All posts by kanelis2012

Uncategorized

HRC fires another 'campaign' salvo

Hillary Rodham Clinton ventured to the city of my birth and delivered what sounds to me like yet another shot in her still-to-be-announced campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Speaking to the World Affairs Council of Oregon in Portland, Clinton said the current no-compromise political climate in Washington has hurt the United States.

Gee, do you think?

http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2014/04/hillary_clinton_tells_portland.html#incart_river_default

She’s saying far more than the obvious, of course. “Don’t vote for people who proudly tell you they won’t compromise,” she said to the crowd that jammed the hall to hear her words.

Indeed, Americans have gotten an overdose of what happens when zealots place their hands on the controls of government … which is that government stops working. They don’t know how to operate the levers. They refuse to listen to other points of view. They cannot bend for fear of breaking. They believe their way is the right way and other guys’ view will doom the country to, well, a miserable future.

Clinton is married to a man who knew how to compromise when he served as the 42nd president of the United States. Bill Clinton famously enacted the strategy called “triangulation,” in which he played both extremes — left and right — against each other to come up with policies that tracked more or less down the middle.

Indeed, the nation’s greatest legislators of the past 100 years or so knew “compromise” isn’t a four-letter word. They worked well with legislators on the other side: Ted Kennedy, Bob Dole, Hubert Humphrey, Everett Dirksen, Sam Rayburn, Mark Hatfield, Lyndon Johnson, the list can go on for a long time, but you get my drift.

My strong sense as well is that Clinton well might have included the current president in the “no compromise” category of modern politicians. Barack Obama blames Republicans for refusing to bend; the GOP fires back with some credibility that the president is afflicted with the same malady.

OK, so Clinton has said she’s “thinking about” running for president in two years. Duh!

Let’s prepare for a lot more of these kinds of talks from the former secretary of state and U.S. senator.

Uncategorized

Blade Runner testimony tough to hear

1 Comment

Sitting thousands of miles away and only knowing about a case from I see on TV, I’m in no position to judge whether Oscar Pistorius is guilty of murdering his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.

But oh man, it is tough listening to him testify in his own defense.

Pistorius, for those who’ve just landed from Mars, is the South African double amputee sprinter who competed in the 2012 London Olympics. He didn’t medal, but he won over a lot of hearts by competing with speedy men with two healthy legs. He earned the nickname “Blade Runner” because he runs on medal prostheses shaped like blades.

Then came the incident in which is girlfriend, a gorgeous model, was shot to death in the apartment the two of them shared. Pistorius said he thought Steenkamp was an intruder and shot through a bathroom door thinking he was taking out a criminal. He opened the door, he said, and discovered Reeva lying there dead.

Prosecutors say the couple had a huge argument and Pistorius ended it by shooting Steenkamp to death in a fit of rage.

The courtroom testimony has been riveting at times. The most dramatic of it has come from Pistorius himself. He has sobbed loudly while telling the court he loved the girl he shot. South African trial law allows defendants to be kept off camera while they’re testifying. Pistorius has not been shown sobbing. However, the camera shows family members sitting there, wiping tears away and embracing each other. It also shows Steenkamp’s family and you wonder what is going through their minds.

Perhaps the most interesting analysis has come from ESPN, which has noted that the prosecutor — who has been relentless in his questioning of Pistorius — runs the risk of turning him into a sympathetic character.

The sound of his crying on the stand has gotten to this long-distance observer, yours truly.

Then again, I’m a softie.

This is tough to watch, but I can’t turn away.

Uncategorized

Staffer quits, boss stays on the job

I can’t let this one pass.

The married female staff member who was caught making out with a married Louisiana congressman has been “taken off the payroll” while the congressman is staying on the job, pulling down his hefty six-figure salary.

I’m asking myself: Where is the justice in this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/vance-mcallister-staffer-fired_n_5112098.html

Republican Rep. Vance McAllister was elected in 2013 partly by touting his strong faith, his family values, not to mention his love for his wife. He was elected to fill out an unexpired term and is up for re-election this year to a full two-year term.

McAllister has apologized to his constituents, his wife, (presumably) to God, to the whole country for being caught on a video published by the Ouchita Citizen newspaper.

If there’s a “victim” in this caper, it’s the staffer. Melissa Peacock is married to Heath Peacock. She’s now out of a job as McAllister’s district scheduler. Mr. Peacock says he is “freaking devastated.” He went on to say, “I loved my wife so much.”

I couldn’t help but notice he used the past tense of the word “love.” I am presuming that’s just his emotions getting the better of him. Then again …

I know, of course, that people in high public offices have done worse things and declined to step down. I’m not going to presume that McAllister should resign his seat over this. I’d bet real money, though, that this incident is going to become Issue No. 1 in his bid to keep his seat come election time.

Given that he made such a public display of his devotion to his wife while winning the seat in the first place, it’ll be interesting to see how he portrays himself as he seeks to keep his job.

The voters of his congressional district will get to determine whether he stays or goes. … as they should.

Uncategorized

LBJ legacy shines brightly

Fifty years ago this week, a long, tall Texan who was new in his job as president of the United States, signed a landmark bill into law that changed the face of the nation — and changed the political landscape in this country.

President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It guaranteed the rights of all Americans regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/civil-rights-act-50

He had become president under grievous conditions just six months earlier. President John F. Kennedy’s murder was still fresh in our minds and our broken hearts. The new man in the Oval Office took office and took charge of JFK’s unfinished legislative agenda, which included the Civil Rights Act.

It took a master legislator such as LBJ to finish the job. Prior to becoming vice president, Sen. Lyndon Johnson served as majority leader and had built a reputation as, shall we say, a supreme negotiator. He was unafraid to lay his hands on fellow senators to persuade them to vote his way … or else.

He took that skill to the presidency. Meanwhile, he had to persuade southern Democrats who weren’t as keen on the Civil Rights Act as many northern Republicans. LBJ did the deed and was told by one of his best Senate friends, arch-segregationist Richard Russell, D-Ga., that the bill would “cost us the South.”

Johnson perhaps knew what the political stakes were at the time he signed the bill, but he knew it was the right thing to do.

He put his name to it.

The LBJ Library in Austin this week is honoring the late president’s achievement. Four of his presidential successors — Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — will be on hand in Austin to speak to the greatness of the Civil Rights Act.

What’s more, the Johnson family along with the library administration, are working overtime to burnish LBJ’s legacy to include far more than the tragedy and heartache of the Vietnam War.

Let’s hope they succeed. Lyndon Baines Johnson deserves high praise for enacting this law.

Uncategorized

Do as I say, not do

Vance McAllister is a Louisiana Republican member of Congress who campaigned in 2012 for an office while touting his deep Christian faith, his devotion to his wife and children and his vow to make Washington a more moral place.

Then he got caught in a lengthy and reportedly passionate kiss with a female (who’s also married) member of his staff.

The stuff, shall we say, is hitting the fan down yonder in Louisiana.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/caught-kissing-staffer-rep-vance-mcallister-asks-for-forgiveness/

This is what happens when you campaign as one thing and perform in another manner.

It happened to former U.S. Sen. and one-time Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards, who professed his devotion to his wife, Elizabeth, while producing a child with another woman.

It also happened when former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich was among the leaders in the impeach Bill Clinton movement during the president’s scandal over an affair of his own. Then we learned that as Gingrich was blasting Clinton to smithereens over his conduct, the speaker was having actual sex with a House staff member.

The bipartisan list of moral hypocrites is too long to list here. Those two jumped immediately to mind.

Rep. McAllister has some explaining to do to (a) his wife and (b) the good folks of Louisiana who elected him thinking they were getting someone with the record of a Boy Scout.

How he handles the trouble with his wife will be his business alone. How he settles it with the people who are paying his salary is quite another.

“There’s no doubt I’ve fallen short and I’m asking for forgiveness. I’m asking for forgiveness from God, my wife, my kids, my staff, and my constituents who elected me to serve,” McAllister said in a statement. “Trust is something I know has to be earned whether you’re a husband, a father, or a congressman. I promise to do everything I can to earn back the trust of everyone I’ve disappointed.”

How’s he going to make good with his constituents? Will he vow never to do it again? If so, can he be believed?

Good luck, congressman.

Uncategorized

Gerrymandering not always a bad thing

1 Comment

Whether to gerrymander a congressional district, that is the question.

I’ve been stewing about this for years, believe it or not. It’s not that I don’t have many important things to ponder, but this one has been stuck in my craw ever since I landed in Amarillo back in January 1995.

The term “gerrymander” is named after Elbridge Gerry, who served as vice president during the James Madison administration. It’s come to identify the practice of drawn governmental boundaries in such a way as to protect certain political parties. It’s been vilified as a form of political protectionism.

Is it always a bad thing? I submit that it isn’t always a negative.

Consider what happened to Amarillo back in the early 1990s.

The 1991 Texas Legislature gerrymandered the 13th and 19th congressional districts in a way that split Amarillo in two. Potter County was included in the 13th district; Randall County was drawn into the 19th. The 13th was represented at that time by Democrat Bill Sarpalius; the 19th by Republican Larry Combest. The 1991 Legislature — which was dominated by Democrats — intended to protect Democratic members of Congress. Legislators believed that by carving out the Potter County portion of Amarillo into that district — which contained a good number of Democratic voters — that Sarpalius would be protected.

I came to work as editorial page editor of the Amarillo Globe-News, which was in the middle of a furious editorial campaign to put Amarillo back into a single congressional district.

What happened between 1991 and the time of my arrival in 1995? Well, Sarpalius was re-elected to the House in 1992, but in 1994, he was upset by upstart Republican Mac Thornberry, who at the time was serving as Larry Combest’s congressional chief of staff. Sarpalius wasn’t the only Democratic incumbent to lose that year, as that was the election featuring the GOP’s Contract With America.

Interesting, eh? Thornberry took office in 1995, which then meant that Amarillo was represented by two Republican members of Congress. Back when one was a Democrat and one was a Republican, you could count on Combest and Sarpalius voting opposite each other. Their votes and their constituencies canceled each other out. With Thornberry and Combest serving together in Congress, well, you had a two-for-one deal. Both men sang from the same sheet. You got two votes for Amarillo, even though they represented separate congressional districts.

Still, the newspaper kept beating the drum for a reuniting of Amarillo into a single congressional district. Our wish would be granted after the 2000 census and the 2001 Legislature returned all of Amarillo to the 13th district.

I look back, though, a bit wistfully on the time when Amarillo had two members of Congress looking after its interests. Combest was by the far the senior member of the two. He was a big hitter on the House Agriculture Committee and served on the Select Committee on Intelligence. He was a frequent visitor to Amarillo, where he maintained a district office.

I never challenged my publisher’s desire to throw over one of our two congressmen at the time. I wish now I had raised the issue with him.

My thought now is that gerrymandering, while it generally is meant as a tool to do harm, actually can produce an unintended positive consequence for a community — as it did in Amarillo.

Uncategorized

Jeb Bush lays down marker

Conventional Republican orthodoxy bears little resemblance to how it used to look.

It now includes a fairly strong anti-immigrant stance, particularly against those who are here illegally.

Enter a former Florida governor with a famous political name to challenge that common view.

Jeb Bush is considering a run for the presidency in 2016 and he’s laying bare a potential weakness among hard-core GOP voters who’ll nominate their next candidate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/jeb-bush-takes-potential-weaknesses-n73561

Bush wants his party to reform the immigration system that enables those who were brought here illegally by their parents to stay here and to live and work free from the fear of deportation.

“Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony; it’s an act of love,” Bush said over the weekend while declaring that he’ll make up his mind about running for president sometime this year.

Immigration might doom Bush’s candidacy. It plagued Sen.John McCain in 2008 and it helped torpedo Texas Gov. Rick Perry in late 2011 as he was running for the GOP nomination. What do these two men have in common? They both come from border states with large immigrant populations — and they also have realistic views on the best way to treat those who were brought here as children by parents who entered the United States illegally.

The Bush brand, such as it is, carries some heavy baggage. Jeb’s brother, George W., remains a too-hot-to-handle commodity among Republicans. The two men’s father, George H.W. Bush, broke that “no new taxes” pledge in 1990 while crafting a federal budget.

Now comes immigration. Jeb Bush is making the kind of sense on this issue that is flying over the heads of the tea party fanatics who control the party — at the moment.

Uncategorized

Uninsured rate is falling

Politicians of all stripes have this way of spinning news in their favor and against their opponents’ interests.

That’s how the game is played. Take the Affordable Care Act. President Obama has declared something of a victory in that 7.1 million Americans signed up for the ACA before the March 31 open enrollment deadline; he had set a goal of 7 million signups. Republicans on the other hand declared the signup period a failure because of the rollout snafus and clumsiness that followed.

Now comes some interesting news from the Gallup Poll organization. The rate of uninsured Americans is the lowest since 2008, the final full year of George W. Bush’s presidency.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/168248/uninsured-rate-lowest-2008.aspx

What does that mean?

Let’s see. The president said when he took office in 2009 that he intended to make health insurance available to more Americans and to bite into the number of uninsured Americans, which stood at 40 million or so, give or take.

The ACA passed. The enrollment period opened up. Americans got signed up through the exchanges. More Americans now have health insurance than before enactment of the law and, according to Gallup, the rate of uninsured Americans is at a six-year low.

The improvement is greatest among poor Americans and African-Americans, says Gallup. The rate of uninsured among all age groups has declined.

Is this an unqualified success for the Obama administration? It is not. The president made a couple of promises he couldn’t keep, such as the infamous “you can keep your doctor” pledge. The law will need to be tweaked, fine-tuned and improved along the way — which is the norm for almost all major pieces of legislation.

However, to say the ACA has “failed” and that it is going to “bankrupt the country” and create “death panels” to determine who lives is dishonest in the extreme.

The survey noted here suggests that the administration’s major goal — to provide health insurance to more Americans — has been met.

Uncategorized

Good news from Afghanistan?

Might there be a glimmer of hope finally in Afghanistan?

The Afghans have conducted an election to choose their next president. The top two candidates, according to National Public Radio, are pro-Western in their leanings and are not allies of the outgoing — and unpredictable — Afghan President Hamid Karzai; indeed, Karzai’s hand-picked successor is running far behind the top two candidates.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304819004579485482622918584

A runoff appears to be in the offing between opposition leader Abdullah Abdullah and former World Bank executive Ashraf Ghani.

What’s more, the election produced a stunning 60 percent turnout in the face of attacks from Taliban terrorists who, of course, oppose elections of any stripe.

Can this be a tipping point in the evolution of Afghanistan from a lawless, tribal society into one that is governed under the rule of laws that the rest of the civilized world understands?

Hope should spring eternal.

The United States already has ended its major combat role in Afghanistan after fighting an all-out war there against the Taliban since shortly after the 9/11 attacks. More than a dozen years have passed. Too much American blood has been spilled in what had been thought to be a lost cause.

It’s too early certainly to declare victory in a land with no known history of representative democracy. But with the impending election of either Ghani or Abdullah, the country appears to be headed toward a leadership that will tilt in our direction rather than toward the forces of evil.

It’s now time for the world to begin holding its breath.

Uncategorized

President/Rev. Huckabee?

1 Comment

A thought just occurred to me, so I reckon I’ll share it here.

It involves former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who ran for the Republican nomination for president once and who might do so again. Some recent polling puts him near the front rank of a large gaggle of GOP contenders for the White House.

Huckabee on religion

Here’s the thought.

Back in 1960, when Sen. John F. Kennedy, was running for president, critics of the young lawmaker were dubious about his Catholic faith. They actually expressed some fear that a President Kennedy would be taking his orders from the Vatican, that he couldn’t separate his constitutional responsibility from his faith.

The candidate ended up making a speech in Texas in which he said, in effect, that he would swear to uphold the Constitution and that the oath never would play second fiddle to anything or anyone, period, end of discussion.

Should we ask similar questions of Gov. Huckabee, who in an earlier life was a Baptist preacher?

Indeed, the question might come if Huckabee decides to seek the presidency. Imagine someone asking: “Governor, will you govern according to the Constitution or will you base your policy decisions on what Scripture says?” I’ll point out once more that the Constitution is a totally secular document that states Congress shall make no law establishing a state religion and that there shall be no religious litmus test for office seekers.

Still, the issue might find its way to the table if Rev. Huckabee decides to run for the presidency.