Category Archives: national news

national news, political news

HRC is going to run for president

1 Comment

Anyone who thought that Hillary Rodham Clinton was going to decide against running for president next year — and I believed that was a possibility — well, you’d better put those notions into the trash bin.

It looks as though Clinton is in. Email controversy and all. Criticism from the right and from the far left, too.

She’s in.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-atlantic-city-speech-116236.html?hp=c2_3

Clinton gave what everyone in the know says is the last speech she’ll give for money. She spoke to the American Camp Association and collected her usual handsome speaking fee.

After that, it’s done. No more money for speaking. We’re going to hear from the former secretary of state about why she wants to run for president and why she’s the best candidate out there.

Honestly, her political stamina is utterly amazing.

She has been battered almost beyond recognition from the day her husband, Bill, took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 1993. It never let up during President Clinton’s two terms. He got impeached but was acquitted of “high crimes and misdemeanors” by the Senate. When the president left office in January 2001, Hillary took office as a senator from New York, serving with the very people who sought to get her husband kicked out of office; I “predicted” back then she wouldn’t do it … silly me.

Her 2008 presidential campaign was another exercise in political battering. The man who defeated her then named her secretary of state — and she’s been dogged even more by harsh criticism.

Now she’s going for the Big One.

An announcement is expected soon, perhaps within the next month.

This ride will be a rough one.

national news, political news

Obama not calling for mandatory voting

2 Comments

White House press flack Josh Earnest today sought to explain that President Obama isn’t calling for a specific law to require Americans to vote.

Hey, I get what the president said. He was making some kind of suggestion that it might be a good idea. I disagree with the notion of mandatory voting, as it seems vaguely un-American to tell us we must do something.

Obama doesn’t want to mandate voting

Actually, this is a healthy discussion to have.

Two states, Oregon and Washington, allow voters to mail in their ballots. Voter turnout in those two states is far greater than it is in, oh, Texas. It’s great that voters can cast their ballots in the comfort of their living rooms.

My preference? I still like the old-fashioned way of voting. Wait until Election Day, go to the polling place and stand in line with other voters, pass the time away waiting for a voting booth to become available. I dislike early voting and I do so only when I’m going to be away on Election Day.

I am of an old-school mentality that prefers — for lack of a better term — the pageantry of voting.

Early voting hasn’t boosted turnout; it’s just allowed more people to vote early. It reduces the crush at the polling places on Election Day.

One idea worth considering is making presidential — and midterm — Election Day a national holiday. Don’t go to work or school. Don’t do anything that would divert attention from the task of voting. Perhaps have the event occur on a Saturday.

I heard the president clearly in Cleveland and understood the context of his remarks.

Voter turnout stinks. Big money is too pervasive. However, let’s not require Americans to vote.

 

national news, political news

Scalise needed to be in Selma

If there was one member of the congressional leadership team who needed to be in Selma to mark the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, it was Louisiana U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise.

He should have been there. He should have sought to make amends for a significant error in judgment some years ago, before he became a Republican member of the House of Representatives.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/steve-scalise-skip-selma-march-conference-116232.html?hp=lc3_4

Scalise had the bad taste in 2006, prior to his election to Congress, to accept a speaking engagement before a group founded by noted Ku Klux Klan grand lizard David Duke.

Scalise, who’s now the House majority whip, has since expressed regret over attending the Duke-sponsored event.

Where was he the day of the Selma commemoration? He was in Sea Island, Ga., attending an American Enterprise Institute conference, along with some other key conservative thinkers and politicians.

One of them attending the AEI event was House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who also took time to attend the rally on the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

McCarthy was one of a handful of key Republican politicians to attend the Selma event; another key Republican in Selma was the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush, who was there with his wife, Laura.

Scalise, who still has some damage to repair from the fallout from his David Duke speech all those years ago, missed a chance to demonstrate that he really doesn’t subscribe to the views held by the KKK.

 

International news, national news

U.S., Israel: friends for life

The media have gone ballistic over reports of strains between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

My goodness. May we clear the air here?

There is no way on God’s planet Earth that the United States of America is going to abandon Israel in a time of international crisis. None. There is about as much chance of that happening as there is a chance of Congress repealing Social Security and/or Medicare.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/israels-america-united-116203.html?hp=r3_4

Netanyahu scored a decisive parliamentary victory this week with his Likud Party maintaining a semblance of control over the Knesset. To win the election, Bibi had to shift dramatically to the right, such as pulling back his previous support for the creation of a Palestinian state.

As Politico reports, that pullback of support is prompting the Obama administration to rethink the longstanding U.S. policy of serving as a “shield” for Israel.

What does it mean? I’ll tell you what I believe it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean the United States will walk away from a fight if Israel is attacked by, say, Iran.

I’m still holding out hope that Obama and Netanyahu can reach some kind of private rapprochement that results in an eventual warming of public relations.

Yes, the tensions flared dramatically in the days and weeks preceding the Israeli election. They flared because Bibi broke a longstanding diplomatic tradition by agreeing to speak to Congress without consulting with Barack Obama; they also flared when House Speaker John Boehner decided to inject himself into a sort of quasi-head-of-government role by extending the invitation in the first place — again, without consulting with the president of the United States.

All this diplomatic and political byplay means little, though, when you consider this fundamental fact: The United States and Israel are — and will remain — the best of friends in a world that can go crazy.

If and when the shooting starts in Israel, the United States will be standing at its ally’s side.

 

national news, political news

Mandatory voting? Bad idea, Mr. President

President Obama believes big money has too much influence in determining who gets elected.

I agree with him.

He also suggests that mandatory voting is a constructive reform that would counteract big money’s pervasive idea.

I disagree with that idea.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-suggests-mandatory-voting-might-be-a-good-idea/

The president spoke at a town hall and pitched the idea of requiring citizens to vote to an audience. He said other countries require it. He cited Australia as one example.

Allow me to argue that one of the many aspects of “American exceptionalism” is the notion that Americans are free to vote or not vote. We proclaim our love of liberty and while I bemoan constantly the hideous voter turnouts — particularly in state and local elections — I remain enough of an optimist to think we can browbeat complacent citizens to get off their duffs and vote.

We elect presidents with, say, 60 percent turnouts. Political scientists are happy to see that kind of turnout. I find it disgraceful. That means 40 percent of the eligible population doesn’t care enough to vote for those seeking to lead the greatest nation on Earth.

But should we force people to vote?

I’m dubious of that requirement. The freedoms we enjoy should include the freedom to be apathetic. It’s individuals’ call.

Besides, requiring people to vote removes the great political putdown that many Americans — myself included — are proud to utter when the situation presents itself: If you haven’t voted, then keep your trap shut.

But, yes, the president is correct about one aspect of his remarks. Big money wields way too much power.

legal news, national news, political news

Race enters Lynch debate over AG vote

I didn’t predict it would happen, but the debate over when to vote on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as the next U.S. attorney general has taken an unsurprising turn.

The issue of race has entered this debate, as Lynch is the first African-American woman ever nominated to head the Justice Department.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/dick-durbin-loretta-lynch-back-of-bus-116180.html?hp=t1_r

The introduction was made by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who said the delays in voting on Lynch’s confirmation has forced the nominee to “sit at the back of the bus.” Durbin’s reference, of course, was to the great Rosa Parks, the civil rights icon who famously refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in the 1950s.

To my mind, the issue more about partisan politics than it is about race and Durbin should not have gone there during his Senate floor speech.

Durbin drew the expected criticism from Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the Senate’s lone black Republican, who accused Durbin of being a race-baiter.

“It is helpful to have a long memory and to remember that Durbin voted against Condoleezza Rice during the 40th anniversary of the March [on Selma]. So I think, in context, it’s just offensive that we have folks who are willing to race bait on such an important issue as human trafficking,” Scott said. “Sometimes people use race as an issue that is hopefully going to motivate folks for their fight. But what it does, is it infuriates people.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is wrong to hold up the Lynch vote. She needs to be confirmed and the Justice Department needs to get refocused exclusively on its job, which is to enforce federal law.

I just wish we could have kept the race argument out of this so we can stick instead to the raw political gamesmanship that the GOP leadership is playing while delaying Lynch’s confirmation vote.

 

national news, political news

Rep. Schock calls it a career

Aaron Schock was thought to be a Republican superstar in the making.

The Illinois congressman, though, has become a GOP goat. He’s quitting Congress at the end of the month because of a mountain of reports that he spent money lavishly, inappropriately and perhaps in violation of federal law.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/17/illinois_rep_aaron_schock_announces_resignation_125960.html

I will not join the Democratic Party chorus that is blasting House Speaker John Boehner to smithereens over Schock’s sudden departure. In reality, none of this is the speaker’s fault. The entire mess falls squarely on Schock’s shoulders.

He said the usual thing politicians say when they are forced to quit because of ethical trouble. The stories of his spending and his alleged failure to report it correctly have become a “distraction,” Schock said in a statement.

He had served in Congress for six years and was thought to be one of his party’s shooting stars.

No more. He’s about to vanish from Capitol Hill.

In truth, the story was more than a distraction. It besmirched the entire House of Representatives, which comprises members who represent all Americans and which enacts laws that affect all of us.

Aaron Schock was one of them and he needed to go.

Later, young man.

local news, national news

In defense of police work

1 Comment

Police officers are taking a beating these days.

Not by everyone, mind you, but by some who at times seem to imply that they believe police officers generally are a trigger-happy bunch too willing to pull their guns out and shoot someone.

I feel compelled to revisit a course I once took courtesy of the Amarillo Police Department.

A few years ago, APD officials invited some media folks to its simulated training center for a little practical training on how and when to fire a pistol at someone committing a crime.

Do you shoot or not shoot? That was the question we had to answer to ourselves in a split second while undergoing a simulated criminal act. In the dark. With little warning of what was about to happen.

We were armed with guns that shot paint balls. If you got hit with one of these pellets, well, it smarted some.

We were dressed with some protective gear, given the scenario we were about to visit, then turned loose into a room, or a hallway to confront someone — portrayed by an Amarillo police officer — who is committing a simulated “crime.”

Shoot or don’t shoot?

I have to admit something right here: I didn’t do well on all the scenarios with which I was presented. In once instance, I “shot” someone who was running away from me. I wasn’t supposed to shoot in that case. The training officers all laughed out loud at me; I laughed back … with considerable embarrassment.

One of the things I learned from the training exercise, though, was how one’s adrenalin rushes through one’s body. My own body was trembling with anticipation as I entered each scenario — and I knew I was shooting paint balls, not real bullets.

When it was over, I tried to imagine how my adrenal glands would have reacted had I been an on-duty cop, packing a 9-mm pistol, confronting a bad guy and then having to decide in a split second whether to shoot him or let him go.

My sweat-soaked body betrayed the nerves that got the better of me.

Law enforcement does have bad police officers who make poor decisions. They usually are called out by witnesses, the media and even at times fellow officers. The rest of them — most of them — do their jobs well.

Those are the men and women who deserve our thanks.

 

national news

Wyatt Earp: Now there was a gun control freak

1 Comment

Texas is inching closer toward a law that would allow residents to carry guns openly, where everyone can see them.

The state Senate has approved a bill allowing it, prompting the debate yet again about what the Second Amendment says and what its authors intended. Are all citizens given the right to “keep and bear arms,” or is it referring to the “well-regulated militia” having that right?

Let’s save that one for another day.

But a friend of mine, Benny Hill, reminded me today that Wyatt Earp perhaps was one of the earliest advocates of gun control.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123

Good ol’ Marshal Earp used to keep the peace in Tombstone, Ariz. How did he do it? One way was to require everyone entering his town to check their firearms as the proverbial front gate. No guns allowed, said Earp. He just kept ’em locked up until the folks left town.

Would anyone dare consider Earp to be a soft progressive, a flaming left-wing liberal intent on taking everyone’s gun away from them? I doubt it sincerely.

Yes, he had good reason to confiscate temporarily people’s guns. Crime was running rampant in the Old West town. It was worse in Tombstone, apparently, than in most places.

As the Los Angeles Times reported in January 2011: “You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff’s office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn’t pick it up again until you were leaving town,” said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. “It was an effort to control the violence.”

Imagine someone trying that tactic today. Imagine as well the reaction from, say, any gun-owner-rights advocacy group — no need name names here — to the notion of surrendering your sidearm while you entered any city in America.

Gun laws were a lot tougher than they are now. And to think so many Americans keep wishing for the good old days.

 

national news, political news, State news

Motor voter law takes effect

Leave it to a state known to be among the first to try new ideas.

That would be Oregon, the state of my birth, which has just become the first state in America to automatically register citizens to vote using data taken from motor vehicle department registration.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signed the bill into law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/oregon-voter-registration_n_6880598.html

It’s a fascinating concept. The state is dipping into DMV records to find citizens who aren’t registered to vote. It registers them, but those newly registered voters have 21 days to decide whether they want to remain registered to vote.

In Oregon, that voter registration rolls are expected to swell by 300,000 residents.

What would be the effect in Texas? Let’s see, Oregon’s population is just a shade less than 4 million; Texas’s is 26 million. Would the Texas voter registration rolls increase by, say, 1.8 million to 2 million citizens?

Let’s not get too giddy over this law, though.

Every Republican in the Oregon Legislature opposed the bill, citing concerns about “invasion of privacy.” Oregon’s political balance is fairly equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. If the GOP opposes this kind of voter registration reform nationally, it would seem to have zero chance in a state like Texas, where Republicans command super-majorities in both legislative chambers.

In an era where pols are trying to make voter registration more difficult, it is refreshing to see such a bold new initiative inaugurated in a place where innovation often is the norm.

“I challenge every other state in this nation to examine their policies and to find ways to ensure there are as few barriers as possible for citizens’ right to vote,” Brown said.

Don’t hold your breath, governor, about Texas examining its voter registration policies.

Still, I’m glad to see at least one state taking a proactive approach to working to put more, not fewer, of its residents on its voter registration rolls.