Category Archives: political news

Trump plan = Operation Wetback

operation-wetback

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wants to round up all illegal immigrants hiding in the United States and ship ’em all back to their home countries.

He’ll do it humanely.

Sure, Donald.

We tried that once in this country. President Dwight Eisenhower — one of the better presidents this country ever elected — launched Operation Wetback in the 1950s.

The program didn’t work too well.

It carried a disparaging name attached to Mexican immigrants. Agents fanned out across the country and rounded up the immigrants, sent them to detention centers and then shipped them off. Many of those individuals died while being held or while they fended for themselves under terrible conditions.

Trump has used the program as a benchmark for the kind of initiative he said he would launch if — perish the thought — he were to be elected president of the United States next year. At least he doesn’t identify it by the name it was given when Ike decided on the immigrant roundup.

President Obama, interviewed tonight on ABC News, talked about the images that would be flashed around the world as “deportation agents” took parents away from their children and prepared to send them back to their native country.

“That’s not who we are,” the president said.

No, it is not.

But yet, Trump continues to gain traction with his party’s primary voter base by declaring his intention to hire 25,000 officers and deploy them to hunt down every single one of the estimated 11 million individuals who are here illegally.

Is the leading GOP candidate seeking to redefine this country?

 

Trump succeeds with idiotic idea

immigration-9

Donald Trump’s signature issue in his quest to become president of the United States?

I guess it’s immigration.

What is his idea? Round up all 11 million — maybe it’s more — individuals who are here illegally, send them back to their native country. But, he says, do it “humanely.”

OK. How do we do that?

Well, he wants to hire about 25,000 additional federal employees — let’s call ’em immigrant wranglers. He’d deploy them across the country to hunt down those who are here without proper documentation. They’d take the immigrants into custody, I reckon, process them and then send them back to their country of origin.

Someone has to start taking Trump seriously to task for continuing to promote an idea that is looking more and more like utter insanity.

Has anyone figured out the cost of an operation that Trump is proposing? And what in the world does this mean to those who want a smaller federal workforce? Trump is proposing growing the federal payroll by at least 25,000 individuals. And does he consider this to be a one-time operation, that them immigrant wranglers will round up the undocumented immigrants one time, call it good and then move on to other jobs?

Not all GOP candidates have endorsed Trump’s nuttiness. “We all know you can’t pick them up and ship them … back across the border,” Ohio Gov. John Kasich said. “It’s a silly argument. It is not an adult argument. It makes no sense.”

Oh, I almost forgot. Trump is going to build a “beautiful wall” stretching from the mouth of the Rio Grande River in South Texas all the way to the Pacific Ocean, just south of San Diego, Calif. That’ll keep the illegal immigrants out. Job finished.

Hillary Rodham Clinton said this about the Trump Plan: “The idea of tracking down and deporting 11 million people is absurd, inhumane, and un-American. No, Trump.”

Let’s add “insane” and “idiotic.”

This is the leading Republican presidential candidate’s formula for “making America great again”?

Gov. Kasich bombs again

TAMPA, FL - AUGUST 28:  Ohio Gov. John Kasich speaks during the Republican National Convention at the Tampa Bay Times Forum on August 28, 2012 in Tampa, Florida. Today is the first full session of the RNC after the start was delayed due to Tropical Storm Isaac.  (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The man who has emerged as my favorite Republican presidential candidate continues to struggle.

He cannot get traction among a GOP primary electorate that favors bloody, red meat over cool collegiality.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich reportedly was the biggest loser at the fourth Republican debate, according to Politico. This hurts my heart. Honestly, it does.

Kasich is the one Republican candidate who can stake a unique claim to fame among the current crop of GOP candidates. He is the only one of the bunch who has demonstrated an ability to work with Democrats to craft a policy that is good for the nation.

When did he do that? He did when he chaired the U.S. House Budget Committee in the late 1990s and worked hand in hand with House Speaker Newt Gingrich and President Bill Clinton to balance the federal budget.

Gingrich, of course, is a fellow Republican. Clinton was that dreaded Democrat in the White House. Kasich showed an ability to hammer together a budget that met everyone’s expectations by providing a balance that eventually worked its way into a substantial surplus by the time President Clinton left office in January 2001.

That doesn’t sell, though, in today’s political climate. GOP primary voters aren’t interested in working with the other side. They have been infiltrated by the TEA Party faction, the folks who think government is evil and who see any effort to use government as a tool to push policy forward as an ideological capitulation.

Kasich won’t buy into the Donald Trump notion of deporting every one of the 11 million illegal immigrants. That, too, has produced scorn among the right wing of his party.

Good grief! The man knows how government works. He has executive experience now as well, running a state government in a large and diverse state such as Ohio.

Is it too late for my favorite Republican to catch fire? Technically, probably not. However, the pundits are saying that the game might be up for the likes of Kasich and other so-called “establishment Republicans” seeking to make a dent in the armor that’s protecting the outsiders — Trump and Ben Carson, to be specific.

Trump keeps pounding on that insane idea of rounding up every illegal immigrant and sending them back to their home countries. How he intends to do that, well … that’s to be determined later — if ever!

And Carson? Someone will have to explain to me how his training as a brain surgeon has prepared him in any way for the complexities of becoming head of state and government of the world’s most powerful nation.

For that matter, Trump’s career as a real estate mogul and reality TV star leaves him equally unprepared.

Meanwhile, candidates like Kasich — with actual government experience — continue to languish, flail and flounder.

Oh … my.

 

MPEV drama might just be getting started

ballpark

It had been my hope that a citywide election that decided the fate of a multipurpose event venue would draw the curtain down on the drama that preceded it.

Silly me.

I’m hearing some street talk that the “fun” is just beginning.

On Nov. 3, voters approved a non-binding referendum that called for construction of the MPEV, which includes a ballpark, at an estimated cost of $32 million.

A majority of City Council members sent the issue to the ballot hoping — I am certain — that voters would reject it. Well, they didn’t.

So, will the council march ahead and follow the will of the majority that spoke in favor of this project?

Quite possibly … not in the near future.

The Local Government Corporation — which is tasked with implementing city policy regarding downtown initiatives — has a new lineup. Most of the LGC comprises individuals who are aligned with the council majority; one of the new LGC members happens to be City Councilman Randy Burkett, who’s arguably the most vocal anti-MPEV spokesman on that body.

Complicating the issue is the absence of three critical senior city administrator who should be playing a key advisory role in counseling the council and the LGC. City Manager Jarrett Atkinson soon will be gone; the assistant city manager’s office has been vacant since the retirement of Vicky Covey; City Attorney Marcus Norris quit and now is working for a large private law firm in Amarillo.

Who’s on board to advise the council and the LGC? Who is there to prepare requests for proposals to demolish the old Coke distribution center that sits on the property that eventually — maybe — will include the MPEV?

How is the city going to draft plans? And will those plans be completed by architects who can keep the costs somewhere near the price tag that voters approved earlier this month? Suppose the price tag comes in at, say, $50 million. Do the City Council and the LGC then say, “Dadgum, we can’t build it at that price”?

The city has made a tremendous emotional commitment to rebuilding, revamping and rehabilitating its downtown district. The effort — contrary to what critics have alleged — been done in a vacuum. The public has been brought along the entire way.

The individuals who comprise the City Council majority, though, sought to put the brakes on that effort with this referendum.

It is my fervent hope that the election we’ve just completed wasn’t a waste of time, effort and — oh yes — public money.

OK, so  the election didn’t produce a smashing mandate. However, it was enough of a mandate — meaning a clear majority of those who voted — to keep the process moving forward.

