President Obama’s critics are going to seize on this one, bet on it.

http://thehill.com/video/administration/301833-obama-fails-to-return-marines-salute

The president boarded Marine One at the White House on Friday and did not return the salute snapped by the Marine on duty at the foot of the stairs entering the helicopter. Obama came back out of the chopper, walked back down the stairs and shook the Marine’s hand while – I would imagine – offering an apology for his lapse in military courtesy.

Here, though, is the question: Was the president required to return the salute? No.

Indeed, not all presidents salute the military personnel who stand guard. Ronald Reagan was the first president in my memory to return the salute. In fact, his salute wasn’t all that military-like in its execution. President Reagan’s salute looked more, um, Hollywood than military. Those who have saluted superior officers while they wore the uniform know what I’m talking about.

No president going back to Dwight Eisenhower, if my memory is correct, returned the salute. Interesting, too, that Ike – a retired general of the Army – wouldn’t salute the military guards. John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter – all of whom were veterans – didn’t return the salute. Then came Reagan. George H.W. Bush – another veteran – didn’t salute the guard.

Bill Clinton – who, famously, was not a veteran – returned the salute as did George W. Bush, another veteran. Now, it’s non-veteran Barack Obama in the commander in chief’s chair and he has decided to salute the military personnel.

But protocol doesn’t require the civilian commander in chief to return that salute. It’s the president’s call exclusively.

None of that will matter to the legions of right-wingers who’ll find yet another bogus reason to criticize this president.

I could swear, so help me, that I heard two of the three main TV meteorologists in Amarillo say two days ago that we had some heavy rain and severe weather coming this way.

They said it on live television, beamed directly into my living room.

They said it categorically, without equivocation.

We’ve been waiting for some rain, which we need in the worst way. But the skies have remained mostly clear ever since those dire predictions came forth.

I know the weather forecasters run the risk of being run, since they cannot predict with any certainty what nature’s forces will do. Maybe they got caught up in the media news rush in the wake of the Moore, Okla., tragedy. I am not demeaning what’s happened to those good folks, but at times we seem to willing to believe the worst when something so tragic happens so close to us.

Do I want a tornado to blast through Amarillo? Of course not. I do want some rain. A substantial amount of it would be just grand. I’d even settle for a bit of wind, but not too much.

One of the TV weathermen displayed these “computer models” that said the rain would arrive Thursday afternoon. He said it with all the authority that comes with someone who’s been doing his job for as long as he has done it. So did the second weatherman I saw. I don’t watch the third “chief meteorologist” in Amarillo, mainly because he goes hysterical whenever we do get “severe weather.”

Which begs the question: I can’t think of any other job in the world where someone can be so wrong so often and still be able to do that job.

What the heck. They always can blame it on God.

Dan Radmacher is a blogger in Roanoke, Va., with whom I am acquainted. I cannot profess to know him well, but we have many mutual friends and professional associations.

His latest blog continues an ongoing battle of wits he’s been waging with Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto, this time over the depth of the recent scandals that have spit up all over President Obama.

Here’s the link to his latest post. It’s worth a careful look:

http://bloggingdan.com/

I want to congratulate Dan for saying something that needs saying time and again. It is that while the conservative media are fond of accusing the liberal media of bias, those on the right do so without the slightest understanding of what they’re saying – about themselves. Taranto seems to think the media are in the tank for Barack Obama and have gone far too softly on the president.

Radmacher wrote this in response:

“Taranto moves onto the ‘liberal’ media, accusing the media of being more in cahoots with Obama than it’s ever been with any other president or political party. This ideological and political alignment, Taranto warns with no hint of irony or self-awareness, has led the media to abdicate ‘their guiding principles of impartiality, objectivity and sometimes even accuracy.’ The man works for a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, and he wants to lecture others about abdicating impartiality, objectivity and accuracy? Never mind that the conservative media that he is part of is far guiltier of abandoning impartiality and objectivity, and has never cared much about accuracy. But how could Taranto miss that the biggest mainstream media blunder in recent weeks — ABC’s reporting on Republican fabrications of those recently released emails as if they had seen the originals — worked against Obama, not in his favor?”

I couldn’t have said it better myself, Dan.

I’ve long noted that a cable news network, such as the one owned by Rupert Murdoch, that must proclaim – over and over – that it is “fair and balanced” usually is neither.

I’m just guessing this one out loud, but my hunch is that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott knows something the rest of us don’t know about Gov. Rick Perry’s political plans.

He might know that Perry won’t run for re-election to an umpteenth term as Texas governor.

That is why he’s plowing ahead with his own run for governor, or so it seems.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/23/abbott-not-waiting-perry-build-his-campaign/

It always had been understood that no one would challenge Perry if the governor sought another term. That wasn’t the case in 2010, certainly, when then-U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison ran against Perry in the Republican primary, only to get trounced by the governor.

