Category Archives: national news

Stop the presses! Cantor endorses Bush

cantor

I feel like dealing with two unrelated subjects in this blog post.

Except that they both deal with Jeb Bush.

First, the former Republican Florida governor today earned the endorsement of Eric Cantor.

You remember Eric Cantor. He is the former U.S. House of Representatives majority leader who, in the Republican primary of 2014, lost to TEA Party favorite David Brat.

What was the knock on Cantor in Virginia, which he represented in the House? It was that he was too wedded to being part of the GOP congressional power structure and that he cared too little about the home folks’ concerns. He was an out-of-touch Washington pol.

So, his congressional district primary voters turned on him, tossed him out of office.

I believe his endorsement of Gov. Bush will mean, well, not a thing.

***

Second, I am considering referring to Jeb Bush in the future by putting his first name in all capital leaders, just as I have done with the TEA Party.

Why? Well, “TEA” as in TEA Party is an acronym, meaning “Taxed Enough Already.” So, I’ve declared it appropriate to refer to this wing of the GOP with an all-cap reference.

The same principle applies to Jeb Bush. His first name also is an acronym. “Jeb” stands for “John Ellis Bush.”

Should I refer to him as “JEB” Bush, the way Confederate Gen. James Ewell Brown (aka J.E.B.) Stuart is identified?

Confiscate guns? Not going to happen

gunviolence

The conversation has begun.

The shooting deaths this week of two TV journalists in Roanoke, Va., has prompted the call for greater gun regulation in America.

I do not oppose that idea.

But some folks are now looking Down Under, at Australia, where officials years ago confiscated guns throughout the country. The result was a plummeting of violent crimes committed by people using firearms.

OK, will that happen here? Are the feds going into every home in America and start taking guns away from Americans? Not in a gazillion years.

The Constitution says gun ownership shall not be abridged. There will be no amendment to the Constitution that repeals the Second Amendment. Period. End of that discussion.

However, I am not going to accept the argument that stricter laws that keep guns out of the hands of the people who should have them are somehow violating the rights of “law-abiding citizens” to “keep and bear arms.”

Alison Parker and Adam Ward died at the hands of someone who purchased a gun legally in Virginia. He put down his money and walked out with a firearm that he then used to cause untold grief to two people’s families.

I am not certain how a background check on this guy would have detected some mental or emotional distress that could have kept him from owning that firearm. It’s not altogether fitting to look at just one crime and then say, “Well, all we have to do is just enforce existing laws.”

But if we step back and examine all the incidents of gun violence and the backgrounds of all the individuals who have committed these crimes, then it’s fair to ask whether there is some mechanism that could be used to detect the potential for violence if they decide to purchase a firearm.

I don’t want my two rifles taken from me. They’re heirlooms. I’ve had ’em since I was a boy. My dad gave me a .22 when I was about 11; he then gave me a 30.06 — that he had owned for many years previously — when I was in my late teens. They rarely come out of the place where I store them.

A nationwide confiscation isn’t going to happen.

But why can’t we consider some measures that (a) honor the Second Amendment and (b) make it harder for fruitcakes to get their hands on deadly weapons?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/australia-confiscated-650000-guns-murders-and-suicides-plummeted/ar-BBm9eak

 

Isn’t America still ‘great’?

ballcap trump

Tod Robberson, writing a blog for the Dallas Morning News, poses a question that’s been nagging at me since I first heard Donald Trump make a certain proclamation.

Trump has promised to “make America great again.” He’s been wearing a gimme cap at campaign rally with the words written across the front of it.

My thought always has been that the United States is a great nation. It’s a superpower with unprecedented military capability. It’s economy remains — for now, at least — No. 1 in the world.

And people from other nations are flocking here — yes, even legally — to start new lives. As Robberson pointed out: “In fact, the very immigration issue that Trump has made the focal point of his campaign belies the assertion that America isn’t great. Why would millions of people risk their lives to come to this country, legally or illegally, if there weren’t something of overwhelming value drawing them specifically here? It’s actually a lot easier to migrate to Canada, Europe, Costa Rica or Brazil. But for some reason, people want to come to America. That’s because we are still the greatest nation on earth.”

Trump, though, is suggesting that the United States no longer is “exceptional,” to borrow a popular Republican mantra of past campaigns against the current Democratic president.

Robberson also shoots down the notion that during the Ronald Reagan years in the White House that the United States stood as the model for greatness that today’s GOP seeks to emulate.

It’s worth a look: http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/make-america-great-again-trump-needs-to-rethink-his-rhetoric.html/

I’m just wondering how Trump gets away with asserting the United States of America isn’t still the greatest nation on the planet.

 

 

This shooting defies all logic

gunviolence

What in the name of all that is holy happened in Roanoke, Va.?

An apparently disgruntled former television station employee opened fire on a broadcast journalist interviewing someone and then on the cameraman who was video recording the event.

Then the shooter fled and later turned the gun on himself. His two victims died on the scene; the gunman died later.

The act went viral on social media. I’ve seen a clip of the event. It sickens me to the core.

Alison Parker was 24. Her cameraman was Adam Ward, 27. The man believed to have shot them was Vester Lee Flanagan, 41.

How in the world does one make sense of this?

There’s an element to this story that needs fleshing out. Someone turned in a fax to the station where Parker and Ward worked that declared Flanagan, an African-American, acted out of revenge over the Charleston, S.C., church massacre a few months ago in which a white man killed nine African-Americans. Flanagan’s victims were white.

As the Washington Post reported: “Why did I do it?” stated the fax, which was received shortly before 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday. “Why did I do it? I put down a deposit for a gun on 6/19/15. The Church shooting in Charleston happened on 6/17/15…” The document goes on to state: “What sent me over the top was the church shooting. And my hollow point bullets have the victims’ initials on them.”

It’s not yet been determined if the fax came from Flanagan.

If it did, then we have a serious hate crime on our hands. Authorities cannot prosecute the shooter, given his death.

I hope with all my heart that someone other than Flanagan submitted the document.

However, even if that’s the case, are we now talking about a major ratcheting up of racial tension — yet again?

 

‘The Hispanics’ won’t love this media spat

jorge ramos

Donald Trump keeps harping on what he believes is a love affair between himself and “the Hispanics.”

They’ll love me, Trump proclaims, because he employs so many of them to work in his business empire. The anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric that labels Mexican immigrants coming into this country — albeit illegally — as “rapists, drug dealers, murderers” … along with “some good people, too” — well, that doesn’t matter, according to Trump.

Then he got into this highly visible spat this week with Jorge Ramos, a new anchor and reporter for the Spanish-language network Univision.

Trump was taking questions from reporters in Dubuque, Iowa, when Ramos interrupted him. Trump got agitated at Ramos’s persistent questioning of how Trump intended to build a 1,900-mile wall across the country’s southern border.

To be fair, Ramos did barge into another reporter’s question. He shouldn’t have been so rude to his colleague.

Then again, Trump could have answered Ramos’s question and gone on to the next questioner. He didn’t do that.

He waved a bodyguard over, and then the bodyguard forcibly removed Ramos from the meeting room.

Outside the room, a man wearing a Trump lapel badge, told Ramos to “got back to your country,” to which the Mexico-born Ramos replied that he is an American citizen.

Ramos came back into the interview room later and got to ask his question. He sparred with Trump a bit more.

I just wonder how Trump actually believes — if he truly does believe it — that Hispanic voters are going to continue lovin’ on the candidate when he treats individuals such as Jorge Ramos so rudely.

The word “delusional” keeps coming to mind.

 

GOP ‘horse race’ turning into match race

candidate

Some of us have lamented the horse-race emphasis on the media’s political coverage.

The media become much too focused on polls and on who’s up and who’s down.

Donald Trump is clearly “up” in the Republican presidential primary campaign. All 16 of the other GOP candidates are “down.”

But as in an actual horse race, the GOP campaign is turning suddenly into a match race — featuring just two candidates.

They are Trump and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

The rest of them include some serious and intelligent individuals. I would rate Gov. Bush in that serious and intelligent category. Trump? He’s in another category altogether. He’s intelligent. He’s also inarticulate and doesn’t possess an ounce of nuance, decorum — or an understanding that the presidency is not an oligarchy, that it contains far less power than Trump seems to suggest it does.

The two of them are resorting to some serious character attacks. Trump calls Bush a “low-energy candidate.” Bush counters that Trump isn’t a “true conservative.”

Indeed, it fascinates me that conservative Republicans are taking the gloves against Trump, accusing him of being a RINO, aka Republican in Name Only. As Jeb Bush said, according to the Texas Tribune, of Trump’s proposal to build a wall along our nation’s southern border: “Mr. Trump’s plans are not grounded in conservative principles,” Bush said. “The simple fact is his proposal is unrealistic, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars, it will violate people’s civil liberties, it will create friction with our third largest trading partner, it’s non-necessary, and I think he’s wrong about this.”

It’s also interesting to me that Democrats have been oddly silent as Trump goes after Bush, and Bush returns fire against Trump. They’re leaving the anti-Trump rhetoric to the rest of that increasingly anonymous Republican field.

I remain amazed that this year’s GOP campaign has become so entertaining. I thought the 2012 Republican field set the entertainment bar so high that no future primary campaign in either party would reach it.

Silly me. The 2016 GOP field has exceeded my expectation.

However, right now it’s just the two “leaders” — Donald Trump and Jeb Bush — providing the entertainment.

 

Biden may be channeling RFK

RFK

While continuing to ponder the idea that Vice President Joe Biden might jump into the 2016 presidential race, my mind keeps turning to another prominent Democrat from a distant era.

About two generations ago, U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy straddled the fence on whether he should seek the 1968 Democratic Party presidential nomination, just as the vice president is considering it today.

In 1968, an incumbent president, Lyndon Johnson, was going to seek re-election to a second full term. He already had a challenge from Sen. Eugene McCarthy.

RFK remained on the sidelines.

Today’s front runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton, also is facing a serious challenge, from Sen. Bernie Sanders. She also is facing a possible problem of her own making, those e-mails she sent out while serving as secretary of state.

LBJ had his own headache. It was the Vietnam War.

President Johnson then ran in the New Hampshire primary and finished first — but barely. McCarthy nearly beat him.

It was then that Sen. Kennedy joined the race. LBJ dropped out. Kennedy mounted a furious and frantic campaign against McCarthy and then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

He won the California primary on June 5, 1968, declared “on to Chicago and let’s win there.” Then he walked into the hotel kitchen, where the assassin was waiting.

It was over in burst of gunfire.

There’s a curious parallel between then and now.

I keep wondering if Biden is waiting for Clinton to make a politically critical misstep. What if something emerges from this e-mail probe that inflicts a mortal wound on the party’s front runner?

Would he then seek the party nomination to “rescue” it from someone who cannot win the election, just as RFK sought to rescue the party from McCarthy’s insurgency and HHH’s damage caused by his support for the Vietnam War?

The vice president seems be leaning toward running. If Hillary Clinton makes a mistake that dooms her candidacy, it had better occur quickly.

The difference between 1968 and 2016 shows itself in the preparation that’s now required to get one of these campaigns off the ground.

Trump to apologize for dissing Kelly? Yeah, right

Donald Trump arrives to his Comedy Central Roast in New York, Wednesday, March 9, 2011. (AP Photo/Charles Sykes)

Fox News Channel boss Roger Ailes is demanding an apology from Donald Trump for his gratuitous criticism of network anchor Megyn Kelly.

Good luck with that, Roger.

Or, to paraphrase a hackneyed film line from the 1970 film “Love Story”: Arrogance means you never lower yourself to say you’re sorry.

Trump dissed Kelly upon her return to the air after taking a brief break. Kelly had the temerity during the initial Republican primary presidential joint appearance to ask Trump about comments he’d made about women that many had considered to be misogynistic and sexist.

Trump then ripped into Kelly for asking the question. The Trump vs. Fox feud has been boiling over ever since.

Ailes is right to demand an apology. He won’t get one.

It’s not Trump’s style.

As Trump himself keeps telling us: Why should he change a thing? Those polls give him all the affirmation he needs.

 

Unraveling has begun in Perry campaign

Texas Governor Rick Perry made his final appearance (in office) at a Texas GOP convention on Thursday, June 6,2014 in Fort Worth, Texas. (David Woo/The Dallas Morning News)

Maybe it’s just me, but the resignation of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s Iowa campaign chairman has the appearance of the beginning of the end of Perry’s second bid for the White House.

Sam Clovis, a popular Iowa radio talk show host, has resigned as Perry’s state campaign chair. It’s a pretty deal in a campaign that’s struggling to get traction as the Iowa caucuses are approaching.

The Perry camp continues to talk bravely about the Texan’s commitment to campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination.

But it’s just talk.

Perry has quit paying his campaign staff because his fundraising has dried up. He languishes far behind the front runners in the polls.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way for the former governor, who entered this campaign far better prepared than he was for the 2012 GOP nomination fight which, shall we say, ended badly.

Can the Pride of Paint Creek pull it together? Well, only if every other Republican in the race starts drooling or commits some serious verbal gaffe.

Then again, Donald Trump is showing that even crass stump rhetoric doesn’t do any damage.

 

 

Was the Carter presidency a failure?

camp david accords

Former presidents aren’t immune from criticism, even when they’re struggling against what might be a terminal illness.

Just ask Jimmy Carter.

Setting that aside, it’s been said many times — usually by Republican politicians — that President Carter’s four years in the White House constituted a “failed presidency.”

Interesting. Let’s look briefly at the record.

Yes, the economy tanked badly during Carter’s term. Why? One reason was the huge spike in oil prices. Lending institutions panicked. They jacked up interest rates way beyond what was normal or acceptable. Inflation took hold. Was all of that the president’s fault? Hardly. But it happened on his watch, so I guess he deserves some of the blame.

The president did a poor job of assuring Americans that they would be all right. He spoke glumly to us, although he never used the word “malaise.”

Foreign policy? Let’s see.

He negotiated a peace treaty in 1979 between ancient enemies Israel and Egypt. He turned them into allies. He took Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Camp David, clunked their heads together and got them to sign the most important Middle East peace accord in, well, the history of the region. It has held firm to this day.

He helped negotiate a treaty that handed over the Panama Canal to the Panamanians. Imagine that: giving to a nation cut in half by a U.S.-built canal territory that belonged rightfully to its people.

The president signed a treaty with the Soviet Union that helped reduce the number of nuclear weapons in both nations’ arsenals.

Were there missteps? Sure. He didn’t handle the Mariel boatlift of Cuban refugees well. He acknowledged just recently that is one of the regrets of his presidency.

Now, the big one: the Iranian hostage crisis. Fifty-two Americans were taken captive in Tehran in November 1979. The Islamic revolution had overthrown the shah and those “students” were angry because the shah had gotten medical attention in the United States. Was that the president’s fault?

Was it his fault that the mission to rescue the hostages in April 1980 ended tragically in the desert? Just as Barack Obama’s critics have said he took too much credit for the successful mission in May 2011 to kill Osama bin Laden, Jimmy Carter took too much blame for the failure of the Desert One mission to bring our hostages home.

Let us remember, too, that they came home safely on Ronald Reagan’s first day in office. The Iranians clearly wanted to stick it to President Carter by waiting until he no longer was president to end the crisis.

Was it a troubled presidency? Certainly. A failed one? In my view, no.