This campaign is running on all cylinders?

A woman holds signs depicting the head of Republican presidential candidate businessman Donald Trump as she waits to enter the auditorium to hear him speak, Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2015, at Pinkerton Academy in Derry, N.H.  (AP Photo/Mary Schwalm)

Someone will have to help me out, make me understand something that’s gone over my head.

Donald J. Trump has just brought in his third campaign chairman in the past eight weeks. He’s demoted the guy who had the job the day before yesterday. The new man in charge, a fellow named Steve Bannon, comes from a rightwing website, Breitbart.com.

The Republican presidential nominee also hired longtime GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway as his new campaign manager.

The Trumpkins say “not to worry. The campaign is going great! We’re going to finish so, so strong. Donald Trump is going to win!”

Really?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump%e2%80%99s-new-campaign-manager-kellyanne-conway-doesn%e2%80%99t-like-his-name-calling/ar-BBvJvgH?li=BBnb7Kz

Well, Trump doesn’t have any organizations established in the key battleground states. There appears to be no one handling what’s known commonly as the “ground game,” which involves recruiting volunteers for get-out-voter drives and targeting key precincts.

He’s trailing Democratic opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton in every one of those key states. In some of them the deficit is in double digits.

What am I missing?

How does a candidate go from Corey Lewandowski to Paul Manafort to Steve Bannon as campaign chairs in eight weeks and still pretend to have all his oars in the water?

Moreover, reports are surfacing about growing panic within top Republican circles. Does this assuage that panic?

I do not believe it does.

‘Law of parties’ may kill the wrong man

LeachWood_jpg_800x1000_q100

It’s called the “law of parties.”

The law means that in Texas someone who’s involved in any way with a capital crime — a murder — can be put to death if convicted even if he or she didn’t actually commit the crime.

I probably had heard of it, but I’d forgotten about it.

Jeff Wood is scheduled to die for a crime he technically never committed. He shouldn’t have to pay the ultimate price for his role in a 1996 murder. The actual gunman has been executed already.

Wood, though, has an most unlikely ally in the Texas Legislature. State Rep. Jeff Leach, a Plano Republican, has come to Wood’s defense, arguing that Gov. Greg Abbott should commute Wood’s death sentence to life in prison.

What’s interesting to me is that Leach is considered one of the Legislature’s more conservative members. He said he still believes in capital punishment, just not in this case.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/17/state-rep-leach-speaks-out-against-jeff-wood-execu/

I’m with Leach on this one.

Wood was driving a pickup in Kerrville when his friend, Daniel Reneau, went inside a gas station to steal a safe. The clerk inside would comply with Renau’s demands, so Reneau shot him to death.

He was convicted of capital murder and was put to death in 2002.

Now it’s Wood’s turn.

Prosecutors at the time of trial argued that Wood knew that Reneau would kill someone while committing the robbery, which made him culpable — under state law — to murder in accordance with the “law of parties” provision.

According to the Texas Tribune. Leach “believes in the death penalty under the law of parties in cases where the accomplice was clearly involved in the murder. But when he came across Wood’s case during his work for the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee, it didn’t seem right.”

Wood surely should never have been in the vehicle while his friend was committing the terrible crime. He made a patently egregious decision. Should he pay for it, though, with his life?

I say “no.” He didn’t commit the actual crime of capital murder.

Rep. Leach is asking the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to recommend a commutation. Gov. Abbott has the option of accepting or denying the recommendation.

I hope the governor can reach the same determination that one of his Republican colleagues has reached.

Facing down an RV demon

canyon

This is the latest in an occasional series of blog posts commenting on upcoming retirement.

Yes, I have demons. We all do … I believe.

One of my demons involves the recreational vehicle my wife and I own, which is a 28-foot fifth wheel we pull behind our three-quarter-ton pickup.

On our most recent trip, I managed to face down my RV demon.

We went to Caprock Canyons State Park, which is about a 90-minute drive southeast of Amarillo. It’s a beautiful park, with rugged back country that one must see to believe.

It has several very nice campsites.

They’re all back-in sites. No pull-through sites. When we made our reservation at the state park, I asked perhaps three times whether there were any pull-through sites. “No sir,” came the reply. “They’re all back-ins.”

All righty, then. We’ll do it.

bison

So, we went to Caprock Canyons. We arrived at the park gate, said “hey” to a group of bison grazing near the office, and then drove to our site at the Honey Flats camping area.

We pulled the RV to the site, then positioned the truck and the fifth wheel in a fairly straight alignment with the site. I surely understand the principle of backing a vehicle up with another one hitched to the rear: you turn the steering wheel in the opposite direction of where you want to turn the attached vehicle.

I backed the rig up. No sweat.

OK, truth be told, I had done this once before. We drove to an RV resort in Mesa, Ariz., a year ago, where we hooked up with my sister and brother-in-law. It, too, only had back-in sites. I managed — after considerable grief and perspiration — to get the vehicle backed into the site. I had considerable navigational help from my wife, sis and bro-in-law.

