Quandary awaits on Primary Election Day

1407859219000-Election-3-

I am confused about how I should vote on Texas Primary Election Day.

You know, of course, that I hate early voting. I prefer to wait until Election Day to cast my ballot. This year has proved that practice to be more essential than ever. The wackiness of the Republican primary contest has taken us to places never before seen.

But here’s my quandary.

Texas has an open primary system, meaning that voters aren’t “registered” with a political party. We go to the polling place and choose which primary we want to cast our vote. The polling judge will stamp our voting cards with “Republican” or “Democrat,” some of the time; occasionally they forget to do it.

Our polling place is at a local church. We’ll walk through the door and have to decide: Do I vote Democratic or do I vote Republican? (I won’t speak for my wife. She makes up her own mind on these things.)

My own presidential voting history is straightforward. I’ve voted in every election since 1972 and have voted Democratic every time. I flinched one year: 1976, in the race between President Ford and former Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter; I ended up voting for Carter.

Primary elections in this part of Texas, though, limit one’s options. All the local activity is on the Republican side. We have some token Democrats running for statewide office, but in Randall County — the unofficial birthplace of modern Texas Republicanism — all the local offices are decided on the GOP side.

My problem is this: Do I want to vote in the Republican primary to cast a ballot for someone other than Donald J. Trump or Rafael Edward Cruz or do I lean toward my traditional roots and vote for either Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders?

I’ve declared already that my favorite presidential candidate — of the seven people running in either party — appears to be Ohio Gov. John Kasich. He’s a grownup, a mature public official with an actual record of accomplishment. He’s also got a beating heart that he reveals with great eloquence.

Hillary Clinton also is eminently qualified — on paper — to be the next commander in chief. She’s got a solid public service record. My problem with her? I just don’t trust her completely.

I’m torn. I’m literally undecided on which way to turn when my wife and I walk into the polling place on Tuesday.

My wife wishes we could vote in both primaries; just pick the best candidate either party has to offer — and then decide between whoever wins their parties’ nominations in the fall.

She’s just as torn as I am on what to do next week.

It’s decision time. I might just have to pray about it.

I’m unlikely, though, to say openly who gets my vote. It will become apparent as we move closer toward the general election. Of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

Once more about the call center …

65401_270

It remains my hope that the Amarillo Police Department, the fire department and medical emergency services officials will spell out in detail what problems existed with the way the city’s central dispatch center was doing its job.

Interim City Manager Terry Childers’ 911 call the other day has resulted in changes to the way the call center works. The city now has assigned police officers and firefighters to work inside the call center alongside the personnel who answer calls requesting help.

Childers said the dispatcher with whom he spoke when he reported the “theft” of a briefcase at a local hotel was “uncourteous.” I’m not sure about that. I’ve listened to the recording and the dispatcher sounded cool, calm and professional.

But the changes brought immediately after the interim manager’s experience seem to suggest that something was wrong with the call center.

If so, what in the world was wrong? Can’t we get an accounting from the folks who run our police, fire and medical emergency departments on those problems? How systemic were they? Did calls go unanswered? Did anyone die as a result?

And if there were problems all along, why didn’t the city act before now?

Meanwhile, we’re left to wonder how it was that a senior city administrator would get so upset with an emergency dispatcher who he said didn’t respond appropriately — on a call involving a missing briefcase!

Some details would be welcome.

 

GOP frontrunner getting softened up for Democrats?

republican-elephant-668x501

Donald J. Trump is the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination.

I’ll concede that much.

It’s interesting, though, to listen to other Republicans tear into him. It makes me wonder — not that I’m predicting it, given the wackiness of this campaign — whether the intraparty opponents will soften him up for the Democratic candidate who might face him this fall.

Marco Rubio blasts Trump for hiring illegal immigrants to build his hotels. He calls Trump a “con man.”

Ted Cruz accuses Trump of hiring foreign workers over American workers to work in his “world-class companies.”

Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney challenges Trump to release his tax returns.

Lindsey Graham says his party has gone “bats*** crazy” by backing Trump.

It reminds me a bit of the 1988 Democratic primary campaign when Sen. Al Gore of Tennessee introduced the “Willie Horton” issue to voters, reminding them of how Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis signed off on a furlough for a prison inmate who then went on a crime rampage. Republicans seized on that theme and beat Dukakis senseless with it during the fall campaign that year.

And so it goes.

Nothing about this campaign makes conventional sense.

It might be that all this piling on only will strengthen the Republican frontrunner.

It’s making me crazy, y’all.

 

Campaign hits fever pitch … so very early

aptopix-gop-2016-trump

As we political junkies seek to make sense of that Republican presidential debate bloodbath, I’m trying to grasp the feverishness with which the media are covering this event and its immediate aftermath.

All the mainstream cable news network political reporters are frothing at the mouth over New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s endorsement of Donald J. Trump.

They’re trying to determine how U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio can ride whatever momentum he gained from the Houston dog-and-pony show with his four GOP debate mates.

Some of them were actually aghast at how Trump and Christie “tag teamed” their attacks on Rubio. Indeed, I was utterly flabbergasted as I listened to Trump ridicule Rubio in such a juvenile manner. Listen to this Republican presidential campaign frontrunner try to string sentences together.

Trump is so astonishingly inarticulate that it utterly boggles my mind how in the world we’ve come to this point in this presidential nominating process.

Others were wondering: Whatever happened to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who figures to do well in the Texas primary coming up Tuesday?

Oh yeah, no one’s talking  today about Ohio Gov. John Kasich or Dr. Ben Carson.

I guess my wonderment lies in how it’s gotten to this pitch so early in what I thought was supposed to be a marathon.

Is this what we’re going to get from now until the nominating conventions adjourn this summer? Or will this white-hot coverage continue until the election this November?

Man, oh man. I don’t know if I have the stamina to keep up with it. I might have tune this out — if only long enough to catch my breath.

And hold on to my sanity.

 

Changes come to 911 call center

12596555

Amarillo put a lot of effort — and money — into modernizing and streamlining its emergency services response center.

City officials touted it as more efficient and customer-friendly. The city remodeled and outfitted an existing downtown office complex and then launched the center that combines police, fire and medical services calls.

Then the city’s interim city manager, Terry Childers, placed a call to the center the other day to report a stolen brief case from the hotel where he was staying after returning to Amarillo on a flight from Dallas. The dispatcher responded according to a set protocol that requires her to ask a set of questions. Childers became agitated and told the dispatcher that she didn’t “know who she is dealing with”; he made that assertion even after introducing himself to the dispatcher as the city manager, which the dispatcher seemed to understand clearly.

The city has initiated some changes in the dispatch center operations. It now assigns police officers and firefighters to help oversee phone center operations. It’s no longer a civilian-only operation.

This is all fine.

But I’m wondering: Was there a serious concern among the community about response times? Has the problem — if one existed — been festering since the call center opened? Or are these changes the result of a single phone call by one highly placed individual?

I’ve listened to the audio recording of Childers’ phone call. To my ears, it sounded as though the dispatcher acted with cool professionalism. I understand that the police did arrive in a timely fashion, although I’m not sure that the cops “shut down” the hotel to search for Childers’ missing brief case, as Childers had demanded.

I hope for all the world that we aren’t witnessing an abuse of authority.

Perhaps the city should conduct a thorough public airing of the complaints and concerns that allegedly have arisen from the new dispatch center. Is there a record of gripes from citizens? If there is, do those complaints rise to a level that compels a change in the way the city responds to these emergencies?

Let’s hear it. All of it.

 

Still prefer a debate without crowd noise

GOP debate

The GOP Five are still debating on that Houston stage as I write this.

I am taking a moment to lament the circus atmosphere that these joint appearances have taken on.

Hillary and Bernie play for the same applause lines as Democrats.

Tonight, the Republican presidential candidates are engaging in a multi-pronged insult exchange aimed at bringing out the loudest cheers, hoots, shouts possible.

I wish we could return to the way it was done when these televised presidential debates first came into being.

In 1960, two men — U.S. Sen. John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon — talked to each other about the issues of the day. A moderator sat in front of them. There was no crowd noise.

The upshot of it? We remember the substance of the debates those two men had. We also remember some of the “optics,” such as at the first debate when Sen. Kennedy appeared robust and Vice President Nixon appeared to have pulled himself out of a sick bed.

The crowd noise is a distraction and it provokes the kinds of exchanges we’re hearing tonight.

 

Honeymoon might be over

childers

Amarillo’s honeymoon with its interim city manager might have hit a rocky stretch of road.

City Manager Terry Childers placed a call to the city’s central dispatch center to report an alleged theft of his briefcase. The dispatcher who took the call sought to follow a protocol that all dispatchers are required to follow. She asked Childers a series of questions: phone number, location, etc. The city manager, though, became agitated at having to answer those questions and demanded that the city send several police officers immediately to the hotel from where he was calling.

https://soundcloud.com/johnstevens-99466989/terry-childers-911

The recorded conversation is contained in the link attached to this blog post.

Perhaps the most troubling element of the conversation that Childers had with the dispatcher was when he told her “I don’t think you’re aware of who you’re dealing with.” The inference clearly was, “I am the city manager and you will do what I demand … or else.”

