Category Archives: national news

national news, political news, State news

Trump may be channeling Claytie

1 Comment

I feel like a man who’s ahead of the curve.

I recently wrote about Republican presidential nominee-to-be Donald J. Trump’s insult-inspired campaign and how it might play with voters. In that piece, I mentioned some resemblance that his campaign has with another campaign from an earlier era.

The earlier campaign was the 1990 contest for Texas governor featuring Democrat Ann Richards and Midland oil tycoon Clayton Williams.

Well, lo and behold! It turns out that the Texas Tribune has drawn the same parallel.

https://www.tribtalk.org/2016/06/16/trump-vs-clinton-try-claytie-vs-ann-richards/

We political junkies have the prospect of an intensely negative presidential campaign between Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Tribune reports: “If Williams’ 1990 race for governor in Texas is any guide, the 2016 presidential campaign will get even nastier. Williams’ Democratic opponent was Ann Richards, at that point a former Travis County commissioner and the sitting state treasurer, a seasoned and well-connected politician of a liberal stripe. ”

Richards sounds a bit like Clinton, too. Yes?

Williams was a wealthy oil and gas mogul. He also dabbled in real estate and telecommunications. He campaign as a plain-spoken West Texan.

Richards presented herself with her trademark humor. She also was tough and relentless in her criticism of Williams.

The campaign got nastier and nastier as it progressed. The final straw occurred in Dallas when Williams refused to shake Richards’ hand that she extended to him during a joint appearance. He called her a “liar” because of a harsh ad her campaign ran a blistering ad accusing a bank that Williams owned of laundering drug money.

Is history going to repeat itself?

Williams was leading Richards early in that campaign. She kept pounding him and eventually won that race.

The Tribune reports: “How does 1990 inform 2016? Like Clinton has done to Trump, Richards turned Williams’ own words against him: Her campaign ads included direct quotes from Williams, enough to turn off many voters. Richards shifted to turn out her base, especially women, and campaigned in areas of strength. Clinton will do much the same, especially in emerging battlegrounds like New Mexico and Colorado.”

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/06/yep-here-comes-the-negativity/

Yes, indeed. Something tells me history actually will repeat itself.

International news, national news, political news

‘Stuff’ now rolls uphill, not down

I’ve always thought that “s*** rolls downhill.”

I learned it in the Army a few decades ago. When things went badly — which they did on occasion — the brass would make the rest of us down the line pay for the mistakes they might have made.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, though, sees it differently … I reckon.

He’s now blaming President Obama’s policies for the terror attack in Orlando, Fla., although his initial statement on that matter seemed to suggest that the president was even more directly responsible than that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mccain-says-obama-is-directly-responsible-for-the-orlando-massacre_us_5762f78be4b0df4d586f9275?section

Sen. McCain more or less backed away from the statement, saying that the president’s “direct” responsibility is more a function of his decision to pull U.S. combat troops out of Iraq.

The absence of U.S. forces in Iraq, McCain said, brought about the birth of the Islamic State, which then spread to Syria and which has spread even farther into the Middle East — and which is now capable of striking the United States.

My head is spinning over this assertion.

McCain now says he “misspoke.” He didn’t take any of it back, though.

Look, the monster who slaughtered those 49 people in Orlando did it on his own. He reportedly was “inspired” by ISIS propaganda, but the American-born individual acted on his own in a fit of rage over something that has yet to be determined fully.

The blame game is getting tiresome. Sure, Democrats have taken no small amount of pleasure in ascribing blame to President Bush for all manner of things — including the Iraq War and its aftermath. It’s wrong to keep trying to pass the blame around to someone else.

The Huffington Post, though, reported this tidbit: “In 2010, McCain actually referred to it as a ‘victory’ when Obama pulled troops out of Iraq, though he said President George W. Bush deserved credit for the moment, too.”

Let’s get real here. Let’s also deal in the present day with these crises as they arise.

Laying blame on presidents of the other party — be they Democrat or Republican — only makes for snappy patter.

Oh … the politics of it all.

 

national news

A little self-awareness, please, Sen. Cruz

I cannot let this pass without comment.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called the filibuster led by Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut a “distraction.” He said it’s a “game.” He labeled it “political gamesmanship,” which he said the public considers to be “ridiculous.”

Wow, dude.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/06/16/cruz_senate_filibuster_a_distraction_political_gamesmanship.html

Filibusters by their very nature are meant to “distract” senators.

I believe I’ll now point to Sen. Cruz’s own game of “political gamesmanship” when he led a faux filibuster three years ago to defund the Affordable Care Act. The effect was to temporarily shut down the federal government as Cruz read passages from Dr. Seuss on the floor of the Senate.

He didn’t succeed in defunding the ACA, but he did succeed in making a fool of himself.

Of all the 98 remaining senators who could have spoken out against Sen. Murphy’s filibuster that he used to force a vote on gun legislation, why did it have to be Ted Cruz, the unofficial king of “political gamesmanship”?

 

national news, political news

Speaker: ‘That’s not my plan’ to pull endorsement … yet?

How many times have you heard a politician say he or she has “no intention” to seek higher office? Or that he or she has “no plan” to do this or that, only to change his or her mind and do what was disavowed earlier?

That’s more or less what I’m hearing House Speaker Paul Ryan say as he is peppered with questions about his endorsement of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

“That’s not my plan,” Ryan said to questions about whether he would rescind the endorsement.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to hurtle out of control all along the campaign trail. He recently accused President Obama — and this is utterly outrageous — of seeming to favor the terrorists over the protection of American lives.

Ryan keeps condemning Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country. He said he’d never heard of a presidential candidate pulling press credentials for a major media outlet, which Trump did to the Washington Post.

Now comes Trump’s campaign’s assertion that congressional GOP leaders need to support him all the way or “be quiet.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/paul-ryan-still-endorses-trump-224439

Is there a breaking point? Is there a line that Trump can cross that would cause the speaker to take it all back?

I’m betting it’s out there. It also might not be as far in the distance as the speaker would have us believe.

Plans, after all, do have a way of changing.

national news

Filibuster ends; now, let’s go on the record on guns

3 Comments

Chris Murphy has declared a form of victory in his effort to enact gun-control legislation.

The junior U.S. senator from Connecticut, though, likely won’t be able to win the proverbial “war” against his colleagues who oppose him.

He spoke for 15 hours on the floor of the Senate, ending his filibuster at 2 a.m. As he yielded the floor to Republicans, he said he received assurance that the Senate will vote on whether to approve expanded background checks and to ban gun sales to suspected terrorists.

I will concede that the background check idea is a bit problematical for the Democratic senator. Opponents of expanding those checks contend that those who buy guns already are subjected to them.

It’s the other one, the terrorist element, that puzzles me.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/dem-senator-wages-filibuster-claims-progress-on-gun-control/ar-AAh6MfJ?li=BBnb7Kz

Congressional Republicans so far have opposed the ban on gun sales to individuals on federal no-fly lists. That’s right. Someone who isn’t allowed to board a commercial airliner because of suspected terrorist affiliation can purchase a gun. Wow, man.

Murphy was moved, obviously, by the slaughter in Orlando, Fla., this past weekend — and by the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School four years ago in his home state of Connecticut.

I own two weapons. I understand what the Second Amendment says — I think. I hesitate only because, in my view, the Founders wrote it badly.

Sen. Murphy’s filibuster is supposed to lead now to a Senate vote on these two critical issues: background checks and no-fly list bans.

He isn’t likely to win the day on these votes, given that the Senate is controlled by Republicans who, in turn, appear to be controlled by the gun lobby.

President Barack Obama acknowledged the other day that these measures won’t stop all future acts of gun violence. They might prevent some of them. Isn’t there some value in that?

Let’s put all senators on the record. Do you favor these measures that, in my view, retain the Second Amendment right to gun ownership, or do you oppose them?

national news, political news

Rewrite the 2nd Amendment? Just try it

3 Comments

The Orlando, Fla., massacre has ignited yet again — for the zillionth time — the debate over whether to enact tighter controls on the purchase of guns such as the weapon used by the monster who mowed down those innocent victims.

