local news, State news

Gov. Perry sounds bipartisan note? Wow!

Why do politicians do this? They campaign for office as tough partisans, govern the same way and then, as they prepare to leave office, sound like the Great Compromiser in Chief.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry took his turn at the farewell podium this week as he said so long to the Texas Legislature. He’s leaving office, having served as governor seemingly since The Flood.

He’ll likely run for president of the United States — again! — in 2016.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/15/farewell-speech-perry-encourage-compromise/

But his Austin swan song, in the minds of some of who heard, sounded like a “campaign speech.”

Perry told legislators: “There is room for different voices, for disagreement … Compromise is not a dirty word if it moves Texas forward.”

Some Democrats thought the Republican governor’s speech took a surprising turn, given that he often dug in his heels at Democratic initiatives during his umpteen years in office.

One comment stands out as I read reports of his speech. It was his support of drug treatment diversion programs as an alternative to jail time for non-violent drug offenders. “We must remember when it comes to the disease of addiction, the issue is not helping bad people become good, but sick people become well,” he said. “Turning to diversion programs hasn’t made us soft on crime. It’s made us smart on crime.”

That sounds like a ringing endorsement of drug courts, such as the one started in the Panhandle by 181st District Judge John Board.

Well, the speech is over. Perry is cleaning out his office. He’s heading back onto the campaign trail soon. One of his first post-governorship stops will be in Iowa, where he’ll attend a conservative political forum hosted by TEA party Republican firebrand U.S. Rep. Steve King.

I’m guessing he won’t sound so conciliatory there.

Still, thanks for the good words, governor.

 

local news

Making the case for public education

1 Comment

An Amarillo public school teacher has been named one of four finalists for National Teacher of the Year.

Her name is Shanna Peeples, who teaches advanced placement English at Palo Duro High School.

She made an important statement today in accepting the honor of representing Texas at the national competition.

http://agntv.amarillo.com/news/pd-teacher-named-national-teacher-year-finalist

It was a statement honoring public education and the teachers who are entrusted with the task of educating public school students.

Let me reiterate the importance of “public education.” This is the system that is financed by you and me. We pay the freight. We finance this valuable contribution to the state’s future. It is our responsibility to ensure that public education is the best it can be and it produces students who we hope will grow up to the best they can be.

In the interest of full disclosure, I worked with Shanna for a time when we both were employed by the same company, the Amarillo Globe-News. She was a marvelous reporter and writer during her time at the newspaper and she has become — as the honors that have come her way have demonstrated — a tremendous educator.

She represents the very best in all of us, those who proudly support our public schools.

We should be proud of Shanna — and of all the great public educators who work on our behalf.

 

 

national news, political news

Terrorists compared to American patriots

You shouldn’t have gone there, Dr. Ben Carson.

No sir. You should not have compared the Islamic State terrorists — the monstrous demons who behead people in public — to the brave warriors who fought against British tyranny to create the United States of America.

That’s what you did, Doc, when you said: “They got the wrong philosophy, but they’re willing to die for what they believe, while we are busily giving away every belief and every value for the sake of political correctness.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ben-carson-likens-islamic-state-to-american-patriots/ar-AA8dMf7

That statement might have stood on its own, Dr. Carson, but you had prefaced it by saying American revolutionary patriots also were willing to die for their cause.

Perhaps a better comparison, Doc, would have been that kamikaze pilots flying for the Japanese Empire were willing to “die for their beliefs” as they flew their aircraft into American warships during World War II.

What you’ve done, sir, is juxtapose a cherished American ideal — the fight for liberty, freedom and individual dignity — with monstrous acts, crimes against humanity.

I understand, Dr.Carson, that you are pondering a run for the presidency in 2016. Conservatives adore your ideology and they hang on your words. I appreciate as well your intelligence and obvious brilliance as a leading neurosurgeon and medical scholar.

But just as that goofy Texas congressman, Randy Weber, erred in comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler in a tweet — for which he later sort of apologized — you have mixed two radically different examples of why people lay down their lives for causes in which they believe.

 

 

national news

What about the 'Three Rs' in South Carolina?

South Carolina legislators want to teach public school students there a lesson about the Constitution. They want also to require teachers spend three weeks each school year teaching students about the Second Amendment, the one that deals with gun ownership.

Three weeks on one amendment to the nation’s founding document?

And it’s the one dealing with guns?

What kind of craziness is occurring over yonder in the Palmetto State?

South Carolina Law Would Make Kids Study Second Amendment for 3 Weeks Every Year

Take a look at this: “As Ian Millhiser at Think Progress points out, that’s an enormous chunk of the school year, especially given that some South Carolina schools devote just two weeks to slavery and a week and a half to World War II.”

OK, that comes from Mother Jones, a publication not exactly friendly to the issues favored by the National Rifle Association. But Millhiser makes a good point about educational priorities.

Republican South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has an A+ NRA rating. Both legislative chambers are controlled by Republicans. Of course, the Second Amendment is arguably the favorite amendment among the GOP, right along with the 10th, which lays out powers that states can assume when they aren’t covered by the federal government.

South Carolina’s public school students don’t need to be required to study one amendment — even if it’s the one that allows Americans to “keep and bear arms.”

That’s more important than the that guarantees free speech and freedom of religion? Or the one that guarantees all citizens “equal protection” under federal law?

As Mother Jones reports: “‘Even amongst a conservative constituency in South Carolina, I think they can rate that they have more abiding problems than this,’ says Dave Woodard, a political science professor at Clemson University who’s long served as a political consultant to Republican candidates in South Carolina.

“‘Most people are more concerned with math and science, and the fact that historically, South Carolina’s rankings in education have been abysmal. Nobody, I think, would say ‘The best way to improve education is to have a three-week segment on the Second Amendment. Boy, that’ll move us up in the national rankings!'”

The idea is nutty.

 

State news, Uncategorized

Texas Democrat talking bravely

Marc Veasey can be forgiven for speaking with utmost hope about the future of his political party.

The young state representative retains a youthful exuberance when he says he remains hopeful that the Texas Democratic Party is going to come back … eventually … some day.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/15/veasey-democrats-abbott-davis/

Let’s hope he’s not holding his breath. He’ll need to be resuscitated if he’s waiting for Democrats’ return to ascendancy.

I share his hope. I, too, want to see the Democratic Party revived in Texas. Republicans have too much power. They own every statewide office there is. I’ve long been leery of one-party domination. It breeds arrogance — no matter which party is in control.

Veasey told the Texas Tribune: “There’s no question about the fact that for Democrats, Texas is a tough place. It just is,” he said. “It seems like the Republicans are winning everything, but things are changing.”

Those “things” are demographics. The state has a growing minority population, comprising primarily Hispanics who tend to vote Democratic. The problem, however, remains in the dismal voter turnout.

The 2014 mid-term election was supposed to signal a turning point for Democrats. It didn’t. Wendy Davis got thumped in her campaign for governor, as did Leticia Van de Putte, the party’s nominee for lieutenant governor. All the way down the ballot the result was the same for Democratic candidates.

What’s the solution? How does the Democratic Party restore itself? How does the state become competitive and how do Democrats become capable of challenging standard Republican TEA party orthodoxy that seems to be ruling supreme in Texas?

Rep. Veasey says the party apparatus shouldn’t just wait for the demographic shift to put Democrats over the top. Well, given the party’s lack of success to date, that might be the only option left — particularly if Republicans keep promoting anti-immigration measures that work against their own efforts at party expansion.

 

national news

Huckabee turns into a goofball

Honest to goodness, I never thought of Mike Huckabee as a right-wing goofball — until just a couple of days ago.

Maybe I missed the warning signs. He went wildly off the rails, though, with some kind of weird critique of President and Mrs. Obama’s parenting skills. Former President Carter came to the Obamas’ defense. Huckabee, who left his job at Fox News to explore another run for the Republican presidential nomination, needs an intervention … maybe.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/jimmy-carter-defends-obamas-parenting-wake-huckabee-attack

The former Arkansas governor and one-time Baptist preacher said the Obamas deserve criticism because — hold on, now — they let their daughters listen to BeyoncĂ©. President Carter, who also has some credibility as a man of deep religious faith, said the “president is doing a good job” raising his daughters in the fish-bowl environment in which the family is living.

The first daughters, Malia and Sasha, are being poisoned by their exposure to BeyoncĂ©’s raunchy lyrics and her dance moves, which Huckabee says are more appropriate “in the bedroom.”

Huck did offer a tepid disclaimer to the blistering he gave the first couple when he said they are “are excellent and exemplary parents in many ways.” Ah yes, “in many ways.”

That’s like saying, “I love that death, but …” Without fail, whatever comes after the word “but” is going to drop the hammer with a negative assertion of some sort.

The Obama daughters are growing up to be fine young women, just as the Bush twins — Barbara and Jenna — have done and just as virtually all children who come of age while living in the White House have done.

Stick to public policy, Rev. Huckabee, particularly if you’re going to run for president of the United States of America — again.

 

national news, political news

'Spunk' drives Obama's poll spike? Perhaps

Polls are fun to follow. I do so regularly.

The most interesting and authoritative poll is actually a compilation of public opinion surveys. RealClearPolitics.com compiles the results and publishes a running average of all the polls. The key subject of these polls is President Obama’s approval ratings.

Lately, they’re going up … significantly.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/14/obamas_new_spunk_lifted_ratings_white_house_says.html

As of this morning, the president has earned a rating of just less than 45 percent of Americans who approve of the way he’s doing his job.

Two quick points about these findings.

(1) They belie the notion that Obama’s poll numbers are “plummeting, skidding, spiraling downward” or whatever nasty verb the right-wing media keep using to describe his standing among Americans.

(2) White House aides believe the polls reflect his newfound “spunk” in dealing with the loyal opposition that now controls both legislative houses of the U.S. Congress. I agree with that, to a point. I think they reflect Americans’ continuing distrust of Congress, whose approval rating is still languishing at around 14 percent, according to RealClearPolitics’ poll average.

Juxtaposed with Congress’s dismal standing among Americans, the president is looking pretty good.

What does all this mean for the future? My strong hunch is that it means Congress needs to govern more and obstruct less. Believe it or not, view is that Americans actually want their federal government to work for them. It takes cooperation between the two governing branches — the White House and Capitol Hill.

Pay attention, folks.

 

national news, political news

GOP plays with fire over immigration

When you play with fire, the saying goes, you’re going to get burned.

So, what has the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives done right out of the chute? It has voted to defund President Obama’s executive order that seeks to reform the nation’s immigration policy.

Which voting bloc is most interested in this activity? Why, I do believe it’s the Hispanic voter, the very folks that Republicans say they need if they have any hope of winning the White House in the 2016 election.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/229469-house-votes-to-defund-obamas-immigration-orders

Why, then, the interest among those Americans? Well, the immigration-related executive order seeks to delay the deportation of about 5 million illegal immigrants. No, they can’t vote. But they have a lot of supporters among Hispanic American citizens who do vote and those individuals are likely to remember what the House of Representatives and the Senate — which also is in GOP hands — will seek to do to Obama’s order.

The GOP has done a two-fer. They defunded the deportation plan. In a second vote, they decided to take the teeth out of the DACA provision. DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and it sought to delay deportation of children who came here illegally, either by their parents or those who were part of that mass migration across our southern border.

There well might be hell to pay if Republicans insist on these tough measures.

Is the president going soft on illegal immigration? Of course not. The Obama administration has set deportation records left and right for the past six years. The president, though, intends to start improving the system while allowing those who are here illegally some time to apply for legal resident status or become U.S. citizens.

Republicans are having none of it.

It will cost them.

Dearly.

 

 

International news, local news, political news

Politics determines ambassador picks

CNN White House reporter Jim Acosta wanted to know whether a campaign “bundler” for President Obama is the best person to represent the United States at its embassy in Paris.

Well, what difference does it make? Ambassadorships are political prizes. Always have been. Republican presidents dole out these gifts and so do Democratic presidents.

Acosta’s question came while wondering whether U.S. Ambassador to France Jane Hartley questioned the White House about the “optics” that might occur if we didn’t send a high-ranking emissary to the unity rally.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/13/cnns_acosta_asks_earnest_about_campaign_bundler_ambassador_to_france_is_she_the_best_weve_got.html

Then came the query about Hartley’s role as someone who gathered up campaign cash from contributors to the Obama campaign; she and her husband had hosted a high-dollar campaign dinner at their New York home for conributors, which apparently earned her an ambassadorial appointment to Paris.

With few exceptions, ambassadorships go to political allies and those who have contributed tangibly to the winning presidential candidate’s political effort.

Take the time George W. Bush appointed the late Teel Bivins to be our ambassador to Sweden. Was the state senator from Amarillo an expert on Sweden? Did he have keen insight into the geopolitical relationship between the nations? No on both counts.

He was a longtime friend of the Bush family and he worked tirelessly to get President Bush elected in 2000.

Thus, he got himself a ticket to Stockholm.

I wish it weren’t that way. Jane Hartley is no different than the vast majority of ambassadors representing this country at overseas posts.

This issue, though, does make me wonder: What does someone have to do to get an ambassadorial appointment to a hellhole of a country?

 

national news, political news, Uncategorized

Mitt now aims to fight poverty

Chris Matthews is loud, abrasive and occasionally rude on his TV talk show.

He’s also smart, shrewd and insightful when he delivers political commentary.

Matthews cannot believe that Mitt Romney can run for president a third time as an advocate for poor Americans, noting that in 2012 Romney was a champion for the “1 percent” of richest Americans while saying that the 47 percent, the poor folks, “are takers.”

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/romney-to-focus-on-fighting-poverty-383924291861?CID=SM_FB

He wonders how Mitt can change his tune so dramatically and rapidly from his previous presidential campaign and get away with it. Will it sell to voters who remember the self-deportation talk, the spontaneous offer to wager a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, references to “the illegals”?

I’ve got a name for Matthews to ponder: George H.W. Bush.

Let’s flash back to 1980. Former Gov. Ronald Reagan had sewn up the Republican presidential nomination. He began looking around for a running mate. He toyed with the idea of picking former President Ford to be on his ticket; the former president said “no.” Then he turned to George Bush, who ran against Reagan in the GOP primaries.

One little problem, though. Bush was a noted supporter of organizations such as Planned Parenthood. He voted routinely, while a member of Congress in the 1960s, for legislation that funded contraception and other family planning programs. His nickname in the House of Representatives was “Rubbers.”

But the GOP nominee in 1980 needed to run on a strong pro-life platform. Would “Rubbers” agree to switch his view on abortion if he ran? You bet he would. And he did.

George Bush took the phone call from Ronald Reagan. He got the offer to run. He said “yes,” and transformed immediately — as in right then and there — from a pro-choice Republican to a pro-life Republican.

The Reagan-Bush ticket won in a historic landslide.

Can Mitt make a similar switcheroo? Absolutely.

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience