Category Archives: political news

Big week looms for Republican Party

BN-NZ909_noonan_partyoftrump_20160512180839

I’m not yet sure how much of the Republican National Convention I’m going to watch.

Keynote speech? Sure. Except I don’t know who’s giving it.

Presidential nominee acceptance speech? Absolutely, if only to see if Donald J. Trump veers too wildly off script.

This I do know: The Party of Lincoln/Reagan is going to become the Party of Trump.

God help ’em.

I’m still trying to figure out how the Republican Party establishment plans to speak glowingly of the man they’re about to nominate for the presidency of the United States. He has spent the bulk of the primary season hurling insults in every direction, including at the Republican Party brass! Political memories often become surprisingly short, but they also have this way of retaining insults for an amazingly long time.

Which leads me to believe that the establishment types are going to have little time on the podium during the four-day event in Cleveland.

It’ll be left to the assorted celebrities who’ve lined up behind Trump’s insurgent candidacy. He’s been crowing all along how he doesn’t “need” the power brokers who run the GOP. We’re about to learn whether his boasting will come true.

Just suppose, too, that absent any public service record that the Trumpkins can tout, what will be left for them to say from the convention podium.

Oh! I think I know. They’re going to unsheathe the long knives and plunge them into the Democratic nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She will be portrayed as the daughter of Satan. They’re plan — in the words of the late GOP chairman Lee Atwater — “peel the bark” off the Democrats’ presidential candidate.

Yes, indeed. Given that the Republicans are going first in this year’s political nominating convention cycle, they’ll get to set the tone for the campaign for the White House.

Rest assured, Democrats have their own burdens to bear with Clinton. So, they’ll be loaded to the teeth when they convene their convention in Philadelphia right after the Republicans adjourn their convention in Cleveland.

Get ready, folks, for a heck of a wild ride beginning next week.

Gov. Pence is Trump’s go-to guy

pence_122_072811

They’ve spilled the beans.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence will be announced as Donald J. Trump’s running mate on the eve of the Republican National Convention.

Inspiring choice? Not really. Trump has gone the “safe” route. Meaning he has selected someone who poses zero threat of upstaging the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. He is solidly conservative. He’s a former member of Congress who reportedly has a lot of friends on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill.

Trump might win Indiana this fall, which until the 2008 election — when Barack Obama won the state over John McCain — has been one of the most reliably Republican states north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Pence, though, doesn’t represent anything resembling a “new direction” for his party.

Let’s remember that as governor, Pence signed a bill into law that allows businesses to discriminate against gay people. He called it a “religious freedom bill.” He vowed to “fix” the bill, but in reality he did hardly anything to change it.

That’s how the Republican Party wants to present itself, as the party that sanctions discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.

Of course, no one knows precisely what Trump believes about such things. His mind seems to change almost hourly. I guess now he opposes equal rights for gay people. What, though, will be his response to tough questions about the issue as they arise during the fall election campaign?

Trump had planned to announce his selection of Pence on Friday morning. He delayed the announcement in light of the terror attack tonight in Nice, France.

Whenever it comes, perhaps over the weekend or quite early next week, do not expect a huge roar of approval — even from hard-core Republicans. You see, Pence’s role in the campaign likely hasn’t yet been defined.

Something tells me that Gov. Pence’s campaign role will depend on that h-u-u-u-u-g-e ego that belongs to the man at the top of the GOP ticket.

Justice Ginsburg seeks to make it right

BBuiRBp

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg now says she regrets those negative things she said about Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

Does she no longer believe what she said? Hardly. She just regrets saying those things out loud.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-apologizes-for-trump-remarks/ar-BBukt9C?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

I’m going to give the Supreme Court justice high marks for saying she plans to be “more circumspect” in the future.

She had said Trump’s election as president would be disastrous for the country and joked she might move to New Zealand if Trump is elected.

I am one of those who have said she shouldn’t have made those statements. It is true that there’s nothing written or codified about what Supreme Court justices can say. It’s been a long-standing tradition that justices steer clear of partisan politics.

Ginsburg lost control of her verbal steering wheel when she popped off about Trump, who not surprisingly responded in his typically crude manner, suggesting the justice had lost some of her mental acuity. He demanded her resignation.

