Category Archives: political news

International news, political news

Who said this about Bibi?

A White House official called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “chickens**t”?

That’s all we know at the moment.

Here’s an idea: How about for once we find out who did the name-calling? Bring this individual out from the shadows and have him or her explain the reference.

US, Israel relations hit new low

This is the kind of thing that’s said behind closed doors all the time in Washington, D.C., and more than likely in Jerusalem as well.

I only can imagine what some of Netanyahu’s more strident inner circle members think of President Barack Obama or perhaps the Congress and what he or she might be saying about all of them in private.

This little term of non-endearment, however, has been let loose and has poisoned — perhaps — the sometimes-testy relationship between the two leaders.

And just when it had been reported that Netanyahu actually had expressed some warm feelings toward Barack Obama, well, this happens.

OK, if we’re not going to learn the name of the individual, perhaps someone on the inside — perhaps the press secretary, Josh Earnest — can tell us at what level this individual operates. Cabinet level? Sub-Cabinet? A member of “diplomatic” corps, for crying out loud? Hey, was it a national security team member? Someone from the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

We need to know who said it and why?

What’s more, the president ought to get on the phone and call his pal Bibi and tell him that the potty-mouth individual was speaking for himself or herself.

Then again, maybe the president should assure the prime minister that he — the leader of the Free World — himself didn’t say it.

 

 

political news, State news

'P' to use land office as springboard

One of the least surprising results of next week’s statewide election will be who wins the race for Texas land commissioner.

Ladies and gents: Welcome George Prescott Bush to the roster of constitutional elected officials.

You know this young man, yes? We’ll call him “P,” which is what his family and close friends call him. His uncle George W., after all, has been called Dubya since, oh, he became president of the United States back in 2001.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/10/28/once-obscure-agency-rises-prominence/

The Texas Tribune has put together an interesting analysis about “P” and how his new office is going to gain considerable attention once he takes the oath of office.

George P. is the son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and is the grandson of former President George H.W. Bush. I’ve already mentioned Uncle Dubya, which puts “P” in line to be the first of the next generation of men named Bush to ascend to public office.

Grandpa Bush famously referred to “P” as one of the “little brown ones,” given that the young man’s mother is Hispanic.

Does “P” bring a lot of practical experience to the job of land commissioner? Only a little. He’s a lawyer and his name is Bush. That’s it, plus his work as an oil and gas consultant.

He will oversee the management of public lands in Texas and the royalties it earns from oil and gas revenue for public education, and will manage the state’s veteran home loan program. It’s the latter duty that likely will comprise the bulk of his time and attention, given that so little land in Texas is in public hands.

The fact someone with the Bush name will be running the General Land Office gives the office needed visibility. It’s an important office that does important work on behalf of public school students and veterans.

I won’t go too far out on a limb here to suggest that “P” is using the GLO job as a stepping stone to something flashier. George P. is just in his 30s and he’ll have a whole host of options available to him in the future.

For now, though, he’s going to get his feet wet at the General Land Office. Hey, he’s aimed high and is using his still-potent family name — it still carries some weight in Texas, at least — to hit his target.

 

 

local news, political news, State news

Panhandle no longer forsaken?

It’s been said over the years — often by yours truly — that Democrats have given up on the Texas Panhandle while Republicans have taken us for granted.

The major candidates from both parties don’t come here often to campaign for office, to court voters or tell us how important we are to their electoral chances.

Well, this week two major candidates for lieutenant governor are venturing into the Panhandle to do all of that.

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2014-10-27/van-de-putte-stumps-Amarillo

It’s the Democrat’s visit that I find most intriguing.

State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte staged an Amarillo rally understanding full well that she’s venturing into the belly of the beast, so to speak. She is planning a last-minute statewide blitz that includes Amarillo and Lubbock, the twin “capitals” of the most Republican region of a most Republican state.

Will this visit put her over the top? Don’t bet on it. Her Republican foe, and the presumptive favorite, state Sen. Dan Patrick is coming here as well. I’m still waiting to see if another state senator, Republican Kel Seliger of Amarillo, plans to throw his arm around Patrick’s back on a star-spangled podium. Patrick’s visit is more expected, given the voting strength he is expected to enjoy here.

Van de Putte? That’s another matter.

Honestly, it’s a bit gratifying that a leading Democrat would even bother to come here.

Yes, the pendulum swings both ways.