I don’t intend to enter that debate here. I do, though, want to introduce you to an idea that’s being kicked around: rewriting the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I’ve long believed that of all the first 10 amendments, those that guarantee our civil liberties, the Second is the most horribly written of them.

It seems to contain two distinct references that appear to be at odds with each other.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Are clear on that? Now? Forever?

Hardly.

Gun-control advocates glom onto the first part, the reference to the well-regulated militia; gun-owner advocates cling to the second part that refers to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The founders inserted a couple of commas in the middle of the text that seem — to my eyes, at least — to add to the confusion.

Mac McCann, a blogger for the Dallas Morning News, has posited the notion that the Second Amendment needs to be modernized. Will it happen? Sure, it’ll happen about the time both sides of the gun violence divide come together, lock arms and sing in perfect harmony.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/06/maybe-the-only-solution-is-to-rewrite-the-second-amendment.html/

McCann writes: “I hold the Constitution in the highest regard, and I’m naturally skeptical of government power. But I’m moved by Obama’s words: ‘to actively do nothing is a decision, as well’ — and clearly not a good decision.

“We need a text that reflects the will of the American people in today’s world — which, of course, is far different from the world the Constitution was written in.”

Of course, any effort to amend an amendment is going to be interpreted as repealing the original text. We’ve had discussion in the past about amending the First Amendment, too. Free-speech/freedom-of-religion/free-press purists such as myself, quite naturally, have opposed such a thing on its face. That puts us in a bind when discussions come up regarding the Second Amendment, which is held in equally high regard by purists interested in gun-related issues.

This notion of modernizing the Second Amendment, though, is a discussion worth having.

If only we can have it intelligently and without the demonization that is guaranteed to erupt.

Your thoughts? Talk to me.

 

media news, national news, political news

Trump shows another example of ‘unfitness’

Hillary Rodham Clinton has coined a new mantra to describe her opponent in this autumn’s campaign for the presidency of the United States.

She says Donald J. Trump is “temperamentally unfit” to become president. My sense is that she’s going to hammer relentlessly on that point.

The Democrats’ presumed nominee has been handed yet another example.

Trump has revoked the credentials of The Washington Post, banning the newspaper from covering his events.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/trump-revokes-post-press-credentials-calling-the-paper-dishonest-and-phony/2016/06/13/f9a61a72-31aa-11e6-95c0-2a6873031302_story.html

Trump is unhappy with the coverage the Post is providing for his campaign. He called the paper “phony” and “dishonest.” Sound familiar? He’s said the same thing about, oh, the New York Times, Fox News and CNN.

He gets his dander up when media outlets report things about his campaign that do not cast him in the most positive light imaginable.

It’s the modus operandi of the presumed GOP nominee.

As the paper reported: “In a statement, Post Executive Editor Martin Baron said: ‘Donald Trump’s decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished.

“‘The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along — honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically and unflinchingly,’ Baron continued. ‘We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it.”’

Does he not get that intense media coverage is part of the deal to which he agreed when he decided to seek the Republican presidential nomination?

What am I thinking? Of course he doesn’t get it.

He doesn’t get anything.

Thus, we see yet another example of his temperamental unfitness for the presidency.

national news, political news, State news

Abbott makes simple statement of solidarity

3 Comments

gov mansion

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott flew the flag at the Governor’s Mansion.

It was the Florida state flag, which he unfurled to honor the victims of the Orlando nightclub massacre, the worst such event in U.S. history.

He offered a statement calling on Texans to pray for the victims of the shooting. I applaud the governor’s simple statement of support for those who were killed and injured and for the loved ones who are grieving or praying for the victims’ complete recovery.

Then he lost me … almost.

Abbott used the occasion to make a statement that we need to do more to stamp out radical Islamic terrorism.

The gunman, an American, swore fealty to the Islamic State before opening fire at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, which caters to the city’s gay community. FBI director James Comey, though, has suggested that his agency cannot find any indication that the shooter was acting as part of an ISIS master plot; he was a lone wolf, a guy acting on his own.

My question tonight is this: How does the federal government stop a lone madman?

