Has the '18 governor's race begun … already?

Erica Greider, writing for Texas Monthly, may be onto something.

She thinks it’s possible that the 2018 race for Texas governor might formulating not quite a month into the current governor’s first term.

Her clue? Two aspects relating to Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

One is that Gov. Abbott has a lot of campaign cash stashed away. Indeed, he kept raising boatloads of money long after it was understood by everyone in Texas that he would be elected in a landslide over Democratic challenger Wendy Davis.

Two is that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick isn’t shy — as he demonstrated by challenging incumbent David Dewhurst in 2014 — about poking the establishment in the eye.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/brace-yourselves

She also believes Land Commissioner George P. Bush isn’t going to languish forever in his office and he might want to run for governor as well.

All three of them are Republicans. Abbott, of course, is in the driver’s seat. However, by my way of thinking, Patrick is going to pressure him to the right to ensure that he follows the TEA party agenda that Patrick is formulating as he runs the state Senate. I was intrigued, for example, by the team of ad hoc citizen advisers he formed, several of whom have TEA party connections.

Greider also notes one more potential rising political star. Too bad he’s a Democrat. That would be U.S. Housing Secretary Julian Castro, the former mayor of San Antonio. Texas Democrats get all hot and bothered when his name comes up as a possible candidate for governor.

Well, Wendy Davis had the same impact on Democrats when she announced her candidacy for the 2014 race. She flamed out.

The political tide continues to pull Texas politicians hard to the right. Politicians such as Patrick are preaching the state’s electoral choir. Greg Abbott hears it, too.

If the governor doesn’t mind his P’s and Q’s during the next, oh, three-plus years, he is going to get a challenge from within his party. And as Texas Republicans have shown they are able to do — e.g., Ted Cruz beating Dewhurst for the U.S. Senate, and Patrick knocking Dewhurst out of his lieutenant governor’s office — I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to see another GOP knockdown battle in 2018.

 

Mitt is out; eyes now turn to Jeb

Jeb Bush’s worst nightmare may have come true with Mitt Romney’s decision to forgo a run for the presidency in 2016.

With Mitt out of the picture, that puts the frontrunner’s bulls-eye on Jeb’s back.

It’s not going to be fun running from the front, according to Matt Latimer, writing for Politico.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/mitt-romney-gop-2016-114787.html?hp=c2_3#.VM6ns1J0yt8

Indeed, we’re beginning to get just a taste of what lies ahead for Bush. Stories about his partying, alleged bullying and an apparent disinterest in all things political at the fancy prep school he attended are starting to surface.

Not that it’s a deal-breaker, mind you. To my mind, it paints this son of a wealthy, patrician family as a fairly normal guy — sort of the way his big brother, George W., behaved when he was going through the same period in his life. W’s life got a bit more twisted along the way, what with alcohol abuse — but he straightened out in time to be elected governor of Texas in 1994 and to be elected president of the United States in 2000.

Jeb’s probable run for the presidency next year will face similar obstacles. But now he’s the apparent frontrunner and he’s got some fiery foes breathing heavily to catch him.

Romney would have been one of them, given his own penchant for going for the throat (see Newt Gingrich in the 2012 GOP nomination campaign).

Sure, Mitt is out of the picture, so that saves Jeb Bush from suffering from Mitt’s slings and arrows.

However, he’s going to take some serious hits from the bevy of other contenders seeking a shot at the spotlight.

Be careful of what you seek, Jeb. It might find you.

 

A great man passes on

Greatness is measured in many ways.

I like to measure someone’s greatness by the way they respond to being reminded of it.

Gene Edwards died this morning. He lived in Amarillo with his wife, Elaine. He was a great man who I loved dearly.

My wife and I were sitting in church this morning when our pastor informed the congregation of Gene’s passing. I gasped. No, I wasn’t surprised. We had known he’d been ill for some time. We spoke with his wife the previous week and she told us he wasn’t doing well.

Gene accomplished a lot in his long and rich life. He was a successful banker who had earned a law degree. I don’t think he practiced much law. He came to Amarillo and got into the banking business.

Our paths crossed initially long after he had retired from banking, but we would see him and Elaine regularly at our church. We had acquired some knowledge over the years about the things Gene had done and the careers he had launched.

He was humble and faithful.

Our son moved to Amarillo right after graduating from college in late 1995. My wife and I had been looking for a church home. We found one at First Presbyterian, where we made Gene and Elaine’s acquaintance. Our son would start attending church there as well.

One day, I had the pleasure of introducing our son to Gene. I said, “Gene, this is Peter, my son. Peter, this is one of Amarillo’s truly great men, Gene Edwards.” Gene became a bit flustered. He shook my son’s hand, we exchanged some small talk and pleasantries and went our separate ways.

Later that afternoon, the phone rang. It was Gene. He called me to thank me for the introduction I made when he and our son met.

He thanked me.