Back in the old days, when I first arrived in Texas, I landed in Beaumont, one of the last Democratic strongholds in Texas. Republican candidates for high office were as hard to find in Jefferson County as Democrats are in, say, Randall County.

This is all part of why I long for a day when Democrats can regain something akin to equal footing with Republicans statewide. It brings all regions of the state into play and attracts candidates of both major parties to all regions to do what they call a little “retail politicking.”

That is a good thing for the political process.

 

national news, political news

Silencing speech at a university

Here we go again.

University students and more than likely some faculty are up in arms because someone made comments that offended them. So now they want to ban that famous someone from speaking at their campus.

Sounds familiar, right?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/bill-maher-uc-berkeley-ban-112251.html?hp=l7

The target this time is a noted liberal comedian/political pundit, Bill Maher, who recently said some things about Islam that have riled a few thousand students at the University of California-Berkeley. They are circulating petitions to get the school to rescind its invitation to Maher.

For the record, I don’t think much of Maher either as a comedian or a political commentator. He’s not particularly funny, nor is he particularly insightful — in my view.

Whatever I might think of someone, though, has nothing to do with the notion of allowing him or her to speak.

Universities are supposed to be breeding grounds for diversity of thought, opinion and perspective. Yet many of them have shown remarkable intolerance of ideas with which they disagree. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, has been disinvited by university faculty and students because of his conservative judicial philosophy, which they contend just isn’t welcome in their midst. Now it’s a liberal, Maher, who’s drawing the scorn.

It is patently wrong to deny noted individuals, regardless of philosophy, the opportunity to share their views at places of learning. Isn’t the very definition of “learning” intended to expose minds to a wide range of perspective?

Let the comedian speak his mind. Those who don’t want to hear it don’t need to attend. Those who do want to lend an ear, then do so, listen and then talk among yourselves about the merits of what the guy has to say.

Isn’t that what higher education is supposed to foster?

 

 

national news, political news

'Clean break' from Obama? Get real, Rick

Texas Gov. Rick Perry — along with many of those on the right — believe Barack Obama’s presidency has been a hallmark of failure.

I do believe they’ve been living in a parallel universe for the past six years.

Perry went to the Ronald Reagan Library in California and spoke of his desire to make a “clean break” from the Obama years. He is sounding more and more like someone who is considering a second run for the White House, in 2016. Perry said: “I believe that come 2016, if the American people are given that choice, they will be ready for a clean break from the Obama agenda or anything like it.”

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/10/perry-proposes-clean-break-from-obama-years/

A clean break, yes?

Let’s look back briefly:

* The economic stimulus package helped stop the free fall in the financial markets that was occurring when the president took office.

* The package saved the automobile industry and it ended the flood of home foreclosures.

* The economy is adding tens of thousands — even hundreds of thousands — of jobs each month, compared to the 700,000 jobs we were losing each month when Obama took office.

* The budget deficit — which Perry and others have decried — has been cut in half.

* Millions of Americans have health insurance for the first time in their lives.

* We continue to kill international terrorists every day.

* The U.S. is striking hard at Islamic State monsters, with the help of allies.

* The U.S. has led an economic crackdown on Russia over its intervention in Ukraine.

That’s a few things worth noting.

Yes, the past six years haven’t always gone smoothly. The health care rollout was rocky; Iraq hasn’t yet figured out how to defend itself after our departure from the battlefield; peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians keep getting derailed; Iran continues to work toward developing a nuclear weapon; the Syrian conflict has morphed into an international crisis.

Has there even been a time in any presidency where everything has gone perfectly? No.

The Obama years have produced their share of disappointments. I’m more than willing to concede that.

However, the so-called “mediocrity” that Perry decries is nowhere to be found.

We remain the strongest, most indispensable country on the planet. Americans are resilient and are proud — even in the midst of struggle.

 

national news, political news

Is Jeb right for the GOP base?

All this chatter about Jeb Bush seeking the Republican presidential nomination has a lot of us wondering.

Is the GOP base ready to back another Bush for the White House, especially one who swims against the base’s tide on immigration?

Bush is the former governor of Florida. He’d be the third member of this famous political clan to seek the presidency. His dad and older brother got there.

Jeb is a bit different from either of the two presidents, George H.W. and George W., although “W” also is seen by some in his party as “soft” on immigration, meaning that he has staked out reasonable positions on the subject.

Jeb Bush is married to a Hispanic. His children, therefore, share their mother’s ethnic background.

Who can forget, Grandpa Bush — the 41st president of the United States — referring to Jeb’s kids as “the little brown ones”?

Well, the little brown ones are grown up and one of them, George P. Bush, is running for Texas land commissioner and is likely to win that seat to start his own climb up the political ladder.

Jeb is seen by some critics as a “Democrat light,” meaning that he’s too moderate to fit the mold of what has become of the modern Republican Party. It’s that immigration matter that keeps getting in the way of many in his party from endorsing him outright.

Here is a news flash: Republicans need someone like Jeb Bush if they have any hope — ever! — of winning over the Hispanic vote in this country. Thus, if the GOP continues to toe the hard line on immigration by threatening to round up and deport all illegal immigrants, presumably from Latin America, then the once-great party will find itself peering into the White House from the street.

Jeb Bush takes a more compassionate view of immigration and that, precisely, is the kind of message his party needs to convey.

George P. Bush thinks his dad is going to run for president. Good. I hope he does — and delivers plenty of heartburn to the hard-core base within the Republican Party.

 

 

 

political news, State news

From 'Worst' to the top of the ladder?

Dan Patrick might be poised to become Texas’s next lieutenant governor.

If that’s the case — and the betting is that he will — then the Texas Senate, where this guy now serves, is going to become a certifiable loony bin.

Texas Monthly, which takes pride in a reasonable, studious and careful analysis of legislators’ performance, rated him among the worst of the 31 men and women who serve in the state Senate. To think, then, that Patrick now aspires to be the man running the state’s upper legislative chamber, which is what the lieutenant governor does.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/lists/worst-senator-dan-Patrick

I know what you might be thinking: Oh, yeah. Texas Monthly’s nothing more than a pandering mouthpiece for them nutty liberal Democrats.

The magazine, though, has routinely heaped plenty of praise on Republican lawmakers over the years. Former Sen. Bob Duncan of Lubbock? One of the magazine’s favorites. Former Sen. Bill Ratliff of Mount Pleasant? He, too, has received plenty of praise. Why I that? Because these are reasonable men who knew how to legislate, how to work with Democrats, who worked and studied hard on key issues of the day.

Patrick isn’t cut from that cloth, according to Texas Monthly, which wrote this about Patrick’s service in the 2013 Legislature: “There are few types of lawmakers less helpful to the legislative process than bullies and ideologues. Unfortunately, Dan Patrick too often seemed to be both in his first session as the chair of the Senate Education Committee. The Houston radio host fell into a habit of lecturing his fellow legislators, interrupting witnesses, and accusing those who disagreed with him of simply not understanding his bills. In short, he ran his committee like he runs his talk show, where the only opinion that really matters is his own..”

This is the guy who figures to ram his own ideas down the throats of the individuals who will serve in the Senate.

While chairing the Education Committee, he decided to badger Education Commissioner Michael Williams — himself no shrinking violet — about end-of-course exams that students need to take to graduate from high school. Williams sought to “respectfully disagree,” but before he could, Patrick cut him off and berated him.

It utterly amazes me (a) that this guy won the Republican Party nomination over a sitting lieutenant governor and (b) is favored to win the office over another state senator, Democrat Leticia Van de Putte, who happens, shall we say, to be more interested in legislating than showboating.

As the late lieutenant governor, Bob Bullock, might say if he were around today: God help Texas.

 

 

political news, State news

Don't vote? Don't gripe

This item comes from Robert Reich, a former labor secretary in the (first?) Clinton administration.

He posted it on Facebook.

“I ran into someone this morning who said he wasn’t voting in the midterms because he was ‘disgusted’ with politics. I told him if he doesn’t vote he forfeits his right to complain. Election Day is a week from tomorrow, and in many places you can vote before then. Voting isn’t just a right. It’s a privilege. Yet the largest party in America isn’t the Republicans or the Democrats; it’s the party of non-voters.

“The biggest question on the midterm ballot isn’t whom you send to Washington or the state house. It’s who you are and what you stand for. The biggest problem for our democracy isn’t regressive Republicans or spendthrift Democrats; it’s apathetic citizens.

“Please vote.”

Back when I worked in daily journalism, I would craft the obligatory “get out and vote” editorials. I wrote so many of those editorials I began to bore myself, as I felt as though I was talking to my desk, or my chair … or the hat rack sitting in the corner of my office.

I tried every way I knew to try to get people to vote.

It was futile.

In Texas, the turnout — even during presidential election years — is among the lowest in the nation. It’s right down there with Mississippi and Alabama.

