Trump keeps straying over ‘the line’

BBuXnWg

I’m trying to process this latest bit of news regarding the Republican Party’s nominee for president of the United States.

Donald J. Trump — if I understand this correctly — has called on Russia to locate some missing e-mails belonging to his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Rodham Clinton. He has suggested the Russians should hack into her e-mails, those that were deleted from her personal account while she was serving as secretary of state.

If they do, Trump said, they would be rewarded by the American media.

I’m left to wonder: Has a major-party presidential nominee just asked a major geopolitical foe of this country — of his country — to put our national security into potential jeopardy?

Aren’t there charges that could be filed in relation to such utterly reckless and dangerous rhetoric coming from someone who’s about to start receiving classified briefings from the president’s National Security Council?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-calls-on-russia-to-find-hillary-clinton%E2%80%99s-missing-emails/ar-BBuXlAC?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

If the Russians were to hack into some cyber storage area where those e-mails might be kept, what on Earth else would they be able to find?

Clinton and the Democrats are calling Trump a “dangerous” individual. They are echoing the language uttered during the primary season by his Republican foes.

This irresponsible suggestion by the GOP presidential nominee only demonstrates the grave danger he would pose as our head of government.

Unbelievable!

O’Reilly: Slaves were ‘well-fed’ … seriously?

oreilly_0

Bill O’Reilly once taught history to students.

I wonder if he imparted this little tidbit to the young’ns  gathered in his classroom, which is that the slaves who helped build the White House were “well-fed” and well-cared for.

I also wonder if he told them the rest of it, which is that under federal law at the time, they still were considered to be “personal property” of their owners, that they were three-fifths human and that they were no better off than, say, farm animals.

O’Reilly made his feelings known about slavery the other day after first lady Michelle Obama told the Democratic National Convention about living in the house built by slaves. She spoke also of the pride she feels that her daughters have been able to play on the White House lawn, given the slave labor that went into building the structure.

O’Reilly just had to chime on in his “O’Reilly Factor” cable show by seeming to suggest that slave life was OK because the slaves’ masters fed them well and gave them “decent lodging.”

Well, I feed my dog well, too. My puppy lives in a nice home; he’s comfortable. But for crying out loud, he’s still a dog!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/michelle-obama-bill-oreilly-fact-check-white-house-built-slaves-well-fed-decent-lodgings#.V5jR0-nbQk4.twitter

I likely shouldn’t give a damn what Bill O’Reilly thinks. The issue, though, is that many Americans do give a damn.

I have members of my family who glom onto his commentary. They worship the guy. Thus, if O’Reilly says it, why it just has to be true … or so these family members have actually told me.

It might be that the crux of O’Reilly’s critique of the first lady’s comments were that slaves were among the workers who helped build the White House, that others were part of the construction crew as well.

But geez, man, why suggest that their living conditions somehow justifies the ownership of human beings as pieces of property?

Election will be decided by the Battle of the Bounces

WATERLOO, IA - SEPTEMBER 27: Voting booths are set up for early voting at the Black Hawk County Courthouse on September 27, 2012 in Waterloo, Iowa. Early voting starts today in Iowa where in the 2008 election 36 percent of voters cast an early ballot.  (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Donald J. Trump got a “bounce” out of the Republican National Convention this past week.

The RealClearPolitics average of polls tells us that Trump is in the lead by a little bit.

This week, it’s the Democrats’ turn and that party’s nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, figures to get a bounce from the convention that has nominated her.

The question then becomes: Whose bounce will be greater?

Followed by this question: Will the candidate with the bigger bounce be able to sustain it until Nov. 8?

From my perch here in the middle of Flyover Country — in the most Republican region of arguably the most Republican state in the country — my gut is telling me Clinton’s bounce will be significant once the Democratic convention is gaveled to a close.

Sure, we’ve got two more days to go before the end of this phase of the presidential election campaign. Anything can happen, I suppose.

Remember, too, that this is the most unconventional election season in anyone’s memory — as Donald Trump’s nomination by the GOP illustrates so dramatically.

Let’s just follow the bounce.

Rep. Castro gets Dems’ hearts to flutter

Castro_in_IA_3_jpg_800x1000_q100

That pitter-patter you might be hearing belongs to the hearts of Texas Democrats who might seem to be excited at the prospect of an actual serious challenger to run against U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

The cause of the racing heartbeat is U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro of San Antonio, who has let it be known that he might run in 2018 against the man I’ve enjoyed referring to as the Cruz Missile.

