Category Archives: political news

So much for predicting The Donald’s future

Roll this around for a moment.

President … Trump.

Yep, Donald Trump did what I truly didn’t think he would do. He declared he is running for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2016.

On the one hand, the idea of a President Trump could render me catatonic if I were to give it too much thought. On the other hand, the idea of The Donald having to answer questions about public policy, diplomacy, the nuance of governing and balancing the powers of government makes me shiver with anticipation.

Trump declares White House bid

“I want to make America great again,” he declared today. America’s not great now? We’re not the world’s pre-eminent military power? We’re not leading the fight against international terrorists? We haven’t recovered from the Great Recession of 2008-09?

The Donald doesn’t think so, I guess.

The GOP field is full of serious individuals. One of them, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, joined the field Monday, bringing the total number of GOP candidates to 11; the Democratic field has four of candidates.

Donald Trump is not a serious candidate for the presidency of the United States.

But you know? Given the guy’s celebrity status and the infatuation of such status fostered by today’s pop culture, well, almost anything can happen.

I fear that anything just might occur.

 

Trump won’t join GOP field

I’m going out on a limb with this one.

But here goes: The Donald — aka Donald Trump — is not going to announce this morning he is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

His “big announcement” might come in the next few minutes, so I have to hurry.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-set-to-announce-2016-plans/ar-BBlcMsR

He’s going to reveal his wealth. He’ll tell us that he wants to keep making zillions of dollars and he cannot do so if he’s taking the measly 400 grand he would earn annually as president of the United States. Then again, if he doesn’t need the money, he can give it to charity.

I just cannot fathom this guy subjecting himself to the scrutiny he would get — not just from the media, but from the other more serious candidates running for the GOP nomination.

I now will hold my breath.

Texas Democrats take a punch in the gut

You want to know how Texas Democrats are feeling today?

Like pure dookey, based on what happened way down yonder in San Antonio over the weekend.

Get a load of this: A veteran former Democratic state senator, Leticia Van de Putte, who’s lived in the Alamo City for virtually her entire life, got beat in the race for mayor by Ivy Taylor, who was born in New York City and who’d never run for a partisan office before..

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/14/taylors-triumph-new-day-or-another-fluke/

Van de Putte was supposed to win, although she was far from a shoo-in. Let’s be clear as well: Taylor also is a Democrat, so the mayor’s office is remaining in Democratic hands.

But the former state senator, who got thumped in her bid for Texas lieutenant governor last year by Republican Dan Patrick, figured to remain in the public eye and the state’s Democrats figured to count on her to remain one of its key voices on issues across the state.

Texas Democrats keep offering up brave talk about coming back from the political wilderness. They vow to make the state competitive in the next presidential campaign. They vow to take some of those statewide offices all held exclusively by Republicans since I can’t remember when.

Even here, in the Panhandle — the heart and soul of the Texas Republican Party — this kind of bravery can be heard.

I hope one day for a return to a competitive two-party state.

With two major parties fighting on equal footing against each other, there’s bound to be some semblance of moderation from the GOP, which has been running roughshod over the opposition. The same thing happened when Democrats owned all the political power in Texas.

Leticia Van de Putte might have symbolized a return to that competitive posture.

Instead, she becomes just another political casualty.

 

Bye, bye Rush … don’t hurry back

I posted something to my Facebook feed the other day about Rush Limbaugh losing yet another radio station from his shrinking audience.

The post prompted an interesting exchange among several individuals with whom I’m “friends,” actual friends — and it included one of my sons.

One of the individuals encouraged another respondent to actually listen to Limbaugh’s radio show before making a judgment about his message.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/09/rush_limbaugh_is_cooked_the_stunning_fall_of_the_rights_angriest_bloviator_partner/

It reminded me a bit of a similar exchange I had in the pre-Internet days with a man I admired greatly.

The late Maury Meyers, who once served as mayor of Beaumont and who once ran unsuccessfully for Congress against the Irascible Man, the late Rep. Jack Brooks. Meyers was a Republican, Brooks a Democrat.

Meyers was a fine individual, a progressive, pro-business mayor.

He also was a fan of Rush Limbaugh.

I wrote a column about Limbaugh’s short-lived TV show in which he’d rant for 30 minutes, sign off, then come back the day and rant some more. I couldn’t take it and I said so in my column, which ended with this: “Rush Limbaugh is to TV political commentary what Willard Scott is to TV weather predicting, with one difference: Scott makes me laugh; Limbaugh makes me sick.”

Meyers called me and invited me to listen more intently to Limbaugh. Tune in to his radio show, Maury implored me. Listen to him over a period of time and tell me if you still feel the same way, he said.

I took him up on it.

Limbaugh was worse than I thought. I wrote a follow-up column, stating that Limbaugh’s radio show was the worst piece of broadcasting I’d ever heard. OK, I’ve heard worse since then, but at that time, Limbaugh was the gold standard for right-wing trash-talk.

The term “Dittohead” was meant to be worn as a badge of honor by the man’s radio listeners who proclaim themselves to be among them. It’s an interesting term, when you think about it. To me, it more or less connotes an inability or unwillingness to think for one’s self.

That, I reckon, is Limbaugh’s audience.

And it appears to be dwindling.

 

 

Rubio takes heat, gives some of it back

Welcome to the national spotlight, young man.

Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential candidate, is finding out first hand how tough it is to keep some aspects of one’s personal life out of the glare of public view.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/marco-rubio-hits-back-at-new-york-times/ar-BBkXhm9

It really cannot be done.

The New York Times has published a couple of stories about the senator from Florida. One of them details the number of traffic tickets he and his wife (mostly his wife) have run up in the past 18 years. The other examines the couple’s spending habits.

The stories aren’t exactly flattering. In fact, they’re quite unflattering. Rubio has hit back at the Times over the personal finances story. He wrote an email: “It’s true, I didn’t make over $11 million last year giving speeches to special interests,” Rubio said. “And we don’t have a family foundation that has raised $2 billion from Wall Street and foreign interests.” Those examples appear to be shots at Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton, who’s come under scrutiny herself for the money she has earned since she and her husband, President Bill Clinton, left the White House in 2001.

Personally, I think the traffic-ticket story is overblown. Indeed, if he is elected president in 2016, neither he or his wife will be sitting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle on public streets for at least the next four years. So, what’s the point, right?

As for the financial story, the Rubios reportedly have thrown a good bit of money that Sen. Rubio seem to indicate they don’t have. According to U.S. News & World report: “The Times also said Rubio has handled his personal finances in a manner that ‘experts called imprudent,’ with a low saving rate, substantial debt, buying an $80,000 boat and leasing a $50,000 2015 Audi Q7.” Rubio is going to insist on prudent spending by the government as he campaigns for president. Do as I say and not as I do? Is that it, senator?

Here’s a thought for the Times’s editors to consider: If you’re going to examine the personal spending habits and the portfolios of the candidates, be sure to look at Sen. Bernie Sanders’s account statements carefully. He is the “Democratic socialist” who’s campaigning for the Democratic Party nomination on a platform that seeks to redistribute wealth throughout the country because of what he calls the “obscene” wealth of too few Americans.

As for Rubio and the treatment he’s gotten from the media, there’s much more scrutiny to come.

It goes with the territory.

 

Where has Rush been hiding?

Out of ideas

Maybe I’m a bit slow on the uptake — which I admit to readily — but I’m not hearing much lately from Daddy Dittohead, Rush Limbaugh.

I know he’s still on the air here in Amarillo. How do I know that? The gentleman who delivers our mail each day tunes his radio to the station that broadcasts Rush’s bilge, er, commentary.

It’s just that Limbaugh’s thoughts on this or that used to be quoted by mainstream media quite regularly. I haven’t seen much from or about the gasbag.

The only news I’ve seen lately involving Limbaugh has related to stations dropping him because of advertisers bailing out. I don’t expect that to happen in the Texas Panhandle, where Limbaugh is considered by many to be the voice of all that is wise and correct.

As one who thinks quite differently of this guy, my hope is that he remains in the background, blathering only to the Dittoheads who don’t quite grasp the irony of being labeled as such.

‘A bro with no ho’?

This item made me chuckle, although I am somewhat ashamed of myself for it.

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has just announced he’s running for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2016. He’s single. Never been married.

One of his Senate colleagues, fellow Republican Mark Kirk of Illinois, joked upon hearing that Graham said he would have a “rotating first lady” if he’s elected president, that his colleague is “A bro with no ho.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/mark-kirk-lindsey-graham-bro-118882.html?hp=l2_4

Kirk’s crack came during a Senate Appropriations Committee legislative markup session. He made the crack into an open microphone, which means it wasn’t meant to enter the, um, public domain.

But … it did.

Now it’s out there.

Honest to goodness, I actually think Kirk’s comment is funny.

My hunch also is that Graham has enough of a sense of humor to think so, too.

Still, the twinge of political correctness that continues to cling to my conscience makes me slightly embarrassed for admitting that Kirk’s quip made me chuckle.

Aw, what the heck. It’s funny. I’ll leave it at that.

 

POTUS vs. SCOTUS over ACA

President Barack Obama has chided the Supreme Court over its decision to hear a case involving the Affordable Care Act.

Some critics, of course, suggest the criticism is out of bounds, that the president is trying to “bully” the nine justices who could strike down a key provision in the ACA. Bully those men and women? I don’t think so.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-congress-fix-health-law-court-rules-against-071508891–politics.html#

Obama says the court was wrong to take up a case in the first place. The case, to be ruled on perhaps in just a matter of days, involves the legality of the federal subsidies used to help pay for Americans’ health care. An estimated 6.4 million Americans’ health insurance policies are at risk if the court strikes down the subsidy.

Now the president has declared the ACA to be a “reality,” it is law and it is part of the American fabric of providing health insurance to those who need it.

Is he right to challenge the court? Of course he is.

Just as critics chide the president for ignoring the separation of powers contained in the Constitution, they ignore the obvious notion that the separation argument goes the other direction. By that I mean that the judiciary, as a co-equal branch of government, isn’t immune from criticism from another branch of government. Indeed, the legislative branch — Congress — hardly is shy about criticizing the executive and the judiciary when either of those branches of government steer in what lawmakers suggest is the “wrong direction.”

Where the president misfired, in my view, in his criticism of the Supreme Court was when he did so during his 2010 State of the Union speech. With several court members sitting in front of him, surrounded by other administration and military officials, not to mention a packed chamber full of lawmakers, the president said the court was wrong in its Citizens United ruling that took the shackles off of campaign contributors. Whatever criticism the court deserved, that was neither the time or the place to deliver it.

So, the fight goes on between Barack Obama the nine men and women who hold the fate of his signature domestic policy achievement in their hands.

 

Homosexuality gaining acceptance

Homosexuality isn’t the demon among a growing number of Americans, says a study by the Pew Research Center.

The study indicates that in almost all demographic groups, homosexuality is more widely accepted than it was in 2013. Almost all groups.

Who doesn’t think that way? Conservative Republicans, according to Pew.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/only-one-group-americans-become-224300984.html

Does that surprise you? I didn’t think so. It didn’t me, either.

The tide of history is turning against those who continue to harbor ill will toward gay people. We’re seeing a growing acceptance of gay marriage; certainly, more Americans believe gay people should not face discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.

As for the Pew figures on conservative Republicans’ continued antipathy toward gay people, I think it speaks to the difficulty the GOP is going to face in future national elections.

The nation is changing in many substantive ways. Many pundits have noted the increasing numbers of ethnic and racial minorities and how those groups tend to vote against GOP candidates.

The conservative wing of that party is continuing to call the shots on how to shape the party’s governing platform — and it doesn’t include a more inclusive outlook toward the LGBT community.

Whether individual candidates adhere to that national platform often is up for discussion. Still, when the party hierarchy, driven by its most conservative members, put anti-gay language on the record, voters will take notice.

 

 

Rick Perry: Governors make better presidents

Rick Perry actually makes sense when he extols the virtues of governors seeking the presidency of the United States.

That doesn’t mean in the least that I intend — at this moment — to vote for him if lightning strikes and the Republican Party nominates him in 2016. I’m going to keep an open mind, though, as the campaign progresses. Honest. I will.

But in his campaign rollout speech in that sweltering hangar in Addison, Perry said that governors are those with actual executive experience.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/05/perry-stakes-defining-contrast-on-executive-experi/

He ought to know. Perry served as Texas governor for 14 years — even though it seemed much longer, at least in my eyes. He made a lot of executive decisions during his time as governor. Some of them were good decisions, even though I need some time to think of them.

He goofed on a few as well, such as the one he made requiring junior high school girls to be vaccinated for sexually transmitted diseases. The Legislature overrode that order in 2011, which of course is an action that Perry never mentions while campaigning for president.

Back to the point.

Perry’s assertion that governors make better presidents seems to have some merit. He said, according to the Texas Tribune: “The question of every candidate will be this one: When have you led?” Perry added, posing the same query that is a regular part of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz‘s 2016 stump speech. “Leadership is not a speech on the Senate floor. It’s not what you say; it’s what you do. And we will not find the kind of leadership needed to revitalize the country by looking to the political class in Washington.”

My only question, though, is this: Does he include former Govs. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton among those who did well as president?

I’ll answer my own query: Probably not.