U.S. Closes PLO Office, Adding Pressure On Palestinians
The Trump administration on Monday announced its decision to close the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)'s office in Washington, a move to further press the Palestinians into peace talks with Israel while invoking strong objections.
The U.S. State Department unveiled the decision in a statement released Monday, citing the Palestinians' lack of "steps to advance the start of direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel."
"PLO leadership has condemned a U.S. peace plan they have not yet seen and refused to engage with the U.S. government with respect to peace efforts and otherwise," said U.S. State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert in the statement.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration still voiced optimism about the long stalled Middle East peace process. "We are very much committed to the process, and we're still hopeful we can get there," said White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders in a daily briefing Monday.
The U.S. government gives a waiver to the Palestinian mission in Washington every six months to keep it function normally.
Shortly after the State Department announcement, John Bolton, the U.S. national security advisor, followed up in his speech at a think tank in Washington.
Bolton also threatened to impose sanctions against judges and prosecutors of the ICC if it pursues investigation against the United States, Israel or other U.S. allies.
"What Trump is doing is nothing really different than Bush," Ford O'Connell, a Republican and news commentator who frequently shows up on TV, told Xinhua.
The United States did not ratify the Rome treaty that established the ICC in 2002, as then U.S. president George W. Bush voiced objection to the court.
Two Big Reasons Trump Will Bounce Back From The Putin Mishap
If President Trump had simply, publicly stated in Finland, “I pressed Putin on it. The election meddling happened under my predecessor’s watch and no votes were changed. If it happens in the future, there will be a price to pay,” the entire Helsinki kerfuffle could have been avoided, regardless of what was said by the two world leaders behind closed doors. It was certainly a missed opportunity for Trump, and as such, he has had to clarify his position on multiple occasions since the ill-fated press conference.
In spite of all the current furor, Trump will ultimately rebound, as he always does, from this misstep for two reasons.
First, when he makes a political miscalculation, you can usually count on his opponents becoming so unhinged and blinded by their hatred for the president that the White House is able to flip the script so that the bullseye is no longer on Trump’s back, but affixed squarely on his detractors.
This time is no different. Within 96 hours of Trump's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, John Brennan, a former Obama-era CIA director, labeled the president’s actions as “nothing short of treasonous;” Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., seemed to promote a military coup to remove Trump from office; and former Watergate prosecutor and Carter aide Jill Wine-Banks compared the president’s comments to the Sept. 11 attacks, Pearl Harbor, and Kristallnacht. You can’t make this stuff up. These hyperbolic responses make Trump’s initial statements seem almost quaint by comparison. Further, the folks uttering these words are well-known public figures, not exactly your run-of-the-mill loons from the darkest corners of the Internet.
Second, luckily for Trump, there is a difference between words and actions. Action-wise, Trump has been tougher on Russia than former President Barack Obama or even perhaps former President George W. Bush. From the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats following the poisoning in Britain, to the countless sanctions levied on Russia, to the sale of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, to increased U.S. oil production, to calls for more NATO defense spending, Trump has been extremely tough on Russia. To say otherwise just isn’t true.
Is Fiscal Conservatism Dead?
"The priority is spending," the energetic and newly minted congressman, sporting an American flag pin on his dark suit jacket, told the C-SPAN host, soon adding, "the size of the government is really what it comes down to."
The year was 2010, and the congressman-elect was Mick Mulvaney, then a 43-year-old restaurateur and developer who rode the tea party wave during President Obama's first term to defeat 14-term incumbent Democrat John Spratt and be the first Republican to represent South Carolina's 5th Congressional District since 1883.
Fast forward to 2017. The national debt has surpassed $20 trillion. The country's budget has seen nothing but deficits for the last two decades. Spending has only gone up, even under a GOP-run Congress. And arguably, Republicans — who control the White House, Senate, and House — don't seem terribly concerned.
GOP strategist Ford O'Connell agreed with much of Corker's assessment, adding that the "realities of governing don't always comport with principle."
"Especially in Bush's case, and in Trump's case and even in Obama's case, to a great extent, when you have slim majorities in one or both chambers of Congress," O'Connell said. "And you realize that there is principle but you have to show that you can govern, and if you can't govern, well you're going to go back to screaming to the wall and talking about principle. It's a vicious cycle of what happens when you're in and out of power."
During the most recent Bush administration, Republicans often gave less of a priority to reducing the budget than Democrats, O'Connell pointed out. For instance, in 2007, Pew found Republicans were less likely than Democrats (42 percent to 57 percent) to say reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority for Congress. But shortly after Obama took office and into 2016, Republicans in Pew polls were more likely to say reducing the deficit is a top priority than Democrats or independents.
The GOP faced the same obstacle when it tried — repeatedly and unsuccessfully — to repeal Obamacare, which expanded Medicaid eligibility to millions more Americans.
"The problem is once you give someone or a group of people a benefit, it is very very hard if not impossible to take away said benefit," O'Connell said. "That's the reason why we have this issue."
White Supremacist Campaign Donations: How Did Republicans Not Know?
Why didn’t Ted Cruz (or Rand Paul or Rick Santorum) know that campaign donor Earl Holt III is the president of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist organization?
That is one of many questions, following the revelation that all three Republican candidates for president – and many other GOP politicians, dating back at least to 2004 – accepted donations from Mr. Holt. The British newspaper the Guardian broke the story Sunday.
Holt’s racist writings came to light following last week’s massacre at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C. The alleged shooter, Dylann Roof, was apparently influenced by Holt. A website registered to Mr. Roof contained a manifesto crediting the Council of Conservative Citizens for the author’s knowledge of “brutal black-on-white murders.”
Which goes back to the donations – and how the Republican Party, already struggling to attract minority voters, can overcome this public-relations blow.
For now, though, campaigns may have to step up their game in going through donor lists and checking for potentially problematic names. The use of guilt-by-association can be a powerful campaign tool, and candidates usually want to expunge controversial people from their midst as quickly as possible.
“They’re going to have to at least look through their donations, particularly those running for president, to make sure there aren’t more items like this,” says Republican strategist Ford O’Connell. “This is a very time intensive process. It’s not, ‘Let me hit "find" on a Word document.’ ”
But even when and if all the Holt money is disposed of – including donations to Bush-Cheney ’04 and 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney – the Republicans’ challenge on racial matters is far from over.
“It’s a big challenge, because the media narrative is that this is the party of old white men, and it’s something they’re trying to get rid of. With that come connotations of racism and sexism,” says Mr. O’Connell. “Even when it’s not true, it still sticks to them.”
Read more from Linda Feldmann at The Christian Science Monitor
Jeb Bush And Iraq: What Price Family Loyalty?
This week, Jeb Bush’s foremost problem as a likely presidential candidate went on full display: Can the former Florida governor get over his last name and his emotional personal tie to his brother, the ex-president?
On Thursday, after three days of botched replies to a simple question, Mr. Bush finally said what most everyone expected him to say in the first place.
“Knowing what we now know, what would you have done? I would have not engaged. I would not have gone into Iraq,” Bush said at a campaign stop in Tempe, Ariz., according to The Washington Post.
Republicans were baffled Monday when Mr. Bush told Megyn Kelly on Fox News that he would have authorized the 2003 Iraq invasion, even given what we know now about the faulty intelligence. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, and John Kasich – all Republicans running for president or considering it – say they wouldn’t have invaded. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton says her “yes” vote as a senator was a mistake.
“Jeb should have been prepared to answer that question the second his brother stepped on Marine One to leave the White House in 2009,” says Ford O’Connell, author of “Hail Mary: The 10-Step Playbook for Republican Recovery.” “You get four or five mulligans on the presidential campaign trail, and he just used one of them up.”
Read more from Linda Feldmann at The Christian Science Monitor
Jeb Bush Stumbles Over Position On Iraq War
Former Florida governor and expected presidential candidate Jeb Bush sought to end a political controversy Thursday over the Iraq war. Bush said at a town hall event in Tempe, Arizona, that faced with the decision today, he would not have launched the invasion of Iraq carried out by his brother, former President George W. Bush, in 2003.
"Knowing what we know now, I would not have engaged; I would have not gone into Iraq," Bush told the crowd.
Bush’s statement in Arizona was the latest attempt to put a controversy to rest that has dogged the former Florida governor for most of this week. Bush set off a political firestorm Monday when he was asked by anchor Megyn Kelly on Fox News about the Iraq war and the faulty intelligence used to justify it. “Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion?” asked Kelly.
“I would have and so would have Hillary Clinton, just to remind everybody, and so would have almost everybody that was confronted with the intelligence they got,” responded Bush.
Still, Sabato and many other analysts see Bush as a strong contender on the Republican side, along with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Marco Rubio and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
Republican strategist Ford O’Connell predicts staying power for Bush.
“What we can say is that there will be certain names that are likely to hang around at least until the end, and Jeb Bush is one of them, as well as Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker,” said Republican strategist Ford O’Connell.
CIA Report Another Attempt By Democrats To Attack Bush?
Ford O'Connell and Joe Lestingi on Senator Feinstein releasing report.
A Gallup-Sized Eyesore For Obama
I know it is early, but the Gallup graphic below is a good sign for former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential bid...From Buzzfeed:
Modern presidents who got re-elected were all leading in the polls at this point in their presidencies — as were some who lost anyway.
Ford O'Connell Discusses Obama's "Blame George W. Bush" Strategy
Ford O'Connell joins Fox News' Neil Cavuto on "Your World" to discuss President Obama's "Blame George W. Bush" 2012 Re-Election strategy and lack of leadership in the wake of the GSA's Las Vegas spending controversy.