Cruz is a Republican lawmaker who was the last man standing in the fight to deny Donald J. Trump the GOP presidential nomination. He made a heck of splash at last week’s Republican national convention by declining to endorse the man who beat him to the finish line.

He got booed off the Cleveland stage.

Will this damage him in Texas? My gut tells me he might face a stronger challenge from within his own party than he might face from a Democrat, even one as attractive, articulate and polished as Joaquin Castro.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/26/joaquin-castro-considers-texas-senate-run-cruz/

I remain fervent in my belief that Texas is better served with a vibrant two-party system. We do not have a Democratic Party that is yet able to challenge Republicans at the statewide level. Republicans win big — every time. They’ve held every statewide office in Texas since 1998. I don’t see any sign of weakness in the GOP vise grip.

Will it present itself in 2018 when Ted Cruz runs for re-election to the U.S. Senate. Rep. Castro seems to think it might.

I hope he’s correct. Cruz simply is not my kind of senator.

However, I’m not yet ready to presume that the Cruz Missile will fizzle out.

What a difference a day makes

BBuRyjq

Let’s see … today is Tuesday.

Democrats opened their presidential nominating convention a day earlier. They had been rocked and rolled by allegations that their lame-duck national party chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had sought to rig their nominating process in favor of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Schultz quit the chairmanship. Democrats opened their convention amid signs of open rebellion by delegates loyal to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who battled Clinton throughout the primary process.

Then came those rousing speeches by first lady Michelle Obama, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker and, oh yeah, Sen. Sanders.

What happened to that dissension? What happened to the insurrection?

Well, today is a new day. And Democrats proceeded to make some history by nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton as their candidate for president of the United States.

What’s more, the roll call of votes cast on the convention floor ended with Sanders himself calling for a “suspension of the rules,” which the convention chair interpreted as a call for nominating Clinton by acclamation.

The delegates cheered loudly as they endorsed the acclamation vote.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-wins-historic-nomination-%E2%80%94-with-a-boost-from-sanders/ar-BBuSbWh?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Just as the party made history eight years ago by nominating the first African-American to run for president, it did so again today by sending its first woman nominee into political combat against the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Will the anger subside over the shenanigans of the former DNC chair? Oh, probably not. Republicans will make sure to keep it roiling along with the dedicated Sanders supporters who might have to be dragged kicking and screaming to vote for Clinton this fall.

Former President Bill Clinton is going to speak tonight.

This is just a hunch, but my gut tells me he’s going to bring the house down, just as he did in 2012 when he lit up the convention hall in Charlotte to exhort the delegates to fight for Barack Obama’s re-election.

It’s been said many times that “a week is a lifetime in politics.”

So, too, it appears is a single day.

Government: It’s a partnership, yes?

13631414_1745253302411619_3376219339678446266_n

This graphic showed up on a social media feed that I get.

I find it most instructive. I won’t recite it to you, as you can see it for yourself.

It does, though, prompt a thought or two about government and its very nature as created by the founders of our great country.

They created a partnership. They limited the power of the president on purpose by dividing the power among three co-equal branches of government … and by allowing states to create their own governments to deal with issues germane to those who live within those states and other territories.

So, when I hear Republicans these days yap and yammer about how the country is going to hell — a notion to which I do not subscribe — I also have to wonder if they’re really ready to take ownership of the government in which they, too, are an integral part.

The party that opposes the individual in the White House has been as much a part of what supposedly ails the country as the president.

Sure, the president — and vice president — are elected in a nationwide vote. Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are elected by those who live within their states and/or congressional districts. Collectively, though, they also represent a national constituency.

The same logic can be applied to governors and state legislators.

As the graphic points, most of those office at this point are occupied by the Republican Party.

Which begs the question: Why are they bitching so loudly?

Clinton doesn’t need a ‘reintroduction’

hillary

I am skeptical of political operatives who say they want to “reintroduce” their candidate to the American public.

What’s more, I am extremely skeptical — dubious, even — of efforts to reintroduce arguably the nation’s most recognizable woman to Americans whose votes she is seeking.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been on or near the national stage for nearly a quarter century. She stood by her man — pardon the pun — when he ran for president in 1992; she weathered the storm of Bill Clinton’s impeachment involving that disgraceful relationship he had with the White House intern; she ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000 and served for eight years with many of the same individuals who voted to toss her husband out of office; she then served for four years as secretary of state.

Is a reintroduction necessary? Hardly.

I believe the term “reintroduction” is a sort of code for “extreme political makeover,” which the Democratic presidential nominee’s handlers believe is necessary, given the incessant pounding she’s been getting for, oh, the past 25 years.