Media like to measure the turnout as a percentage of “registered voters.” To my way of thinking that’s a distorted view. The real turnout should be measured against the percentage of “eligible voters,” which includes all citizens who are eligible to register to vote, but who haven’t even bothered to do that.

The “eligible voter” barometer sends the percentage of turnout straight into the crapper.

The mid-term election will produce the usual abysmal vote-turnout total. The winners will declare victory and announce that “the people have spoken.” Well, what we’re going to be “celebrating” the next day will be that a majority of a minority of Americans will have voted.

In Texas, that number will represent a significant minority of citizens who even bothered to vote. Those are the folks whose gripes deserve to be heard.

The rest of y’all? Shut the hell up.

 

political news, State news

'In support of abortion'? Hardly

The campaign for Texas governor is heading down the stretch and some state newspapers are weighing in with their editorial endorsements.

To no one’s surprise, near as I can tell, my local paper — the Amarillo Globe-News — is backing Republican Attorney General Greg Abbott. That’s their call and they’re certainly entitled to make it.

But there is a single phrase in the Sunday editorial that needs some, um, clarification. I will attempt to provide it here.

The fourth paragraph mentions Abbott’s experience as AG, state Supreme Court justice and his work as a “proven conservative.” Fine, so far — I guess. Then it goes on essentially to denigrate Abbott’s Democratic opponent, Wendy Davis, saying she is “best known for her marathon 2013 filibuster in the state Senate in support of abortion.”

Whoa!

In support of abortion?

Can we simplify this issue any more? Can we turn a topic for an intelligent discussion more graphically into a mere talking point?

This precisely is the kind of half-truth-telling bordering on demagoguery that launches me into orbit.

The bill that Davis filibustered — and which became law in a subsequent session of the Legislature — intended to put the brakes on a bill that would have limited women’s access to abortion if they so chose to obtain one. It does not “support” the procedure, as the editorial mentioned here implies. It intended to provide women the choice — which they deserve — in making arguably the most difficult decision any of them ever would have to make.

But no. Texas has turned “small-government conservatism” on its ear.

Conservatives claim to favor less-intrusive government — until it involves certain hot-button issues, such as abortion. Then they turn into big-government liberals, enacting laws that dictate to individuals how they should make decisions they rightfully should make in consultation with their own conscience, their loved ones, their physician or their faith.

The election is almost at hand. Abbott is favored to win the race for governor. Until then, may we discuss the candidates’ pluses and minuses with intelligence and avoid simple-minded slogans?

 

 

local news, political news, State news

Democratic or Republican justice?

2 Comments

Two candidates for Potter County justice of the peace seem to have something in common, even though they represent differing political parties.

They both dislike electing judges on partisan ballots in Texas.

Wisdom crosses party lines, yes? Good deal.

A commentary in the Amarillo Globe-News took note of their shared dislike of partisan judicial elections. Democratic incumbent Nancy Bosquez is being challenged by Republican Richard Herman for the Precinct 2 JP post. Bosquez has been JP for several terms. I don’t know much about Herman.

Here’s the deal, though: I can make a case that no political office needs to be elected on a partisan basis, other than for the Legislature, governor and lieutenant governor.

All the rest of them, from attorney general, comptroller, land commissioner, agriculture commissioner … and on down through the county ballots, with the exception of county commissioner and county judge need not be elected on partisan ballots.

Have you ever wondered whether a county tax assessor-collector does his or her job based on her or her party’s political platform? Does a Democratic tax collector do the job differently than a Republican one? Same for treasurer, district attorney, even sheriff. How do you tell the difference between a Democratic law enforcement official and a Republican one?

The judge races drive me the most nuts.

I can understand Bosquez’s discomfort with partisan judicial elections, given that she serves in a heavily Republican county. Yes, her particular precinct leans Democratic, but it leans less in that direction than it did, say, a decade ago.

But the point is valid no matter one’s political affiliation. How does a Democratic JP adjudicate small claims cases differently from a Republican JP?

I’ve noted many times in the past regarding these partisan judicial races: Too many good judges from he “out” party get the boot when the tide favors candidates from the other party. That’s been the case in Texas dating back about three decades, when Republicans ascended to power. Democratic judges have been ousted by inferior Republican opponents — and exactly the same thing happened in reverse when Democrats held every office under the big Texas sky.

I’ll keep harping on the need to reform this goofy election system of ours, even though it’s falling on deaf ears.

Meantime, be sure to vote on Nov. 4.