That is the first — and likely final — time anyone’s ever done that.

Therein lies a key measure of Gene Edwards’s greatness.

What a man.

 

Second thoughts on 'scum' comment

We’re all entitled to having second thoughts, aren’t we?

I put a tweet out there a few days ago in response to Sen. John McCain’s angry comment at protesters who were holding up signs while several former secretaries of state were testifying before McCain’s Senate Armed Services Committee.

He called them “low-life scum.” I said they were entitled to protest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/02/01/mccain-im-still-outraged-by-kissinger-protesters-at-hearing/?tid=sm_tw

Well, McCain’s anger was justified in one important sense.

One of the former diplomats they were accosting in the hearing room was 91-year-old Henry Kissinger, who served Presidents Nixon and Ford and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating an end to the Vietnam War. Also testifying with Kissinger were Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice.

Yes, the demonstrators had a right to protest. They should have demonstrated at least a bit of decorum and kept their distance from Kissinger, Rice and Albright. Kissinger in particular was actually threatened physically by the demonstrators, who were carrying signs that declared Kissinger to be a “war criminal.”

McCain made no apologies for his outburst. In retrospect, I wouldn’t have apologized, either.

“Of course, I was outraged, and I’m still outraged. It’s one thing to stand up and protest. It’s another to physically threaten an individual,” Chairman McCain said.

You were right to be angry, Mr. Chairman.

 

Condemnations pouring out over latest ISIL atrocity

President Obama called it “heinous.” Secretary of State John Kerry called it “barbaric.” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called it a “cruel and despicable act of terrorism.”

The object of this worldwide scorn once again is the Islamic State, which reportedly beheaded a captured Japanese journalist supposedly in “retaliation” for Japan’s assistance in the international fight against these terrorist monsters.

http://thehill.com/policy/international/231381-kerry-isis-killing-of-journalist-barbaric

Kenji Goto was murdered because Japan has been sending food and medical supplies to assist the international coalition and to lend aid to those who are suffering from the violence in Iraq and Syria, where ISIL is conducting its reign of terror and destruction.

Japan’s hands are tied in this fight, given that its government is sworn by the treaty it signed at the end of World War II that prohibits it from deploying armed forces overseas. Japan maintains a stout military for national defense purposes only. And that’s an understandable caveat that the Allies placed on Japan, given its own history of ruthlessness and, um, barbarism during WWII.

However, none of that excuses for an instant the fate that apparently befell Kenji Goto and Huruna Yakawa — who was beheaded earlier.

All of this insane ghoulishness only requires that we maintain the fight against these monstrous agents of evil.

ISIL’s appetite for barbarism stretches one’s ability to describe it in strong enough language. Heinous, despicable, barbaric, cruel? Yes, all of those are true, but they don’t go far enough. I’m at a loss to find the appropriate description to hang on these monsters.

They need to die. A painful and excruciating death would suit many of us just fine.

 

Mrs. Obama defends 'Sniper'

Michelle Obama has taken a stand in support of a controversial film about a heart-wrenching subject.

Good for her.

She came to the defense this week of “American Sniper,” the film about the late Navy SEAL sharpshooter Chris Kyle, saying the film deals squarely with the emotional heartache felt by combat veterans and their families.

First lady defends ‘American Sniper’

Mrs. Obama didn’t go after some of the critics of the film directly, although she well could have done so; perhaps she should have done so. But whatever her intention, she made a salient point about the film’s theme and the emotions it has brought to those who have seen it.

She said: “I felt that, more often than not, this film touches on many of the emotions and experiences that I’ve heard firsthand from military families over these past few years.”

Indeed, she and Jill Biden, the vice president’s wife, have made the care of veterans and their families a hallmark of their tenure during the Obama administration and both of these women deserve to be applauded for the attention they have given to this important matter.

As for the criticism of the film — notably by filmmaker Michael Moore — much of it has bordered on the ridiculous. Moore, of course, referred to snipers as “cowards.” He knows nothing of which he spoke on this matter, but his comments got considerable play anyway — I suppose because of his celebrity status and his previous tangles with political conservatives over an array of other issues.

I believe the first lady has put the film in its proper perspective and that should stand as a more credible assessment of a gripping story of triumph, struggle and immense emotional heartache.

 

Rep. White: profile in cowardice

Texas state Rep. Molly White has conducted a shameful demonstration of cowardice.

The Belton Republican posted a message on her Facebook page for all Muslims gathering in Austin for Texas Muslim Capital Day to “pledge allegiance” to the United States and to renounce Islamic terrorism. The message provoked a strong counter protest against what otherwise have been another seemingly quiet demonstration of solidarity by one of the state’s many constituent groups.