As Reuters reported: “On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” she said in a statement issued by the court. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect,” Ginsburg added.

That’s good enough for me. Is it good enough for her critics? I’m thinking umm … no.

There can be drama associated with VP pick

reaganbush2

You may choose to believe this if you wish … or you can say I’m full of mule muffins.

I actually have a “favorite vice-presidential selection moment” that I’d like to share with you. I’ll be brief.

I was watching CBS News’s coverage of the 1980 Republican Convention. Ronald Reagan was about to become the GOP nominee for president. Rumors were flying all over the place about some negotiations that were occurring between the former California governor and the 38th president of the United States, Gerald R. Ford.

The gossip was that Gov. Reagan wanted President Ford to become a sort of “co-president” who would run on the GOP ticket as the VP nominee. Obviously, though, Reagan was going to give Ford a whole lot more responsibility than what normally goes to the vice president.

Well, the convention was buzzing with the talk. Will Reagan do it? Will the former president accept this challenge?

CBS put correspondent Leslie Stahl on camera while she was walking through the convention floor. She’s going on and on about prospect of Ford joining Reagan.

Then she stopped for about a second and blurted out, “It’s Bush!”

Yep, it turned out to be George H.W. Bush, one of Reagan’s former GOP primary foes, the author of the term “voodoo economics,” which he used to describe Reagan’s tax plan for the country.

It just goes to show you that foes can become “friends” when the most politically expedient moment presents itself.

VP picks don’t matter … really

here-are-the-top-vice-president-picks-for-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton_1

Donald J. Trump is getting set to have the most important day of his presidential campaign.

He’s going to announce his selection as a vice-presidential running mate.

No need for a show of hands — if you get my drift. But does anyone out there in Blog World really think Trump’s selection is going to matter, that it’s going to sway anyone’s vote, that it’s going to be determinative of this election?

For that matter, do you think Hillary Rodham Clinton’s choice is going to matter, either?

The only way these picks might determine anything is if they select absolute dogs, losers, Fruit Loops. I don’t expect that to happen Friday or a week from Friday.

Recent political history is full of questionable VP picks. Richard Nixon selected Spiro Agnew in 1968; the Republicans won a squeaker that year and rolled to a historic landslide four years later. George H.W. Bush picked Dan Quayle in 1988 and then piled up a huge victory.

I guess you could make the case that John McCain’s hail-Mary selection of Sarah Palin in 2008 might have turned off some voters, but I believe McCain would have lost anyway.

One of the more interesting selections — to my way of thinking — was Lloyd Bentsen, the Texan who ran with presidential nominee Michael Dukakis in 1988. More than a few Democrats were grousing that year that Bentsen and Dukakis should have traded positions on the ticket.

But this year’s focus has been solely — and not entirely in a flattering way — focused on Republican Trump and Democrat Clinton.

These are two of the most polarizing figures ever to be nominated by the major parties. So, whoever they select will be relegated to the shadows.

I agree, though, that Trump’s selection is drawing the most attention, mostly because the pool of potential GOP stars is so shallow. The word is that he’s leaning toward former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

However, given Trump’s mercurial behavior, there’s a part of me that wonders if he’s going to stun us all with someone no one ever saw coming.

Sure, we’ll then chatter about it for a time.

Then it’ll be Trump being Trump … and the insults will fly.

Killing a cop need not become a federal issue

cornyn

John Cornyn is angry about the deaths of those five Dallas police officers.

So am I. So are millions of other Americans.

Is that reason enough to create a new federal law, as Sen. Cornyn, is proposing? No. The states have it covered.

Cornyn, the Republican senior U.S. senator from Texas, wants to make killing police officers a federal crime. He’s gotten some co-sponsors for his bill, including his fellow Texan, Republican Ted Cruz.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/13/Cornyn-Bill-Makes-Killing-Police-Federal-Crime/

My hunch is that Cornyn’s bill is meant to toughen penalties in states that do not now impose the death penalty for any capital crime.

I understand Cornyn’s interest in this issue. He’s a former Bexar County trial judge and a former Texas attorney general.

Texas, though, already makes killing cops an automatic death penalty prosecution, as do most states in the country.

According to the Texas Tribune: “Law enforcement officers selflessly put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, and in return they deserve our unparalleled support for the irreplaceable role they serve,” Cornyn said in a statement. “The Back the Blue Act sends a clear message that our criminal justice system simply will not tolerate those who viciously and deliberately target our law enforcement. As our country continues to grieve following last week’s tragedy in Dallas, we must come together in support of those who risk everything to keep us safe.”

My goodness, we can support our officers in many tangible ways. Texas already has enacted strict punishment for those convicted of killing officers.

Cities can support their police departments by ensuring they have adequate resources, staffing, up-to-date equipment and training. Legislatures can buttress local governments with sufficient grant funds that they can funnel to communities to assist in providing the best law enforcement that money can buy.

Millions of Americans are justifiably outraged over the attack that occurred in Dallas. Do we need another federal law that proves how mad we are? No.

This is what you call ‘outreach’

RPTThuEve228TT_JPG_800x1000_q100

I hereby crown Barack Obama as the King of Political Outreach.

The president is convening a town hall meeting at the White House to discuss racism in the nation.

Who do you think he’s invited to take part? None other than Texas Lt. Gov. Dan “They Are Hypocrites!” Patrick.

This is awesome, man!

Patrick popped off right after the shooting erupted in Dallas that killed five police officers. He appeared on “Fox and Friends” to criticize the Black Lives Matter protesters for fleeing the gunfire and seeking help from the very police whose conduct they were protesting.

Thus, came the “hypocrites!” charge.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/13/patrick-attend-town-hall-obama/

It’s good that Lt. Gov. Patrick will attend this event. It will be televised on ESPN and ABC. The White House is seeking to assemble a diverse group of participants to get as many different points of view as possible.

This, I submit, is the real beauty of town hall meetings, which shouldn’t be used as political echo chambers where everyone applauds the views of everyone else.

As the Texas Tribune reports, quoting White House press secretary Josh Earnest: “I think the president is hopeful that those kinds of interactions will both illuminate a variety of perspectives for the American people to see,” Earnest said, according to a transcript of his daily briefing with reporters. “I also think he’s hopeful that it will illustrate what can happen when people open up their hearts to a different perspective.”

The catalyst for all this, of course, is the shooting of the two young men in Baton Rouge and suburban St. Paul, as well as the Dallas march and the shooting that erupted there. Two young black men died after being shot by white police officers and the shooter — another young black man — opened fire in Dallas in an act of revenge against white police officers.

It’s good that the White House is playing host to this town hall.

It’s even better that the president of the United States has invited an outspoken critic — Dan Patrick — to take part.

You want outreach? This is it.

So long, Dr. Eades, and thank you for your service

eades

Brian Eades is about to call it a public service career in Amarillo.

I wish he wasn’t leaving, but a man’s got to do what’s best for himself and his family.

The best thing for the City Council member is to pull up stakes and replant them in western Colorado, where he’ll open a medical practice.

He served nine years on the City Council and was on the front row of some fascinating and invigorating debate. He served the community with great distinction.

Lisa Blake is going to take the seat that Eades will vacate and I hope — for the sake of the city — that she continues the level of service that Eades provided.

Eades represents — for lack of a better term — the “old guard” on the council. He managed to win re-election in May 2015 while two of his colleagues got booted out by challengers. It likely was a combination of the quality of the challenge he faced and the fact that voters weren’t as outwardly angry with him as they seemed to be with the incumbents who lost their re-election bids.

You can shout all you want about the level of anger that had been expressed at City Hall, but here are a few things to note.

I’ll start by noting that Eades helped make policy decisions affecting these elements.

— The city has continued its steady and robust population and business growth.

— Downtown redevelopment efforts take several key steps forward. It created an agency devoted exclusively to downtown redevelopment. It crafted a Strategic Action Plan to implement certain steps.

— The city has gone on a water-rights purchasing spree, buttressing its water reserves that now will last for the next century or two.

— Amarillo debated whether to enact indoor smoking bans. Two referendums failed narrowly, but the word has gone out to businesses: Don’t allow smoking in your establishments, as it is hazardous to people’s health.

— The city has deployed red-light cameras at intersections in an effort to deter lawbreakers from running through stop lights and posing hazards to other motorists and to pedestrians.

Eades had a hand in all of that.

I join others in wishing him well as he trudges off to rural western Colorado where, I presume, he’s going to deliver more babies into the world.

He served the city well.

Thank you, doc.

Let’s stop the ‘consequences’ talk

ginsburgruth_012814getty

How about settling down just a bit, Republican members of Congress?

They’re all up in arms over remarks Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made about presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, about how she cannot imagine a country with Trump as president.

Rep. Randy Weber of Texas said Ginsburg ought to resign. Trump said the same thing. As the Hill reported: “The recent comments of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg on Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump are the antithesis of Lady Justice and in direct violation for what the highest court in the land stands,” he said. “Justice Ginsburg’s actions must be met with consequences. I agree with Donald Trump that she should resign.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/287537-house-republican-ginsburgs-actions-must-be-met-with-consequences

While I agree that Ginsburg crossed a line, violated an unwritten rule about justices getting too politically partisan, let’s take heed of what the framers did when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

They created an independent branch of government called the “judicial branch.” Judges get lifetime appointments to their posts. The idea was to enable them to be free of political pressure brought by the executive or legislative branches of government.

The founders got it right.

Ginsburg didn’t need to pop off as she did about Trump. But she isn’t the first justice to get involved in politics. In the earliest years of the Republic, justices ran for political office while sitting on the Supreme Court.

That kind of overt politicking, of course, hasn’t occurred in many years.

I don’t expect the Supreme Court to hear cases involving Trump while Ginsburg is sitting on that bench. However, I don’t doubt the justice’s ability to judge any case involving Trump fairly.

Although the framers had the right idea when they created an independent judiciary, they could not possibly remove politics from its actions.

I bring you Bush v. Gore in 2000, in which five Republican-appointed justices stopped the ballot-counting in Florida with GOP candidate George W. Bush leading Democratic opponent Al Gore by 537 votes out of more than 5 million cast in that state. Bush won Florida’s electoral votes and became president by the narrowest of margins.

Do you think politics played any role in that decision?

Well, that’s how the system worked.

As for the present-day dustup over Justice Ginsburg’s remarks, she made them, but let’s quell the talk about “consequences.”

Ginsburg was entitled to say what she said.

Gov. Pence waiting in the wings

pence_122_072811

The speculation around who Donald J. Trump will select as his Republican Party running mate seems to be focusing on Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

Honestly, I have trouble believing anyone Trump picks is going to be decisive, that the individual will spell the difference between victory and defeat for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. VP nominees usually don’t sway elections. I say “usually,” because we do have evidence that Lyndon Johnson’s presence on the Democratic ticket in 1960 helped John Kennedy win the Lone Star State on his way to a narrow victory over Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge.

But as long as we’re talking about Pence, let’s look briefly at a couple of aspects of this fellow’s record.

He’s a former congressman. He’s been governor of Indiana for a while. Thus, he has Capitol Hill and executive governing experience. That’s a plus, given Trump’s “record” of hosting a reality TV show, slapping his name on garish hotels and casinos, not to mention his various failed business ventures.

Pence also is a social conservative. He opposes a woman’s right to obtain an abortion; he opposes same-sex marriage.

The question anyone Trump picks as a running mate, though, is this: Will the presidential nominee actually heed whatever political advice the VP candidate gives him?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/donald-trump-ultimate-outsider-turned-insider-mike-pence-indiana-republican-congress?utm_content=buffer03d8b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Until this very moment, Trump is exhibiting a go-it-alone approach to just about everything as he runs for the presidency. He isn’t showing — as far as I can see — any tendency to seek advice from political pros. After all, he’s the ultimate “outsider,” so he doesn’t need any stinkin’ advice from those who he has said all along are part of whatever problems are afflicting the federal government.

Pence doesn’t strike me as someone who’ll be able to change Trump’s modus operandi while he continues his campaign for the presidency.

Suppose it is Pence. Suppose, too, that Pence gets assurances that he’ll be taken seriously as a key member of Trump’s campaign team.

Has the GOP’s presidential nominee exhibited a commitment to keeping his word? Is he totally trustworthy?

Well, I’m guessing Pence — or whomever gets the call from Trump — will have to weigh all of that, too, before deciding whether to hoist the nominee’s hand at the convention in Cleveland.

Well, let’s see what happens Friday. Trump will let us all know who gets the call.