AirHogs take wing … they’re out of here

MPEV

Well, that’s a surprise … not!

The Texas AirHogs, a baseball outfit that this past season split its home schedule between Amarillo and Grand Prairie, has decided to take its game solely to the Metroplex.

The AirHogs aren’t going to play in that rat-trap of a so-called ballpark called Potter County Memorial Stadium.

The reason reportedly is that visiting teams coming here were too repulsed by the lousy condition of the stadium and of the field on which they had to play hardball.

Hmmm. Do you suppose that maybe, perhaps, possibly that Amarillo would be served better by having a shiny new ballpark in, say, its downtown district?

Oh, wait! That’s coming along, yes?

The multipurpose event venue, a $45 million ballpark to be built next to City Hall, received voters’ endorsement a year ago. The City Council has proceeded with efforts to lure a Class AA baseball franchise to the city. They have a franchise in mind, the San Antonio Missions, which is looking for a new place to play ball once the Alamo City secures a Class AAA franchise to take its place.

I remain cautiously optimistic that the city can pull this deal together.

As for the AirHogs, good riddance.

That cockamamie notion of splitting its home games between two communities didn’t serve anyone in Amarillo worth a damn.

There might be an interim period where minor league baseball fans will have do without some ball while the MPEV gets built and the city works out the details of landing a legitimate minor-league franchise.

My optimism is still springing eternal that it will come to pass.

McCain enters the fray with threat of a crisis

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 26:  U.S. Sen. John McCain (C) (R-AZ) speaks during a press conference on the recent bombings by Saudi Arabia in Yemen March 26, 2015 in Washington, DC. During his remarks Graham said, "The Mideast is on fire, and it is every person for themselves." (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

John McCain must be unable to stand the sight and sound of another Republican blowing a once-great political party to smithereens.

The Arizona senator has this apparent need to get into the action himself by making an absurd — and frankly, frightening — assertion about how he and his GOP colleagues are going to handle the next president’s appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Donald J. Trump’s presidential candidacy is imploding, paving the way for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s election in three weeks as the first female president of the United States.

What, then, does McCain do? He declares that U.S. Senate Republicans will make it their mission in life to block every single appointment Clinton might make to the Supreme Court.

That’s it. None will make it through the sausage-grinder of the confirmation process if Sen. McCain has his way. He’s actually one-upping the ridiculously political posture that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell struck when he said that President Obama’s next pick would be stalled because, according to McConnell, he’s a “lame duck” and that the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia needed to be filled by the next president.

Do you remember how McConnell weighed in within an hour of he world learning that Scalia had died?

Hell, that’s not good enough for McCain. He and his fellow Senate Republicans are going to block them all!

I’ve long expressed admiration for McCain. I’ve saluted his service to the country — notably his heroic actions as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. However, my old pal Jon Talton, who knows Arizona politics better than anyone I’ve ever met, put the senator’s public life into an interesting perspective in a recent blog post. Here it is:

http://www.roguecolumnist.com/rogue_columnist/2016/10/a-looming-constitutional-crisis.html

As Talton wrote: “From ‘moderate’ ‘independent’ McCain, we have warnings of what’s to come. This puts him in the Kook camp that would make Hillary’s election automatically illegitimate. Four years of scorched earth and worse.”

I’ll let Talton’s assessment of McCain’s career stand on its own. He knows more about it than I do.

The idea that McCain would quadruple-down on efforts to block the next President Clinton’s appointment authority to fill potential vacancies on the nation’s highest court creates the threat of a serious constitutional crisis. It could be far worse than, say, Watergate — which was pretty damn frightening.

I continue to hold out hope that President Obama’s pick to replace Scalia — U.S. District Judge Merrick Garland — would get a hearing in the lame-duck session of Congress once the election is over. Senate Republicans might lose control of the upper chamber as Trump’s candidacy goes down in flames. Garland — as solid and mainstream a nominee as you can imagine — might prove to be as suitable a court pick as they could hope for.

Now we have Sen. McCain declaring that no one Clinton would select will be able to pass Senate GOP muster. No one!

Obstruction, anyone? There you have it — in the starkest terms possible.

‘Media bias’ is a non-starter, Rep. Kingston

newspapers

Jack Kingston today made arguably the most absurd assertion I’ve ever heard about alleged “media bias” in covering the 2016 presidential election.

The former Republican congressman from Georgia — who supports Donald J. Trump’s election to the presidency — actually said the lack of newspaper endorsements illustrates the point that the media are biased against his candidate.

Kingston took  that leap today on MSBNC. He was reminded immediately, however, that many of the newspapers that have endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton have adhered to historically conservative editorial policies. Thus, the papers’ aren’t traditionally “liberal” organs.

UNITED STATES - Dec 12: Rep. Jack Kingston, R-GA., address the media during a press conference in the House Studio B in the U.S. Capitol on December 12, 2013. (Photo By Douglas Graham/CQ Roll Call)

Kingston stuck to his mantra. The media are biased, he said, continuing the line that Trump, VP nominee Mike Pence and campaign manager Kellyanne Conway have been reciting whenever possible.

Oh … my.

The media always are a convenient target for losing political campaigns. That part of this tactic from Trump isn’t particularly new or original. I’ve heard it for decades.

Trump’s floundering campaign has revealed only the profound failure of the candidate. It has shown us this man’s unfitness for the job he seeks. His lack of knowledge of anything speaks volumes. His desperate tactics as the campaign draws to a close only affirm the wisdom of the newspapers’ editorial positions.

Donald Trump is losing this campaign. Moreover, he is acting like someone who has lost his mind.

As for former Rep. Kingston, he is smarter than he demonstrated today with that ridiculous assertion about media bias.

What happened to Trump’s high praise for Clintons?

donald-trump-hillary-clinton

Many eyes will be on Chris Wallace when the two major-party candidates for president square off later this week.

The Fox News anchor will moderate the upcoming debate between Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton and Republican Donald J. Trump.

I have a long list of questions that Wallace ought to ask. I know he’s likely to ask Clinton about the e-mails being leaked and whether they undermine her ethical standards. I also believe he’ll ask Trump about that “Access Hollywood” recording about the GOP nominee’s conduct with women.

But here’s a potential set of questions I hope Wallace will ask. They should go to Trump:

“Mr. Trump, you once praised Hillary Clinton as a ‘great person.’ You have played golf with her husband, the former president. You have attended parties with them. You’ve been photographed arm-in-arm with both of them.

“What changed? How did the former president and the current Democratic nominee for that office go from being friends of yours to becoming mortal political enemies?”

There’s something potentially revealing to me about Trump’s change in attitude toward the Clintons, now that he’s launched this scorched-Earth campaign against Hillary while seeking to drag Bill into the discussion over his wife’s fitness to become president.

It’s fair to wonder if Trump is nothing more than an opportunistic back-stabber. It’s also fair to ask if he schmoozed with the Clintons for self-serving purposes only. It’s also fair to wonder if he still harbors warm-and-fuzzy feelings toward them and he’s saying all these venomous things about Hillary for purely political purposes.

Trump did, after all, declare that he said those nasty things about women for “entertainment.”

 

‘Rigging’ depends on who’s winning

donaldtrump_091516getty

Donald J. Trump’s assertions about “rigging” an election cuts to the heart of our democratic traditions.

The Republican presidential nominee, though, cares not one single bit about tradition, as his campaign has demonstrated time and again for more than a year.

He says the media are biased against him, that they’re conspiring with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to undermine his effort.

Nice try, Don. The media don’t have time to “conspire” against anyone or anything.

He talks about “widespread voter fraud,” which could rank as among the biggest lies of his campaign. There is no evidence anywhere of “widespread” fraud. Of the millions of ballots cast over the past decade-plus, officials have uncovered fewer than 100 cases of people voting fraudulently.

Trump’s desperate 11th-hour assertions are undermining the very process that the GOP nominee used to secure his party’s presidential nomination.

That’s right. Trump benefited from the very same “rigged” system that he now condemns as working against him.

Has anyone else noticed that in the past two weeks we’ve heard absolutely not a single positive policy statement from this guy? His rallies are rife with condemnation of his opponent and accusations that she’s “on drugs,” that she “lacks the stamina” to be commander in chief, that she’s “corrupt,” and that she enabled her husband to become the “worst abuser” of women in the history of American politics.

Nov. 8 cannot get here soon enough.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/301280-poll-41-percent-of-voters-think-election-could-be-stolen

Outward political expression seems muted

hillary_2016_yard_sign

Maybe it’s just me.

Or, perhaps it’s a national trend.

As I make my way around Amarillo running errands and doing whatever it is I do these days, I notice a glaring lack of political expression.

Lawn signs? Hardly any. Bumper stickers? Same thing. Banners? Nope. Anyone skywriting with airplanes? Hah!

ys206_grande

This election year is supposed to be so very consequential. Republicans backing their nominee, Donald J. Trump, say that Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most corrupt individual ever to seek the presidency. Believe me, I live in the epicenter of the Republican political movement and I’m hearing a lot of it from friends and acquaintances.

Democrats backing Clinton say Trump is the most unfit and unqualified man in human history who’s ever aspired to high political office.

They say it on social media. They grumble it under their breath. They talk to their allies in whatever political echo chamber they occupy — left and right.

But there’s so little sign display. Or bumper stickers.

My theory is this: Emotions are running so high that voters are afraid of vandalism … and not just on the signs or the stickers. They fear the other side demonstrating their political displeasure in more, um, meaningful ways.

I live in Randall County, Texas, where no Democrats have appeared on the local ballot in my more than two decades living here. One isn’t likely to see any such public displays of political affection for Hillary in my neighborhood.

And Trump? Well, I’ve spotted precisely one lawn sign within a half-mile radius of my house during this election season.

We’re less than four weeks out from Election Day. I am going to presume we’ll be relatively lawn-sign-free for the duration.

The good news is that there’ll be less visual pollution to clean up once it’s all over.

A governor suggests violence is the cure? Wow!

bevin

Gov. Matt Bevin needs to have his head examined.

Someone needs to check the Kentucky Republican’s noggin for parasites that have nibbled away at what passes for the reasonable and rational cells in his brain.

He’s lost them.

Speaking to the Values Voters Summit not long ago, Bevin said conservatives may have to resort to violence to protect their values against liberal incursion.

Bevin said if Democrat Hillary Clinton were elected president, she would set the nation on a dangerous course that could prompt violence. He told the audience that the “candle” of liberty might go out “on our watch.”

So, it’s come to this, has it?

Conservatives are so angst-filled with the prospect of losing this election that they ought to shed some blood in order to preserve their principles. That’s what one of them has said.

Who, then, is the conservatives’ vicar, the champion of all they cherish? Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, the reality TV star, real estate mogul, beauty pageant owner/operator and — as we’ve heard — someone who thinks he’s got enough “star” power to have his way with women whenever, wherever and however he chooses.

I haven’t even mentioned — until right now — that he’s alleged to be a serial groper.

Yeah, man. That’s the guy Gov. Bevin and others think will carry the torch forward on behalf of conservative values.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kentucky-gov-matt-bevin-says-bloodshed-might-be-165058821.html

Let’s see. Where was I?

Oh! I know I’m repeating myself, but …

Gov. Bevin needs to have his head examined.

Here come those ‘damn e-mails’ again

hillary

I have been trying for weeks to grasp the significance of the e-mail controversy that keeps swirling around Hillary Rodham Clinton’s quest for the presidency.

Her one-time Democratic presidential primary opponent Bernie Sanders said he was tired of “hearing about your damn e-mails.” Me, too, senator.

But … here they come again, courtesy of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and — more than likely — the former head of the Soviet KGB spy agency and current president of Russia, Vladimir Putin.

They’re leaking these e-mails near the end of a bitter and ugly presidential campaign between Clinton and Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

Their intent clearly and without equivocation is to embarrass and undermine Clinton’s bid to become president of the United States. They contain communication on a whole array of issues, from her speeches to well-heeled groups and backers, the LGBT response to Clinton’s reaction to the death of former first lady Nancy Reagan and her thoughts on how U.S. policy should deal with the crisis in Syria.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/emails-show-clintons-response-to-lgbt-backlash/ar-AAj2xdX?li=BBnb7Kz

I get the intent, which is my clearest takeaway from it all. Indeed, Clinton hasn’t been very forthcoming on explaining many of these issues raised by the e-mails.

She and Trump are squaring off this week for the third and final (thank God in heaven) joint appearance. I’d bet real American money that moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News is going to ask her some tough questions about the e-mail dump and what it all means about the way she would govern as president.

