Category Archives: political news

national news, political news

Goldberg gets it about The Donald

Donald Trump is taking fire not just from liberals but from conservatives.

Amazing, if you ask me.

OK, you didn’t ask, but I’ll offer my opinion anyway.

The latest broadside comes from Jonah Goldberg, who I consider to be one of the better, smarter conservative pundits around. I always enjoy reading his world view, even though I generally disagree with it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421045/donald-trump-fraud

But where it regards The Donald, well, young Jonah is on point. You need to read his essay here. If you’re in the right frame of mind, as I happened to be when I read, you’ll laugh out loud. No kidding!

Here’s a tiny bit of what he wrote:

“… what I find so gaudy about Trump is his constant reference to the fact that he made a lot of money, and his expectation that it somehow makes him immune to criticism or means that he’s a better person than his GOP competitors, never mind yours truly.”

I’ve already taken note of Trump’s continual references to how rich he is. Some of my own critics have wondered if I’m envious of his wealth. No. I’m not.

His yammering about his wealth — which some have suggested isn’t nearly as immense as he says it is — simply drives me crazy. One more tidbit from Goldberg: “He’s a bore who overcompensates for his insecurities by talking about how awesome he is, often in the third person. Jonah can’t stand that.”

And yet, in this wacky world of ours, his boastfulness is getting traction by those who think it all translates into leadership.

Another key point in Goldberg’s essay is how thin-skinned Trump is, how he bristles at criticism. Trump has fired back at his critics, such as Goldberg, which puzzles the young columnist, who wondered why someone who considers himself to be “master of the Universe” would get upset anything anyone said about him.

We’ve clearly entered a new age, or perhaps been transported without our knowledge into a parallel political universe.

The behavior that The Donald is exhibiting is precisely the kind of thing that in another time would have resulted in his being laughed off the political stage. The prancing and preening he does would be grist for ridicule from serious politicians.

These days they’re taking this guy seriously.

And with good reason. The Donald is at or near the top of every public opinion poll of Republican voters.

I believe Jonah Goldberg has a point: The Donald’s fans need an intervention.

political news

What? I’m sticking up for Ted Cruz?

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) gestures as the key speaker at the annual Reagan Republican Dinner in Des Moines, Iowa, Friday, October 25, 2013. (David Peterson/MCT via Getty Images)

I’m feeling oddly out of sorts these days.

Why? Well, I’m feeling a bit of sympathy for a patently unsympathetic politician: U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Readers of this blog know that I do not intend to vote for Sen. Cruz for president of the United States. But two things have happened in recent weeks that make me want to stand with him.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-feud-new-york-times-119981.html?hp=t4_r

He’s now feuding with the New York Times over the paper’s refusal to include his new memoir, “A Time for Truth,” on its list of best-selling books. It’s selling like crazy, being scarfed up from book shelves by supporters who want to read the junior senator’s words of wisdom and how he intends to rescue the United States of America.

Cruz and his allies say the NYT snub is pure partisanship. The liberal publication won’t give this conservative pol the time of day, let alone list his memoir on its vaunted best-seller list.

Cruz’s feud is going win him more friends on the right. I won’t join his campaign, but it does seem a bit churlish on the Times’s part to exclude him from the best-seller list.

The second aspect involves The Donald, who’s bringing up the “birther” controversy all over again. Sen. Cruz is the target this time. Donald Trump said that because Cruz was born in Canada, he’s not qualified to serve as president. “Natural-born citizen,” in Trump’s mind, means he a candidate must be born in the U.S.; that’s how he interprets the Constitution.

Trump is wrong.

Cruz’s mother is an American citizen. That grants him U.S. citizenship by birth. Cruz could have been born on Mars — which is where I sometimes think is Trump’s place of birth — and he still would be qualified to run for and serve as president in the highly unlikely event he is elected next year.

Trump tried to pull the birther stunt on Barack Obama, even though the president actually was born in Hawaii. He’s at it once again with Cruz.

Hey, I’m just trying to be fair here. I might dislike Cruz’s philosophy and don’t want him elected president of the United States. However, I know mistreatment when I see it. Cruz is getting a bum deal from the New York Times.

As for the birther crap that comes from Donald Trump’s pie hole, well … enough said on that.

political news

The Donald presents so many avenues of disgust

1 Comment

DonladTrumpHair

There’s so much to detest about Donald Trump.

I almost don’t where to begin.

His anti-immigrant rant? As the grandson of immigrants — yes, legal immigrants — I was appalled at his description of Mexicans as “rapists, drug dealers and murders,” and “oh, yes, some good ones.”

How about his birther stance? He still thinks President Obama was born in a foreign country, despite having an American mother, which qualifies him for the office he’s held for nearly two full terms. Now he’s going after Ted Cruz, who actually was born in another country, but his mother is an American as well.

I’m beginning to settle on one aspect of Trump I find most annoying. It’s his insistence that he’s “really rich.”

He brags about it. He boasts of all the money he has. He seeks to parlay that good fortune into what he’d do as president, which is create jobs. “I’m a great job creator,” he says.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/dump-on-trump-119932.html?hp=lc1_4

How do you suppose his boasting about wealth is going to play to the very people he wants to win over if he is to have a prayer of being nominated by the Republican Party, let alone elected president of the United States? My guess is that it won’t play well — at all.

He’s going to brag on TV about his wealth. Imagine being a single parent, struggling to make ends meet. You’ve got several children who need food, clothing and shelter. You can barely provide any of that. And then you’re going to hear someone who wants to become your president keep bragging about his material wealth, about all those tall buildings that have his name on them, all his bling, glitter.

How does that make you feel?

I’m a middle-class guy. I’ve had a nice life. My wife and I don’t need too much to consider ourselves successful.

All that boasting makes me crazy!

He’s going after his fellow GOP candidates. They’re returning fire aggressively, as are the Democratic candidates.

I will await with great anticipation the first Republican presidential joint appearance to see how The Donald handles the blistering he’s going to get.

From now on, though, shut up with the “I’m really rich” crap, OK, Donald?

political news

Bush honors wounded vets … for a healthy fee

A friend gave me a heads up on this story earlier in the day.

Then I caught up with it. I am, to say the least, disappointed that a former president of the United States would actually do this.

George W. Bush spoke in 2012 to a group of wounded veterans, men and women he sent into battle. He then charged the charity event $100,000 to hear his remarks. The charity in question is Helping a Hero.

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/07/george-w-bush-charged-100000-to-speak-at-2012-charity-fundraiser-for-wounded-veterans.html/?fb_action_ids=10207189190992928&fb_action_types=og.shares&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B650446875055799%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.shares%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

Is there something here that just doesn’t smell right?

President Bush’s remarks were intended to honor vets wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the veterans who heard about the fee paid to the former president were offended. Gee, do you think?

Some of them lost limbs. They answered their nation’s call to duty — without regret. Then they listen to the former president pay tribute to them, only to learn that he pulled down a six-figure honorarium?

I get that other politicians charge substantial speaking fees. Hillary Clinton comes to mind and she surely has gotten her fair share of criticism for the money she’s made over the years.

Bush supporters say he discounted the amount he usually charges. The former president’s standard fee is about $175,000 per appearance. They also note that his appearances have raised many times the amount of money he earns just for speaking; they consider their investment to worth the cost.

OK, so he gave the vets’ group a break.

Allow me this: Big bleeping deal!

There’s just something infuriating to know that the commander in chief who sent these individuals into harm’s way would pull down such a hefty speaking fee to salute their service.

 

local news, national news, political news, State news

Redistricting really and truly matters to us

Redistricting is an issue that usually appeals to policy wonks, political junkies and perhaps nerds who have nothing better to do than think about this stuff.

I’m not really a wonk; I don’t consider myself a nerd. I am a bit of a political junkie.

But the redistricting mess is something that ought to concern everyone who’s affected by state and national government.

That means, um, everyone.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/06/analysis-redistricting-reformers-hopeful-pessimist/

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on its last day of his latest term that Arizona can allow someone other than the legislature to redraw congressional lines. The 5-4 ruling means that the state can appoint a special commission to do the job left normally to partisan politicians.

So, what does that mean for Texas?

Probably not as much as it should, according to the Texas Tribune.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/06/analysis-redistricting-reformers-hopeful-pessimist/

The late state Sen. Teel Bivins of Amarillo used to say that redistricting provided Republicans the “chance to eat their young.” I never quite understood what he meant by Republicans eating their young. Democrats do the same thing.

The Texas Legislature redraws legislative and congressional boundaries after every census is taken. It’s done a horrible job of gerrymandering districts into shapes that make zero sense. It’s a bipartisan exercise in political power retention.

After the 1990 census, Democrats who controlled the Texas Legislature managed to split Amarillo in half in an effort to protect Democratic U.S. Rep. Bill Sarpalius. It worked through one election cycle, as Sarpalius was-re-elected in 1992. Then came 1994 and Sarpalius got tossed out when voters elected Republican Mac Thornberry.

Some of the congressional districts downstate snake along streets and highways. They make zero sense.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “The Arizona case opens the door for voters to take the map-drawing away from the people who are occupationally dependent on the lines on those maps. That’s a fancy way of saying the lawmakers have a conflict of interest when they draw. They’re picking their voters instead of drawing the lines as if they had no interest at all.”

Did you get that? Legislators who draw the lines are the actual beneficiaries of their very own work.

They shouldn’t be involved. The Constitution doesn’t require legislators to do this task; it says only that states must do it.

If legislatures pass that duty to specially appointed commissions, then they are entitled to do so.

So, Texas legislators, what are you waiting for?

national news, political news

Strike the rebel flag in S.C.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has done what she had to do.

She signed a bill that brings down the Confederate battle flag that flew in front of the statehouse in Columbia, S.C.

Yes, it’s a mere symbol. However, it’s a powerful symbol … of hate, bigotry, tyranny and enslavement.

The South Carolina legislature debated the issue passionately, but decided ultimately to do what it had to do.

It needed to come down. The context, of course, is the horrifying massacre in that Charleston, S.C., church in which a gunman killed five African-American church members — including its pastor. A young man, Dylann Roof, has been accused of the crime and what we know about young Roof is that he is an avowed racist who waved the Confederate battle flag proudly as a demonstration of his intention to start what he called a “race war.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/south-carolinas-governor-signs-confederate-flag-removal-bill/ar-AAcLNgx

The flag is down and I’m glad about that.

However, one can take this campaign too far. I think it’s starting to veer into some tricky territory. TV Land has stopped showing “Dukes of Hazzard” reruns because the car that Bo and Luke Duke drove in the show had a battle flag emblem on its roof.

Now comes talk of removing Confederate military figures’ statues.

There is a certain historical significance in many of these monuments. These individuals were answering a call to duty. Yes, they were fighting to break up the Union. It’s good, though, to remind ourselves of our nation’s dark moments.

I have no problem with the battle flag coming down in places like South Carolina, where the Civil War started in 1861. The flag has become the emblem of hate; you see it flown at Klan rallies. The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles banned the flag from appearing on license plates, and the Supreme Court upheld the state’s right to issue that prohibition.

The flag is a hateful symbol. But not all monuments dedicated to the Confederacy conjure up the same level of intense loathing among so many Americans.

So, let’s seek to dial back the knee-jerk responses to other symbols that carry historic significance.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Change the federal judicial system? Please, no

What is it with some American politicians?

A court ruling or two doesn’t go their way and they want to toss aside one of the basic tenets of our federal government? They want to elect federal judges, make them stand for “retention” if they make a decision that upsets some of us?

That’s the view of a leading so-called “conservative” U.S. senator who’s also running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Take it away, Ted Cruz of Texas.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/ted-cruz-chris-matthews-supreme-court-119891.html

Cruz jousted this week with MSBNC’s Chris Matthews over the setup of the federal judiciary. Cruz doesn’t like the two recent Supreme Court rulings that (a) upheld the Affordable Care Act and (b) legalized gay marriage in the United States.

The junior senator from Texas now thinks Supreme Court justices should stand for retention to enable voters a chance to decide if they want them to keep their jobs.

Matthews, not surprisingly, went semi-ballistic — which is part of his shtick. He brought up the Bush v. Gore decision that settled the 2000 presidential election. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stop the Florida recount. Texas Gov. George W. Bush was leading by 537 votes at that moment over Vice President Al Gore. Gov. Bush was awarded Florida’s electoral votes, which were enough to elect him president of the United States by a single electoral vote.

The five Republican-appointed justices’ overruled the four dissents cast by the Democratic-appointed justices. Politics? Gosh, do you think?

Conservatives hailed that decision. And why not? It was all done according to precisely the manner allowed by the U.S. Constitution. Some of us might not have liked the outcome, but that’s how it goes. The justices made the call.

Cruz didn’t object then, Matthews reminded him.

