Category Archives: political news

national news, political news

Wondering if Trump will bolt the party

donald-trump-speech-promo-getty-491877616

Peter Wehner doesn’t strike me as a wacked-out Republican loon.

He writes pretty well, if the essay in today’s New York Times is an indication.

The man is frightened at the prospect of Donald J. Trump becoming his party’s next presidential nominee. And he expresses that fear — right along with a lot of other Republican wise men and women — with profound eloquence.

Check out his essay here.

He says the Founders were afraid of people such as Trump. They feared strongmen rising to the top of the political heap. As he says in his NYT essay:

“The founders, knowing history and human nature, took great care to devise a system that would prevent demagogues and those with authoritarian tendencies from rising up in America. That system has been extraordinarily successful. We have never before faced the prospect of a political strongman becoming president.

“Until now.”

I’ve been reading and listening to a lot of commentary in recent weeks about the Republican strategies being devised to deny Trump the party nomination. And as I take it all in I remind myself of things Trump said earlier in this campaign about how he would respond if he’s treated badly at the GOP convention this summer.

He’s suggested, then recanted, and then suggested again that he might launch an independent bid for president if Republicans aren’t nice to him. He wants to be treated “fairly,” he has said.

If I were advising Trump, I’d be examining all these efforts to wrest the nomination from my guy and I would conclude: Hey, these guys flat-out don’t like Trump; they aren’t being nice, fair, even-handed … none of it.

If Trump is true to his word, that he wants fair treatment and would resort to other means to win the White House if he’s mistreated by his party moguls, then my strong hunch is that he might be cooking some plans to strike back at those Republican honchos.

After all, he’s already exhibited a serious mean streak all along the campaign trail so far.

Does anyone really think this fellow is incapable of creating maximum chaos?

And if you do believe he never in a million years would do anything to stick it in the GOP’s eye, check this out.

Then … get back to me.

local news, media news, national news, political news, State news

Political conventions: raucousness with serious purpose

tumblr_m9876t6jRi1qeoxw2o1_1280

I won’t be attending either of this year’s political conventions.

Part of me wishes I could because — having been to three of them over the years — I’ve discovered how much fun they are for those who attend them and for those who report and comment on them.

This year’s Republican convention in Cleveland could be especially fun especially for the reporters lucky enough to get the assignment to cover it.

My first political convention was in 1988, when Republicans gathered in New Orleans.  I was part of the media team representing the Hearst Corp., which owned the Beaumont Enterprise, where I worked for nearly 11 years.

Any convention in The Big Easy was a serious blast, given that it’s, well, New Orleans.

Four years later, the Republicans gathered in Houston, about 85 miles in the other direction from Beaumont. That one produced its own share of memories. Chief among them was watching former President Reagan deliver his last major political speech in which he poked fun at the Democrats for nominating a young Arkansas governor who compared himself to Thomas Jefferson. “Well, I knew Thomas Jefferson,” the president said. “Thomas Jefferson was a friend of mine …” He brought down the house.

Four years ago, I had secured press credentials for the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. I didn’t have the support of the Amarillo Globe-News or its parent company, Morris Communication. I applied for the credentials on my own and then received them. Then my world was turned upside-down when I got “reorganized” out of my job at the paper just as the convention was about to begin the following week.

I went to Charlotte anyway — with my wife; we enjoyed ourselves immensely. I attended the convention as a spectator and got to cheer as President Obama and Vice President Biden received their party’s nominations for re-election.

One of the major takeaways from all three events, though, is a visual one.

In New Orleans, Houston and Charlotte, I was struck by the sight of serious-minded men and women parading through the convention hall wearing goofy hats, festooned with campaign buttons, loud clothes, carrying signs — all while they shout slogans from the convention floor.

I had to remind myself of this fact: These people from all across the nation are gathered in one place to nominate a candidate for president of the United States of America. They are choosing the individual who will represent their political party in an election to determine who will be commander in chief of the world’s foremost military establishment; they will pick the head of state and government of the world’s greatest nation.

I’m telling you that when you are among these folks, it’s easy to forget the seriousness of the task they are seeking to complete.

This year — in Cleveland and in Philadelphia — it’ll be no different.

Except that in Cleveland, where Republicans are going to gather, the serious nature of their mission might be compromised by the individual who is poised to accept his party’s nomination as president.

 

national news, political news

Bernie has won the war of ideas … if not the nomination

berniesanders-61515-1434466786

So much of our national attention has been focused during this political season on the Republican Party presidential primary campaign.

After all, it features a glam king, TV personality, real estate mogul and showman who appears headed for the Republican presidential nomination.

Donald J. Trump has broken all the rules of normal decorum, good manners, class and grace.

Oh yeah! There’s a primary in the other party that’s taking place, too.

Democrats are fighting with themselves over whether to endorse Hillary Rodham Clinton or U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The dynamic there also has been somewhat unconventional, albeit not to the degree the GOP race has become.

Sanders is getting his clock cleaned in primary states. He’s been close in many states and he did win Michigan and New Hampshire’s primaries. However, Clinton is now — once again — the shoo-in for the Democratic nomination. To get there, though, she’s had to do something quite extraordinary: She’s had to change her positions on issues to where she now agrees with Sanders.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership? Clinton once favored this trade agreement; now she opposes it.

The Keystone XL pipeline? She once favored it; today she opposes it.

The Iraq War? She voted for it in 2002; she says now that she has changed her mind.

Sanders opposed all those issues from the beginning.

Clinton now has taken up the cause for wage inequality. She’s vowing to take on the big banks. She is sounding more populist than mainstream than when the campaign started.

By golly, she’s sounding like Bernie!

Has Sanders won the war of ideas in the Democratic primary? It’s sounding as though he can declare victory. He well might do that — but he won’t go home quietly.

All this change of mind/heart, of course, brings to mind the issue of Clinton’s authenticity. It has become the source of “Saturday Night Live” skits that skewer the former secretary of state, first lady and U.S. senator over the manner in which she crafts certain images to please whatever audience to which she is speaking.

Sen. Sanders has no serious hope of becoming the Democratic nominee. He does have some hope, though, that the message he’s sought to convey has become part of his opponent’s campaign.

All along, Sanders has sought to tell his party’s base that the campaign “isn’t about me.” If he believes it, then his campaign has been about his ideas.

Stand tall, Sen. Sanders! You’ve won!

legal news, political news, State news

Paxton gets no ‘love’ from hometown court

paxton

If the embattled Texas attorney general was expecting to get some favorite-son treatment in his home county …

He’s mistaken.

Ken Paxton faces a possible trial on charges that he solicited investment business without notifying the proper state authorities that he was being compensated. A Collin County grand jury indicted him on the felony charges, to which the McKinney Republican has pleaded not guilty.

Paxton represented the suburban community north of Dallas in the Texas Legislature before being elected in 2014 as the state’s top lawyer.

Now a judge — also in Collin County — has tossed aside a motion to cap the money being to the special prosecution team that’s been appointed to represent the state.

Paxton’s lawyer lacked jurisdiction to file the motion, according to Judge Mark Greenberg.

I’m not going to pre-judge this case. The proceedings to date, though, seem to suggest that AG Paxton might be in for rough ride if this case goes to trial in Collin County.

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this case so far has been that Paxton has been indicted by a hometown grand jury and has been delivered setbacks by a court in his hometown as well.

Remember when former Republican Gov. Rick Perry blamed the grand jury in Democrat-friendly Travis County of playing politics when it indicted him for abuse of power?

Paxton can’t make the same argument.

This case could get interesting.

 

 

national news, political news, State news

Trump brings one positive: big voter turnouts

1407859219000-Election-3-

I am about to do something that gives me the heebie-jeebies.

I’m going to write something positive about Donald J. Trump.

The man has boosted voter turnout in these Republican Party presidential primaries. He’s boasted about it, which is no surprise.

As one who for decades as a print journalist bemoaned the lack of voter participation, I will say that the turnout we’ve seen in the GOP side of the primary battle has been inspiring.

Trump’s tapping into that voter anger has brought people to the polls, which is a good thing. Yes, it is a good thing!

None other than John Cornyn, has said so, too. The senior U.S. senator from Texas — who says he’s remaining neutral in the primary fight — has lauded the result produced by Trump’s presidential candidacy.

According to the Texas Tribune: “The Republican primary has been surprising in a lot of ways, but one of those ways is the tremendous voter turnout that we’ve seen across the country, while the turnout in the Democratic primary has been lackluster,” Cornyn said. “That’s going to be really important in November, and my view is that I will support whoever the nominee of the Republican Party is.”

Cornyn is right, as well, about the “lackluster” Democratic turnout so far. It’s worth speculating, though, that Democrats just might re-discover their turnout “luster” if Trump becomes the GOP nominee and we are going to decide between Trump and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the fall election.

Again, if the turnout this fall sets records and many millions more Americans go to the polls than ever before, we ought to thank Donald J. Trump for that, too.

That’s it. That’s all the niceness I can spare for this guy.

 

local news, media news, national news, political news

PBS discussion sheds great light on campaign ’16

maxresdefault

I feel compelled to begin this blog post with a disclaimer.

I am a freelance blogger for Panhandle PBS, the publicly funded television station based at Amarillo College here in the Texas Panhandle.

There. That said, I now want to say that the discussion that was broadcast Friday evening was one of the most intelligent I’ve heard yet about the state of the race for the presidency.

This discussion featuring liberal syndicated columnist Mark Shields and conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks covered three critical points:

The Republican primary campaign, the Democratic primary campaign and, in a related matter, President Obama’s nomination of Garland Merrick to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Shields and Brooks occasionally spar when they appear each Friday on the PBS NewsHour. They disagree on substantive matters from time to time. They were in agreement on several critical issues, though, this week.

Hillary Clinton will not be denied the Democratic nomination; Donald Trump is the likely Republican nominee; Judge Garland deserves to have his hearing before the U.S. Senate.

The most interesting aspect of what was said, though, came in the discussion of Trump and Garland.

Shields noted that Trump has won everywhere. He smoked what is left of a once-huge GOP field in Florida, Shields said, where opponents spent millions of dollars in negative TV ads. They didn’t make a dent in Trump’s juggernaut. Whatever it is that Trump has mastered, he has turned it into an unbeatable — so far! — formula for political success.

As for Garland, Shields also believes that the Republican leadership in the Senate is going to pay a price for refusing to consider the judge’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Brooks agreed that Garland deserves a hearing — and deserves to take his seat on the court — he doubts there will be hell to pay in the campaign for Republicans.

Both men also believe that Garland is the best candidate for the court the Republicans are likely to get — particularly if Trump is the GOP nominee for president. Trump will lose the election to Hillary Clinton, who then will be free to appoint someone of her liking — and could present that nominee to a Senate led by Democrats.

And so it will keep going throughout this crazy election cycle.

You’ve got to relish — and share — intelligent discussion whenever you hear it.

That’s what I’m doing here.

* * *

If you’re of a mind, please accept my invitation to look at my blog at PanhandlePBS.org; it’s called “A Public View” and it focuses on public affairs programming aired on Panhandle PBS.

http://www.panhandlepbs.org/blogs/public-view-john-kanelis/

 

 

 

national news, political news

Dr. Carson may be a tad too candid

AAgh1vB

Man, you have to hand it to Dr. Ben Carson.

When politicians switch their allegiance and make surprise endorsements, they usually waffle, wiggle and weasel their way out of answering direction questions as to, “Why?”

Not the doc.

He said he endorsed fellow Republican Donald J. Trump because he couldn’t find another candidate to back, meaning another candidate who (a) could win and (b) fit his own political world view.

There’s another reason: Trump has offered him a spot in a possible (gulp!) Trump administration.

Yep, Carson said so. Out loud. For the record.

Don’t you just love it? I surely do.

Carson’s candor seems to have caught the attention of some legal experts as well. Some have suggested that Trump might have broken federal election law by flat-out “buying” an endorsement by offering a paid position within his administration in the even hell freezes over and Trump is actually elected in November.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is the only other former GOP presidential primary foe to endorse Trump. His own explanation for his switch was so standard. He sought to tap dance all around the fact that he once declared Trump “unfit” to be commander in chief. Now, according to Christie, Trump is, um, “fit.”

Dr. Carson’s candor is refreshing in its way. Politicians are schooled on evasiveness. If you ask a trained pol a direct question about, say, a statement they or someone they support has made, they’re going to revert immediately to a rote response.

It’s as though they’re under some sort of post-hypnotic spell: Ask them a tough question and you trigger a telepathic switch that makes them say what they’re programmed to say.

The good doctor isn’t like that.

I appreciate that he answered so directly: Trump isn’t really my guy. I would have preferred to back someone else. But heck, he made me an offer I couldn’t refuse.

Awesome!

 

national news, political news

It’s time to start providing some detail, Mr. Trump

1 Comment

GOP%20Caricatures_Edit

I am acquainted with a young woman who has decided that Donald J. Trump should be elected the next president of the United States.

I didn’t know precisely what drew her to climb aboard Trump’s bandwagon. So, I did what I thought was the correct thing to do: I asked her directly.

I’ll refrain from identifying her. It’s true she’s just one person, but she seems to sound like countless other Trumpsters who’ve thrown in with the real estate tycoon/reality TV celebrity.

I just want to share her written response to my query.

“First, I have believed that our country should be run by a businessman/woman who understands profit/overhead/dealmaking/etc., as opposed to career politicians who have no problem freely spending tax money and demanding more.

“I am also I am also vehemently opposed to Political Correctness. It is both a false way to live and a maniacal way of attempting to force others to tow your chosen line, not their own. I detest racism with a passion, but I firmly defend the right of the Black Lives Matter movement to spew their prejudices …

“I believe, and always have, in a strong military. To me, the main objective is to protect our borders and citizens. Welfare, Planned Parenthood, etc., are all fine ventures, but should be privately funded, in my opinion. I truly admire that Trump says what he thinks and does not “sugar coat” in an effort to appear “perfect” because nobody is perfect and I hate that Politician Fakeness.

“The funny thing is, when Trump first announced I laughed him off as a joke looking for attention. But, I slowly realized that, love him or hate him, he speaks from his heart with no care for what others think. He has failed and rebounded more than once. Most people never achieve great success because they fear failure. He is an Alpha Male and I prefer that to a milquetoast.”

The thing that jumps out at me as I have studied her answer is  absence of any policy analysis. She has joined others in backing Trump because, as I read this, he hates “political correctness,” and has the kind of background, acumen and savvy that would enable him to run the country like a business.

How does he intend to build that wall along our southern border? How does he intend to bring back all those jobs? How is he going to negotiate with Russia, with Iran? With what will he replace the Affordable Care Act? How does his tax plan work? How will he reduce the national debt? What is his view of the ideal Supreme Court justice? How — precisely — is he going to win the war against international terrorism?

These are the things Trump ought to spell out. He’s not doing any of that. Instead, he tosses out innuendo and insults. He demands apologies from media outlets that criticize him, such as what he demanded this week of the Wall Street Journal for publishing a critical editorial.

But it’s OK with those who have signed on because, they say, he speaks for them. He says what others are thinking but don’t have the guts to say out loud.

He “tells it like it is.”

My question is this: What is the “it” he’s talking about?

 
International news, national news, political news

Hitler is dead already! Let’s keep him that way!

1933: Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945), chancellor of Germany, is welcomed by supporters at Nuremberg. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Adolf Hitler is dead.

What passes for his spirit remains very much alive in the guise of contemporary political debate … although I hesitate to use such soaring terminology to identify much of the back-and-forth that’s been occurring these days.

The latest object of the Hitler comparison is Donald J. Trump, the leading Republican Party candidate for president of the United States.

Do not misunderstand me on this point: I find Trump to be among the most repulsive major U.S. political figures of my lifetime. With every idiotic utterance that flies out of his pie hole, he moves closer to the very top (or bottom) of my unofficial list of despicable American political leaders.

I am weary to the max, however, of the Hitler references.

Of all the beasts who have passed themselves off as human beings, Hitler stands alone. The Holocaust defies any human being’s ability to comprehend such a dastardly act. The murderous regime he led for a dozen years and the war he started in Europe produced a bloodbath beyond all reckoning.

Hitler is without question the 20th century’s most hideous tyrant.

Trump’s world view — such as it is — deserves to be critiqued on its own. That said, I do not care to see these Hitler references attached to anything Trump has to say.

To be sure, the current president of the United States has been demonized in this manner as well, as have have previous presidents of both major political parties.

Many politicians provide ample grist for criticism. Is it really necessary to invoke Hitler’s name whenever we disagree with what a contemporary U.S. politician has to say?

To my ears, doing so seems to fall into the category of foul-mouth comedians. Someone once said that comics who depend on verbal filth usually have run out of clever things to say.

Politicians and pundits who invoke Hitler’s name to offer criticism, then, might be falling into the same category.

legal news, national news, political news

Does the GOP really want a mainstream jurist on the court?

imagesM3AI6GFF

We hear it constantly from the right side of the political spectrum.

Courts shouldn’t be full of “judicial activists.” The culprits, in their eyes, usually come from the left. Those liberals are just too prone to “legislate from the bench.” Or so it goes from the right-wing mantra machine.

How did Barack Obama answer that with his choice for the U.S. Supreme Court? The president chose as mainstream, moderate and even-tempered a fellow as he could find. Merrick Garland deserves to take his seat on the nation’s highest court.

His record is exemplary. His temperament and judicial philosophy would seem to fit the bill perfectly for Senate Republicans who hold the key to whether Garland even gets a hearing, let alone a vote by the full Senate.

Now, though, all those qualities that conservatives say they admire in a judge don’t apply. Garland must be too, uh, moderate. Too measured. Too studious. Too mainstream.

Compared to the individual he would replace — the late Justice Antonin Scalia — perhaps there’s some merit to the criticism in the eyes of the Senate Republican caucus.

What they want is another Scalia.

Yes, the late justice was a brilliant legal scholar. He called himself a “strict constitutionalist”; to be honest, I’m not smart enough to argue that point.

I am reasonably intelligent enough, though, to know that he was rigid in his approach to interpreting the Constitution. He was an ideologue. However, his ideology fit nicely with the politicians who control the Senate.

Garland’s doesn’t. He’s too centrist. Too moderate and mainstream.

One man’s ideological purist is another man’s near-perfect fit for the job of interpreting the Constitution.

So, it’s fair to ask: Do the Senate Republicans who keep insisting that the next president make this pick really oppose the current choice on judicial and philosophical grounds, or are they just playing politics?