Category Archives: national news

Ernst follows Perry model: Who needs editorial boards?

Joni Ernst is staking out an interesting — but not unprecedented — tactic in her campaign for the U.S. Senate in Iowa.

The Republican is forgoing interviews with major Iowa newspaper editorial boards. Media observers in the Hawkeye State are wondering whether she’s afraid of being questioned by the editorial boards. She’s canceling interview appointments left and right.

Her opponent, Democrat Bruce Braley, is meeting with them, hoping — I can assume — to gather up newspaper endorsements.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/23/iowa-newspapers-speak-out-over-joni-ernst-snubb/201292

Do you remember when Gov.Rick Perry kissed off newspaper endorsements in 2010 when he was running for re-election in Texas? He stiffed newspaper editorial boards all over the state. He was quite clear: I don’t need no stinkin’ editorial endorsements; I’m going to “talk directly” to Texans.

Texas newspaper editors and publishers took the snub personally, with most of them endorsing his Democratic opponent, former Houston Mayor Bill White. The paper where I worked at the time, the Amarillo Globe-News, followed suit. We backed White and when we did, you’d have thought Planet Earth had just spun off its axis. The reaction from our deeply Republican readers in the heart of the Texas Panhandle was ferocious.

Not to fear, Perry’s handlers reckoned — correctly, I should add.

The governor was re-elected handily four years ago with a 13 percent victory over White.

I figure, though, that Perry knows Texas voters as well as any politician who’s ever held public office.

Does Joni Ernst know Iowans as well? We’ll find out in about 12 days.

NIH boss blames budget cuts for Ebola mess

A dose of self-awareness is in order for critics of the Obama administration’s response to this Ebola matter.

Pay attention, congressional Republicans. I’m talking about you.

The head of the National Institutes for Health says budget cuts have derailed efforts to find a vaccine for the deadly disease that has killed thousands of people in West Africa — and one in the United States.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/12/ebola-vaccine_n_5974148.html

As the Huffington Post reported: “Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, said that a decade of stagnant spending has ‘slowed down’ research on all items, including vaccinations for infectious diseases. As a result, he said, the international community has been left playing catch-up on a potentially avoidable humanitarian catastrophe.”

The Post goes on: “Money, or rather the lack of it, is a big part of the problem. NIH’s purchasing power is down 23 percent from what it was a decade ago, and its budget has remained almost static. In fiscal year 2004, the agency’s budget was $28.03 billion. In FY 2013, it was $29.31 billion — barely a change, even before adjusting for inflation. The situation is even more pronounced at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a subdivision of NIH, where the budget has fallen from $4.30 billion in FY 2004 to $4.25 billion in FY 2013.”

Here’s the maddening part, from my perspective.

The very people who now complain about government’s inability to deal with this matter (I refuse to call it a “crisis” in the United States) are the same folks who keep slashing money because — they contend — the United States cannot afford to spend it. They are critical of the NIH, calling it some sort of “liberal-leaning arm of government” that pushes “agendas.”

And yet these are the folks who are feeding much of the hysteria that keeps showing up on right-wing mainstream media outlets by contending that Ebola is about to break out badly in this country, even though health professionals insist that is not the case.

What can be done? How about giving the NIH the resources it needs to find a vaccine for Ebola before it becomes a crisis in the United States?

R.I.P., Ben Bradlee

I came of age during a most interesting and turbulent time.

Being near the leading edge of the baby boom, I was born not long after World War II. I grew up in the 1950s and ’60s as the nation was being shaped into the greatest economic and military power in world history.

Then came the turbulent time of Vietnam, a war that divided Americans. I did my tiny part in that war, came home and re-enrolled in college. Dad asked me, “Do you have any idea what you want to major in?” I said no. He offered a suggestion: Why not journalism? “You wrote such descriptive letters when you were away,” he told me, “that I think you might want to try journalism as a career.”

So, I did take some entry-level journalism courses in college. I fell in love with the written word.

Then a burglary occurred on June 17, 1972. It was at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. Some goofballs had been caught breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters. The Washington Post covered the event as a “cop shop” story initially. The paper buried it.

Then a couple of young reporters began sniffing around. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein smelled a rat. This is bigger than we think, they told their editor, Ben Bradlee, who died today.

The reporters had to talk their editor into letting them go hard after the story.

Bradlee eventually relented. He turned the young men loose. They uncovered the greatest constitutional crisis of the 20th century.

It was a good time to be a journalist.

I’ll make an admission. I was among the thousands of  young journalism aspirants who became star-struck by the notion of breaking the “big story” because of the work that Bradlee, Woodward and Bernstein did in uncovering the Watergate story.

I trust others in their mid-20s, such as myself, were as smitten as I was at the intrepid nature of the reporting that was done in the field and the tough decisions the reporters’ editor had to make to ensure that they got it right.

Brother, did they ever get it right.

They can thank Ben Bradlee for guiding them, pushing them, perhaps even goading them into telling this story completely.

My own career, of course, didn’t produce that kind of notoriety. I am grateful, however, for the nudge my dear father gave me in late 1970 to seek an educational course that would enable me to enjoy the career I would have. I also am grateful that Ben Bradlee had the courage to seek the truth in a story known as Watergate and gave young reporters all across the land further incentive to pursue a noble craft.

Thank you, Ben.

Where does Davis go from here?

This is not a particularly bold prediction: Wendy Davis is likely to lose her bid to become Texas’s next governor.

The Democratic nominee is being whipsawed by a combination of circumstances: She’s running in a heavily Republican state; she hasn’t gotten serious traction on the serious issues she’s sought to raise; her opponent, Greg Abbott, has proven to be unflappable in the face of intense criticism.

My question now is this: Where does the state senator go from here?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/wendy-davis-2014-texas-elections-112027.html?hp=l23

Some observers had speculated that Davis could emerge with a moral victory even in defeat. She’s made a name for herself. She gained national fame with that notable filibuster in 2013 of a strict anti-abortion bill. She is an articulate spokeswoman for her party.

The problem is that the Texas Democratic Party is in shambles. Republicans have grabbed every statewide office and have tightened the vise-grip they hold.

Davis had been seen as a possible leader of a Democratic resurgence. Trouble is that the resurgence has failed to take hold.

Davis’s future as a political star in Texas is questionable at best, and not because of anything she’s said or done, but because the party cannot seem to pull itself off the deck.

If she’s going to maintain a future in elected politics, it looks to me as though she ought to follow the Scott Brown model up yonder in New England. Brown, a Republican, lost his U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts to Democrat Elizabeth Warren. Then he moved to neighboring New Hampshire and is mounting a serious challenge to Democratic U.S. Sen. Jean Shaheen.

Sen. Davis? New Mexico might be beckoning.

Oops! GOP governor tells truth, then backs off

Hey, I always thought Ohio Republican Gov. John Kasich was a straight shooter.

Turns out he needs to get his sights re-set.

Kasich told The Associated Press that the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is here to stay, that Republicans have no hope of repealing it, even if they win control of the U.S. Senate after the Nov. 4 mid-term election.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/20/politics/kasich-obamacare-here-to-stay/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

‘AP reported this: “‘The opposition to it was really either political or ideological,’ Kasich said of Obamacare. “I don’t think that holds water against real flesh and blood, and real improvements in people’s lives.'”

That sounds pretty darn reasonable. But wait! Gov. Kasich’s people said AP got it wrong. The governor was referring to the ACA’s Medicaid expansion.

The ACA should be repealed and replaced, the governor’s office said — speaking for Kasich.

Here’s the deal, folks.

The ACA is working. Millions of Americans have signed up for health insurance who didn’t have it before. It’s providing comfort to those who prior to the law’s enactment couldn’t afford to be insured.

The ACA rollout was a Keystone Kops affair, to be sure. The computerized system crashed. It was a mess.

Then it got fixed. Yes, the rollout likely caused Kathleen Sebelius her job as health and human services secretary.

I’ll stick with Kasich’s initial view that repeal of the ACA ain’t going to happen.

Congressional Republicans, I’m quite certain, will have no trouble finding other issues with which to pick fights with the president. It’s in their DNA.

'Kissing congressman' testing voters' values

By all rights, Vance McAllister should be toast. Done. A goner from public life.

The Louisiana Republican congressman got caught on a video laying a seriously wet kiss on a female staffer. They were making out, man. Oh, McAllister and the staffer have spouses. The woman’s husband was so angry he declared their marriage to be over; I haven’t heard the latest on that one.

As for McAllister, he apparently is still married to the mother of their five children. He had declared his intention to leave office after this term, then he changed his mind. He’s running in that free-for-all Louisiana system in which Democrats and Republicans run against each other in the general election.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/vance-mcallister-the-kissing-congressman-112015.html?hp=t1

You know what? The guy just might win — again.

It looks as though the congressman is testing his constituents’ tolerance for misbehavior.

He represents a reliably Republican district. His constituent base is generally quite conservative. So, I’ll presume that under most circumstances they’d frown terribly on their elected representative in Congress making out with someone other than his wife.

Doesn’t Scripture tell us that “adultery” results even when we look lustfully at someone other than our spouse? By that measure, McAllister has committed a serious sin, correct? What’s more, McAllister campaign for election while declaring himself to be a God-fearing, wife-and-children-loving family man.

Well, he’s back in the game. He’s running hard for re-election, only he’s kissing babies this time.

This will be most intriguing. The incumbent’s constituents reportedly are looking past the kind of misbehavior that used to get politicians into serious trouble.

Wow!

Hysteria czar? Why not?

Todd Roberson’s blog for the Dallas Morning News is spot on.

The United States doesn’t need an Ebola czar as much as it needs a “Hysteria czar.”

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/10/we-need-a-hysteria-czar-not-an-ebola-czar.html/

The worst fomenters of the hysteria gripping some Americans appear to be the cable news networks. Roberson singles out CNN, with its endless “Breaking News” alerts and its ominous-sounding music.

He writes about images of men walking around in hazmat suits, helicopters flying over Dallas-area housing complexes and a Nigerian student being denied admission to Navarro College because the school no longer accepts applications from students who come from countries with confirmed cases of Ebola.

I don’t think I’m going to say much more about this hysteria nonsense. I’m spent. No one at CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CNBC or the broadcast networks are paying attention. I feel as though I’m talking to myself.

Ebola is not a “crisis” in the U.S. of A. We’ve had precisely one death of someone who came into this country from a country infected with the deadly disease.

I’m with Roberson. President Obama needs to appoint a Hysteria czar.

Can poll numbers change Mitt's wife's mind?

Let it be understood that I heard what Ann Romney said about whether her husband, Mitt, should seek the presidency a third time.

She and her sons are “done, done, done” with national politics, Ann said.

Sure thing.

Now we hear that an ABC-News/Washington Post poll says Republicans want Mitt to run for president in 2016. The margin is significant over the other supposed would-be candidates.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/post-abc-news-poll-absent-mitt-romney-who-can-claim-the-2016-gop-banner/2014/10/18/5c029da8-5615-11e4-ba4b-f6333e2c0453_story.html?hpid=z4

The poll says that as of right now, 21 percent of Republicans want Mitt to run, which is close to what he got prior to the 2012 campaign. Hey, he ended up being nominated by the Republican Party in the previous election.

As for Mitt, he hasn’t yet slammed the door shut and thrown away the key. He’s said things like “I have no intention” of seeking the presidency; he proclaims his happiness at being a private citizen (more or less) once again; he says the party has plenty of good candidates willing to step into the arena.

Has there been anything approaching a “hell no, I’ll never run again” statement from Mitt? Not even close.

As for Ann Romney, her “done, done, done” declaration can be construed as potentially malleable if the poll numbers keep showing that GOP voters want Mitt to run again.

I’m not one of those Republicans. However, I’d love to see Mitt run one more time. Why? My curiosity is goading me into wanting him to atone for the hideous mistakes he made during the 2012 campaign. The 47-percent remark comes to mind; his statement that “corporations are people, too, my friend” also sticks in my head; his efforts at keeping his distance from Romneycare by suggesting it bears no resemblance to Obamacare also was a doozy.

Can this man be redeemed and remade into a credible national candidate once again?

I’d like to see his handlers try.

I hope he’s up to it. More importantly, I am hoping he can persuade Ann to take part in one more run for the White House.

Let's quell the Ebola fear

Will we listen to the president of the United States on this one?

Let us not allow fear to overtake the nation as the world seeks a way to head off Ebola, the deadly virus that has killed thousands of people in West Africa.

It has taken the life of precisely one person in the United States. But the media are making it seem as though it is running rampant throughout the country.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/president-obama-ebola-112001.html?hp=l4_b1

President Obama used his weekly radio address today to try to put this issue into its proper perspective.

“Meeting a public health challenge like this isn’t just a job for government,” he said, just days after two Dallas nurses were diagnosed with the disease. “All of us — citizens, leaders, the media — have a responsibility and a role to play.”

That role shouldn’t be to push panic buttons.

“We can’t give in to hysteria or fear, because that only makes it harder to get people the accurate information they need,” Obama said.

As for the administration’s response to this situation (I refuse to call it a “crisis” in the United States), it needs to be tightened up. To that end, the president has selected an Ebola “czar” who is tasked with coordinating the national effort. Ronald Klain is that man. He’s a trusted aide and friend of the president. He is known as a fixer.

I’m willing to let the man do his job. No, he lacks a medical background, but he has access to the best medical minds in the world.

Meanwhile, let’s keep our cool.

Chief justice going soft? Hardly

Conservatives reportedly are getting itchy over some recent decisions by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts.

Why, he’s siding with some of the Supreme Court’s liberals and that dreaded swing vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

He’s just not the dependable conservative they thought they were getting when President Bush appointed him to the court.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/john-roberts-conservative-quake-112000.html?hp=f2

These nervous nellies on the right ought to relax.

I don’t consider the chief justice to be a toady to the right. He’s now holding a lifetime job and is free from the political strings to which he was attached when the president appointed him chief justice. It might be — and it’s way too early to tell — heading down a trail blazed by other formerly “conservative” justices who turned out to be anything but.

Chief Justice Earl Warren took his seat after President Eisenhower appointed him in 1953. The very next year, the Warren Court handed down the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling that effectively ended segregation in the nation’s public schools systems. Ike called the Warren appointment his biggest mistake as president.

President Nixon appointed Harry Blackmun to the court in 1971 and all Blackmun did was write the Roe v. Wade decision that ruled abortion to be a protected right under the Constitution.

President Ford named John Paul Stevens to the court in 1975, thinking he was getting a conservative jurist to serve on the court. Stevens turned out to be one of the leading court liberals.

And what about Roberts? All he’s done is side with the liberal minority on the court in a 2012 vote that upheld the Affordable Care Act. It was a narrow decision that didn’t bring about the end of the world.

The Supreme Court remains a conservative body. It has three hard-core righties — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Roberts might be tilting more toward the center, hardly to the left. Kennedy remains the pivotal swing vote. The four liberals remain dependably so: Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor have formed a Fearsome Foursome of liberal jurisprudence.

The hard right just needs to chill out. I doubt that the chief justice is going to turn on them. Hey, if he does, then he’s joining some pretty heady company among justices who rediscovered their consciences and their principles.