 

‘Take the oil,’ Trump says; how, sir?

large_article_im2557_Middleeastoilproduction

Donald Trump said the following over the weekend …

“You know, if you stop transportation, I mean, you’re talking about the blood – the blood of the world and we’re going to have to be very, very strong … We’re going to have to take away the energy, the fuel, the money from ISIS.”

It’s a position he’s stated several times while running for the Republican presidential nomination. I do not yet know the answer to this question: How does a President Trump (perish the thought) plan to “take away the energy”?

The Islamic State is getting it from sources in the Middle East. It’s likely some form of black market transaction process. Or it could be done up front and in the open.

Either way, Trump’s assertion that we must take the oil, seize control of it connotes a serious military involvement that the candidate — so far — has said would be a mistake. In the same conversation he had Sunday morning with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Trump described the Middle East as a “quagmire.”

I don’t know about you, but I haven’t heard a politician ever suggest it is in the country’s best interests to thrust our cherished young American men and women into a quagmire.

So … how would Trump propose to take that oil?

Talk to us, Donald.

 

Is hell about to freeze over? Will GOP nominate Trump?

trump and carson

I listened to a couple of Sunday morning talk shows today and heard something I didn’t think I’d ever hear.

From the mouths of a couple of Republican-friendly pundits I heard that the GOP might — just might — nominate Donald J. Trump as its next nominee for president of the United States.

National Review editor Rich Lowry said on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” that if Trump can survive in Iowa — where Dr. Ben Carson is now leading — and win New Hampshire and then South Carolina, there may be no stopping him.

Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said on “Meet the Press” that it’s quite possible, indeed, that Republicans could nominate Trump.

Much of the discussion this morning centered on how the Republican “establishment,” whatever that means, plans to deal with a Trump nomination should it come to pass.

Some of us out here have wondered from the very beginning of Trump’s candidacy how he would hold up. So help me, I’m utterly baffled by it. I’ve heard the punditry talk about the mood of the electorate and particularly the mood of the GOP “base.” They’re tired of “politics as usual” and the politicians who keep striving to maintain the status quo.

Thus, Trump, Carson and Carly Fiorina all have gained traction.

It’s the Trump phenomenon that is giving me heartburn.

Trump insults Hispanics. He denigrates a genuine war hero, John McCain. He makes hideous comments about a Fox News anchor spewing blood from “her whatever.” He says he’d be dating his daughter if she weren’t his daughter. He hurls personal insults at his GOP primary rivals.

And through it all, he remains the front runner.

There once was a time when a candidate’s utter disregard for any semblance of decorum and dignity would cause him to be laughed off the political stage.

Not this time.

Someone … please pass me the Tums.

 

How about those Pyramids?

The-Pyramids-Giza

While the media and a number of political pundits obsess over whether Dr. Ben Carson really got a scholarship offer to West Point, I think it’s good to turn our attention to the here and now.

What was it he said the other day about the Great Pyramids? That they were built to, um, hold grain?

It’s not that the Pyramids’ reason for being there matters in the world of current geopolitical relationships. However, the remark seems to call into question the good doctor’s understanding of history.

Think of this for just a moment.

Carson is a leading contender for the Republican Party presidential nomination. Weren’t we all taught — Dr. Carson included — that the Great Pyramids were built as tombs for the pharaohs?

So, what’s he saying here? Does he know something that centuries of archaeologists have missed? Haven’t they uncovered the embalmed remains of Egyptian royalty from those structures?

You might not believe this, but I am pulling for Dr. Carson to get put this West Point story aside. I guess, though, it’s because I want the media to focus on the things he’s saying today.

 

One more point about Dr. Carson and West Point …

west point 2

The Internet didn’t exist in 1969 when Dr. Ben Carson reportedly had discussions with someone about whether he should get a “scholarship” to enroll at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

As I have always understood it, enrollment at any of the service academies requires a nomination from the applicant’s congressman or woman, or a senator from the individual’s home state.

The issue, then, has continued to swirl over whether Carson, a leading Republican presidential candidate, actually was offered a “scholarship” to West Point. He says a lot of things about it. Critics say he’s being — at minimum — disingenuous.

I found a website that lays out how one does it now.

Here is the link

It still involves submitting an application and a nomination from a member of the House of Representatives or a U.S. senator. The applicant also must score high enough on SAT and ACT tests to quality. Media outlets have reported that Carson never submitted an application to West Point.

Dr. Carson was living in Detroit at the time. He was active in the junior ROTC program at Southwestern High School, achieving the highest ROTC cadet ranking possible.

Did that get the attention of someone in Congress from the Detroit area, or from his home state of Michigan, to nominate young Ben for admission to West Point … and is there a record of it — anywhere?

Hey, I’m just trying to do my small part to help clean up this mess.

I’m out.

Can the Carson/West Point matter get muddier?

MainstreamMediaLogo1000x400

My head is spinning over the past day or two regarding revelations about Dr. Ben Carson’s alleged, purported, supposed misstatements about whether he got a scholarship offer to West Point.

It’s turning into a game of semantics.

Moreover, the arguments have turned the discussion into a mud bath, meaning it’s becoming “clear as mud” about what Carson — a leading Republican presidential candidate — wrote about himself and whether it comports to the truth about what actually happened and when it supposedly occurred.

Steve Kornacki is a smart young political analyst who’s a regular on MSBNC’s talk-show circuit. He hosts a weekend talk show on MSNBC called “Up with Steve Kornacki.”

I’m beginning to believe that Kornacki might have the right take on how this Carson imbroglio is going end up. He said the other night on “Hardball,” another MSNBC show, that Carson and his allies have managed to turn the tables on the so-called “liberal mainstream media,” and have turned the argument into a game of “gotcha” in which the “liberal press” is “out to get” the good doctor.

Thus, if I read Kornacki’s analysis correctly, they’ve built enough reasonable doubt over the original story published by Politico that they’ve managed to deflect the argument back to the messenger … the aforementioned “liberal mainstream media.”

To be plainly honest, the story has taken so many turns I’m having trouble keeping up with it all. I need to stay focused entirely on the saga — chapter by chapter — to make sense of it all.

I guess I’ve boiled it down to simply this point: Dr. Carson could have written any reference to West Point with much more clarity than he apparently has done so far.

Or … he could have just not mentioned West Point at all.

I suppose another presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont — who’s seeking the Democratic nomination — had the best take on it all: Maybe we ought turn our focus more on Dr. Carson’s peculiar current public policy views and less on what he has said about his past.

 

Keystone decision makes sense

Keystone-Pipeline

Politicians’ positions can “evolve,” yes?

That means bloggers can change their mind, too, I reckon.

So it has happened with the Keystone XL pipeline. I once blogged in support of the notion of running the pipeline from Canada, through the heart of the Great Plains to the Texas coast.

The price of gasoline was skyrocketing. We needed some way to put more fossil fuel into the international market, I said back then.

What has happened? Jobs came back. Oil prices fell sharply. So did the price of gasoline.

The need for the pipeline? Well, it’s no longer compelling.

President Obama said “no” to the pipeline this week. The fallout has been reduced significantly because of economic and environmental factors that have turned in our nation’s favor.

I now believe the president’s rejection of Keystone makes sense.

The president nixed Keystone because it wouldn’t help the U.S. consumer market, given that the oil would be refined here and then shipped offshore to … wherever.

Plus, there is that environmental concern about possible spillage and leaks from a pipeline that would coarse through nearly 2,000 miles of U.S. territory. Those things do happen, you know. The damage is significant.

Oh, and the jobs it would create? They now appear to have been minimized because private-sector job creation has been heating up nicely over the course of the past half-dozen years.

So, good bye to Keystone.

Sure, our Canadian friends are unhappy. So are some refiners on the Texas Gulf Coast.

The rest of us? Well, I think we’ll be all right without building the Keystone XL.