Texas Democrats keep smiling when they talk about their political future. Good for them. Better to smile than to grimace from all the hair-pulling they’re doing over their inability to win any statewide office.

Brent Budowsky, writing a blog for The Hill, thinks the time is at hand for Lone Star Democrats to make their long-hoped-for breakthrough. I’m not yet so sure about that.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/291161-why-texas-democrats-can-win-

I would love to see the state become a competitive place once again. It was for a time in the 1980s as the state was undergoing a transition from Yellow Dog Democrat to Rock-Ribbed Republican. Then the GOP took command after the 1994 mid-term election. It’s been downhill ever since for Texas Democrats.

Even when presented with inferior Republican candidates to run against statewide, Democrats can’t break the GOP vise grip.

My favorite example of how Republicans take advantage of their brand in Texas was the 2012 election for presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The Republican incumbent, Sharon “Killer” Keller defeated Democratic challenger Keith Hampton, even though Keller has been under an ethics probe and has been criticized heavily for her ham-handed approach to death-penalty appeals.

The most infamous case involved an appeal by a Death Row inmate that didn’t get to the CCA’s office until after 5 p.m., when the office closed for the day. Sorry about that, Keller’s office said. You gotta get here on time or else you’re toast.

My feeling then was that if Democrats couldn’t win that race, they will be consigned to the wilderness a good while longer.

The rule of thumb in Texas has been if you’re a Republican, you’re in the driver’s seat, no matter your actual credentials. The state is no longer competitive in presidential contests, even with its 38-electoral vote treasure trove. Republicans take the state for granted; Democrats don’t care.

I cannot predict when the state will become competitive once again. The smart money says the state’s changing population and its burgeoning Latino census will start to tilt the scale. But as the 2012 presidential election demonstrated, even with growing Latino numbers and President Obama swamping Mitt Romney among those voters, the president still collected a smaller percentage of the total vote here than he did in 2008.

Keep trying, Democrats. Sooner or later the state will become competitive. Recall that there once was a time when Republicans were singing the same blues notes Democrats are crooning now.

I cannot help but snicker whenever I read about Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s rants at an alleged federal takeover of Texas matters.

He now is saying he’ll oppose Medicaid expansion as part of the Affordable Care Act because he doesn’t want Texas to be held hostage by Washington, D.C.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicaid/291257-perry-doubles-down-against-medicaid-expansion

Oh really, governor?

Maybe he should explain how he and the 2009 and 2011 legislatures – when faced with declining state revenue caused by the recession – had their hands out when the feds handed them stimulus money to help jumpstart the state economy. Perry and his allies in the Legislature haven’t yet acknowledged fully that the stimulus funds played a big part in helping the state balance its budget – which the Texas Constitution requires of them.

We heard little talk then about federal government “hostage taking” when money flowed in for infrastructure improvements. It was that same stimulus dough that helped Amarillo City Hall, for example, pay for the Third and Grand overpass that has helped relieve traffic congestion.

Now the governor is on a tirade against the Medicaid expansion, which the Affordable Care Act allows for the states to use to help pay the medical bills of the poor. Perry and other governors – namely Republicans – want no part of it.

It’s that “socialized medicine” thing that gives them heartburn. Maybe they’ll want to get rid of Medicare, too. Let’s see how far that one flies.

The Austin American-Statesman paid a stirring tribute to veterans of the Vietnam War while commenting recently on the dedication in Austin of the Texas Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

The paper’s editorial is linked here:

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/opinion/vietnam-sacrifices-did-mean-something/nW4sR/

It brings to mind the age-old canard that many critics of that war – and other wars as well – toss out without thinking. They keep lamenting that Americans too often “die in vain.” It was said of the 58,000-plus Americans who died during the Vietnam War. Those who said it were wrong then. Those who say such things about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wrong now.

No one who goes to war in response to his or her country’s call – and then pays the ultimate price – does so “in vain.” They are doing their duty as Americans. Their country calls on them to fight and they respond. Those who have given their last full measure of devotion are heroes and every single one of them deserves our eternal gratitude.

To say they die “in vain” is to cheapen their sacrifice.

The announcement that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former first lady/U.S. Sen./Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will speak in Dallas on the same day later this month is an intriguing development.

Both are considered possible, if not probable, candidates for president in 2016. Bush is a Republican and Clinton is a Democrat … no big flash there, right?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/291229-jeb-bush-to-speak-at-dallas-world-affairs-council-luncheon

Bush will speak to the World Affairs Council while Clinton will speak to the National Multi Housing Council. Both speakers will be watched carefully by the media that are looking for angles to explore as to whether either person will seek the nation’s highest office in 2016.

Here, though, is the intrigue.

You would figure Bush will draw a huge following in Dallas, the third-largest city in one of the nation’s most Republican states. He was a successful governor in Florida and was considered by many to be more presidentially suitable than, say, his older brother, George W.