The dispatcher told Childers she would send someone as soon as possible. Childers said that wasn’t good enough and he said he intended to “shut down” the hotel and search it from top to bottom until he found his briefcase.

I guess my question is this: Would any “ordinary citizen” be allowed to make such demands on public emergency services personnel?

I think not.

As I listened to the recording, the dispatcher appeared to be doing her job by the book.

I am willing to give both sides the benefit of the doubt, but I do believe some explanation is in order.

 

Political bloodbath on tap?

rs-trump-cruz

Five men are set to stand on a debate stage tonight in Houston.

Two of them are likely to unsheathe the long knives to use on each other.

A third man, the frontrunner, also is going to be a target.

Candidates No. 4 and 5?  I just hope they get to get a word in edge-wise.

Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio want to elbow each other out of the way to become the Republican Party “establishment” alternative to Donald J. Trump. For Cruz, the Houston debate has been called his “last stand,” or kind of an Alamo reference.

Rubio faces other obstacles, with polls showing him trailing Trump in his home state of Florida.

I continue to root for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who’s the fourth-place candidate — but the one who exhibits the most executive and legislative government experience. He’s a grownup, but in this election cycle, political adulthood isn’t seen as a plus. Too bad.

The fifth man on the stage? I sense that this likely will be Dr. Ben Carson’s last bow on the national political stage.

So, let’s watch the debate tonight and see how much “blood” gets spilled.

My sense is that it’s going to be a serious spectator-friendly event.

 

No guns on these campuses

guns on campus

Every so often you hear public officials say things that make you want to stand and cheer.

The brand new head of the Amarillo Independent School District administration today said one of those things. I wanted to stand and cheer. I kept my seat and remained quiet.

Superintendent Dana West declared that the school district has “no plans” to allow teachers or other staff members to carry guns on any of the district’s campuses.

You go, Mme. Superintendent!

She told a Rotary Club of Amarillo luncheon gathering at the Amarillo Club that the only people who’ll be packing heat on campuses throughout AISD are the liaison officers assigned to work at various campuses by the Amarillo Police Department. The trained law enforcement officers will be carrying weapons. Not teachers. Not principals.

The issue comes up every time there’s a school shooting. Individuals and groups across the nation issue the call to let qualified teachers carry guns so they can stop the shooter in their tracks. More guns creates a safer environment, they say.

West apparently doesn’t see it that way.

She said that when teachers and students have “good relations,” the chances are good that the students are going to tattle on fellow students who might be up to mischief.

She didn’t say it, but I only can presume that the mischief might include guns.

That’s where the police liaison officers come in.

Let highly trained police officers handle whatever might occur on campus, whether it’s a student or an intruder intent on doing harm.

As another leading educator told me, “We’re dealing with human beings and everyone has good days and bad days. Do we really want a kid who’s having a really bad day trying to get a gun from a teacher?”

Uhhh. No.

 

Timing determines ‘lame duck’ status

lame-duck

I’ve noted before the importance of timing.

Perhaps it might have something — or everything — to do with the kerfuffle that’s consumed Washington, D.C., over President Obama’s upcoming attempt to fill a critical vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s untimely death created a political earthquake within minutes of the announcement that he had succumbed at a West Texas ranch. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, master of proper decorum that he is, declared about an hour later that the Senate would block any nominee that Obama would present for confirmation.

Other Republicans, namely the candidates for president, called Obama a “lame duck” and said the task of filling the vacancy belongs to the next president — who he or she is.

A reader of this blog commented on an earlier post that the president really isn’t a lame duck. He didn’t lose re-election in 2012, the commenter noted. Given that he won, he implied, the president is entitled to fulfill all the duties granted to his office by the U.S. Constitution.

Which brings up a question: Would we be waging this political fire fight had Justice Scalia died during the first year of President Obama’s second — and final — term rather than in the final year?

Surely the president’s foes wouldn’t suggest in early 2013 that filling a critical vacancy on the court — the next pick, after all, is likely to change the philosophical balance — should belong to the next president. The court would be short a justice for the next three years … maybe longer.

As it stands now, if McConnell and Gang succeed in blocking the president’s choice for the high court, the Supreme Court could be short a member until next summer. The court adjourns in June and won’t resume its duties until October 2017.

Hey, what difference does it make, correct? So what if the narrowly conservative court is short a member for the next 18 months?

McConnell showed his hand very early during Barack Obama’s time as president. He vowed to make Obama a “one-term president.” That, he said, would be his top priority as then-minority leader.

He failed to accomplish that mission, so he’s settling for the next-best thing by denying the president the opportunity to ensure the nation’s highest judicial panel remains whole.

Timing. Sometimes it really stinks.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience