political news

Fox, CNN get it right on debate format

The Republican Party’s presidential field figures to be a thundering herd by the time summer rolls around.

Accordingly, two cable news networks have decided on a format that is going to exclude some of this potentially huge field.

Good for them. The networks, that is.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/20/fox_cnn_set_criteria_for_gop_debates.html

Fox News Channel is going to play host to the first GOP primary debate on Aug. 6 in Cleveland. Its plan is to limit the participants to the top 10 candidates, based on their standing in the polls at that time. There well might be at least double that number of candidates seeking the party’s 2016 presidential nomination.

Fox says the candidates must be declared. Many observers are noting that the criteria are going to keep several high-powered candidates off the debate stage.

CNN is going to play host for the second debate, on Sept. 16, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. Its format is a bit more convoluted. CNN is planning a two-tiered event: The top candidates will share one stage; the also-rans will share another one.

I prefer the Fox approach, to be honest.

There is no possible way that having 20 — or maybe more — candidates on the same stage is going to do a bit of good for the voters who might be undecided on who would get their vote in a Republican primary. Fox has taken a simpler approach to determining which candidates should participate in the first of what looks like a long series of joint appearances.

My only hope for the debate formats as the series unfolds is that the networks somehow restrict audience cheering. The 2012 GOP debates were annoying in the extreme as the candidates paraded onto debate stages, waving to their cheering fans in the crowd. It was weird and in my view detracted from the importance of the event, which was to ask these candidates for their views on critical issues of the day.

But for starters, I’m glad to know Fox and CNN are going to cull the herd of hopefuls from a debate stage with limited space.

local news

City Council off to 'rocky' start? Maybe, maybe not

The headline in the Amarillo Globe-News this week referred to the city’s “Road to change” embarking on a “rocky start.”

We’ll see about that. But the story below the headline does portend a possible change in the longstanding dynamic that has driven city government — which has been a desire for unanimity.

Place 1 Councilman Elisha Demerson had just taken the oath of office and then, during a work session, he wanted to delay a vote on the appointment of a part-time associate municipal judge. Why? He wanted to await the results of the June 13 runoff election in Place 4 between Steve Rogers and Mark Nair.

The City Council hasn’t always been an amen chorus on every single issue. The late Place 4 Councilman Jim Simms was known to offer a dissent or three when he felt strongly about something; if memory serves, he opposed the city’s ordinance banning texting while driving. And way before Simms joined the body, it had the late Commissioner Dianne Bosch offering dissents, such as whether the city should sell its public hospital or whether it should impose a curfew on teenagers younger than 17 years of age.

Of late, though, the council has sought to speak with a single voice.

That a new guy, Demerson, would seek to stall a routine appointment does seem to suggest there will be fewer 5-0 votes on issues in the future than we’ve seen in the recent past.

That could result in some actual public discussion and debate. Hey, maybe some tempers might flare.

 

State news

Local control? It's a goner in Texas

My head is spinning.

I remember a time when Democrats were considered the party of “big, intrusive, patronizing government.” The bigger the government entity, the wiser were the decisions that came down, or so it went.

While the Democrats were gathering under the banner of Big Brother, Republicans were the champions of local control. Get “big gub’mint” off the backs of the locals, they said. Let the decisions come from city halls and county courthouses.

So …

What’s just happened in Austin?

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has signed House Bill 40, which bans cities from prohibiting the practice of “fracking,” which is shorthand for “hydraulic fracturing,” the use of water to break loose oil from hard-to-get places underground.

http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20150518-hb-40-gets-abbotts-approval.ece

Abbott is a proud Republican. But wait! He and his colleagues in Austin aren’t allowing cities to decide for themselves what’s best for their communities, their residents, their constituents. He wants the state to handle these decisions.

Isn’t that employing the heavy hand of government on us little folks?

HB 40 is in reaction to the city of Denton’s decision to ban fracking inside its city limits. No can do, the Legislature said. Abbott agreed and he signed the bill into law, which takes effect immediately.

“HB 40 does a profound job of helping to protect private property rights here in the state of Texas, ensuring those who own their own property will not have the heavy hand of local regulation deprive them of their rights,” Abbott said in a news release.

The “heavy hand of local regulation”? Hey, the locals know best, don’t they?

Fracking has its critics. They contend it is environmentally dangerous. It destabilizes the bedrock. It consumes a lot of water that — if you’ll remember — is in short supply these days. Yes, it’s also an effective way to extract fossil fuel from the ground.

Back to my original point: The whole notion of our political system’s basic party principles relating to big and small government has been turned on its ear.

I hope my head stops spinning.

 

national news

Obama finds friends in GOP

Republicans have made it their mission — a lot of them, anyhow — to trash Barack Obama as some sort of wacked-out Marxist/socialist who is intent on the destruction of the country that elected him as president of the United States.

