Take John Cornyn At His Word: The Issue Is Transparency

Texas Sen. John Cornyn’s hold on Hillary Clinton’s nomination is not likely to last through today, but that has been enough to send our left-wing friends into a frenzy. Everybody relax. Cornyn has a very good point about the Clinton Foundation. And he couples that good point with a strong record of demanding transparency throughout the government. That’s supposed to be a good thing, remember?

Newsletter

Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...

Restaurants

Restaurants

Bars

Bars

Events

Events

Attractions

Attractions

View All

View All

Comments

13 responses to “Take John Cornyn At His Word: The Issue Is Transparency”

  1. brett says:

    it’s funny how both sides get all worked up when the other side does what it’s supposed to do…be a check-and-balance system.

  2. HSH says:

    Ironic. After NOT demanding 8 years of transparency.

  3. Daddy's Home says:

    Yep we better keep a close eye on a foundation that has done more to help those suffering from HIV than any other foundation.

    Cornyn pulled a political stunt. Let’s call it what it is. Like HSH said, where was Cronyn for the last 8 years?

    Keep that move to the right. Daddy’s home.

  4. Louise says:

    It was a over the top display of partisanship. Impressive on day 1 of a new adminstration.Ongoing Republicans will need to ensure they are working for America, not against the changes needed.

  5. Jackson says:

    Cornyn does indeed have a decent history of transparency….mostly stemming from his support of open records laws in his days as Texas AG. Of course, they are “laws,” so his support for them was no dramatic gut-check performance.

    This Clinton case has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with raw politics. On a day (inauguration day) when that endeavor is largely suspended in favor of harmony, Cornyn yanked Hillary’s voice vote approval not out of some real concern re Bill’s foundation, but to be self-serving.

    He just got reelected in November to a fresh six years after an invisible first term, and the bigger star of Texas, Kay Hutchison, is about to embark on a high profile gov. race. Cornyn wants to step up and be a “player” in his opposition Republican Party’s upcoming battles with the new Democratic administration. This was the first move, but as Clarence Thomas said in his memoir, “Whoop-dee-damn-doo.”

    The proof’s in the pudding: The vote on her today will be overwhelmingly “yes” on both sides of the aisle. I count 98 senators available (Ted’s away and Al Franken isn’t yet seated), so that means she’ll win by something like 94-4, give or take a couple of votes either way. Look for James Inhofe and Roy Blount to join Cornyn. Now there’s a threesome, eh? The rest of the senate repubs will save their swords for serious business.

  6. Randy Mayeux says:

    Did Cornyn object to the lack of transparency of the Bush administration? (e.g., not releasing e-mails; “losing” e-mails). I remember instances of Cornyn calling for transparency, but I don’t remember his taking such a public stance against the secrecy of the Bush administration.

    In the meantime, President Obama has issued his first executive orders. Among his instructions: all government agencies must “err on the side of making information public.”

    “In an attempt to deliver on pledges of a transparent government, Obama said he would change the way the federal government interprets the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was directing agencies that vet requests for information to err on the side of making information public _ not to look for reasons to legally withhold it _ an alteration to the traditional standard of evaluation.”

  7. Duane says:

    Exact same thing happened with Condoleeza Rice from the other side of the aisle. But don’t let that get in the way of your bias against anyone or anything to do with a viewpoint or ideal that is not your own.

  8. HSH says:

    Secretary Rice’s questioning resulted from her prior job as an architect of the Iraq War and her over-the-top, baseless,”mushroom cloud” statements. That’s a far cry from raising money to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa.

    Regardless, she was still confirmed 85-13.

  9. Jackson says:

    UPDATE: The vote forced by Cornyn is now complete. Our Texas senator actually “aye” on Clinton as Secretary of State, even though he was the one who forced this wasteful three hour exercise in the first place. No doubt he’ll claim the extra debate time was good for the country and clarified things. It did no such thing, and Cornyn was really just signaling to his repub colleagues that he wants to be a leader of the party in exile.

    They seemed unimpressed, because the vote was 94-2 in favor. The “no” brigade comprised arguably the two weakest repubs in the senate, David Vitter of Louisiana (who was also the only “no” in the 15-1 committee vote), and Jim DeMint of South Carolina. It did not include Inhofe or Blount as I’d expected. They knew better, it turns out. Four were not present. Three of those are dems, so a full complement would have probably created a 98-2 vote.

    Everyone understands a new president, with the country at war on two fronts, needs to send a signal to the world that we’re united. This exercise was silliness, plain and simple, and our most junior Texas senator is an embarrassment.

  10. HSH says:

    To quote Dr. Lowrey, “say amen.”

  11. Long Memory says:

    So, let’s get this straight: Sen. Cornyn won his second term, so NOW he can stand up for the next four years and be the Chief Obstructionist whenever he feels it’s needed. He doesn’t have to worry about ticking off short-memoried voters (and this is Texas).

    But he really only poked the Clinton’s in the eye. He appears to have said “I’m sorry,” by voting for Hillary in the final vote.

    So Sens. DeMint and Sen. John — er, Vitter — got to stand up to her with their actual votes. I’m just happy the Republicans have rediscovered transparency.

  12. PR says:

    Yep, nothing suspicious here with the donations to the Clinton Foundation. Nothing to see at all. Move along. Move along.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/23/clinton-foundation-mum-on-stock-buyer/