After backing in, I was exhausted. Pooped, man.

This time, at Caprock Canyons, the ordeal was far less stressful.

For that I am grateful. I haven’t conquered the demon just yet.

However, it’s on the ropes.

We plan to knock the RV demon out soon enough.

Welcome back, APD bike patrols

drain

Amarillo’s interim leadership command includes a policeman with a keen working knowledge of the city’s needs.

Accordingly, interim Police Chief Ed Drain has revealed a plan to bring back an element in the city ‘s policing strategy that I’m quite sure will be welcomed in the neighborhoods that need it.

Bicycle patrols are returning, Drain recently told the Rotary Club of Amarillo.

To which I say, “You go, chief!”

Drain is on loan from the Plano Police Department. He was brought in by interim City Manager Terry Childers to lead the Amarillo Police Department temporarily while the city looks for a permanent chief to succeed Robert Taylor, who recently retired and hit the road on his Harley.

Taylor suspended the bike patrols some years back, apparently believing the city could do just as good a job with cops in cars as they could with them on bikes.

The city, though, apparently had received numerous requests from constituents to return the bike patrols. They had been a staple in many neighborhoods, such as San Jacinto and North Heights.

They are part of the city’s community policing outreach, putting the officers in more direct contact with residents who get to know the officers more as men and women, rather than just simply as people carrying guns, cuffs and clubs.

Community police strategy seeks to build trust between police officers and residents, which — if you’re aware of what’s been in the news a good bit lately — has been lacking in many communities across the nation.

I am heartened to hear that Amarillo PD is seeking to stay ahead of that potentially dangerous curve.

Can the candidates keep a secret?

nsa-logo1

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump — the Democratic and Republican candidates for president, respectively — are set to receive briefings from President Obama’s national security team.

The question keeps bugging me: Will they both receive identical briefings and will they get information that is at matching levels of security clearance?

Trump’s penchant for shooting off his mouth has become somewhat legendary as he campaigns for president. Clinton, too, has problems — allegedly — with protecting national security information.

Of the two, my sense is that Clinton — given her troubles over her use of personal e-mail servers while she was secretary of state — is going to be extra careful with any information she gets from Obama’s national security team.

Trump? I’m not so sure.

This has been a custom dating back to the 1952 when President Truman’s team decided to share this information with Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, the candidates who sought to succeed Give ‘Em Hell Harry.

The intent is to avoid the new president from getting too much of a surprise when he or she takes office. Harry Truman took office in April 1945 and wasn’t told until 12 days after being sworn in after President Roosevelt’s death that, um, we had been doing research on a secret weapon in New Mexico that might end World War II in a hurry.

It was the atomic bomb!

I’m going to assume — yes, I know that’s a dangerous thing to do — that the information given to Clinton and Trump will be given in the strictest confidence. That means the people giving it will be sworn to secrecy, as well as the people receiving it.

Are they bound by any rule that requires them to give Trump the same intelligence briefing they give to Clinton?

More to the point, can the intelligence briefers and the candidates keep it all of it a secret?

Hillary’s health becomes Trump’s trap

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s physical and emotional health has now become a talking point for her opponent in this race for the presidency of the United States.

Republican nominee Donald J. Trump is alleging that the Democratic candidate lacks the stamina to deal with the Islamic State and the myriad world problems that will confront the next president.

Hmmm.

Of course, it’s a phony issue. Then again, Trump’s campaign to date has been based largely on phony issues from top to bottom.

* Crime is rampant? No. The crime rate is at a historic low.

* Our military force is a loser? Hardly. We’re still the most powerful nation the world has ever seen.

* The economy is a disaster? Uh, we’ve added 14 million jobs in the past eight years.

Now it’s Hillary Clinton’s health.

I am quite certain Trump’s team will keep talking this up to divert attention away from some other issues with which Trump has to deal.

Perhaps he ought to keep his trap shut on this one. You might remember — I sure do — when President Reagan stumbled badly in that first joint appearance in 1984 with Democratic nominee Walter Mondale. The question came up in the next event about the president’s health. The president was asked if he was up to the job.

“I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” the president said.

Beware, Donald Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-makes-claims-on-clintons-health/ar-BBvIEOW?li=BBnb7Kz

 

Gov. Perry now deserves ‘shame’

7C2A9793_jpg_800x1000_q100

Rick Perry has told the father of a slain U.S. Army soldier “shame on you” for speaking out against Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Actually, governor, the shame belongs on you.

Khzir Khan offered a blistering critique of Trump at the Democratic National Convention. His son, Capt. Humayun Khan, was killed in 2004 while serving in Iraq. Khzir Khan said Trump didn’t understand the sacrifice that Gold Star parents have endured.

So, now we hear from the former Texas governor, an Air Force veteran, who said that Khzir Khan started the rhubarb with Trump and is not immune from criticism.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/16/perry-defends-trump-over-feud-gold-star-family/

How can I say this delicately? I can’t.

That’s pure baloney, Gov. Perry.

Trump’s response to Mr. Khan was utterly classless. That is in large part what has prompted the bipartisan criticism of Trump and his handling of that issue. Now, for Gov. Perry — who once called Trump a “cancer on conservatism” — has jumped into the fray by focusing on Khzir Khan’s remarks.

Did he miss the part when Trump said the Khans had “no right” to criticize him? Or did he ignore the crack that Trump muttered about Mrs. Khan’s silence at the DNC, suggesting she was not allowed to speak because of her — oh, yes! — Muslim faith?

He said the Khans have become “fair game” by entering the “political arena.”

Actually, Gov. Perry, political custom has elevated Gold Star parents above the kind of criticism they received from the Republican presidential nominee.

E-mail story will never die … never!

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at Syracuse Universitys S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications presentation of the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting in Washington, DC, on March 23, 2015. AFP PHOTO/NICHOLAS KAMM (Photo credit should read NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

I’ve concluded that the Hillary Rodham Clinton e-mail controversy has as many lives as, say, the JFK assassination conspiracy theories and the notion that men didn’t really walk on the moon.

Congressional Republicans now are examining whether Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton committed perjury during her testimonial marathon in 2015.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-panels-lay-out-case-for-clinton-perjury-accusations/ar-BBvF9tj?li=BBnb7Kz

They have put forward a case that Clinton lied while testifying when questioned by lawmakers about whether she sent out classified material using her personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state.

The hearing ended. The FBI then concluded that it had no credible evidence to prosecute Clinton over her use of the e-mail server. Sure, FBI Director James Comey had some harsh words for Clinton, saying she was “extremely careless” in handling those e-mails.

Was there criminality involved? None, said Comey.

That should end it, right?

Oh, no.

Now, the chairmen of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees are wanting to prove that Clinton committed perjury while testifying about her e-mail use.

Clinton said she didn’t send classified information on her e-mails; Comey said that is an untrue statement. Clinton said her staff reviewed all e-mails to identify work-related messages; Comey said the staffers didn’t read them entirely. Clinton said she used on e-mail server; Comey said she used several.

Does this constitute perjury? Did she deliberately deceive congressional interrogators?

I keep returning to Comey’s final report. He said “no reasonable prosecutor” would find reasons to indict Clinton over the e-mail matter. Did he say during his lengthy dissertation that she committed perjury? No.

The FBI director himself is a former federal prosecutor. He’s a thorough lawyer steeped in these the nuts and bolts of intense federal investigations.

Oh, but there’s this other matter.

Hillary Clinton is running for president of the United States and at this moment is the odds-on favorite to be elected to the highest office in the land.

Might there be a political motive in bringing this perjury investigation forward?

Hmmm. Maybe?

New poll makes Democrats’ hearts flutter

ClintonTrump-Split_jpg_800x1000_q100

If you listen carefully, you just might be able to hear the sound of Texas Democrats’ hearts beating rapidly.

A new public opinion poll puts Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton a mere 6 percentage points behind Republican nominee Donald J. Trump.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/16/poll-trump-leads-clinton-only-6-texas/

It’s Trump at 44 percent, Clinton at 38.

Game on in Texas?

Hmmm. Maybe … but probably not.

The poll was done by PPP, a reputable polling firm. The survey, though, suggests that while the state may be starting to develop a two-party “trend,” it doesn’t necessarily augur for a victory for Clinton this time around.

According to the Texas Tribune: “Polling on the presidential race in Texas has been scant, but the margin found by PPP is the narrowest yet. Previous surveys, including one commissioned by Democrats, have found Trump’s lead ranging from seven to 11 points.”

I’m one of those who would like to see the presidential candidates engage in what’s called “retail politics” here. In battleground states, the candidates show up for public events, shake hands with voters, engage real people in real conversations about politics and policy.

We don’t get that kind of activity here, given the state’s strong GOP leaning. Democrats usually give up on us, while Republicans take us for granted.

Might there be some continued narrowing of the Clinton-Trump gap? If so, I’ll be among the first to welcome the major-party presidential candidates to Texas.

Until then, though, Texas Democrats probably will need to calm their beating hearts.

Rubio to Trump: I detest you, but not as much as I do Hillary

MarcoRubio1

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio finds himself defending an unusual political position.

The Florida Republican stands by his comment that GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump is a “con man” who shouldn’t be president of the United States.

But he’s going to vote for him anyway.

Some observers in Florida and elsewhere are quizzing the one-time GOP presidential primary candidate who, during the campaign, said some amazingly harsh things about the man who defeated him — and 15 other contenders — for the party nomination.

Rubio isn’t back away from any of them.

But he’s voting for Trump … he says.

This well might summarize the state of the 2016 presidential campaign.

Many rank-and-file “establishment” Republicans can’t stomach the candidacy of Trump, but they truly detest — even hate — the Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Lesser of two evils? This is it, according to Sen. Rubio.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience