Monthly Archives: August 2014

British Embassy Tweet A Low Point

27 Wednesday Aug 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Burning the White House, and Our Bridges

By Greg Smith

Barack Obama ran for president with a promise of raising American standing in the world. His success can be gauged by the specter of our closest ally — who willingly took Madonna off our hands — publicly marking its burning of the American capital two centuries ago with a “White House barbeque.” A Tweet showed a cake with the White House flanked by sparklers.

It is terribly unlikely the offending Tweet from the British embassy in Washington was an intentional Agincourt salute, the English equivalent of a middle finger. It is still indicative of how lukewarm relations between Washington and London have become. The English have made an attempt in recent decades to shake off the staid, placid reputation of Britannia, but English diplomacy has lost little if any of its subtly.

A year less four days ago British Prime Minister David Cameron called a vote in Parliament on British forces joining the U.S. military in strikes against the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad as punishment for use of chemical weapons in that nation’s civil war. The “red line” President Obama set on the use of chemical weapons had been crossed and Obama very much wanted to get other nations on board for military action.

Cameron publicly and vociferously supported strikes against Assad’s regime and called a non-binding vote in Parliament essentially asking members to support British participation. When the motion was voted down 285-272 Cameron acted chagrined and his Defense Secretary Philip Hammond said he and Cameron were disappointed and that the vote would hurt the close relationship with the U.S. A talented politician like Cameron had to know the vote would fail. Politicians who do not count votes also do not become prime minister.

If Cameron really wanted to partake of Syrian strikes he would have pressed MPs on the issue until he had the votes, or he simply could have authorized the strikes himself without asking Parliament. The failure of the vote allowed Cameron to publicly back Washington while not getting involved. He took a dive.

British reticence to get involved likely had something to do with the Obama administration’s statement — a rhetorical knife in the back if there ever was one — in March 2013 that London should hold talks with Argentina over what the U.S. State Department called “competing claims” to the Falklands Islands. This was after the islanders themselves voted 99.8% to remain British subjects. How would we react to the Queen telling us we may have to give Florida back to the Spanish?

The British government did not intend to insult the United States with its offending Tweet, however if relations between the two governments were truly still special, British embassy personnel would have found another way to commemorate an historic event. The Obama administration has almost gone out of its way to antagonize Britain. Would something like this have happened under any other (recent) president?   ©

 Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

 

Texas GOP Should Be Using the Word “Impeachment”

20 Wednesday Aug 2014

Posted by in impeachment

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

By Greg Smith

The Republican party in Texas is making a major strategic political error by continuing to refer to Texas Governor Rick Perry’s legal trouble as an indictment for coercion instead of what it is: impeachment. And before any more talk of impeaching President Obama, the GOP should learn from the black eyes and bloody noses the Democratic party will suffer in Perry’s case, and how his impeachment will ultimately become a political benefit to Perry and the GOP.

Perry was indicted by a grand jury for threatening to and subsequently vetoing funding for the state’s public integrity unit after the district attorney who runs the unit had a DUI arrest that made Mel Gibson’s look like jaywalking. Evidence against the DA was overwhelming; Perry said he wanted that DA to step down – nothing out of the ordinary. The DA, a Democrat, refused. Perry publicly said if she refused to step down he would veto funding for her office, which he eventually did.

All of Perry’s actions were public, and his veto is a power the governor holds through the state’s constitution. The indictment for coercion in effect criminalizes what poly sci geeks refer to as “jawboning,” or trying to influence others’ actions through persuasion. The idea that it is a crime to threaten to act lawfully and then actually acting lawfully means a police officer threatening to arrest a protester out after curfew in Ferguson, MO, and then arresting the protester if he or she refuses to leave is committing a crime. It means it would be a crime for President Obama to threaten to veto legislation proposed in Congress, if he then vetoed the bill once it passed Congress.

Democrats/liberals are already questioning the indictment and most certainly wishing it would go away. They understand that members of one party attempting to remove from office or convict of a crime a duly elected official from another party, for anything but the most rock-solid circumstances, will boomerang like a, well, boomerang.