I’m also willing to bet some serious greenbacks she’ll be ready to respond. Trump? Well, time tell us very soon how he intends to respond to her response.

Perhaps a follow-up question for Trump from Wallace might go something like this: Mr. Trump? You all but invited the Russian government to deliver us the content of those “missing” e-mails. Is this what you had in mind?

Oh, and another one could go this way: You’ve been critical of our intelligence operation and our military. Intelligence officials now seem to believe that President Putin — about whom you’ve spoken quite highly and who has returned the compliment — is responsible for the e-mail dump in these waning days of the campaign. Are they wrong, sir?

Evangelicals are splitting along gender lines

beth-moore

A friend made me aware of what looks like a significant development in a key part of Donald J. Trump’s coalition of political supporters.

It reveals a split among evangelical Christians. The men among them are sticking with the Republican presidential nominee. The women, however, are splitting away.

Listen to the women, fellas.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/10/beth-moore-the-christian-women-speaking-out-about-trump-s-bad-news.html

The evangelical women are aghast, appalled and repulsed by the revelations disclosed in that hideous recording of Trump boasting about his sexual proclivities.

According to an article published in The Daily Beast, one well-known evangelical preacher, Beth Moore, once was in Trump’s camp. Now she’s out, shocked and horrified at what she heard on that recording.

As The Daily Beast reported: “But something changed for Moore after Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president of the United States, was caught on tape bragging about his ability to sexual assault women. When Trump said, ‘When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything,’ Moore had had enough.”

She’s apparently not alone among women who call themselves evangelical Christians.

Also, from The Beast: “Beth Moore wasn’t alone in her condemnation of Trump. Her comments sent ripples around the evangelical world and were seconded by Christian mega-speaker and author Christine Caine. Sara Groves, the Dove Award-nominated Christian artist, told me, ‘Someone like Beth can go a long way in helping Evangelicals recognize these major blind spots.’”

We hear a lot about hypocrisy during every election cycle. This one is no different. Conservatives accuse liberals of being hypocritical by criticizing Trump’s behavior while being silent about, say, Bill Clinton’s own transgressions.

To my way of thinking, though, the greater hypocrisy occurs among conservatives — notably evangelicals — who continue to support Trump despite the candidate’s known history of behaving in ways and doing things that evangelicals say they detest.

The revelations out of Trump’s own mouth have delivered what ought to be a disqualifier among those who adhere to spiritual values. Beth Moore and other evangelical women are stepping up and declaring that, indeed, they are as disgusted as the rest of us.

Battle of political groups shaping up in Amarillo

grassroots

I love seeing grass-roots politics take shape in communities.

It’s where one can see activism at work. It involves people who have things in common as well as things that keep them apart. They may be neighbors, friends, they might attend the same church, their kids might attend the same schools.

But they argue over local politics.

I’m seeing a smattering of lawn signs around my neighborhood and around Amarillo. Unite For Amarillo is pitching its support for the seven municipal propositions on the ballot this November. SaveAmarillo is pitching its opposition to them.

Unite For Amarillo wants all of them to pass. I’m on their side, but you knew that already.

SaveAmarillo wants all of them defeated.

There’s an interesting element to this intra-city squabble. Neither side is willing to split the difference. It’s all or nothing for both sides. Does it remind you of anything? It reminds me of the fight for single-member districts that pops up on occasion in Amarillo. Some folks want the city to divide all four City Council member seats into wards, with only the mayor running at-large. The current system elects everyone at-large. No one in that fight seems willing to discuss a hybrid version: increase the council from five to seven seats, elect the mayor and two council members at large while electing the other four from wards.

Look, the city broke up the $340 million spending package into seven separate categories, enabling us to choose which of them to support. I think that’s a wise way to proceed. I plan to vote for all of them, because they all represent progress for the city, allowing City Hall to make important infrastructure improvements.

I am having trouble understanding why SaveAmarillo wants to toss them all aside. Street repair is not important? More funds for police and firefighters won’t improve public safety? Improving parks doesn’t boost our quality of life?

Why not look at them individually, line by line … and then decide which of them to support and which of them to reject?

But, hey, it’s grass-roots politics. I still like the idea of waging these skirmishes at the local level.

May the better side win. I have made my decision already.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience