Category Archives: political news

Hold on! Court balance won’t change

All this hyperventilating over Donald Trump’s choice for the U.S. Supreme Court is making me dizzy.

The president tonight brought out Neil Gorsuch, a judge on the 10th Circuit of Appeals, as his nominee for the nation’s highest court.

He’s a conservative, just as Trump promised. He is a “strict constitutional constructionist,” again as Trump vowed. He’s also a disciple of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, as Trump pledged.

Now we’re hearing talk about the “nuclear option” that Senate Democrats might employ to stop Gorsuch’s confirmation. They’ll oppose this fellow, seemingly as payback for the shabby treatment Senate Republicans leveled against President Obama’s choice to succeed Obama. Remember that? Senate GOPers said within hours of Scalia’s death that they would block anyone the president nominated. Obama selected Merrick Garland and the Senate didn’t even give him a hearing and a vote.

Let’s take a deep breath here.

I want to make a couple of points.

One, I detest the notion of Donald Trump nominating anyone to the court. But he won the presidency without my vote. He won enough electoral votes to take the oath of office. Thus, he earned the right to choose anyone he wants.

Gorsuch isn’t my kind of justice. But someone else is the president.

Two, the ideological balance of the U.S. Supreme Court is not going to change when — or if — Gorsuch is confirmed. Scalia was a conservative icon. He was a heroic figure among political conservatives. Placing another judicial conservative on the high court restores the court’s narrow 5-4 conservative bent.

I feel compelled to note that the court — with that narrow conservative majority — made two decisions that riled conservatives, um, bigly. It upheld the Affordable Care Act and it declared same-sex marriage to be legal under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Would a Justice Gorsuch change that equation? I don’t see it. A nominee to succeed, say, one of the liberals on the court would most assuredly prompt a titanic political battle … as it should.

None of this will matter, of course, to Senate Democrats who are enraged at the president over many — seemingly countless — issues. His behavior in the first 10 days of his presidency, culminating with his firing of an acting attorney general over her refusal to defend Trump’s paranoid refugee ban, has angered Democrats to their core.

Thus, the fight is on.

It pains me to acknowledge it, but I must. Donald Trump vowed to nominate someone from a list of 20 or so jurists he revealed during his campaign. He has delivered on his pledge.

Judge Gorsuch isn’t to my liking. Moreover, my candidate lost. The other guy won. As they say, elections do have consequences.

Seliger takes brief turn as governor of Texas

I have had the pleasure and the honor of knowing many honorable men and women in public life throughout my 37 years in journalism. This blog post is about one of the good guys I have had the honor of knowing professionally and personally.

I wrote it initially for another medium, but I have chosen to post it here. My interview with state Sen. Kel Seliger took place just before Donald Trump’s inauguration as president of the United States.

***

On a day just prior to the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump – when Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick were out of the state to attend the festivities in Washington, D.C. – Kelton Gray “Kel” Seliger had the task of serving as Texas’s acting governor.

It’s a responsibility – absent the perks of the job – granted to him by Patrick, who just days earlier had named him president pro tem of the Texas Senate. He was put in charge of the state in the absence of the two top statewide elected officials.

Seliger, a Republican who has served in the Senate since 2004, didn’t arrive this day with any Texas Rangers security detail in tow. There were no special arrangements made, no announcement of his arrival, no fanfare.

Seliger represents a district that stretches from the Texas-Oklahoma border about 100 miles of Amarillo to the Permian Basin, which is another 200 miles south. He maintains Senate offices in Amarillo and Midland and is now essentially a full-time legislator, having sold the steel business he owned with his brother, Lane, several years ago.

He is a native of Borger who graduated from Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., and who returned to the Panhandle to stake out his future. Seliger entered public service as an Amarillo city commissioner in 1989 and then served as mayor from 1993 until 2001 before joining the Senate after President George W. Bush appointed the late Sen. Teel Bivins to be U.S. ambassador to Sweden.

Seliger chairs the Senate Higher Education Committee and serves also on the Senate Education Committee.

We chatted for a time over lunch. Here is what I learned about Kel Seliger.

Should the state start over with its standardized testing requirement for public school students?

“There’s no need to start over,” Seliger said. “But we need to refine it. We need accountability. These tests are for adults, too,” he said, referring to educators. “Kids take tests all the time. Start over? No. Make it better.”

Are you getting special protection from the Texas Rangers while serving as acting governor?

“Not that I’m aware of,” he said. “They may be around, watching my back. I’m quite sure if they had the remotest sense my new temporary status created a situation, they’d be here in a heartbeat.”

Are you empowered to act fully as governor?

“If there is a situation that requires immediate action as governor, yes,” he explained, referring to a possible natural disaster or other catastrophic event. “But if there was something I would encounter that would require action of another sort, I would check with Gov. Abbott to see if he is OK with whatever I would do.”

But what if we have a natural disaster? Could you then act as governor?

“We have emergency people, first responders, on site. (Department of Public Safety) officials would tell me what’s happened. They then would put me in touch with the governor as quickly as possible” to coordinate the state’s response, Seliger replied.

Why are you serving?

“I love public policy,” Seliger said, “and this is the place to do public policy. If you have a good idea, you can work with people and get things done. In Washington,” he said, echoing the new president, “nothing gets done.”

What has been your greatest success in the Senate?

“I think I have made a meaningful contribution to things that matter. I have been able to focus on water policy and supporting water conservation districts,” he said.

What piece of legislation that has your name on it makes you most proud?

Seliger said he doesn’t have a “particular favorite,” but said he is proud of Senate Bill 149 which “allows kids who don’t pass the STAAR test, but who do all the rest of their course work and then stand before a committee of teachers and administrators to walk across the stage and get their diploma.” He also is proud of a bill he authored that the 2015 Legislature approved that set aside money for construction of buildings on 64 higher education campuses in Texas. “And that includes about $6 million for construction of West Texas A&M’s downtown campus in Amarillo.”

And your biggest disappointment?

“I had a bill that would have banned ‘dark money,’” Seliger said, explaining that “dark money” comprises funds that come from tax-exempt sources but which the public “has no idea who’s giving it” to politicians. “This bill was vetoed after the 2013 session by Gov. (Rick) Perry.” He said the then-governor’s reason for vetoing the bill “was not discernable.”

Do we pay state legislators enough to serve?

“We get paid enough so that people don’t have the impression we’re doing this for the money,” he said of the $600 monthly stipend, plus the per-diem expense paid to lawmakers while the Legislature is in session. “And contrary to what a lot of folks believe about the Legislature, we don’t get just rich people to serve,” he said. “Many legislators are working people who give up their regular jobs to serve in the Legislature.”

How does your Senate district benefit tangibly from your service in the Texas Senate?

“Others should be the ones to make that judgment. I like to think we’re working on issues relating to public education and higher education,” Seliger said. “Everyone who serves in elected office believes that they are making the world a better place. I’m just trying to work with people in our West Texas cities, towns and universities.”

Describe your relationship with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

“We have an effective working relationship,” Seliger said of the man who presides over the Senate. “Look, he named me (Higher Education Committee) chairman. He didn’t have to do that.”

You almost lost your re-election bid in 2014. Are you going to run again in 2018?

“I don’t know,” Seliger said. As for his 2014 Republican Party primary challenge from former Midland Mayor Mike Canon, he responded, “I won with 52 percent of the vote. I don’t think that’s ‘almost losing’ the contest.” He continued: “I don’t intend to stay in the Senate until I’m a doddering old fool, drooling on my lapels.”

What did you see for yourself when you were 10 years old?

Seliger smiled broadly. “I saw myself as Roy Rogers,” he said. Why Roy Rogers? “Hey, I was 10 years old – living in Borger, Texas.”

 

Steve Bannon … national security expert? C’mon!

I’m still trying to catch my breath over the news of how Donald J. Trump has revamped his — I mean our — National Security Council.

He has rolled back the emphasis of two key players: the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of national intelligence.

These two individuals no longer will take part in what is called the “principals committee,” the panel that meets regularly with the president to assess national security threats and to deliver critical advice on how to handle those threats.

Who, though, is going to sit in? Steve Bannon, the former head of Breitbart.com — the right-wing website that has for some time spewed white nationalist rhetoric.

Steve “Bleeping” Bannon! This guy has taken a job as senior adviser to the president. He became the chairman of the campaign that resulted in Trump’s election.

His national security chops? His expertise on how to fight the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram? What knowledge does this guy bring to developing a strategy to rein in Kim Jong Un, or the ayatollahs who run Iran?

As near as I can tell, Bannon is unqualified to sit on the principals committee. He is no more suited to have access to the nation’s top security secrets than, oh, I am.

I keep wondering whether Bannon is going to advise the president in purely political terms about national security strategy. Aren’t these issues above and beyond partisan political concerns?

Trump’s unconventional presidency keeps taking strange and bizarre turns. The very idea that he would kick the Joint Chiefs chairman and the DNI to the curb — to make room for the likes of a political hack — is, as former national security adviser Susan Rice described it, “stone cold crazy.”

Time to wonder about Trump’s mental state?

I am not going to diagnose Donald J. Trump’s mental capabilities here. I am going wonder out loud, though, as to whether he needs counseling, or some related professional help.

The man is embarking on a fool’s journey by continuing to insist that 3 million to 5 million votes got cast in the 2016 presidential election by “illegal immigrants.”

The president hasn’t yet produced a single shred of evidence to back up the claim. He has continued to insist through innuendo that “in my opinion” such illegal activity occurred … and that all those millions of illegal voters cast their ballots for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Now he has declared that a Texan is the source of the allegation.

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/01/27/trump-says-texan-source-unsupported-voter-fraud-cl/

My head is going to explode at any moment now.

Trump’s assertions is an assault on the democratic process. It insults the hard work being done by across the nation — by state elections officials — to ensure “free and fair elections.” It is an assault on their integrity, on their good faith and on their professional competence.

In Texas, these officials are elected by voters who live in the counties. They are county clerks who take an oath — just as the president, governors, county commissioners and district attorneys do — to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution and to obey all federal and state laws.

When is the president going to get off this innuendo-driven effort to insist on something happening without ever providing a scintilla of evidence to buttress what he is alleging?

One more quick point: You won, Mr. President! Get off this ridiculous ride to nowhere and concentrate fully on your effort to “Make America Great Again.”

Finally, a Trump policy worth endorsing

I told you I would say something positive if Donald J. Trump ever did something worthy of an endorsement while he is president of the United States.

Here it comes.

I like the ban he has placed on those who leave federal employment, meaning they cannot work for at least five years as lobbyists after they leave public office.

Some of them would face lifetime bans.

There you go. I’ve just broken my lengthy string of critical comments against Trump.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-sets-5-year-and-lifetime-lobbying-ban-for-officials/ar-AAmm1nh?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

According to The Associated Press: “Most of the people standing behind me will not be able to go to work,” Trump joked, referring to an array of White House officials lined up behind him as he sat at his desk in the Oval Office. The officials included Vice President Mike Pence, chief of staff Reince Priebus, senior strategist Steve Bannon and counselor Kellyanne Conway. “So you have one last chance to get out.”

I’ve long lamented the revolving door that separates public service from private lobbying. In Texas, for instance, legislators can leave public office and step virtually immediately into lobbying positions. It allows these ex-lawmakers to use their intimate contacts and their influence on government agencies to the benefit of their new employers: the firms they represent as registered lobbyists.

Trump says that won’t happen with those who work within his administration. This, I submit, is a welcome reform in the relationship between government agencies and the lobbying firms that seek to benefit from government money.

You mean we have four whole years of this?

Donald John Trump is making me crazy.

Yes, I am about to go nuts watching the evening news as it regards the 45th president of the United States.

He’s been in office for seven whole days and it seems like he’s been there … um, forever!

He signs an executive order starting to repeal the Affordable Care Act; he accuses millions of illegal immigrants of voting for Hillary Clinton, then announces a “major investigation” into the matter; he starts a trade war with Mexico over that country’s refusal to pay for the “beautiful wall” he wants to build; he continues to cozy up to Vladimir Putin; then several key State Department staffers quit, leaving him with some senior advisers in that key Cabinet agency.

He’s at war with the media. Chaos reins.

Good grief, folks! I cannot stand this.

Honest to goodness, I can’t quite put my finger on which development startles me the most.

No Drama Obama sought to run the country in a more even-handed manner. Did it work? Well, yes. It did. The nation is better off than it was when Barack Obama took office. He turned it all over to “Smart Person” Trump.

My eternal optimism is being tested like hardly ever before. Why? Because the president of the United States — who took office without a single solitary moment of public service experience — is seeking to chart a new course through some unknown territory.

I don’t want to wish my life away, but … is it 2020 yet?

Economist is now practicing medicine?

Knock it off, Paul Krugman.

I get that you’re a smart fellow, Nobel laureate and all.

But your Nobel Prize is in economics, not medicine.

Why, then, are you trying to diagnose a supposedly “obvious” mental illness for the president of the United States?

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-trump-mentally-ill-2017-1

Krugman leans left in his economic theory. He opposes Trump at every conceivable level. Heck, so do I. So do most of those Americans who voted in the 2016 election.

But for crying out loud, Professor Krugman. You need not fire off tweets alleging something about which you have no knowledge.

Sure, the president is acting kind of goofy. He campaigned as a serious goofball. I get all of that.

No one, though, except a medical doctor is qualified to toss out assertions like the one Krugman has tossed. Not even if he is a smarty-pants economist.

Trump hears critics … calls for vote probe

I’ll take all the credit I deserve for this bit of news.

Donald J. Trump has called for a full investigation of the allegations he has made about illegal immigrants voting en masse for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. He said that so many of them voted illegally that they cost him the popular vote margin — as if it that matters. I mean, c’mon, Mr. President! You won the Electoral College … in a self-described “landslide.” That’s where it counts, right?

Yes, I was one of the many critics of the president’s blind assertion about illegal voting activity. He offered zero evidence, proof or attribution to the assertion that as many as 5 million illegal immigrants voted for Hillary.

Now he says he wants to get to the bottom of it.

Fine. Go for it, Mr. President.

But perhaps you ought to commission an independent investigation to do the job. I had called on you to sic the Department of Justice on the matter. Now I’m not so sure DOJ would be fully independent and would reach the incontrovertible decision that would settle this matter.

I happen to be among those who doesn’t believe what you have alleged. Thus, I don’t want DOJ investigators to fabricate conclusions based on what you — the boss — have alleged.

Independent investigations aren’t out of the question. They have plenty of precedent.

The president has leveled a full frontal assault on the integrity of the electoral process with his allegations. He has attacked our democratic process. He has implied that our state and local elections officials lack the integrity protect our system against illegal voting activity.

Let’s get to the truth, shall we, wherever it leads us.

Trump offers his set of ‘alternative facts’ about election

Here we go … again.

The president of the United States invited congressional leaders to the White House today and then offered a patently absurd assertion about why he lost the popular vote to his Democratic opponent.

It was those “illegals,” Donald Trump said, who voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Proof? He didn’t need no stinkin’ proof. He just said it. Therefore it must be true. I mean, the president said it. His press flack, Sean Spicer, said today the administration would never lie to us.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/315791-trump-told-leaders-illegals-cost-him-popular-vote

I want to examine this ridiculousness briefly on a couple of levels.

First, Trump and his Trumpkins keep telling us the popular vote doesn’t matter. Hillary pulled down 2.8 million more of them than Trump. But she lost the Electoral College by a vote of 304-227. It’s a comfortable margin, but it’s not nearly the “landslide” Trump keeps describing it.

If the president and his allies don’t think the popular vote matters, why bring it up today in the White House, where he’s now residing?

Give it up, Mr. President.

Second, the president once again threw out something without offering a shred of proof, documentation or authentication. He said 3 million to 5 million “illegals” voted for Clinton. Had they not voted, he said, he’d have won the popular vote.

Here he is yet again questioning the integrity of the voting process. He is asserting, according to those in attendance, that local elections officials somehow were too lax to check the legality of the ballots being cast.

Is it me, or does anyone else see the irony that the president would make such a damning accusation about U.S. election officials but would remain virtually silent about alleged Russian interference in the very same electoral process?

Or is this the president’s version of “alternative facts”?

Feeling better about City Hall now

Check this out. It’s a news brief item from the Amarillo Globe-News about some serious tumult downstate, in Corpus Christi.

Suddenly and quite unexpectedly, I don’t feel quite so badly about the state of play at Amarillo City Hall.

Corpus Christi Mayor Dan McQueen quit his post after 37 days on the job. He announced it on Facebook and then used the social medium to criticize staffers and fellow council members.

Ouch, dude!

I’m not privy to the details of what drove the mayor to bail on his constituents. I’ll have to look it up.

I can grasp this, though: Whatever issues are bedeviling the Amarillo City Council and whatever might drive the debate surrounding the upcoming city election seem downright tame and civil compared to what’s happening in the Coastal Bend city down yonder.