Category Archives: national news

AG to let the FBI do its job … great!

loretta-lynch

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was party to one of the more, um, awkward political moments in recent memory.

She’s now seeking to remove whatever stain remains from that moment by declaring she intends to let the career legal eagles at the FBI do their job — without interference from her — in their probe of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy.

Lynch ought to perhaps take it a step further and recuse herself completely from the investigation.

She met recently on an airport tarmac with former President Bill Clinton. They reportedly talked about “social” matters: grandkids, golf, the weather and whatever else. Lynch said the former president didn’t mention the investigation into whether his wife — the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee — did anything wrong while using her private e-mail account while serving as secretary of state.

Still, the encounter was awkward in the extreme. It never should have happened.

President Clinton shouldn’t have gone near the AG while they were in the airport in Phoenix and Lynch never should have allowed the conversation to occur, no matter how innocent it was.

It has fed an ongoing narrative about the former president and Mrs. Clinton, that they are tone-deaf to how their actions appear and that they play by their own set of rules.

It’s good that Lynch has declared her intention to let the FBI pursue the e-mail probe without any interference from her.

As for the former president … stay as far away from the principals in this matter as possible.

Bill Clinton chats up AG Loretta Lynch … oops

email-marketing

Many of us always have thought that former President Bill Clinton’s political instincts were second to none.

He knows the importance of “optics,” and of timing, and of  perception. Isn’t that right?

Apparently not.

President Clinton and U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch happened to be at an airport in Phoenix. What, then, did the former president do? He boarded the AG’s airplane to just, oh, chat her up.

They reportedly exchanged small talk. Clinton wanted to talk about his grandchildren. Lynch and her husband just talked about small stuff.

What’s wrong with that?

Everything!

You see, the FBI — which is an arm of the Attorney General’s Office — is investigating whether Hillary Clinton violated federal law when she used her private e-mail account while she was serving as secretary of state.

Why is it so wrong for Bill Clinton to meet privately with Loretta Lynch? Because it sends out a message that Bill and Hillary Clinton don’t play by the same rules as everyone else. It feeds a longtime narrative that the Clintons’ critics have been saying since Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992.

Lynch said she and Clinton did not discuss the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail matter. She said the former president never brought it up and neither did she.

Hillary Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign, though, has yet to speak about the meeting.

There had better be some explanation offered … and soon.

Incoherence on trade policy …

Free-Trade

Donald J. Trump’s campaign rally today in Bangor, Maine featured a remarkably incoherent riff on trade policy.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was ranting about trade agreements. He opposes free trade. Or does he?

He launched into a strange and utterly nonsensical series of descriptions of what constitutes a “good” trade agreement.

He began his trade tirade by saying he was “all for free trade.” Then he said he was opposed to it. Huh? What … ?

He didn’t care if it was “horrible.” He didn’t care if it was “fair.” He didn’t care if it was “great.”

Trump then said something about negotiating trade agreements differently than the way they’ve been negotiated previously.

Horrible, fair, great, bad? Donald Trump doesn’t care about any of those aspects of a trade agreement.

I need help understanding how any of that makes sense.

And this guy wants to be president of the United States of America?

Hoping for a return of manned space program

6938210-space-shuttle-photos

The thought just occurred to me that of the original men chosen to fly into space, only one of them remains among us.

He is John Glenn, who’s now 94 years of age.

From what I understand, Glenn remains in good physical condition. But, hey, he is 94. At that age, you live one day at a time, or so many of the 90-somethings I’ve known have told me.

What troubles me particularly about Glenn’s advanced age is that once he leaves us, there will no one left from that exhilarating time who can argue forcefully for the return of the manned space program in this country.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2010/06/john-glenn-still-a-legend/

The Bush administration announced plans to retire the space shuttle program and then the Obama administration followed through with the plan. Two of the shuttles were destroyed by tragic accidents, leaving just three ships in use: Atlantis, Endeavor and Discovery. Challenger blew up shortly after liftoff in January 1986 and Columbia — with Amarillo’s Rick Husband in command — disintegrated upon re-entry in February 2003.