Clinton, though, is as a true-blue a Democrat as Bush is a Republican. She’s coming into “enemy territory,” correct? Not so fast.

I’ll now look back to early 2008, when then-Sen. Clinton was running for president. Her husband – perhaps you remember him – came to Amarillo to speak on his wife’s behalf. If Dallas is considered hostile territory for Democrats, then Amarillo is considered to be deep within the belly of the Republican beast.

How did Amarillo respond residents to an appearance by the former Democratic president, the man many Republicans loved to hate when he was in office? They packed the Grand Plaza Ballroom at the Civic Center with several thousand spectators. Many of them were Republicans who simply wanted a glimpse of the Democrats’ big man on campus.

I’m guessing Secretary Clinton will fare equally well when she makes her appearance in Big D. I’m also guessing Jeb Bush will light ‘em up there as well.

Just wait, now, for the media to compare the two political titans’ impact and what it might mean for the next race for the presidency.

President Obama played a round of golf the other day, the first since the mandated budget cuts required by the so-called “sequestration” of federal money.

And oh yes. Some of his critics lambasted him for it.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/291087-obama-makes-first-post-sequester-visit-to-the-golf-course

He shouldn’t play golf while canceling the White Hours tours because of lack of money, they said. One congressman, Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, filed a budget amendment that prohibits the government from taking Obama to and from the golf course until the White House tours are resumed. Others have griped all along that Obama plays too much golf as it is. He and his family take too many expensive vacations, they complain.

Allow me this brief response. The president is never not the president. Sure, he plays golf, but he’s surrounded by Secret Service agents; he’s accompanied by his personal aide, the one with “The Football,” the case carrying the secret launch codes in case of a nuclear attack; he’s on call 24/7.

And this president is far from the first president to take time off from the job. George W. Bush was fond of clearing brush at his Texas ranch; Bill Clinton vacationed frequently at Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.; George H.W. Bush liked to ride around in his speedboat off the Maine coast; Ronald Reagan went to his ranch in California, often for weeks at a time; Jimmy Carter spent time in Georgia; Gerald Ford liked to play golf in California.

None of these men ever shirked their duties while they were the Leader of the Free World.

Frankly, I am glad the president finds time to relax, clear his head while maintaining focus on the issues of the day. Barack Obama has a lot of them and no one should begrudge him for seeking some time away from the Oval Office.

But if the phone rings and something important happens, I remain fully confident the president will answer the call.

You know what makes North Korea’s president for life Kim Jong Un so dangerous?

It’s not the weapons that he possesses. Nor is it the knowledge he surely must have that if he does something stupid that he’ll face the world’s remaining superpower’s extreme anger.

He is dangerous because he doesn’t seem to care what happens to his country.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/291107-rep-peter-king-north-korean-leader-trying-to-prove-hes-a-tough-guy

I am not a student of Korean geopolitical history. I’ve just watched a succession of crazy men come and go in the North Korean regime during virtually my entire lifetime. And they all seem to have one thing in common – apart from being of the same bloodline. It is that they act irrationally. And irrational behavior can produce some very difficult results.

When the Korean Peninsula was divided after World War II, with the communists running the northern half and the our allies running the southern half, the North decided it wanted all of it, so it invaded the South. It precipitated the Korean War that was joined by the U.S.-led force of United Nations troops; China eventually entered on the other side and about 50,000 U.S. servicemen were killed in the three years of warfare.

The shooting stopped with an armistice. North and South Korea never signed a peace treaty. The United States has retained a force of some 40,000 troops there, ready for anything.

North Korea now claims to have nuclear weapons. They also think they have missiles to deliver them. Maybe they do, or they don’t. But the U.S. understanding all along has been that any attack on our allies from North Korea would be seen as an attack on the United States.

Is there any question, then, about why the U.S. flew B-2 Stealth bombers near the 38th parallel recently just to give Kim Jong Un a tiny sample of what he would face if he launched an attack?

Kim’s regime may be secretive. He seems more than a little loopy. Kim, though, knows what awaits him if he does something he surely must know he’ll regret.

Our concern ought to be that he doesn’t care.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been quite fond in recent times of touting his economic policies for putting Texans to work while so many Americans elsewhere were struggling to find jobs.

Now we hear that the jobless rate in Texas has ticked up a bit. Who is responsible for that? Is it even worth worrying about?

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/29/texas-unemployment-rate-rose-slightly-february/

The national figures in recent years has shown unemployment at 7.6 to 8.5 percent. When it ticked up, we hear from President Obama’s critics that his policies are the reason Americans can’t find work. Chief among those critics has been Gov. Perry, who’s taken to trumpeting Texas’s low-tax, pro-business climate as a reason for businesses to relocate to the Lone Star State.

He’s right about the state’s pro-business environment. But the silence when not-so-good news arrives on our doorstep is equally instructive.

I must ask: If the feds deserve blame for the bad news, don’t they deserve credit for the good news? And if the state is going to take credit for its own good news, isn’t there room for criticism when the jobless rate goes in the wrong direction?

Just wondering …

Mark Sanford is being called out on the infamous extramarital affair he had while serving as South Carolina’s Republican governor.

He now wants to return to Congress, representing his state in the U.S. House of Representatives, where he served before becoming governor. Sanford is facing Curtis Bostic in the state GOP primary runoff on Tuesday.

Bostic calls Sanford a “compromised candidate” because of his affair. I hereby submit that the affair – by itself – wasn’t Sanford’s worse transgression as a public official.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/290925-sanfords-infidelity-questioned-in-south-carolina-debate

Yes, breaking his sacred marital vow is an egregious sin. He promised his wife, Jenny, to be faithful for as long as they both lived. He broke that promise. Shame on him for that.

But the worse thing he did was to disappear from public view for days. You’ll recall that over Mothers Day 2009 his publicly paid staff put the word out that he was “hiking the Appalachian Trail” when, in fact, he was way down yonder – in Argentina – cavorting with his mistress.

How does someone justify duping the public in such a manner? Whether he instructed his staff to lie to the public or whether he lied to his staff is immaterial. The fact is that Sanford broke the trust – not only of his wife – but of the public that paid his salary.

Either one of those foul-ups should be a deal breaker. But both of them? At the same time?

And to think this guy actually is favored to win that runoff next week. Incredible.

So … you thought the U.S. Senate was some sort of bastion of democracy, where elected representatives perform the will of the people?

Think again.

Five senators, all of them Republicans, have decided that the body shall not vote on whether to approve legislation that its sponsors think would curtail gun violence in the United States. And this procedural blockage is being done against the will of people who polls indicate support overwhelmingly a law that requires universal background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a firearm.

Some polls put that approval number at around 90 percent. President Obama said the other day that 90 percent is about as “close to unanimity” as you’ll get in this country on any issue.

But the Senate isn’t going to vote on this package because these five GOP yahoos won’t allow it. They are: Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ted Cruz of Texas, Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma and Mike Lee of Utah. The first three are possible presidential candidates in 2016 and they are tea party golden boys. I don’t know much about Lee. Inhofe is just a contrarian.

The Filibustering Five are going to block with a procedural motion disguised as a filibuster, except they won’t block it using the talk-til-you-drop method, which Paul used to argue recently against U.S. drone policy. No, these guys just won’t allow a vote. The Democratic majority needs 60 votes to break the so-called filibuster, but they don’t have it. Thus, these five senators are going to stop the entire chamber from doing the people’s business.

I understand what’s going on. The National Rifle Association has argued forcefully – and apparently persuasively – against these limitations, even the universal background check provision, which the NRA used to support.

The NRA has targeted – no pun intended … really – lawmakers who oppose them on gun control. Members of the Senate are frightened at the political price they would pay if they support background checks or other sensible restrictions that do not violate the Constitution’s Second Amendment that guarantees Americans the right to “keep and bear arms.”

The issue really so much about whether gun-control legislation should become law. It’s about whether a small minority of lawmakers can gum up the legislative system the way it’s being done by these five nimrods. Senate rules allow them to do it. That is to the shame of the body and those run the place.

Barack Obama said during his State of the Union speech in January that the victims of gun violence “deserve a vote” on this legislation. The public agrees with him. The five senators who are blocking that effort need to listen to the public – not the deep-pocketed special interest group that has terrorized them.

Ben Carson is a brilliant neurosurgeon and medical professor. He’s also becoming a rising political star. But first, doc, you need to learn how to speak with nuance and precision.

He recently spoke with conservative commentator Sean Hannity about gay marriage. Dr. Carson opposes it, he says, for Biblical reasons.

Then he began to ramble a bit about gay marriage and, while stringing together a list of collective associations, said that marriage is a “a well-established, fundamental pillar of society and no group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality — it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.”

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/291023-ben-carson-defends-gay-marriage-comments

Critics jumped all over the good doctor, saying he was “equating” gay individuals with those who practice bestiality. He said his comments were “taken out of context.” I don’t know about the “context” argument, Dr. Carson. Those comments seem pretty self-evident to me.

But whether they reflect the view his critics contend they do or not, Carson could have been a bit more, shall we say, discreet in his comparisons. He could have stopped at “be they gays,” and called it good.

But he didn’t. He talked a little too freely with his pal Hannity.

Carson is being talked about now as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016. He has said he will consider it in due course, once he quits his medical practice, which he’s already said he’ll do.

A word of caution, doctor: This political world into which you may enter is full of traps, which politicians are known to spring all by themselves with their own careless utterances.