It’s a no-brainer to suggest that the government needs to do more to combat terrorism. Any act taken committed against us — whether it’s on a 9/11-type scale or anything less audacious — always means we need to “do more.”

Before we get too worked up about this latest attack, let’s remember what every expert the media could corral after 9/11 told us: There should be no doubt that we’ll get hit again by terrorists.

As for the latest incident, the best law enforcement minds on Earth are trying to ascertain whether the shooter was acting out of hatred for gay people or whether he was acting as a radical Islamic terrorist.

I’m glad the governor flew the Florida flag at Governor’s Mansion. The politicization? It seems a bit premature.

national news, political news

Trump faces rare intraparty resistance

trump

History will tell us, I believe, that Barack Obama’s presidency will be deemed a success.

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of that well might be that the president’s successful two terms in office will come without Obama ever developing the kind of relationship he needed with members of Congress within his own party.

He’s seemed to have operated as a Lone Ranger.

Not only that, but he has faced open hostility from members of the opposing party, the Republicans on Capitol Hill. Sen. Mitch McConnell once declared famously — or infamously — that his first priority during Obama’s first term was to make him a “one-term president.”

McConnell failed in accomplishing his first priority.

The president’s second term is drawing to a close.

One of the people seeking to succeed him is Republican Donald J. Trump. From my perch, Trump’s potential presidency is looking more remote all the time.

However, just suppose that the sun will rise in the west and Trump manages to win the fall election.

How in the name of reaching across the aisle is Trump going to get anything done?

I ask not just because Democrats are going to fight him every step of the way. He’s going to get plenty of resistance from within his own party. Yes, Republicans in Congress are likely to battle with their own guy in the White House … presuming he ever were to get there.

The resistance Trump continues to get from within the Republican Party simply astounds me. Leading GOP lawmakers, such as McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, issue condemnations of Trump’s statements. They call him a racist over his remarks regarding federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel; they contend his anti-Muslim views are “un-American”; they wonder out loud whether he has any governing principles, let alone principles that comport with anything resembling standard Republican orthodoxy.

Trump keeps telling us he’ll have “great relations” with this or that demographic group — those he has insulted. He tells us Republicans will fall in line because, by golly, he’s the president and they’ll march to the cadence he’ll be calling.

His lack of understanding of government shows itself. You see, he doesn’t get that the presidency is just one “co-equal” branch of government. Trump would call whatever cadence he wishes and his “friends” in Congress would do what they damn well please.

I suspect strongly that the resistance he would encounter would make Barack Obama’s battles look almost quaint.

 

media news, national news, political news

How would Tim Russert react to today’s politics?

imrs.wdp

Tim Russert died eight years ago today.

Do I still miss him? You bet I do.

So does Chris Cillizza, a columnist for the Washington Post, who reposted a piece he wrote three years ago to commemorate the fifth anniversary of Russert’s sudden and shocking death from a heart attack.

Here it is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/06/13/remembering-tim-russert-5-years-later/?tid=sm_tw_pp&wprss=rss_the-fix

Cillizza wonders what Russert would think of today’s political climate and particularly what he’d think of Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

I think I know the answer.

He’d be appalled at both things.

Russert came from the political world into the world of broadcast journalism. He worked for U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who during his years in the Senate was many Republicans’ favorite Democrat. He also worked for New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, who didn’t have as many friends in the GOP. But still, Russert knew his way around politicians.

He joined NBC News and stumbled onto the “Meet the Press” moderator gig while filling in one Sunday.

He did so well, proved to be so comfortable, that the NBC News brass made him the permanent moderator.

What set Russert apart from so many of his peers and those who came along after him was his preparation. He knew all there was to know about the people who sat in front of him. Russert was an expert at making politicians account for the very things they said in public.

“You said this, senator,” he would say, “How do you explain that?”

He was an equal-opportunity afflicter. Democrats and Republicans all had to bring their “A game” to a session on “Meet the Press” when facing Tim Russert.

What would he think of Trump? He’d no doubt be aghast, but he’d keep it to himself. One can rest assured, too, that he’d give Hillary Rodham Clinton just as stern a grilling.