And then she wasn’t even in the State Capitol to stand and speak for herself about why she chose to ignite the hateful counter demonstrations.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/29/rep-staff-ask-muslim-visitors-pledge-allegiance/

The counter protests revealed a quite ugly side of human nature. I won’t suggest for a minute it’s reserved for Texans only. Those who shouted epithets at their fellow Texans — the Muslims who were seeking only to have an audience with legislators — demonstrated pure hate.

Let’s understand something about people of all faiths.

No one faith is “evil.” It can be perverted, twisted and molded into something not recognizable by the authors of the holy book its followers read. That holds true for those who read the Old Testament, the New Testament or the Quran.

What the counter protesters revealed was pure ignorance by shouting down the Muslims gathered at the State Capitol. Their sole intent, as I understood it, was to assemble peaceably — a right that the Constitution of the United States grants them as citizens of this great country.

And where was the provocateur? She was back home in Belton.

What a disgrace.

Another hero leaves this world

Edward Saylor was a hero. The real thing.

He was one of just four survivors of one of the most daring military acts of all time. He took part in the famous Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in April, 1942.

Lt. Col. Saylor was 94 when he died this week at his home in Sumner, Wash.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/1-of-4-remaining-world-war-ii-doolittle-raiders-dies-at-94/ar-AA8KsWN

There just are three men left who served on that mission. It was bold, brash and fraught with peril.

The Japanese had attacked U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor just four months earlier. President Roosevelt and the Pentagon brass were reeling as the Japanese were marching through Asia and the Pacific. They needed to do something — anything — to rattle the enemy. So they came up with a plan.

Why not load some U.S. Army Air Corps B-25 bombers aboard an aircraft carrier — the USS Hornet — strip them down to just the fuel and the bombs they need, teach the pilots how to launch a land-based bomber off a floating carrier deck and then have that squadron of planes drop its ordnance on targets in Japan? Lt. Col. James Doolittle would command the raid.

Edward Saylor served as a flight engineer-gunner aboard one of those planes.

He completed the mission at great risk, completed 28 more years in the Air Force before retiring and lived a long and happy life.

He received the Medal of Honor for his supreme bravery.

Sadly, he is just one more of a diminishing number of The Greatest Generation who went off to war to defeat tyranny. Of the 16 million or so men and women who served in World War II, fewer than 2 million are left. They are dying at a rapid rate daily.

Those of us who came up after them owe these men and women everything.

Rest in peace, Lt. Col. Saylor.

Thank you.

 

It's all Bibi's fault for U.S.-Israel misunderstanding

The relationship between President Barack Obama and Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu has taken a turn for the worse.

Why? Well, it turns out Bibi didn’t talk Barack to advise him of an invitation he got to speak to the U.S. Congress, courtesy of House Speaker John Boehner.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/ron-dermer-john-boehner-israel-white-house-114771.html?hp=r1_3

He owed the president a phone call, observers have said. He didn’t make the call and accepted the invitation. The White House is fuming. I cannot blame the folks at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Now it turns out the Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer is saying it wasn’t his fault. He did everything by the book.

The invitation and its resulting tension between Obama and Netanyahu has become a major back story behind the out front story: the effort to impose sanctions on Iran while the U.S. and other powers are trying to negotiate a settlement that ends Iran’s nuclear program. The Obama administration opposes the sanctions — at this time. Boehner and Netanyahu want to impose them, so Boehner asked Bibi to make his case publicly before a joint congressional session next month.

Gosh, is it any wonder the Obama administration is torqued out of shape over this?

The speaker of the House has made a mess of this by sidestepping the White House. The Israeli prime minister has become an accomplice to this messiness by accepting an invitation that shouldn’t have come to him in the first place.

Mr. Boehner, we have only one president at a time. And it isn’t you.

 

Mitt won't run! Oh, darn

What? Mitt Romney has decided against running for president in 2016?

I’m crushed, I’ll tell ya. Crushed!

I was hoping against hope that Mitt would make a third go of it, trying to make up for the mistakes he made in the 2012 campaign. Believer as I am in redemption, Mitt was the perfect guy to try to right what he do so terribly wrong.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitt-romney-decides-against-running-for-president-again-in-2016/ar-AA8M4tR

Now he tells supporters he wants to clear the decks for “new leadership,” that the Republican Party doesn’t want to hear from him in 2016.

I’ll honor his decision. My trick knee tells me Ann Romney had a lot to say about it. She had said “no way” to a third run for the White House many months ago. I didn’t think Mitt could persuade her to change her mind. Hey, they’ve been married a while and I’m sure Mitt knows how hard it is to change his wife’s mind once she makes a declarative public statement.

A Romney candidacy would have set up a bruising battle among the “establishment wing” of the Republican Party, pitting him against, say, Jeb Bush and maybe John Kasich in the fight to win over the more reasonable GOP faithful.

Bush is more likely now to run with Mitt out of the way, so it’ll be Jeb vs. The TEA Party wing of the GOP, which at the moment seems to comprise a much larger number of combatants.

Oh well. Thanks for teasing us, Mitt.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience