Category Archives: national news

Majority has caught up

Hey, what’s going on here? I’ve long considered myself to be among a distinct minority of Americans refusing to climb onto the gloom-doom bandwagon.

Now it turns out we comprise a majority of Americans who think the country is heading in the right direction.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/28/politics/poll-national-mood-economy/index.html

A CNN/ORC poll says most Americans think the nation is trending correctly. It’s just a 52 percent majority, but according to CNN.com, the poll reflects the most positive outlook since 2007, the year just prior to the financial collapse.

As CNN reports: “And it marks consistent improvement in the mood of the nation over the past few months, despite a series of national security crises and continued gridlock in Washington. In September, 50 percent of respondents said things were going well.”

The falling price of oil, heating oil and gasoline is putting more money in people’s pockets, which is a good thing as the Christmas shopping season commences. Gasoline today in Amarillo is about $2.41 per gallon of regular unleaded. And OPEC announced today it would not cut production, which is going to continue to put downward pressure on oil prices as supply continues to outstrip demand.

Will any of this stop the naysayer and goofball critics from trumping up crises where they don’t exist? Oh, probably not.

I’ll just keep going about my business, acknowledging that the nation remains strong, with a positive outlook despite the yammering of those looking for political advantage.

 

 

 

That's the liberal caucus we have known

Well now. It appears that Democratic liberals in Congress are rising up to give their leaders as much grief as the tea party Republicans are set to do to their leaders.

Excellent! That’s the Democratic Party with which I came of age back in the 1960s.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/keystone-xl-senate-liberals-113009.html?hp=r1_3

The defeat of the Keystone XL pipeline in the Senate seems to have juiced up the lefty caucus on Capitol Hill. They’re set to do battle with the more, um, “establishment” members of the Democratic minority in both congressional houses.

It’s looking like we might have two intraparty squabbles erupting in Congress when the next body convenes in January.

The president is stuck having to deal now with two warring factions within each party. He’s bound to anger the extremists on the left, too.

As Politico reported:

“I will use whatever tools I have as a senator to protect the environment,” said Sen. (Jeff) Merkley, a liberal from Oregon. Asked if he could ever envision himself performing a Rand Paul-style talking filibuster in the Republican Senate, (Sheldon)

Whitehouse of Rhode Island replied: “Oh, of course. We will have more tools in the minority than we had in the majority.”

The liberals don’t like President Obama any more than the conservatives do, or so one might be led to think.

Which begs the question: If Obama is ticking off conservatives so much, how is it he can do the same thing to liberals?

A truism in journalism is that if you’re angering both sides of an argument, then you’re doing a good job.

Not so in politics.

Obviously.

 

 

No stunts with Officer Wilson, please

Congressman Peter King is prone to performing rhetorical stunts on occasion. He pops off when he would do better to remain quiet.

The New York Republican did it again this week when he suggested President Obama should invite Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren Wilson to the White House to receive, in effect, a public apology from President Obama for the “slander and smear” he has endured in the media for the past four months.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/peter-king-obama-ferguson-reaction-113168.html?hp=b1_r2

Here’s a better idea. Why not just let Darren Wilson go back to doing his job, if that’s possible now that he’s become an international celebrity/pariah?

Wilson was no-billed by that grand jury in the August shooting death of Michael Brown. Wilson is white, Brown was black. The shooting touched off riots in Ferguson. Then came the grand jury decision, which set off some more riots, not just in Ferguson but in other communities across the country.

The president does not need to engage in a publicity stunt here. He has spoken his piece about the decision. He urged calm and restraint in its aftermath; his plea fell on deaf ears.

Now comes Rep. King to insert himself into this story by suggesting something patently ludicrous on its face.

Let’s have a national discussion about the nature of police-community relations, particularly among the African-American community.

But we can have it without some kind of grandstand play by the president of the United States.

His plate is quite full already, Rep. King.

 

Government shutdown? That's the ticket!

The old saw about defining “insanity” seems appropriate.

It’s when you keep doing the same thing and hoping for a different result.

I believe some members of the congressional Republican caucus are certifiably nuts if they think shutting down the government is going to produce a positive result — for them!

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/the-anxieties-of-the-gop-majority-113113.html?hp=b3_r2

That’s the dilemma facing some GOP leaders as they ponder how to respond to President Obama’s executive order this past week on immigration.

Some of them believe shutting down the government, which could happen when the money runs out on Dec. 11, is going to produce sufficient payback for the “imperial” and “monarchial” actions of “Emperor Obama.”

Memo to the GOP: You have tried this before — and it blew up in your face!

There’s nothing to suggest that this time will produce a different result for the Republican majority that’s about to take over the Senate and will control the House of Representatives with an even stronger hold than it had prior to the Nov. 4 mid-term election.

House Speaker John Boehner doesn’t want a shutdown. Neither does incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. At least that’s what they’re saying. I believe them. They’ve both endured the agony of prior shutdowns before and they know how much Americans rely on government services to work for them. When they don’t work, then all hell breaks loose.

I’m wondering if Republicans, so split among themselves about how to govern, are wondering if this majority they’ve achieved on Capitol Hill will be worth it if they cannot figure out how to find unity among themselves.

Flash back a couple of generations to when the Democratic Party was split over how — or whether — to fight the Vietnam War. Their division cost them dearly through two presidential election cycles and gave rise to five Republican presidencies from 1969 to 1993.

There’s another axiom worth repeating.

It’s the one that warns that those who don’t learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

 

War on Christmas? Who's waging it?

Conservative media are fond of saying at this time of year that there’s a “war on Christmas.”

They point to supposedly “liberal” business owners who instruct their employees to wish customers “happy holidays,” or protests by civil libertarians over Christmas decorations on public property.

So, they’ve declared there to be open war on Christmas.

It’s malarkey.

In my mind, the first shots of the real war on Christmas will be fired on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. That’s when mobs of shoppers — thousands of whom across the country have been camped out for days — will stampede into retail outlets in search of the perfect gift.

There will be violence. Fist fights will erupt. Arrests will occur. The cops will break up melees in the toy aisle.

Will any of this happen here, in Amarillo, the self-proclaimed “Buckle of the Bible Belt”? I have no clue. I cannot predict what will happen in specific communities. Nationally, though, I’m quite certain we’re going to read accounts of such mayhem as Americans rush to find the one-and-0nly gift for their loved ones.

If you’re going to pinpoint the combatants in the war on Christmas, look no further than at The Mall, or at any major department store. That’s where it’s being waged, on the ground.

And yet …

We keep hearing from those who insist that Christmas should remain an exclusively religious holiday. Christians celebrate the birth of a baby who Scripture tells us was born to save the world. The holiday, over the centuries, has morphed into something quite different from a mere birthday party.

Please, conservative media. Spare me the blathering about your perceived war on Christmas. If you have barbs to sling, aim them at those hooligans who’ll get arrested Friday morning fighting for the last Elsa doll in the store.

 

Timing of Ferguson decision is more than curious

This isn’t an original thought; it comes from a friend of mine who posted it on Facebook … but I’ll share it here.

He wonders why the prosecutor in Ferguson, Mo., waited until 8 p.m. — well after dark — to tell the nation that the grand jury decided against prosecuting the white police officer in the death of the black youth this past summer.

Why the question? Well, my friend said that “night time is riot time.”

Officer Darren Wilson still might face federal prosecution in the death of Michael Brown. We’ll wait for that drama to play out.

But the town of Ferguson erupted last night in violence after the prosecutor’s announcement.

It makes me wonder: Couldn’t he have announced that he would wait until morning to reveal the grand jury’s decision? Would an announcement made in broad daylight have perhaps calmed tensions just a little?

As the late great slugger Ted Williams used to say about hitting a baseball: Timing is everything.

So, too, it might be in delivering emotionally charged news to an anxious public.

 

Lieberman for defense chief? Fat chance, Ted

Leave it to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz to provide a laugh amid a serious discussion about national defense policy.

The freshman Republican from Texas thinks former Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., would make a wonderful choice to become the next secretary of defense, replacing Chuck Hagel, who announced his (forced?) resignation Monday.

President Obama might make his pick later today, so I have to get this thought out quickly.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/11/cruz-proposes-lieberman-to-replace-hagel-at-pentagon/

Lieberman might make a good choice except for one little thing.

In 2008, Lieberman — who campaigned as Al Gore’s vice-presidential running mate on the 2000 Democratic ticket — bolted from the party in 2008 when he backed Sen. John McCain for president against, yes, Sen. Barack Obama.

I guess Lieberman is still a Democrat, but I hardly think the president would select someone who’s on record as backing one of the president’s most vocal foreign-policy critics to lead the Pentagon.

Does a president of either party deserve to have folks loyal to him and his policies? Would a President Cruz — perish the thought!) — demand loyalty were he to sit in the Oval Office? “Yes” to the first question. “You bet he would” to the second question.

So, I’ll creep just a tiny bit out on the limb here and predict that Barack Obama will ignore Ted Cruz’s advice and go with someone with whom he feels most comfortable in helping shape American defense policy in this difficult and trying time.

 

 

About that calm response in Ferguson …

Well, so much for calmness and reason in the wake of a grand jury’s decision.

A panel returned a no-bill in the case involving Police Officer Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown to death in Ferguson, Mo. Wilson is white, Brown was black. The incident touched off a series of protests, often violent. The cops made a mess of putting down the initial unrest. Questions have arisen about whether the African-American community gets a fair shake in Ferguson.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/with-no-indictment-chaos-fills-ferguson-streets/ar-BBfJTrf

The case went to the grand jury, which Monday night returned its non-indictment. Wilson won’t be prosecuted for any crime.

The most tragic part of the response has been the damage done to innocent people. Their businesses have been looted, destroyed by stones and fire. People have been physically injured. The rage goes on. And for what purpose?

Michael Brown’s father pleaded for calm, asking residents to resist the temptation to strike back. Don’t like Michael die “in vain,” he said. President Obama echoed the sentiment late Monday after the decision came down, but noted that the nation can have a rational conversation about police-community relations.

Where has the reason and the calmness gone?

 

Grand jury no-bill is in; let calm prevail

This might be too much to ask, but I’ll ask it anyway.

Can the good folks of Ferguson, Mo., resist the urge to damage people’s property and injure fellow human beings in the wake of the grand jury’s decision to decline prosecution of a white police officer who shot a black youth to death this past summer?

The grand jury returned the no-bill decision this evening in the case of Officer Darren Wilson; the dead teen is Michael Brown.

The town has been the subject of intense media scrutiny ever since the shooting. There’s been a lot of anxiety, anger and tension in the town ever since. The media have contributed to much of the tension, in my view, with its incessant coverage of the event, the aftermath, and the potential for violence if the grand jury made the decision it did today.

Yes, there have been some key questions asked about the state of police relations with the African-American community — in Ferguson and in cities and towns across the country. They are valid questions that ask whether African-American youth are treated the same as other youth by the police.

Let’s examine those questions.

As for the reaction to the no-bill, let’s also understand that the shop owner, the restaurant proprietor or the average Joe aren’t culpable. They’re all innocent victims of random violence that has erupted as a result of past perceived injustices.

We need not create more of them.

 

 

Hagel was 'up to the job'

Chuck Hagel’s departure today as secretary of defense has the look of a forced resignation.

It now appears, at least to me, that Hagel was the one who forced the issue. That’s too bad. The Pentagon and the Obama administration have lost a good man who knows and understands the needs of the men and women who do all the heavy lifting … in the field.

How Obama and Chuck Hagel reached the end of the line

President Obama talked today about how then-Sen. Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, took the young Sen. Obama under his wing and showed him the ropes in a body prone to cliques. He heaped praise on the defense boss and wished him well, which is what one would expect.

Now comes word that Hagel tried to crack the president’s tight inner circle, but couldn’t get in. He had difficulty making his defense policy opinions heard by the commander in chief and those who form that tight-knit circle around him.

If Sen. Hagel was such a trusted ally to the man who would be president, how is it that he was left on the outside looking in when key policy decisions and critical shifts in defense policy were occurring?

Sen. John McCain, one of Hagel’s best friends in the Senate, is set to lead the Senate Armed Services Committee next January. He will chair the panel that will decide whether to confirm the next defense boss. I hope McCain can set aside his personal animus toward Obama — who beat him in the 2008 presidential election — and conduct a thorough but fair hearing of the next nominee.

One of the questions that needs answering, though, is whether the new person will have the access to the commander in chief he or she will need to operate at maximum efficiency. The nominee won’t know that with certainty. The president will and he should make that clear when he announces his next defense secretary nominee.