Few have served their country with more commitment, or paid a higher price, than John McCain.
He deserves immense respect.
That’s true no matter what you think of his politics or personality.
We need to remember that as he enters the final stages of his illness.
Nothing was more telling of his courage than his flat refusal of the North Vietnamese offer to release him before his fellow prisoners.
They did so because McCain’s father was a senior officer and Hanoi thought his release would be politically damaging to the U.S.
In my opinion:
- He has every right to say that he does not want Pres. Trump to attend his funeral. It’s his right as a human being and, as the saying goes, it’s his funeral.
- I don’t think it is right for him to hang on to his Senate seat if he knows he cannot return to represent his state. It’s their seat, too.
If, as Politico now reports, McCain will not be able to return to the Senate for medical reasons, he should resign his seat so his state can be represented by two sitting Senators.
I hate to say that of someone who has sacrificed so much. But this is one more sacrifice he should make.
The photo was posted by a CNN political reporter, Tal Kopan, so this was not a gotcha shot.
She is simply showing the Congressional Black Caucus (that is, the ones who didn’t boycott the speech entirely) as the reacted to Pres. Trump announcing a record-low black unemployment number.
The CBC members frowned and sat on their hands–no matter the good news for their voters.
But there is a political logic to their grumpiness, beyond their hatred for Pres. Trump.
Trump is, in effect, contrasting their approach to helping constituents with his own: tax cuts and deregulation.
It is not a comparison that favors the Congressional Black Caucus.
My latest at Real Clear Politics (link here)
Here’s a synopsis:
January 24, 2018
The investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller is not the only major investigation in progress.
There are now three major Congressional probes of the Obama-era FBI, Department of Justice, and intelligence agencies. They are slowly peeling away layers of political bias, unequal application of the law, and, perhaps even felonies by senior officials who may have leaked classified documents, obstructed justice, and violated Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.
These Congressional probes are not mere diversions, as Democrats charge. They have serious, legitimate intentions and raise troubling questions.
- Why did former FBI Director James Comey and his team pre-judge and soft-soap the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s unsecured private server and her classified emails?
- Why did they decide to clear her before completing key interviews with Mrs. Clinton and her aides?
- Why did DOJ grant immunity so freely to obtain evidence that could have been easily subpoenaed by a grand jury?
- Why did the government itself then destroy that evidence, so no one could do a real investigation later?
- For that matter, why didn’t they convene a grand jury in the first place, as Mueller did almost immediately?
- What involvement did the FBI counter-intelligence division have with the FusionGPS, Christopher Steele “Russian dossier,” financed by the Clinton campaign?
- Was the dossier used, in part, to obtain a warrant to spy on Trump associates and, if so, was the FISA court completely informed about the dossier’s financing, provenance, and lack of verification?
- And what the hell happened to months of text messages among key anti-Trump investigators at the FBI and DOJ?
VERY important questions. The public deserves answers.
That’s why these investigations are at least as important as Mueller’s, and for the same reason. They are both about honest elections and the rule of law, applied equally to insiders and outsiders, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
It’s about whether our most powerful government agencies are worthy of our trust. If we have lost sight of those values, we’ve lost our Constitutional bearings.
Served there for 53 years.
Who does he want to succeed him? It’s a shocker:
He endorsed his eldest son, John Conyers III, to succeed him in Congress. –Detroit News
Comment: Btw, I think Nancy Pelosi upped the pressure on him because of next Tuesday’s Alabama election. Better for the party to go into that election without that albatross.
He’s Blake Farenthold (R-TX). $84,000 settlement.
Name ’em. Shame ’em.
Shame the party if they don’t cut off campaign funds to him.
Transparency on the whole thing so the voters (primary and general) can decide whether to keep him, if he doesn’t resign in disgrace.
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva quietly arranged a “severance package” in 2015 for one of his top staffers who threatened a lawsuit claiming the Arizona Democrat was frequently drunk and created a hostile workplace environment, revealing yet another way that lawmakers can use taxpayer dollars to hide their misbehavior on Capitol Hill.
While the Office of Compliance has been the focus of outrage on Capitol Hill for hush-money payouts in sexual harassment cases, the Grijalva payout points to another office that lawmakers can use to sweep accusations under the rug with taxpayer-funded settlements negotiated by the House Employment Counsel, which acts as the attorney for all House offices. –Washington Times
Media bias alert: The article appears–and is fairly reported–in the Congressman’s local paper, Tucson.com and The Arizona Star (link here).
But, so far, NO mainstream media have run it.
Comment: Now comes the hard question for Nancy Pelosi. Is Raul an icon?
Second question: What’s the over/under on time until Conyers and Grijalva play the “oppressed minority, unfairly treated” card?
Roberts made her comment on ABC’s This Week. (Transcript here)
PALMER: I don’t think that the culture has — we haven’t seen major shift, right? And I would also just point out, members policing themselves, a very bad track record of it, whether it’s about these kind of scandals, whether it’s about how they use their finances. There is — nobody is saying that they’re going to change the whole process by which this is done, that they’re going to throw out members if they actually have sexual harassment cases. This is a big problem for them.
ROBERTS: The fact that people are willing to be public can change things. I mean, we all talked about for years.
RADDATZ: A little bit at a time.
ROBERTS: Don’t get in the elevator with him, you know, and the whole every female in the press corps knew that, right, don’t get in elevator with him. Now people are saying it out loud. And I think that does make a difference.
Comment: She apparently did not recognize that her admission is as damning to the cozy DC press as it is to Conyers.
She was casually reporting that, even after the Weinstein scandal, no one in the Washington Press corps was willing to expose what all insiders knew.
Btw, I didn’t see other news outlets picking up Roberts’ admission and broadcasting it widely.
Media bias involves omission, as well as commission.
Comment #2: If Conyers’ conduct was habitual and well-known, then Nancy Pelosi’s defense of him is even more noxious.
Comment #3: Please note that I have written extensively on Roy Moore’s predatory behavior. This post about Conyers is not a partisan one.