So, what does the president do? He locks arms with Republican members of Congress and decides it’s really all right to support a free-trade agreement with a dozen Asian nations — which runs counter to where the base of his Democratic Party stands, or so it appears.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/trade-bill-clears-senate-hurdle-118178.html?hp=t4_r

The GOP-led Senate has just shut down a filibuster that had stalled the fast-track legislation to get the free trade agreement approved and sent to the president’s desk.

Obama’s major allies in this deal happen to Republicans. The Senate was acting chaotically as senators scrambled between discussion groups to hammer out some kind of deal.

What’s up with that?

I happen to believe in a freer trade than what we’ve had for so long. The world is shrinking and nations or even continents no longer can shield themselves from influences of other nations and continents.

So the free trade agreement likely now will get approved. It will end up on the president’s desk. He’ll sign it.

I’m hoping to see a lot of Republican lawmakers — along with centrist/moderate Democrats — standing with the president when he puts pen to paper.

It’s a scene we haven’t witnessed too much during the Obama administration, but which used to be a regular occurrence during the past presidencies of, say, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Government works better when both parties can find common ground. So help me, it works almost all the time.

 

 

national news, political news

Fibs = lies? Sometimes

Someone asked me the other day if I could explain the difference between a “fib” and a “lie.”

My quick answer to him was that I “like the word ‘fib’ better.”

“Fib” has a less-damaging ring to it than “lie.”

I’ve given some further thought to the question, which actually is a pretty good one.

Here’s my more thoughtful answer: A fib is meant to describe a false statement that doesn’t carry as much consequence as a lie.

I used the term “fib” to describe, in this latest instance, what NBC reporter/news anchor Brian Williams had said about being shot down in Iraq. He fibbed about it. He wasn’t shot down. He was riding in a helicopter that accompanied the ship that actually was shot down.

Why is that a “fib” and not a “lie”? Because all it means is that one man’s career is likely ruined. The rest of us will carry on.

What, then, constitutes a lie?

Let’s try this one: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.” That came from President Bill Clinton as he wagged his finger at the American public and told a lie about what he did with the White House intern. All by itself, that shouldn’t constitute a lie. Except that the result of that untrue statement — which he also made to a federal grand jury — resulted in his impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives.

I suppose I could go on with more actual lies, such as when the Bush administration kept telling us about Saddam Hussein’s alleged complicity in the 9/11 attacks. We all know where those lies led us.

It’s one thing to fib about a personal experience and another thing to lie when it involves the future of the country.

Awww, what the heck. I still like the sound of the word “fib” better.

 

political news

Yes, polls do matter to pols

Politicians are known to stretch the truth, fib a little and, yes, even lie through their teeth.

One of the greatest lies politicians tell us is that “Polls don’t matter.”

Uh, yes they do.

Obama’s favorability rating ticks higher

The Gallup Organization has released some new polling data that show President Obama’s approval rating among voters is at 53 percent. That’s not great, but it’s a lot better than where it was, say, a year or two ago.

His overall poll standing — taking averages of all the major surveys — is around 46 percent. Still not great, but not bad, either, for a second-term president heading toward the finish line.

Politicians who say “Polls don’t matter” usually say those things when they’re trailing in a campaign against the other individual. They make those statements as if to dismiss the bad news they’re getting from their hired guns. The other candidate, the one who’s leading? Why he or she thinks polls are great. They use those numbers as affirmation of the job they’re doing trying to sell whatever snake oil they’re peddling.

I’ve long ago dismissed the notion of politicians saying they “pay no attention to polls” when they’re pondering key policy decisions. My definition, politicians who want to keep doing their public service jobs, rely on voters’ views on the job they’re doing.

So, that means they must take note of what the polling data are showing.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall of the White House right now, listening to what Barack Obama is saying about the polling data. Sure, he’ll tell us he’s doing “what’s right for the country.”

He’s also doing what’s right for his standing in those polls.

 

local news

Will the City Council operate the same?

I wish I had been at City Hall this week to watch the swearing in of the new Amarillo City Council.

Then I could have seen up close how the new council is going to conduct its meetings.

Two new members took office Tuesday: Elisha Demerson in Place 1 and Randy Burkett in Place 3. The Place 4 seat will be filled by either Mark Nair or Steve Rogers, who are competing in a June 13 runoff.

Why the curiosity about the conduct of the council?

Well, Mayor Paul Harpole is returning for another two-year term. He has adopted the same formula used by previous mayors who have presided over these meetings. It’s a fascinating spectacle and if you’re in the right frame of mind when you watch it, you actually can be amused by the way the council breezes through its process of approving measures.

It goes like this: After a discussion, the mayor calls for a motion to approve. Starting usually from the far right end of the dais, the council member says “so moved.” The council member in the next chair seconds the motion. The mayor calls for a discussion. Hearing none, he calls for the vote. “All approved say ‘aye.’ All opposed say ‘no.'” It’s approved.

The second motion to approve comes from the person next to the one who made the first motion; the second then comes from the next council member. The mayor goes through the same drill. Measure approved.

And on it goes.

It’s kind of like clockwork.

I remember one time when Debra McCartt was new to the then-City Commission. She got confused about whether it was her turn to make the motion to approve an ordinance. “Is it my turn?” she asked then-Mayor Trent Sisemore. “Yes,” he said. She made the motion and all was good.

The two new council members — Demerson and Burkett — both promised “change” was coming to the council. I’m betting the third new guy, whoever it is, will echo that theme.

I’ll be waiting to see if the change upsets the normally well-oiled process that drives the City Council to quick decisions.

 

national news, political news

Dr. Carson: I wouldn't have invaded Iraq

There you have it.

The growing field of Republican presidential candidates is being sprinkled with individuals who actually are breaking with a key policy of the most recent GOP president.

Dr. Ben Carson said this week he would not have “gone into Iraq.” He said the United States could have employed other means to get rid of the late Saddam Hussein. He said the nation lacked a clear long-term strategy once Saddam had been toppled.

Carson says Iraq invasion was a mistake

“When you go into a situation with so many factions and such a complex history, unless you know what you’re doing or have a long-term strategy, it just creates more problems,” Carson told The Hill in a telephone interview.

He becomes the second major Republican figure to put daylight between himself and former President George W. Bush. The other one, more or less, was the former president’s younger brother, Jeb, who took a more awkward approach to trying to take back what he said initially in a clumsy response to a TV reporter’s direct question.

There well might be others GOP candidates who will realize the folly of going to war on what is now known to have been faulty intelligence regarding Iraq’s supposed possession of chemical weapons.

The Iraq War was a mistake. It’s good to hear Dr. Carson acknowledge as much.

I’m now waiting for former Vice President Dick Cheney — who’s been blasting Democratic officials’ criticism of the war — to weigh in against his fellow Republicans.

Well, Mr. Vice President?

 

International news

Bin Laden's death foiled huge plot against U.S.

What’s this? You mean Osama bin Laden was planning another spectacular terror attack on the United States before those SEALs blew him away in May 2011?

That might be the least surprising news to come out of the declassification and release of information from documents seized from the scene of bin Laden’s death.

It’s welcome news to know the order to kill bin Laden saved potentially more American lives.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bin-laden-bent-on-spectacular-us-attack-until-the-end-files/ar-BBk06oq

According to AFP: “Documents that were declassified on Wednesday shed new light on the mindset of Al-Qaeda’s founder, his debates over tactics, his anxiety over Western spying and his fixation with the group’s media image. ‘The focus should be on killing and fighting the American people and their representatives,’ the late Al-Qaeda figurehead wrote.”

So, he wanted to keep taking the fight to the United States.

What his followers should understand — but likely won’t ever get — is that attacks such as what occurred on 9/11 only steel Americans’ resolve. Yes, our nation was wounded seriously by the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. But it took a mere nanosecond in time for us to collect our emotions and set about the task of taking the fight straight to the terrorists who fired the first shots.

This might be a war without end. Most folks now understand that as well. Will we ever be able to kill or capture every terrorist in the world who seeks to do us harm? It’s highly unlikely.

Bin Laden and his minions only awakened us.

 

 

State news

Say 'no' to 'Tim Tebow Bill'

Tim Tebow won the Heisman Trophy while playing quarterback at the University of Florida.

His pro football career has been something, well, less than stellar. Still, he remains an icon for his off-the-field endeavors, mainly due to his faith and, get this, because he was home-schooled during his high school years.

Tebow was allowed to take part in extracurricular activities in his hometown of Jacksonville, Fla., even though he didn’t attend school in the traditional sense.

Some Texas lawmakers want the University Interscholastic League to lift its ban on home-school students taking part in extracurricular activities.

Don’t to it, UIL and the Texas Legislature.

https://www.thsc.org/about-thsc/lobby-the-texas-legislature/tim-tebow-bill/

Parents are certainly entitled to educate their children the way they see fit. If they don’t want to enroll their kids in public or private school, they can teach them at home. Millions of students are taught at home as it is.

The idea, though, of allowing home-schooled children to take part in activities in actual schools shouldn’t sit well with the parents of children who are actual students in those schools.

The Texas Home School Coalition Association notes that parents who home-school their children pay property taxes that funds school activities and, thus, are entitled to have their children partake in them.

Is it fair, though, to allow parents to cherry-pick how they reap the benefits of the taxes they pay?

They don’t want their children educated by public school teachers, but insist that they be allowed to play football (as young Tim Tebow’s parents were allowed to do), march in the band, or perform in dramatic productions?

No. Those parents have made their choice on behalf of their children.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience