Category Archives: political news

Texas might bind electors to vote for winner

7c2a3338_jpg_800x1000_q100

Is it a good idea for the Texas Legislature to enact a law that forces presidential electors to remain faithful to the oath they take?

Yes.

Another Texas Republican elector, Christopher Suprun of Dallas,Ā has declared he won’t cast his vote next week for Donald J. Trump, who won the state’s 38 electoral votes. He hasn’t said for whom he’ll vote, but it has drawn a response from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who said he’s going to look into whether the Legislature will write a law that binds future electors to their pledge.

I think that’s a reasonableĀ requirement. Texas would join 29 other states that have similar laws on the books.

Suprun joins another GOP elector, Art Sisneros, in denying Trump their electoral votes. There’s a big difference, though, in the two men’s decision. Suprun will cast his vote; Sisneros, on the other hand, took the more noble approach and quit his post as an elector. Sisneros said he couldn’t in good conscience vote for Trump — but neither could he violate the oath he took when he signed on as an elector.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/07/patrick-rogue-texas-elector-could-lead-binding-law/

I don’t suppose Patrick would seek a law that prevents electors from quitting, as Sisneros did. However, Suprun’s decision is a bit troublesome. The difficulty, in my mind, has nothing to do with Trump. I wouldn’t vote for Trump, either.

Instead, it’s related directly to the oathĀ this electorĀ took to keep faith with the state’s voters, who gave the president-elect a 9 percentage point victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

These public oaths don’t by themselves bind those who take them to remain faithful. But they should. These electors sign on as loyal Republicans or Democrats. Trump won the GOP nomination fair and square and won the presidential election under the rules laid out by the U.S. Constitution.

Patrick and the Legislature cannot enact a law quickly enough to make Suprun toe the line. They ought to do so for future presidential elections. Fair is fair.

Trump, Obama now have become BFFs?

obama-and-trump

Donald J. Trump is making my head spin.

The man who demonized President Barack Obama as someone who wasn’t elected legitimately because he was born somewhere other than the United States now is seeking his immediate predecessor’s advice on Cabinet picks?

Is that what I’m hearing?

Trump told “Today Show” host Matt Lauer this morning that he and the president are getting along famously these days. He’s consulting with him. He considers the president to be a “terrific guy.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-obama-consultation-cabinet-232304

Wow, man! I get that politics often is a contact sport. I also get that political foes can put past hostilities aside. The president-elect, though, is having to do so on many fronts.

House Speaker Paul Ryan called Trump’s statements about Muslims “racist.” Now he and Trump are speaking daily, Ryan said. The 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said Trump is a “fraud,” a “phony,” a “con man.” Now he is considered a frontrunner to become secretary of state in the Trump administration.

The president-elect’s relationship with the president?

Trump was one of the leaders of the “birther” movement. He sought to turn Obama into some kind of pretend president. Then he said in a single sentence that the president was “born in the United States. Period.”

That makes it all better?

I am having trouble believing it. Just as I am having trouble believing Mitt now no longerĀ considers Trump to be a fraud, phony and a con man.

Suppose it’s all true, however. I guess it only demonstrates what we think of politicians, which is that they rarely tell us what’s truly in their heart, that it’s all just so much baloney.

How about some more ‘change’ at Amarillo City Hall?

amarillo

Let’s talk among ourselves about the upcoming municipal election.

Amarillo went through a “change election” in 2015 when voters unseated two incumbents and installed a majority of new guys on the five-member City Council; the third new guy wonĀ a seat vacated by an incumbent who was just keeping the seat warm until the election.

In May 2017, voters will fill the five seats on the council.

I’m wondering if someone will run solely on the platform of serious change in the city’s voting plan. I’m wondering also about discussing publicly a reform that would involve electing four council members from single-member districts, two of them at-large along with the mayor, who of course also would run citywide.

I wrote in 2013 that I was rethinking my earlier opposition to changing the city’s current five-member at-large council voting plan.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2013/12/re-thinking-single-member-districts/

So I’ll ask the question here. Are we ready to have a serious, adult conversation about changing the City Council’s voting plan?

I’m no longer confident that the at-large system is serving an increasingly diverse city of 200,000 residents, with burgeoning ethnic and racial minorities. The city is growing and it’s becoming a different community than it was a decade ago; it’s a much different place than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Would such a plan be approved if it were put to a vote? We’ll never know if we don’t try. The city charter would need a serious rewriting. Changing it requires a municipal election.

First, though, we need to have a discussion among those willing to serve on the City Council, to set governing policy.

The so-called “agents of change” who were elected in May 2015 ought to demonstrate a serious commitment to significant change in the city’s governing policy.

That change ought to include a reform of the City Council composition. A hybrid council — partly single-member, partly at-large — such as what I’ve suggested hardly is unique. Indeed, it preserves an at-large option for two council seats that isĀ similar to what’s been enacted in cities of comparable size all across Texas.

The debate until now has been whether to create single-member wards, while keeping the mayor’s seat as the only at-large seat on the council. I think a hybrid solution is more feasible.

At the very least, it’s worth a serious community discussion.

First, though, candidates ought to step up and initiate it.

Ellison to quit House seat if he wins DNC chair

ellisonkeith_031516hj_lead

I won’t presume for one second, an instant, an eye-blink that U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison read my earlier blog post about his quest to become the next head of the Democratic National Committee.

I was critical of a sitting member of Congress seeking to lead a national party, thus jeopardizing his ability to do the job to which he was elected.

So, what does Ellison do? He pledges to quit his House seat if the party selects him as its next chairman.

He wants to be a full-time Democratic Party chairman, which is a good thing if you’re a Democratic partisan. The party is in trouble, having lost the White House to Donald J. Trump and failing to gain control of the Senate.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/12/democrats-should-reject-congressman-as-party-chair/

It turns out that many Democrats had the same concern. They didn’t want Ellison to split time between serving his Minnesota constituents and tending to fixing a party in deep trouble.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/309192-ellison-ill-resign-from-house-if-i-win-dnc-chair

So he’ll quit the House.

I won’t presume he read the blog. It’s fair, though, to ask whether he maybe, perhaps saw it … or heard about it.

Time’s ‘Person of the Year’ is a no-brainer

trump

Here it comes: a good word about Donald J. Trump.

Time magazine’s Person of the Year is the 45th president of the United States. When the magazine’s editor in chief, Nancy Gibbs, was asked this morning whether this was a difficult choice, she said that it wasn’t. It was an easy choice, given how Trump managed to win the presidency by breaking virtually every known rule of conventional political wisdom.

I happen to agree with this choice.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/07/504662237/time-magazine-names-donald-trump-person-of-the-year?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

I’m not going to get into the discussion about how the magazine has named some pretty despicable characters as its Person of the Year. They include, say, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Adolph Hitler and Josef Stalin (twice).

It’s fairly customary for the magazine to honor newly elected presidents for this honor. So it’s no surprise that the newest elected president would get the nod as Person of the Year.

Look long and hard at virtually every aspect of Trump’s winning campaign: his lack of “ground game,” his insults, his bizarre behavior, his apparent complete ignorance of the principles of governance, the fact that the presidency is the first office he’s ever sought.

It’s good to examine what so many so-called “experts” said about his chances of being nominated, let alone being elected. He was dismissed as a joke, a circus act, a carnival barker, a huckster.

Here he now stands, ready to assume the role of commander in chief and head of state of the greatest nation on Earth.

All of that, by itself, qualifies this guy as Person of the Year.

Gibbs was right to say this was an easy call.

Now we’ll await this man’s ascension to the highest office in the land and we’ll see whether he has learned anything about the job he is about to do.

‘Ready for Joe!’ in 2020?

Vice President Joe Biden addresses the Human Rights Campaign Spring Equity Convention in Washington, Friday, March 6, 2015. Biden said the same human rights that African Americans fought for in Selma, Alabama, are at stake for gay rights activists today. Biden is drawing parallels between the civil rights and gay rights movements in a speech to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

Joe Biden said “farewell” today to the U.S. Senate, where he served for 36 years before becoming vice president of the United States in 2009.

Then he joked that he might not be going anywhere after all.

Or … was he joking?

The vice president said he won’t rule out a run for the presidency in 2020. He’s not saying he will, mind you. He’s just not saying “no.”

Here we go with the speculation.

It’s how it goes these days. We get through one presidential election and the guessing begins for the next one. The VP hasĀ leavened the discussion just a bit.

There was this from NBCNews.com: “I doubt that there is any member of the caucus that would say if you’re making alist of the top three people he’s just about at the top of that list,” said House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

Hoyer was talking about Biden, of course.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/farewell-visits-capitol-hill-joe-biden-teases-2020-run-n692626

I’m not going to get into the guessing game here. Let’s just note the obvious, which is that the vice president will be 78 years of age in 2020. Who was the oldest man to seek the presidency? That would be Sen. Bob Dole, who was 73 when he lost to President Clinton in 1996.

I wanted Biden to run this year. Four years from now?

I’m going to wait before getting too worked up.

Obama critics won’t stop name-calling, either

93464f48-0602-480f-afbc-a574e0c27869-large16x9_trump_leak

It’s going to be a difficult transition for many millions of Americans from the Obama presidency to the Trump presidency.

I totally am in that camp. I’m one of those Americans who’s going to have a tough time making that switch.

Yes, some critics of this blog — and some acquaintances of mine — have questioned why I keep commenting negatively about Donald J. Trump. “Move on,” they say. “Get over it,” they admonish me.

Well, OK. I will get over it. I will move on … eventually.

Perhaps I should offer a deal for those critics to ponder. How about many of them stop hurling epithets at the current president?

I don’t associate with those who’ve been amazingly harsh toward Barack Obama, his lovely wife Michelle — and even those precious and beautiful daughters of theirs, Malia and Sasha.

You no doubt have heard some of the hate that has spewed forth against the first family. Much of it is based on the president’s policies. Much of it also is based on more visceral feelings.

Let’s not pussyfoot around here. There has been a racial component to the criticism against the first family. No, I am not pointing the accusatory finger at all the critics. Those who’ve said things publicly through social media, though, have conducted a shameful smear campaign againstĀ  the president and his family.

Will I be able eventually to accept fully the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States? I am going to make every effort possible to do so.

But I won’t be badgered, pestered or browbeaten into doing so by those who have kept yammering negatively against the current president over matters that transcend public policy.

It’s not that I intend to deliberately return what others have flung at the man Trump is succeeding as president. Those who have said many ugly and hurtful things, though, need to understand that some of these wounds will take time to heal.

So, if some of us continue to complain out loud — and vociferously — about the policies being proposed by the current president, I’ll offer this response: Get over it!

Get rid of Flynn as national security adviser

flynn

President George W. Bush was quite adamant when we went to war in 2001 against radical Islamic terrorists that we were not going to war against Islam.

President Barack Obama has echoed that mantra ever since.

So, who does the president-elect bring in as national security adviser, the guy who’ll advise him on how to fight groups such as al-Qaeda and the Islamic State? A retired Army three-star general who calls Islam a “cancer” and says Americans’ fear of Islam is “rational.”

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, moreover, apparently has ties with multiple foreign governments.

Flynn is now the target of groups asking Donald J. Trump to rescind Flynn’s appointment as national security adviser. They cite concerns over Flynn’s statements about Islam, Iran and whether his views would jeopardize a hoped-for peaceful settlement of the ongoing dispute between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-trump-appointment-advocacy-groups-232208

I don’t expect the president-elect to heed their call.

Indeed, Flynn is a noted hothead. He’s a brilliant military tactician. He also has the kind of personality that would clash immediately and often with the likes of retired Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, who is Trump’s pick to be the secretary of defense; I will add that Gen. Mattis is a well-chronicled hothead himself, someone known to speak his mind freely.

The issue, though, is Flynn and whether he’s a good fit to become national security adviser.

The advocacy groups asking Trump to rethink his appointment believe he is a terrible fit.

I happen to agree.

The national security adviser is a staff position and, thus, is not subject to Senate confirmation. Gen. Flynn’s status rests solely with the president he would serve.

Get rid of him, Mr. President-elect.

Trump trashes Carson, then selects him for HUD post

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbxWRavwvhA

Take a look at this video.

It’s from a November 2015 campaign rally in Iowa. Donald J. Trump is talking about the man he’s just picked to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Dr. Ben Carson.

I’ll let the video speak for itself.

You are welcome to draw your own conclusions about why the president-elect would choose someone he said has an incurable “pathological disorder” to help run a major federal agency.

Go figure.

Not yet time to ‘move on’

512501530-republican-presidential-candidate-donald-trump-speaks-jpg-crop-promo-xlarge2

Some of my social media friends and contacts are asking me a good question. It goes something like this:

“When are you going to quit bashing the new president and move on?”

My answer? Not anytime soon.

I’ll parse the question in two parts.

First, I don’t consider my criticism of the president-elect as a “bashing.” It’s been harsh at times. I’ve made no apologies for feeling deeply disappointed about the election outcome. I didn’t want Donald J. Trump elected. My preference was for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I’ve gone on and on in this forum about how unqualified and unfit Trump is for the office he is about to assume.

Enough said there.

Time to move on? Time to get on board? Not yet. Maybe not ever. It’s too early yet for me to make that call.

Trump’s lack of government experience has presented itself frequently as he has begun the transition from private business mogul to the most powerful man on Earth.

His Cabinet selections have been a mixed bag. That’s the best thing I can say for him. He’s a faux populist who’s filling his Cabinet with mega-rich folks. I get that he’s more comfortable with those who run in the same circles as he does. He’s also recommending individuals for some posts who quite possibly will seek to roll back many of the progressive reforms enacted during the past eight years.

Trump spoke by phone to the president of Taiwan and in the process tossed aside decades of diplomatic protocol by conversing with someone who governs a country with which we have zero diplomatic relations.

Will all of this — and more — produce an effective presidency? I hope it does. I also hope the president succeeds in doing whatever it is he wants to do. Then again, I am not yet sure what on God’s Earth he actually intends to do. Trump isn’t driven by any ideology I can identify, other than seeking to call attention to himself.

I’ll keep on being critical of Trump. I won’t call him names. I won’t hang labels on him the way, um, he has done to others.

If he does something good, I’ll say so.

Until then, I do, though, reserve the right — as a red-blooded American citizen, Army veteran and someone who pays his taxes every year — to criticize the man who’s about to become president of the United States of America.

The U.S. Constitution gives us all that right. I intend to exercise it with vigor.