After the final shuttle mission — the flight of Atlantis in July 2011 — U.S. astronauts have been ferried into space aboard Russian rockets to spend time in the International Space Station. Think of that for a moment. During the height of the space race, of which Glenn was a major player, it would seem unthinkable that we’d ever have to depend on our adversary to take our astronauts into space.

We’re not hearing much talk during this presidential election campaign about the future of manned space travel. We don’t know whether Republican Donald J. Trump or Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton will light the fire that re-ignites our national pride in the effort to explore beyond the bounds of our planet.

I know that NASA is working on a new launch vehicle that will take humans into space. I understand the space agency has plenty of work on its plate; it has unmanned probes to launch and plenty of research to complete. NASA, though, seems to be working in a closet. Does anyone ever hear updates, progress reports on the development of that launch vehicle?

Americans have few legends who can speak with authority on such things. John Glenn — who later served several terms as a U.S. senator from Ohio — is one of them who can speak with clarity and credibility on the value that space exploration brings to us.

If only we could keep him around forever.

We cannot, of course.

I get that we have a lot of pressing issues that are consuming presidential candidates’ time and attention.

My hope is that we will start hearing from one or both of the major candidates about how they intend to accelerate our return to space exploration.

I relished those mornings awaiting those flights by John Glenn and his early astronaut colleagues. I’m ready to get excited once again.

‘Brexit’ vote might not vaporize our money after all

Brexit

I might have been a bit too quick to push the panic button in the wake of the British vote to leave the European Union.

My fear — which wasn’t exactly what I predicted would happen — was that my retirement account was going to fly out the window as investors bailed on stocks.

The Brits’ vote to leave the EU did cause some momentary panic. It seems to have lasted a couple of days. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped about 800 points in those two days.

Then came a significant rally over the past two days. The Dow gained back nearly 600 of those points.

I had sent my financial adviser an e-mail message and implored her to “please tell me my retirement account is not going to vaporize.”

She called me right away. Her words were encouraging. Don’t worry, she told me. Your funds aren’t tied to the British markets. “You’re going to be fine,” she said.

It turns out — at least in the immediate term — that she is right.

As for the other pledge I made publicly — about not wanting to look at my retirement account for the next good while — I’m going to stay the course.

I might not look at it for the rest of the year. Then again, will I be able to resist opening the quarterly statements the investment firm sends us — the next one of which will arrive in the mail probably one day next week?

Oh, what a test of my internal fortitude.

I keep thinking of what the actor Danny Glover kept saying during those “Lethal Weapon” films … about being “too old for this s***.”

This is how you ‘unify’ the GOP? Hardly

don trump

I just heard Donald J. Trump say two things during his rambling stream-of-consciousness rant in Bangor, Maine that tell me he’s declaring war on his political party.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said (a) that he’s going to tear up the Trans-Pacific Partnership and will renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement and (b) that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a gang of goons run by special interests.

Wow!

Standard GOP orthodoxy endorses free trade. Trump does not.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been a traditional, deep-pocketed ally of Republican presidential candidates. Trump has no use for the Chamber.

So, what does this mean?

To me it means that Trump is kicking dirt in the face of the very political infrastructure he will need if he is going to have a prayer of defeating Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What about this am I missing?

If the GOP’s presidential nominee is going to adhere to party philosophy, isn’t it time for him to at least give some lip service that endorses the views of the architects of that philosophy?

Well, hey, he said he could “go it alone” if he needed to.

It looks to me  as though the nominee is going to have a lonely march toward political oblivion.

 

An actual rapist asked to speak at GOP gathering?

tyson

This one is too good to let pass without comment.

Donald J. Trump threw out the term “rape” this week while commenting on the trade agreements he vows to toss aside if he’s elected president of the United States later this year.

The United States, he said, has been “raped” by nations with which we’ve have dealt through NAFTA, CAFTA and whatever other international trade agreements we’ve signed.

So, who did the presumptive Republican presidential nominee reportedly invite to speak at the GOP convention this summer in Cleveland?

Mike Tyson, an actual convicted rapist felon. That’s who.

Trump has denied formally inviting Tyson, but said the former boxer would do a “good job” if he gets to speak at the convention. Really? We’ll see.

Tyson is the former heavyweight boxing champion who got thrown into prison after a jury convicted him of raping a beauty pageant contestant.

On one level, I’m glad that Tyson seems to be turning his life around.