Perry has this strange appeal to Texas voters that – to be totally candid – astounds me. I’ve been in Texas long enough to have acquired a pretty good feel for the state’s political pulse. Gov. Perry seems to be unbeatable at a state level. After thumping Hutchison in the 2010 GOP primary, he went on to hammer Democratic nominee Bill White, an astute business-minded former Houston mayor.

Is there any reason to believe Perry would be vulnerable in 2014? The major event that harmed his brand was that disastrous 2012 GOP presidential primary run that came crashing to Earth before if ever got started. I don’t hear much grumbling about that effort now as the statewide election season begins to crank up.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that the attorney general knows something. The same can be said for former Texas Republican Party chairman Tom Pauken – a longtime friendly acquaintance of mine – who also is planning to run for governor in 2014. Pauken was appointed head of the Texas Workforce Commission by, that’s right, Gov. Perry. So one would think those two guys would be big-time political pals. Pauken, though, wants Perry’s job.

The Perry Era may be coming to an end, yes?

I’m suffering from conflicting principles.

I consider myself to be a civil libertarian, in that I cherish the liberties granted to me by the U.S. Constitution. I also consider myself to be loyal to my flag and to our national security interests; accordingly, I detest those who forsake those interests in an effort to bring harm to my fellow citizens.

Thus, the conflict is erupting now as President Obama acknowledges that unmanned drone aircraft have killed at least four Americans in the ongoing war against international terrorism.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/despite-obama-speech-drone-role-to-only-increase-91837.html?hp=t1

Should we be launching these drones over suspected terrorists in U.S. airspace? No. That goes too far. However, we’ve deployed these weapons on the battlefield in Afghanistan and in other hot spots where terrorists lurk. Americans, sadly, are among those who seek to kill their fellow Americans. Are these people enemies of the state? I consider them to be precisely that.

They become fair game, so to speak, when they take up arms against American military personnel. They have betrayed their citizenship and in my view no longer qualify as “loyal” Americans.

The Constitution, though, grants all Americans the right of due process. Killing these so-called Americans in a military operation circumvents that due process. However, I keep coming back to whether these individuals have virtually surrendered their rights as citizens when they take up arms against their nation.

I’m going to need some time to think all this through. I haven’t made up my mind. I’m open to some thoughts on the subject.

Houston’s civic and municipal brass is going to decide soon the fate of the Houston Astrodome.

The Dome came into being in 1965 billed as the Eighth Wonder of the World. It was the first sports structure of its kind in the world. It had a roof, meaning that you could use all year round. When it opened it was a marvelous thing to behold.

It is likely to be demolished, maybe soon. I hope it stays up. I hope the city finds some use for it, if only to turn it into a gigantic museum.

I’ve heard all the arguments for tearing it down: It costs too much to maintain; there’s not enough practical use for it to make it cost-effective; the city can use the space for other money-making endeavors; Reliant Stadium is next door and it serves quite nicely as the Houston Texans’ professional football home.

Blah, blah, blah …

I get all that.

I’m a sentimentalist at heart. The Astrodome ought to stand as a reminder that we can build great things and keep them standing, much like they do in, oh, Europe and Asia.

We Americans, though, live in a throwaway society. Something inside me simply wants the Dome to stand as a reminder that we aren’t always so dedicated to the belief that we can just throw something away when it no longer serves our purpose.

I don’t have a lot of Astrodome memories, even though my family and I lived for nearly 11 years just east of Houston, in Beaumont. This plea isn’t about me. It’s about historical preservation.

I know I’m engaging in wishful thinking. I just had to get this off my chest.

Marco Rubio has it right on immigration.

Ted Cruz has it wrong.

Cruz is the freshman U.S. Republican senator from Texas whose parents are immigrants to this nation. Rubio is another freshman Republican, from Florida, whose parents also are immigrants.

Cruz says giving immigrants, even those who are illegally, a path to citizenship is wrong. Rubio says deporting the illegal immigrants is not possible, given that there’s about 11 million of them. So Rubio is willing to allow them a chance to become citizens.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/21/rubio-cruz-immigration-citizenship/2162423/

Rubio is taking the more compassionate course. Cruz is more hardnosed about it.

Frankly, Cruz ought to consult with two other Texans from his party about immigration. One of them served two terms as president of the United States, George W. Bush. The other one is the state’s longest-serving governor, Rick Perry. They, too, have a more compassionate view of immigration reform.

But Cruz instead is listening to the hardliners within his party who believe it’s all right to deport even those who were brought here illegally as children and who now call the United States “home.” Both Bush and Perry see this issue through Rubio’s prism.

Indeed, the Senate Judiciary Committee – over Sen. Cruz’s objection – has been sent the immigration reform bill to the full Senate where it stands a good chance of being enacted.

I’m hoping more compassionate thinkers will override Ted Cruz’s hard-headedness.

I have a nominee for the Most Miserable Job on Planet Earth.

It might be White House press secretary. And this job’s misery crosses the political divide. Press flacks for Democratic and Republican presidents share a common bond: The media by and large detest them.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/jay-carney-white-house-91717.html?hp=l2

Jay Carney is the current White House press spokesman and he’s been getting a snootful from his the media types who fill the briefing room every day. Seems that Carney’s been questioning the motives behind some of the grilling. He’s been showing open disdain for youthful reporters – even though he looks like a kid himself.

U.S. history is full of beleaguered White House press secretaries. They’ve run afoul of the media when the going got tough in the White House. Carney is really no different in that regard.

What makes Carney’s current plight interesting to me is that the conservative media seem to think the so-called “mainstream media” have given President Obama a free ride during his time in office. Carney and his predecessor, Robert Gibbs, would argue that nothing of the sort has happened. Indeed, the media have been pretty tough on Obama as he has struggled to get Congress to enact legislation. Carney now is finding out just how tough the media can get when controversy erupts inside the West Wing.

At the risk of looking like a name-dropper, I’ll bring up the name of one gentleman who came from a little different mold than many other WH press flacks. The late George Christian served as press secretary for President Johnson from 1966 until 1969 and later opened a public relations firm in Austin. My understanding many years after his service in the White House is that the press genuinely liked and respected Christian, even as he tried to speak for a president bedeviled by a war in Vietnam that was going quite badly.

I developed a long-distance relationship with him starting in the late 1980s, not long after I moved to Texas. On occasion, I would call his Austin office to talk about Texas politics and trends. He always took the time to answer every question I posed. He was a true gentleman. I regret I never shook his hand, but I did consider him a valuable source whenever I needed some unvarnished information on anything happening within Texas government. The man knew his way around the state capitol building.

I cannot imagine George Christian getting into the kind of tussles that are plaguing Jay Carney. What’s more, if he were in the job today, I might look elsewhere to find the Most Miserable Job on Planet Earth.

No one at Amarillo City Hall has yet imposed any mandatory water-use restrictions on those of us who need to use it.

Maybe the time is coming sooner than many of us think.

The Texas Tribune is reporting a significant drop in the water levels of the Ogallala Aquifer that flows under our feet.

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/05/22/ogallala-aquifer-texas-panhandle-suffers-big-drop/

The Tribune noted this: “The vast majority of Texas is enduring a drought, but the Panhandle has been especially hard hit, causing farmers to pump more water to make up for the lack of rain. That depletes the amount of water stored in the aquifer over the long term, which means future generations will find less water to pump to grow crops.”

Irrigated agriculture accounts for more than 90 percent of all water consumed in the Panhandle, so perhaps the target of these conservation measures ought to be someone other than city folks who like to keep their lawns green and their cars clean.

Amarillo has been investing heavily in purchasing water rights. The city figures it has enough water for the next, oh, century or two. But given that we don’t tend to think strategically beyond the next generation, the outlook seems satisfactory.

The findings suggest “thick” bands of water, such as between Plainview and Clovis, N.M., where farmers can keep irrigating. Other areas reveal thinner bands of water that might force irrigated farmland to become dry. The nature of the drought that has plagued the region in recent years, well, that may spell doom for many food producers.

I’m no water planner and I depend on a lot of folks with intimate knowledge of this issue to keep me informed.

Something tells me, though, that when the water level registers as significant a drop in the past year as it has under the Panhandle, someone ought to start drawing up mandatory measures to slow it down.

Here it comes again … the debate over whether the federal government should rush to the aid of stricken Americans without cutting costs in other areas to pay for it.

I cannot believe we’re having this argument.

Moore, Okla., has been torn to pieces by an F5 tornado. The cost in human lives and property is still being calculated from the storm that ripped through Moore on Monday. The suffering has been beyond anything I can imagine. The folks there need Americans’ help.

But now we’re hearing talk that some in Congress might not approve emergency expenditures until lawmakers can offset the cost of the aid with budget cuts. Astoundingly, I understand that Oklahoma’s two Republican U.S. senators, Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe, might be among those who will insist on cuts before allocating the funds for their stricken constituents.

We’ve traveled this road quite a lot in recent times. Hurricane Sandy relief for New York and New Jersey residents was held up for months over this kind of debate. Aid to Joplin, Mo., residents also got delayed in 2011 after a tornado tore through that community.

Fiscal tightwads do make the point that the nation must watch its expenses. I get that. What I fail to grasp, though, is the lack of urgency to help those in dire need.

I’ve always thought Americans were wired to set aside politics when disaster strikes. The tragedy that leveled huge sections of Moore, Okla., in my view, qualifies as one of those events.