It's insultingly predictable that Republicans would blame
the president for the current legislative mess that is now going on in
Congress, which is what House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) did in his
interview today. To agree with
him, you would align with Hugh Hewlitt’s description that the president has
exceeded his constitutional questions authority by issuing executive orders on
immigration laws. It is these executive orders that are hence causing the
potential shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. (By the way,
Congress managed to pass a bill keeping it open for another week. Speaker Boehner couldn’t rally is party
for a three-week extension). Because border security is an aspect of homeland
security, which relates to the immigration debate, the Republicans decided to
tie a Department of Homeland Security funding bills to the repeal of the
president's executive orders on immigration.
Coun-ter Pro-duc-tive…
In addition to not having much success blaming the president
for the current situation, Congressman McCarthy kept saying that Senator Harry
Reid, the [now] minority leader, had to decide whether he wanted to work with
Republicans, and if he did, then everything could move forward. Doesn’t Mr.
McCarthy know that Mr. Reid is no longer the person in control of the Senate –
that would be Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican from Kentucky who did the
sensible thing and split the votes.
The Republicans in the House have a rule, which is that they
will not vote on something unless there are a majority of Republicans in favor
of it. Only concerning oneself with a majority of a partiality of the House
body ensures that nothing will get done.
No longer can Republicans vote with Democrats on anything, making every
single vote a controversial issue, when they certainly shouldn’t be. The Republicans chose to tie the funding for the Department
of Homeland Security to these executive orders, but they didn’t need to
be. Is there a constitutional
question about whether the Pres. overstepped his executive authority? Possibly.
However, that should not affect the funding of a whole department, a vital one to
the safety of American citizens at that.
It's like Republicans have made the issue of immigration
into one like vaccinations, because of a few ideologues, they’re willing to put
all of us at risk.
Politically, there is something worse for Republicans than
being blamed for shutting down the Department of Homeland Security, and that
would be any respect and trust people have in them to accomplish anything. If
the Republicans spoke with one voice, giving sensible reasons for why they're
denying this funding the Department of Homeland Security, then people would in
fact listen and decide for themselves.
But now, we’re all just shaking our heads.
The Senate has taken a clean vote and a bill to fund the
DHS, and they have also passed a bipartisan immigration bill that the House is
yet to take up. DHS funding should
not wait, cannot wait.
Everyone on the panel conceded that whether the entire thing
was triggered by the President or not, Republicans were the ones who were going
to be blamed for any government shutdown due to their Congressional control. If
not for anything else, the perception of Congress’s performance has gotten
worse since the Republicans have taken over control of both Houses.
With regard to immigration at this point, Republicans have
only blocked and obstructed legislation so now anything that they do loses more
Latino votes. They've basically put themselves in a position where they can do
no right in the eyes of Latinos when it comes to immigration reform before the
motives will always be questioned.
If there is a constitutional question then Hugh Hewitt's
suggestion was of the free common sense good one which was from the Department
of Homeland Security and keep the injunction in place on Pres. Obama's
executive orders because there is an injunction at this time handed down by a
district judge.
This column agrees with the hard right in as much as House Speaker
John Boehner (R-OH) being one of the main problems in the House, be it for
different reasons. Our reason has to do with his inability to bring along the
hard right in his own party. Mr. Boehner can't reason with them, then folds to
their indefensible positions and saying things that are completely irrational,
or just plain stupid.
This brings us to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
to a joint session of Congress this Tuesday. Here’s our basic take on the Prime Minister – he’s a real horse's
ass. His family lived in
Cheltenham, PA, a suburb of Philadelphia where he in fact graduated from Cheltenham
High School so he would understand perfectly what we mean. He’s got stubbornness that always gets
in the way of being productive, and then grows to a point to where it's counter-productivity
is feeding off of itself.
And that's what next week's speech is going to be. Hopefully,
what will happen is is what former Sen. Joe Lieberman described inasmuch as the
speech will be complementary to Pres. Obama while stating concerns about the
Iranian, maybe even turning out to be graceful. Were not confident in that happening again, but it’s not Mr.
Netanyahu’s fault.
It’s Speaker John Boehner’s. As a politician with an upcoming re-election bid, Mr.
Netanyahu’s instinct for self-political-preservation is dictating everything,
and an opportunity to get head and shoulders above his opponents with the
optics of addressing a joint session are too tempting to resist. Speaker
Boehner invited him and created a political mess that set a very bad precedent.
He disrespected the office
of the President of the United States by acting disgracefully.
So atthis point, who cares who goes to the speech and who
doesn't - everything that needs to be said has already been. And as not to lose sight of what it's
all about, the Prime Minister is going to say that the United States is making
a bad deal with Iran on its nuclear program. But as Senator Jan Schakowsky
(D-IL) pointed out, if not this deal what is the alternative? Going to war?
In his interview, potential presidential candidate, Ben
Carson's answer for what should be done in the Middle East was completely
ridiculous. He said that he would
give the military all authority to do what ever they deemed necessary to
eradicate ISIS and also Shia extremists – otherwise known as the ‘kill them
all’ policy?
What he outlined was giving the military full authority to
go to war, not only with ISIS, but Shia extremists as well. Does that mean Hezbollah, which is funded
by Iran? See where we’re going with this.
We respect the fact that Mr. Carson is perhaps the finest pediatric
neurosurgeon alive, but his view on Middle East policy and engagement is
downright idiotic.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The
New York Times; Hugh Hewlitt, “The Hugh Hewlitt Show;” Maria Hinojosa, NPR;
Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post
And one more thing:
Missouri gubernatorial candidate Tom Schweich (R) committed suicide this week,
apparently, in part, because there was a ‘whisper campaign’ against him for his
family's Jewish heritage. In Chuck Todd's interview segment with St. Louis Post Dispatch Editor Tony
Messenger, they didn’t specifically refer to the ‘whisper campaign’ as what it
really was – anti-Semitism.
Instead, they talked about it in terms of the ‘politics of personal
destruction.” Right, but our question is: How in the hell is a gubernatorial
candidate in Missouri, U.S.A. in this day and age, being destructed by attacks
on his family’s Jewish heritage. If
this does turn out to be the reason or plays a large role, that would lead us
to our second question: why aren’t
federal investigators there getting to the bottom of this?
And one more after
that: With the murder of
opposition leader Boris Nemtsov in Moscow on Friday, with the Kremlin as a
backdrop no less, one can only think that there are even darker days on the
horizon for Russians’ and their freedoms as they wander back into Mr.
Putin’s totalitarian forest.
No comments:
Post a Comment