was originally utilized to stop civil rights advancements, but now it is used to prevent any action on many nominations and many bills, effectively hamstringing any progress or change on anything controversial.
But also, it is clear that special interest groups, similar to those a century ago, but more such groups and more widespread, have made the US Senate captive again.
And with growing differences in population in coastline states, as compared to states in the interior, we are finding the concept of each state having two US Senators, whether they represent millions of citizens, or just hundreds of thousands of citizens, becoming one where states with few people, are able to stop what the majority of the American people want!
Four Democratic Senators, scared to death of the National Rifle Association, end up refusing to support the end of the filibuster on extended background checks on gun sales, and yet these Senators represent small populated states (North Dakota, Alaska, Montana, Arkansas) which represent only about 5.4 million people, out of a national total of 309 million people, meaning they represent 1.6 percent of the people, in a nation in which up to 90 percent, including gun owners, want extended background checks on gun sales.
We allow the 49th 48th, 45th, and 33rd states in population to hamstring the rest of the nation, absolutely insane when one thinks about it, and this is not just true on one issue, but many!
This problem of small populated states,the abuse of the filibuster, and special interest groups (including major corporations) is a situation which threatens resolution of ANY major issue facing the nation in the 21st century, unless, somehow, some kind of reform of an outdated system of the 18th century is brought about, which is extremely unlikely!