I’m sure you’ve seen — or perhaps even used — some of the hideous perversions of her very name when referring to her.

If the Democrats’ candidate for president has demonstrated anything she has shown herself to be filled with an iron will and an emotional constitution that defies most of our understanding. I am one who has trouble grasping just how she has endured this withering fire.

But she has. As for the “reintroduction,” it’s not necessary.

She’s been called a liar and a crook. She’s been tarred by accusations that she and her husband are actual murderers; do you remember the “Clinton Chronicles,” a video produced by none other than the late Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University and a “Christian pastor”? Lately, she’s been labeled a traitor who should be executed.

It’s all phony.

A reintroduction — if that’s what you want to call it — is going to require some serious marketing.

Sometimes old makes way for new

polk street

This picture is of a building that’s coming down on Polk Street,  near Seventh Avenue, in downtown Amarillo.

A friend of mine, Wes Reeves, snapped it and posted it on social media earlier today.

I’ve known Reeves for many years and I have developed a keen affection for his own love of local history and things that are old and worth preserving.

Reeves loves old buildings. He believes communities must honor their past by doing all they can to preserve those vestiges of history.

He also noted as he posted this photo that there’s some good news accompanying the demolition of something old. It is that Amarillo is getting something new: a brew pub that is planned to be built in the city’s evolving downtown business-and-entertainment district.

Which brings me to the point here.

It is that the city is changing its central district personality.

Is the city going to forsake every single shred of history? Good heavens, no!

Amarillo already has preserved the historic Fisk Building and turned it into a classy hotel. Potter County has renovated the exterior of its courthouse, along with restoring and reviving the Santa Fe Building. There will be plenty of other restoration projects ahead; I’m hoping — along with the rest of the city — for eventual restoration of the Barfield Building and the Herring Hotel.

The new features, though, ought to be as welcome here as efforts to preserve the old ones.

And no doubt about it, we’re getting plenty of new business.

Yes, downtown is changing. That change necessarily means we have to make way for the change. If it involves the occasional removal of something old that no longer is functional, well, I’m all for that, too.

Let the change continue.

FLOTUS gives ’em some tough love at DNC

FILE -- In a Nov. 12, 2011 file photo first lady Michelle Obama listens during a visit to  MA’O Organic Farms in Waianae, Hawaii.    Michelle Obama cajoled Jay Leno into nibbling on apples, sweet potato fries and a pizza made with eggplant, green peppers and zucchini on the "Tonight Show," Tuesday Jan. 31, 2012.     (AP Photo/Susan Walsh/file)

Did you hear what I heard first lady Michelle Obama say to the Democratic National Convention delegates?

I’m pretty sure I heard her deliver a tough-love lecture to the Bernie Sanders supporters who earlier in the day were booing the sound of the name “Hillary Clinton.”

The first lady had the courage to inform them that Clinton did not walk away and sulk after losing the Democratic presidential primary in 2008 to Sen. Barack Obama. She informed them that Clinton joined the team that helped elect the young senator as president.

My hunch as I listened to her speech tonight was that the message was not lost on the Sanders legions who stood in front of her on the convention floor — let alone those at home who might be feeling a bit down and out.

Her message? Get over it.

Schultz gets tossed; the recriminations continue

dem chair

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has violated one of the fundamental tents of running a major political party.

You’re supposed to be neutral while your party seeks to nominate candidates for high office.

She wasn’t. Schultz, as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, has the bad taste to say negative things about Bernie Sanders as he battled Hillary Rodham Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination.

What’s been the impact of that revelation as Democrats have convened their gathering in Philadelphia? It has energized the Sanders supporters. They’ve been booing any mention of Clinton’s name. Even their guy — Bernie himself — has been booed and jeered for encouraging his delegates to rally behind Clinton … as he has done himself.

Then came the amazing mea culpa from the DNC. It has apologized publicly to Sanders, effectively tossing Schultz under the proverbial bus.

She has earned the hoots and jeers she is getting at this convention. Schultz this morning got the bum’s rush from her own home-state delegates in Florida.

Did she rig the primary campaign, greasing it for her friend Clinton? It is beginning to feel that way.

Schultz, though, is gone. Her resignation from the chairmanship is effective at the end of the convention. The reality, though, is that she’s done.

The task for Clinton’s team — and for Sanders — is to bring the delegates together. We’ll see if Schultz’s resignation and the apology from the DNC will be enough to calm the storm.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience