Category Archives: political news

Thanks for listening, Gov. Fallin

Oklahoma-Governor-Mary-Fallin-Vetoes-Abortion-Bill-650x488

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin likely didn’t read my earlier blog post about a bill that landed on her desk that would have made abortion illegal in her state.

Then again …

OK, I’ll take all the credit I deserve. How’s that?

Fallin vetoed Senate Bill 1552 this afternoon, calling it too ambiguous. The Republican governor remains fervently pro-life, but she’s also a realist. She knows that SB 1552 likely wouldn’t withstand a constitutional challenge.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/okla-governor-vetoes-sweeping-abortion-ban-bill/ar-BBti0bA?li=BBnb7Kz

Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal in most cases, remains the law of the land. That’s the entire land, which includes Oklahoma.

There actually was a voice of reason among the Oklahoma legislators who sent SB 1552 to Fallin’s desk. It came from a Republican senator, who also happens to be a physician.

Dr. Ervin Yen was the lone GOP senator to vote against the legislation. He described it as “insane.”

I’d bet real American money that Gov. Fallin likely disagrees with the insane description. Still, she did the right thing by vetoing a bill that clearly violated established federal law.

Get ready for big abortion fight

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin speaks during a news conference in Oklahoma City, Thursday, Oct. 8, 2015. Fallin said “it became apparent” during discussions with prison officials last week that the Department of Corrections used potassium acetate, not potassium chloride, as required under the state’s protocol, to execute Charles Frederick Warner in January. "Until we have complete confidence in the system, we will delay any further executions," Fallin said. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

In 1907, Oklahoma became the 46th of 50 states to join the United States of America, an event that subjected the residents of that state to all the “laws of the land.”

That means Oklahomans are bound to adhere to mandates handed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which interprets the constitutionality of the law.

Get set, then, for a big fight as Oklahoma tries to defend itself against challenges to a bill that makes abortion illegal in the state.

Why the fight? Because the Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that the practice of terminating a pregnancy is legal in all 50 states and that women could make that decision until the time that the unborn child is determined to be “viable.”

The Oklahoma Legislature has sent a bill to Gov. Mary Fallin’s desk that makes performing an abortion a felony, except in the case of rape or incest or if carrying the pregnancy to full term endangers the mother’s life.

The landmark Roe v. Wade decision in January 1973 didn’t spell out any exceptions. It said that women who choose to end a pregnancy have that right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the practice was declared legal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oklahoma-abortion_us_573df1b9e4b0aee7b8e94b41

The Oklahoma law is seen as being a mostly symbolic gesture, even if Fallin signs it. She has until Wednesday. Gov. Fallin, a pro-life politician, hasn’t yet said whether she’ll sign it.

The cost to state taxpayers, though, could be substantial if abortion-rights groups challenge the law and subject the state to expensive legal proceedings.

Oklahoma lawmakers have made a profound political statement. They have thumbed their noses at the highest court in America and have determined independently that they are able to flout federal law that the judicial system has reaffirmed.

Gov. Fallin should veto the bill. If she wants to make abortion illegal, she should have to wait — and hope — for the chance to change the philosophical composition of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Look for a load of unflattering photos

Donald-Trump-Bad-Hair-Photo-1

Political campaigns of all stripes employ a universal tactic when seeking to put the opposition in a negative frame of reference.

They find the most unflattering pictures of the “other guy” and plaster them on TV ads or billboards. You know what I’m talking about.

I get the feeling the presidential campaign of 2016 is going to feature a trove of negative images.

I’ll now get to the point: Donald J. Trump has taken us to a new level of disgusting references to people’s physical appearance.

He’s referred to women as “fat pigs.” He once chided former fellow Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina by asking, “Would anyone vote for that face?” Oh, and then he stood on a campaign podium and mocked a reporter who has a severe physical disability.

The Trump campaign already is looking for pictures of Hillary Rodham Clinton that it will plaster on campaign literature and/or TV ads. Rest assured, too, that the Clinton team is doing precisely the same thing as it prepares its onslaught against Trump.

I generally dislike referencing public figures’ physical appearance, but since Trump already has opened that door …

It seems quite certain to me that this individual’s rather, um, expressive face is going to provide his political foes with plenty of grist to use as they campaign against him.

donald-trump-gag-big

The world is full of such pictures of every politician who’s ever entered the public arena.

However, hold on this year for a seriously rough ride through what figures to be the meanest campaign in anyone’s memory.

The pictures are going to tell a major part of the story.

 

Senator wanted simply to say he is sorry

bobbennett_606af7bda32915fc21b748ce42baedc2.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000

The media today are reporting an extraordinary event involving a dying former U.S. senator.

Robert Bennett was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. As he lay in his hospital bed, knowing he was going to die, the former Utah Republican senator wanted to issue an apology.

To whom did he want to apologize?

He wanted to say how sorry was to any Muslim hospital staffer who was working in the facility where he was a patient. Bennett’s son, Jim, has talked today on MSNBC about how his father had asked him if there were any Muslims employed there.

Sen. Bennett — who died on May 4 — said he wanted to apologize on behalf of the Republican Party because of the hateful anti-Muslim views expressed by presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Bennett was among the first senators targeted by the TEA Party wing of the GOP. He was defeated in the 2010 Utah Republican Party primary by Mike Lee, who would go on to win election to the U.S. Senate.

It’s not that Sen. Bennett wasn’t a conservative politician. His record as a senator from one of the most conservative states in the nation is certifiably conservative. According to TEA Party activists, though, he wasn’t conservative enough.

So now the media are reporting that Bennett felt compelled to apologize to a group of fellow Americans who happen to worship as devoted Muslims.

It was an amazing deathbed gesture in response to an equally amazing — and disgraceful — public posture against people of a certain religious faith.

It’s over, Sen. Sanders

Bernie_Sanders_by_Gage_Skidmore

Democrats and Republicans seem to operate under differing rules of political combat … in this presidential election cycle, at least.

Republicans opened the presidential primary campaign with 17 individuals seeking their party’s nomination. One of them remains. He is likely the most improbable candidate you ever could imagine.

Donald J. Trump is a man with zero public service record, a scatter-shot approach to what passes as foreign and/or domestic “policy” and a checkered personal history.

He’s the last man standing among all those Republicans.

Democrats opened their season with just five candidates. Three of them are now off the grid. Two are left: U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton’s all but got her party’s nomination in the bag. Sanders is hanging on, cheered on by those big rallies.

So, here’s what I believe should happen: Sanders needs to call it a campaign. He’s made his point — repeatedly — about income inequality and Wall Street corruption. He’s not going to be nominated president.

It’s time for him to clear the field for Clinton to run against Trump — head to head.

Democratic gurus are growing a bit restive. They see these polls that show Clinton and Trump in a close race. They fear that the longer Sanders continues his sniping at Clinton, the more damage he inflicts on her chances to become the nation’s 45th president.

My own view is that this contest shouldn’t even be close.

Trump is patently — at virtually every level one can name — unfit to become president. Yet he continues to win cheers from those who think he “tells is it like it is.” They rally to his calls against what he calls “political correctness.” The man is a buffoon … yes, a wealthy one, but a buffoon nonetheless.

Clinton is far from the perfect candidate. But she’s been examined up close and personal for more than two decades. Her career — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state — has been dissected more carefully than a laboratory frog.

She continues to fend off the challenge from the remaining other Democrat in this contest.

The primary season is over, Sen. Sanders. You lost. Hillary Clinton won.

It’s time for Sen. Sanders to “suspend” his campaign and then start writing the fiery speech he plans to give at the Democratic Party’s presidential nominating convention this summer in Philadelphia.

As for Trump … well, uh, keep doing what you’re doing.

This politician shouldn’t be elected to SBOE

bruner

Texans decided to take a gamble when they decided some years ago to amend the state  constitution allowing politicians to run for seats on the State Board of Education.

I use the term “politician” in its strictest sense; the term describes anyone who seeks votes to an elected position.

Thus, the gamble occurs when politicians of varying stripes seek these offices.

I bring you one Mary Lou Bruner, a politician who’s running for a seat on the Texas State Board of Education.

She is among the strangest individuals imaginable seeking a highly critical state job, which is to help set public education policy for the state’s 5 million or so public school students.

Bruner’s statements are wacky … in the extreme.

Here’s the punch line: She is in position to win a Republican Party runoff next week and, with that victory, is a virtual cinch to be elected to the 15-member board.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/mary-lou-bruner/

District 9 comprises a section of East Texas. Yes, it’s a long way from the Texas Panhandle, which is represented on the SBOE board by Amarillo lawyer and former clergyman Marty Rowley.

Bruner’s runoff opponent is Lufkin chiropractor Keven Ellis. According to Texas Monthly, early voting trends seem to suggest Bruner’s in the driver’s seat.

Why is she so unsuitable? Check out the link I’ve attached to this blog and you get the idea.

She has said some stunningly ignorant things. And yet this individual is a retired kindergarten teacher.

Bruner has said President Obama spent part of his younger days as a male prostitute; she said Islam is not a religion; she said dinosaurs went extinct because they were babies and couldn’t fend for themselves after the ark landed on Mount Ararat; she said House Speaker Paul Ryan “looks like a terrorist” after he grew a beard.

The record is full of loony statements.

To think, therefore, that this individual stands an excellent chance at this moment of helping set public education policy in Texas.

I cannot vote against her in this upcoming runoff. However, I can put this short message out there and hope that it gets to enough individuals over in the Piney Woods to deny this individual the chance to affect the education of future Texas leaders.

Check out the link. It’ll make you cringe.

 

Trump’s wealth becomes issue of interest

donald

Does it really matter how much wealth Donald J. Trump has acquired?

Should voters really care? Should we concern ourselves with all of this?

Under normal circumstances, probably not. But here’s the thing: The presumptive Republican Party presidential nominee has been making his wealth an issue all along the primary campaign trail.

He brags about his “world-class business.” He boasts about how he built his company from scratch … although that’s not true. He shows off his opulent mansions.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/how-much-is-trump-worth-223329

We’re hearing now that Trump’s net worth is around $10 billion. No one has ever believed he has that kind of dough laying around. Trump filed a 104-page financial disclosure form — and he even bragged about that, calling it the largest such disclosure form in history.

As Politico reports: “Many of his assets and liabilities are simply too large — reaching far above the top disclosure threshold on the filing — for their value to be captured in the report. Trump, for instance, reported at least $315 million in liabilities on the form, many of which are loans and mortgages on his properties. The forms cover Trump’s last 17 months of financial activity.”

Where is all this going? I am not entirely clear, but ultimately it’s going to end up with discussion and debate about Trump’s tax returns, which he still has yet to release.

You see, this is what happens when the candidate makes a big deal of his material holdings. It mushrooms into realms that under normal circumstances wouldn’t necessarily be of voters’ concerns.

Voters knew that the Kennedy family was wealthy. The Kennedy men who ran for the nation’s highest public office — John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Ted Kennedy — didn’t make it an issue. Nelson Rockefeller’s family had acquired immense wealth as well. Rocky didn’t dwell on it, either.

Trump, though, makes his wealth an issue all … the … time.

I’m more interested in debating Trump’s views on the whole array of issues that should be front and center.

 

More evidence of Texas Democrats’ demolition

17swartzWeb-master675

Mimi Swartz’s essay in the New York Times lends support to something I wrote just the other day.https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/05/texas-democrats-already-are-demolished/

It involves the pitiful state of the Texas Democratic Party.

My friend Tom Mechler was just re-elected chairman of the state Republican Party and then called for the demolition of the state’s Democrats. My response was that the Democratic Party already has been “demolished” in Texas.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2016/05/texas-democrats-already-are-demolished/

Now comes Swartz, writing for the NY Times saying that Texas is so reliably Republican that we won’t be “relevant” in the upcoming presidential election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/opinion/texas-red-but-not-relevant.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

She mentioned how it used to be in Washington, with Texans of both parties commanding actual respect among their congressional colleagues. Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn? How about Dick Armey? Swartz said, correctly, that they “got things done.”

I’m glad she didn’t mentioned the looniest of the looney birds now representing Texas in Congress — Louie Gohmert, R-Tyler, the conveyer of lies about President Obama’s birth and assorted other nutty pronouncements.

My favorite paragraph in her essay talks about what has become of the state’s former pull in D.C.:

“That kind of gravitas has quit the scene. Texas boasts legions of engineers, architects, doctors, lawyers, artists and energy executives who enjoy global reputations, but back home pridefully ignorant pygmies run the political show. One example: When our senior senator, John Cornyn, was running for re-election in 2014, the Houston Chronicle’s editorial board asked him for his view of a huge coastal storm-surge-protection project in the Houston-Galveston area known as the Ike Dike. His answer: ‘I don’t even know what that is.’”

That’s pretty bad, yes?

What’s worse is that the Texas Democratic Party remains clueless on how to reshape the state’s political landscape.

 

Cruz’s omission spoke volumes at GOP gathering

tedcruz_0

Texas Republicans gathering at their state convention in Dallas over the weekend waited to hear from one of their golden boys.

He went to the podium and delivered a typically fiery speech about how the Texas GOP should stand firm behind its “conservative principles.”

The message came from U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who until just about three weeks ago, had contended that he would be the party’s presidential nominee.

He won’t make it.

That prize is now left for Donald J. Trump to grasp.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/ted-cruz-chooses/

So, the question becomes: Will the vanquished junior senator from Texas endorse the presumptive GOP nominee for president?

Excuse me while I laugh … out loud.

As Erica Grieder writes for Texas Monthly, it ain’t gonna happen.

Cruz’s speech to the convention delegates contained a lot of references to those conservative principles. He didn’t mention Trump’s name a single, solitary time.

No mention of the nominee, the guy who’s going to hoist the party banner and traipse across the land proclaiming himself to be the party messenger.

Are you as not surprised as I am that Cruz wouldn’t mention Trump?

I ran into Randall County Judge Ernie Houdashell just before he shoved off for the GOP convention. He and I exchanged a few friendly words in the supermarket parking lot. He mentioned Cruz’s name in passing. The judge — as reliable and devoted a Republican as you’ll ever see — made no mention of Trump.

I’ll have to ask Houdashell the next time I see him to ask him straight away: Are you going to “support” the party nominee? I’ll try to avoid asking whether he’d vote for Trump this fall, given that he’s entitled to cast whatever vote he wants in private.

Sure, Trump is gathering his share of public endorsements in Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott is on board, as is former Gov. Rick Perry.

I haven’t heard much from Sen. John Cornyn or from former Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on whether they’re going to back Trump.

Cruz, of course, has been gored terribly by his party’s nominee. Trump’s “Lyin’ Ted” label surely hurt the senator, as did Trump’s hideous reference to Heidi Cruz, the wife of his former GOP presidential foe.

So, he didn’t mention Trump’s name at the GOP convention podium. Cruz’s silence spoke volumes.

As Grieder writes in her blog about Cruz: “He recognized Trump’s political appeal earlier on, in other words, and responded with an eye toward his strategic goals rather than his values or principles. He deserves criticism for that. But so too do many of his critics in the Republican Party — all too many of whom are now, after nine more months of this lurid spectacle, making an even more cynical bargain, and one that Cruz, clearly enough, is unwilling to accept. It’s like he said. You learn a lot about a candidate over the course of a campaign.”

 

‘People’ do care about these things, Mr. Chairman

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD - MARCH 04:  Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus participates in a discussion during CPAC 2016 March 4, 2016 in National Harbor, Maryland. The American Conservative Union hosted its annual Conservative Political Action Conference to discuss conservative issues.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Reince Priebus is painting the American electorate with a pretty broad brush these days.

The Republican Party’s national chairman says “people don’t care” about the controversies surrounding the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee.

I beg to differ, Mr. Chairman.

“People” do care. Many of us — such as yours truly — care a lot.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-donald-trumps-controversies-people-just-dont-care?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

— Tax returns that Trump refuses to disclose to the public?

— Statements attributed to him about women?

— The myriad lies he’s told while campaigning for president?

— The ridiculous story about Trump posing as a publicist to promote himself?

Yeah, those things matter, Mr. Chairman. They speak to the character of the man who wants to become president of the United States.

I won’t get too far into this blog post without mentioning that Trump isn’t the only candidate with “issues” to address. Hillary Rodham Clinton has her own and they, too, are bothersome.

The issue at the moment deals with the huge speaking fees she collected — allegedly from Goldman Sachs .

The other matters — Benghazi, the email controversy — are being dealt with by a Republican-led Congress that is still on the hunt for something to derail her campaign.

The RNC chairman shouldn’t give his party’s presumed nominee a pass because of some belief that “people” don’t care about the things that are dogging his campaign.

I dislike saying I speak for others. I am fairly confident, though, in presuming that the nation is loaded with inquisitive voters who want these issues settled.