The nation’s founders set up a system in which the federal judiciary is intended to be free of political pressure. The president appoints judges and Supreme Court justices, who then are subject to approval by the Senate. They get lifetime jobs and, therefore, are able to rule according to how they interpret the Constitution.

This idea that we should now subject justices to the political will of the people is simply not in keeping with what the founders intended when they wrote the Constitution.

Political conservatives, such as Sen. Cruz, keep harping on “original intent.” Well, the founders’ “original intent” was to separate the judicial branch of government from the political tug-of-war that exists in the legislative and executive branches.

Cruz said he is “reluctant to call for elections,” and said it “makes him sad.” He added that he has made that call because “a majority of the justices are not honoring their judicial oaths.”

Yes they are, senator.

Let’s leave the judicial system alone.

legal news, political news

Where was this voice on gay marriage?

Of all the voices heard across the United States of America that were commenting — pro and con — on the historic Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage, one voice was conspicuously silent.

It belonged to the former vice president of the United States, Richard B. Cheney.

He’s been quick to lambaste the liberals ever since leaving office in January 2009. He calls Barack Obama the “worst president of my lifetime.” He’s leveled heavy fire on congressional Democrats on any number of foreign and domestic issues.

On this one, the issue that resonates on both sides of the political divide — for vastly different reasons, of course — he’s been silent.

The gay marriage debate hits the former VP squarely where he feels it. His daughter, Mary, is married to a woman.

In this instance, Vice President Cheney’s silence has been remarkable.

He dare not rile the base of his Republican Party, the folks who still adore him for his staunch conservative views, by endorsing how the Supreme Court has affirmed the Constitution’s equal protection clause contained in the 14th Amendment.

Then again, he dare not criticize the court out of concern that critics might jump all over him for condemning his very own daughter — who I am absolutely certain he loves without condition. Fathers do that, you know.

Man, it’s a dicey world when you have to decide which brand of loyalty wins out — loyalty to family or to political principle.

My hope is that family takes precedence.

 

political news

Gov. Christie wants a new job … and stay on the job

Chris-Christie

Chris Christie is running for the Republican Party presidential nomination.

He’s already got a day job. He’s the governor of New Jersey. Can he run for one office and continue to hold his current office?

Sure he can. We allow it in Texas and it’s worked out all right for us.

But some of Christie’s fellow New Jersey pols want him to quit his governor’s job if he’s going to run for president.

To which I say: C’mon. Give me a break. The man can multi-task.

The Republican presidential field is chock full of full-time public servants who aspire for the White House. They include: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, and U.S. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Soon we’ll have Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich joining the crowd. I know I’m missing someone.

The point is that Christie is able to perform both tasks. Yes, it is possible he won’t be as attentive to state duties as he would be were he not running for president. I’ve even needled Cruz for his many absences from Senate votes while he’s out raising money for his presidential campaign.

We have the “Lyndon Johnson Rule” in Texas. It enabled then-Sen. Johnson to run for vice president in 1960. He was elected VP and had to give up his Senate job. Twenty-eight years later, U.S. Sen. Lloyd Bentsen ran for vice president while still serving in the Senate; he didn’t win the VP job, but stayed on in the Senate until he quit in 1993 to become Treasury secretary.

So, what’s the deal with New Jersey? Gov. Christie notes that with social media — smart phones, I-phones, Skype, whatever — he can stay in touch with any contingency in New Jersey while he’s traipsing through Iowa cornfields, or New Hampshire forests.

Let the man run and keep serving.

political news

Sen. Sanders shows spunk, however …

2 Comments

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has put it on the line.

The candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination said flat-out he will raise individual tax rates if he’s elected president next year.

The Vermont independent senator said this on CNN over the weekend: “Yes, we have to raise individual tax rates substantially higher than they are today, because almost all of the new income is going to the top 1 percent.”

http://nypost.com/2015/07/06/bernie-sanders-will-raise-taxes-if-hes-elected-president/

As much as I admire Sen. Sanders’s spunk and his courage on some things, I feel compelled to remind him of a little political history, even though I know he’s aware of it.

In 1984, former Vice President Walter Mondale was nominated to run for president. During his acceptance speech at the party convention in San Francisco, he said this: “Mr. Reagan will raises taxes and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”

“Mr. Reagan,” of course was the president of the United States.

Vice President Mondale got a rousing cheer at the convention.

President Reagan was re-elected in a 49-state landslide.

Raising taxes doesn’t play well out here, Sen. Sanders.