However, his prison record will be there for the ages. Indeed, his obituary likely will mention it somewhere near the very top of the text.

These reports about Tyson do seem to have this air of believability to them, no matter what Trump says to the contrary. Given the reportedly sparse list of GOP dignitaries willing to speak at the Republican nominating convention, Trump well might need to dig deeply to find enough celebrities to fill all that valuable prime broadcast time.

Irony, though, can be a real booger… you know?

GOP comes down with ‘buyer’s remorse’

donald

Buyer’s remorse must be spreading.

British voters agree to pull Great Britain out of the European Union and now might be regretting that decision.

Now we hear that most Republicans in this country want someone other than Donald J. Trump to be their party’s presidential nominee.

In both cases, I fear that voters will have to live with the consequences of their decision.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-republicans-polls-224853

A poll published by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal say that 45 percent of Republicans want Trump to be their nominee. They want someone else to carry the banner into the fight this fall against Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Democrats.

Sorry, folks. Here’s the thing: Trump has won more primary contests by far than anyone else. He’s collected enough convention delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. He’s going to be the GOP nominee this summer when delegates gather in Cleveland.

We have a saying in Texas that goes something like this:

“You dance with them that brung ya.”

Sure, Trump has a seemingly endless list of failings as a national political leader. No need to detail them here. You know what they are.

But he’s won a fair-and-square primary fight against a large field of opponents, most of whom were much more qualified than he is to become commander in chief.

He’s your guy, GOP.

Good luck at the dance.

Sen. Warren becomes newest Trump target

warren-trump-1024x682

How does this go?

The man who is set to become a major-party presidential nominee is now going after a woman who is campaigning as a surrogate for the other party’s presumed nominee.

And what is his line of attack? He is calling her “Pocahontas” as an epithet.

Let’s back up for a moment.

The presumed GOP nominee Donald J. Trump is now going after Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who today campaigned alongside presumed Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Why? Well, Warren has declared that she has some Native American heritage in her background. Trump doesn’t believe it. Thus, he has hung the “Pocahontas” label on her.

What’s more, Republicans are now bringing out the man Warren defeated to become the U.S. senator from Massachusetts — former Sen. Scott Brown — to refute Warren’s claims of Native American heritage.

I don’t get this.

Why is that even an issue? Why is Trump obsessing over whether Warren actually has a tiny bit of Native American heritage in her background.

Warren is now being vetted as a potential running mate with Clinton. Rather than challenging her record as a U.S. senator, Trump has chosen to attack her ethnicity.

He calls her a “fraud” because she hasn’t proved that she actually has some Cherokee Indian ancestry in her background.

Let’s be clear here: Elizabeth Warren isn’t running for anything. She’s a surrogate for another accomplished woman, Hillary Clinton.

Shouldn’t the presumptive GOP nominee concentrate on policy differences he has with the presumptive Democratic nominee?

Oh, wait! First, he needs to reveal that he has any policy views in the first place.

Governor stands for safer gun rules

concealed_carry

Now that we’ve re-entered the realm of gun violence, gun safety and gun regulations in the wake of the Orlando, Fla., massacre, I want to applaud a Missouri politician for retaining some sanity in this discussion.

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon today vetoed a bill that landed on his desk that would have allowed residents to carry concealed weapons without obtaining a permit to do so.

That’s right. The bill would have removed the requirement for Missouri residents to take classes, obtain a permit and submit themselves to a criminal background check.

Nixon said the bill would make his state less safe. Gee, do you think?

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article86150657.html

A number of states have enacted concealed carry legislation over the years. Texas was among the first to do so. My own initial objections to enactment of the law have given way to acceptance of the law in Texas, if not an outright embrace of it.

Many Texans have sought and obtained these permits only to be able to carry a firearm if they choose to do so.

The regulations in Missouri mirror those in Texas. They are reasonable and prudent. Indeed, state and local police officials opposed the weakening of the restrictions there.

According to the Kansas City Star: “I cannot support the extreme step of … eliminating sensible protections like background checks and training requirements, and taking away the ability of sheriffs to protect their communities,” Nixon said.

Gov. Nixon’s veto faces the threat of a legislative override in September. It is my hope the veto withstands an effort to throw out common sense regulations.