Category Archives: political news

Obama poll numbers aren't 'sinking'

Listen to the talking heads on some cable news channels, or read reports in mainstream newspapers and you get a dire picture of President Obama’s political standing.

Why, those troublesome polls show his popularity “plummeting,” “sinking,” “spiraling downward.”

Media Matters — an acknowledged left-wing media watchdog group — disagrees.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/31/obamas-approval-rating-remains-unchanged-this-y/201396

The organization points out correctly that Barack Obama’s standing among Americans has remained unchanged for the past year.

Unchanged!

His numbers are stable. They aren’t sinking or plummeting. They aren’t spiraling anywhere, let alone downward.

Why do the media keep harping on something that’s, well, untrue?

Media Matters examines some poll number averages: “According to the cumulative ratings posted daily at Real Clear Politics, which averages together an array of national polls to come up with Obama’s composite job approval rating, the president’s approval on January 1, 2014 stood at 42.6 percent. The president’s approval rating on October 30, was 42 percent. So over the course of 10 months, and based on more than one hundred poll results in 2014, Obama’s approval rating declined less than one point.”

Holy smokes! Does that constitute a president whose standing is headed straight for the dumper? I think not.

It’s interesting, too, that Media Matters isn’t targeting just the right-wing media — a favorite target — in critiquing the bogus reports of Obama’s standing. It cites mainstream media across the spectrum, even those dreaded “liberal media” outlets that supposedly can say nothing critical of the president or his friends in Congress.

The link attached is most interesting and it puts the president’s standing in a context that bears little resemblance to what the media are reporting.

 

Why is economy such a drag on election?

Some things I just don’t get, such as why polls keep showing that the economy remains such a worry for Americans.

Incumbents from both parties are sweating out the election that takes place Tuesday because the economy, for crying out, is on voters’ minds.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/midterms-governor-races-economy-incumbents/2014/10/30/id/604083/

I keep seeing the numbers and I actually am heartened by them. Joblessness is down; job growth is up; retirement accounts (such as mine) are up; budget deficits are down; energy production is up; energy consumption is down; home construction is up; auto sales are up.

Who’s badmouthing the economy? Oh, I keep forgetting. It’s foes of the Obama administration in Congress, on talk radio, on cable news shows and a smattering of right-wing economists who keep saying that the economy is in mortal danger of collapse at any minute. They grabbed Americans’ attention when the government enacted aggressive stimulus incentives in early 2009 to try to rescue the failing economy and haven’t let go.

It appears from my vantage point that the economy has been in full recovery mode for about a year, but the doom-and-gloomsayers keep instilling this fear in us that it’s all about the collapse.

OK, it’s not rosy in every corner of the country. As the link attached to this blog notes, some governor are taking it on the chin because job growth isn’t what it should be. Other governors, such as the one in Texas, are crowing about superior growth and are taking all the credit they deserve — and even more than they deserve — for that growth. That’s all fine.

So help me, though, while I might be slow on the uptake a lot of the time, I fail to understand how the economy continues to strike such fear across the land.

 

Early voting still not as good as Election Day

Here’s what I did this week. I voted early.

I’ve said it to anyone who’ll listen that I hate to vote early. I did it this week because next week I’m going to be busy throughout the entire Election Day.

I’ll be working as an exit pollster representing news gathering organizations: all the major cable networks, the broadcast networks and The Associated Press.

A polling research outfit has hired me to interview voters leaving the Randall County Courthouse Annex in south Amarillo. Their answers will be confidential and my goal is to give questionnaires to every other voter who leaves the annex. Good luck with that.

So, I voted early at the annex.

It still isn’t nearly as much fun as standing in line on Election Day, chatting with fellow voters and awaiting my turn to cast a ballot on one of those fancy-shmancy electronic voting machines.

There remains a certain pageantry to voting. People in countries where voting isn’t the norm have stood for hours, even days, waiting to do their civic duty. Surely you remember the 1994 presidential election in South Africa, the one that elected Nelson Mandela. Black South Africans who never before had been given the opportunity to vote stood in line for days awaiting their turn at the polling place. Imagine something like that happening here.

I didn’t vote in all the races. I left some of them blank. Rather than just cast a vote against someone because I don’t like their views or their party’s views, I didn’t vote for candidates about which I know too little.

Yes, I split my ballot. I cast votes for some Republicans as well as Democrats.

I feel good that my vote has been recorded. It’ll be spit out when the polls close Election Night at 7.

Having declared to you all that I’ve actually voted, I hereby reserve the right to gripe when the folks who actually win take office and fail to run things the way I want them run.

 

 

GOP lawsuit takes another hit

That much-hyped lawsuit that congressional Republicans planned to file against President Obama has taken another body blow.

Imagine that.

A second law firm has backed out, apparently succumbing to pressure from Democratic groups. The firm declared that Republicans have little or no chance of winning a lawsuit, which they say they’ll file to challenge the president’s use of executive authority to change the Affordable Care Act.

http://news.yahoo.com/house-republicans-cant-anyone-sue-president-160655337.html

Turns out that the law is working. It also turns out that the appetite for suing the president is being abated.

The lawsuit that Speaker John Boehner announced would occur is being exposed little by little for what it has been all along: a political stunt intended to fire up the base of the GOP.

World events and the attention they have demanded of the president and Congress have eclipsed the silliness of such a lawsuit, given the gravity of issues abroad and the goofy intention of Republicans to stick it to the president over a law that’s looking more and more as if it’s here to stay — for keeps!

Yahoo.com reported: “House leaders have now all but given up on finding a new lawyer who will take the case, and Boehner is instead considering assigning the work to the chamber’s in-house counsel, which is a position appointed by the speaker.”

The lawsuit, which lacked merit from the get-go, appears headed for oblivion, where it belongs.

 

Sexual orientation or preference?

Apple boss Tim Cook has just burst out of the closet by declaring he is homosexual.

OK. That’s a big deal? I think not. He is who he is and that’s all fine and dandy.

Then comes U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Loony Bin, to suggest something else is at work here.

“Those are his personal choices,” Cruz said of Cook’s sexual orientation, meaning, I reckon, that Cook chose to be gay.

Cruz then added, “I love my iPhone.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/222300-cruz-on-apple-ceo-being-gay-personal-decision

Is there any doubt now as to why Cruz and other outspoken Republicans are having trouble connecting with gay Americans?

I keep coming back to this notion a person’s sexuality is pre-determined. One doesn’t come into this world, in my view, grow toward adolescence, and then, when puberty kicks in, decide to become attracted to individuals of the same sex.

One’s sexuality is part of who they are. It’s in their genetic code, in their DNA.

For the freshman senator from Texas to ridicule someone’s sexual orientation by comparing it to his “love” for his iPhone cheapens the discussion.

As a friend once said to after me he revealed to the world many years ago that he had become infected with HIV/AIDS while also disclosing his own homosexuality, “Why would I ever choose to become the object of scorn and revulsion?”

He answered his own question. He didn’t choose it at all.

 

 

Reason prevails at Berkeley

Reason, common sense and an understanding of mission is rearing its head at the University of California-Berkeley.

University administrators are declaring that liberal comedian/pundit Bill Maher will be allowed to speak at a campus event despite protests from students who are angered by his recent comments about Islam.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/bill-maher-berkeley-112334.html?hp=r10

Students have circulated petitions seeking to rescind Maher’s invitation to speak at Cal-Berkeley over comments he made that said, essentially, that Islam fosters terrorist acts.

The effort to pull back the invitation is silly on its face and is offensive at many levels.

Maher’s freedom of expression is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. His comments, while controversial and (to some folks) offensive, do not rise to the level of something that should be censored. Finally, universities should be a place where all ideas are heard, discussed and debated.

Finally, Cal-Berkeley is known around the world as a sort of Ground Zero of progressive thought. By definition, progressives should be open to all points of view. Let’s not take some namby-pamby view that allows thoughts that don’t rile us up, get our hearts started, cause us to hyperventilate.

Cal-Berkeley issued this statement: “UC Berkeley administration cannot and will not accept this decision, which appears to have been based solely on Mr. Maher’s opinions and beliefs, which he conveyed through constitutionally protected speech.”

So, let the man speak. Those who don’t want to hear him are free to do something else … like study.

 

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.

 

 

'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.

 

 

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.

 

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?