The impeachment of Perry, unless an actual legal case come to light, is going to be a political disaster for Democrats. They have unintentionally matched the ill-advised talk of impeaching President Obama, effectively nullifying a campaign issue for their own party. Simultaneously, they have created a martyr for their opponents to rally around.

Republicans in Austin, TX should immediately call the indictment an impeachment, and the GOP should learn a lesson before even one more comment on impeaching President Obama. ©

   Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

Impeachment First, Then We’ll Try Prohibition Again, Too

04 Monday Aug 2014

Posted by in impeachment

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

By Greg Smith

It is understandable that people do not scour the pages of history to gain insight into every detail of daily life. It is sad though, when political leaders ignore major precedent that, if personified, would not be old enough for a drivers permit. As usual, Republicans who are talking about impeachment are only harming their own long-term interests – and that of the GOP – with their short-term approach.

Impeachment, a process in which the House of Representatives acts as a grand jury in deciding whether the Senate should try the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” is generally considered a criminal proceeding. In reality, impeachment is a purely political proceeding and should be treated as such by anyone willing to utter the word guaranteed to send a spasm of anger from one political sect on a collision course with the righteous indignation of another.

Republicans as a group have not been foolish enough to speak of impeachment, but too many individuals have brought up the subject for Democrats to ignore it. And why would they? Democrats would be foolish not to use any loose talk of attempting to remove President Obama, and if the tables were turned no doubt each side would be doing what the other is now.

The simple fact is that for all the rhetoric involved, impeaching a president except in absolutely clear cut circumstances will not be supported by the public. One need only look back at the impeachment and subsequent acquittal of President Clinton in 1999. A case for the Senate to convict President Clinton, thereby removing him from office, was far more clear and obvious. Clinton committed a crime. He knew he committed a crime. We all knew he committed a crime. But the public by and large viewed impeachment either as politically motivated or as a huge, unnecessary waste of time. Republicans suffered in the ensuing election.

Clearly, the public today is more interested in bread and butter issues than whether Obama ignored a foolish law, even if he was the fool who foist it on us.

President Obama has acted outside the law, especially on implementation of his own health care act. In cases where faithfully implementing the law would cause he and his party political problems, he has simply ignored the law. I say the following as someone absolutely dismayed and perplexed by Barack Obama’s lack of understanding of history, the Constitution, the crucial importance of personal liberty, economics, foreign policy and almost everything else for which he stands: there is no case for impeachment.

Moreover, the worst thing Republicans can do is allow the nation’s precarious focus to be removed from the results of Obama’s tenure onto some farcical ‘he said, she said’ to which independent voters cannot relate. Even if Obama were removed from office, there would still be a Democratic president. Joe Biden, not elected in his own right, would wind up a caretaker until January 2017. The nation would be no better off.

The most convincing reason for Republicans to cease and desist mention of impeachment is purely practical politics. Right now there is a gaping chasm between what Americans want and what the Obama administration has delivered. To allow the president’s legislative and economic air ball to be drown out by a side show would be akin to a debate winner voluntarily changing the subject. Republicans cannot enact legislation on their own, and Obama has repeatedly refused any compromises so there is nothing to do but wait for the next election. If Republicans are smart they will spend the next three months talking about whether President Obama’s push for ever more government has improved the economic prospects and personal happiness of the average American.

The situation calls to mind an episode of The Simpsons in which Homer gets mad at Ray Patterson, the town’s competent, hard-working sanitation commissioner. Homer runs a sleazy campaign and wins election as sanitation commissioner; in short order he destroys the town through short-term, feel-good ideas. At a subsequent town meeting the townspeople cheer for Patterson to be put back into office. Patterson is emotional as he steps to the podium to address the crowd, appearing to be happy at the prospect.

“Oh gosh. You know, I’m not much on speeches,” Patterson says, “but it’s so gratifying to leave you wallowing in the mess you’ve made. You’re screwed, thank you, bye.”

There is no better strategy a party for small government can follow for the next two elections than allowing voters to suffer the consequences of electing a man who has made such enormous claims about the power of government to solve life’s problems. Obama himself is constantly trying to place blame elsewhere for his failures. Why help him change the subject?   ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.