Category Archives: political news

entertainment news, local news, national news, political news

Three cheers for public television!

Public television deserves a serious shout-out.

So I’m going to give it one today. There will be more to come as situations arise.

I’ve just watched a magnificent 14-hour documentary special broadcast on Panhandle PBS, the Texas Panhandle’s public television affiliate. It was titled “The Roosevelts: An Intimate History.” It is available online at PanhandlePBS.org — and I encourage readers of this blog to look at it if they didn’t watch it when it aired this past week.

(In the interest full disclosure, I must mention that I blogged daily on the “The Roosevelts” for Panhandle PBS. The blog, “A Public View,” can be found at PanhandlePBS.org — but hey, I digress. Back to the subject at hand.)

Why the shout-out?

Well, public TV occasionally surfaces as a target of political conservatives who have this idea that public money need not fund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or the Public Broadcasting Service. They see PBS as some kind of propaganda tool — which it most assuredly is not!

“The Roosevelts” special was produced by Ken Burns, arguably the nation’s foremost documentary filmmaker. His list of acclaimed specials is getting too long to mention here. I’ll bring up one: “The Dust Bowl.” It aired in 2013 and told the story of humanity’s worst manmade ecological disaster. What’s more, it was centered right here, in the Panhandle and in the Oklahoma Panhandle. Burns’s special hit this region right in the gut, as many now-elderly residents recalled the terrible events of that era.

Burns delivered the goods once again with “The Roosevelts.” It told in intimate detail the struggles of this remarkable political family, centering on Theodore Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt. They were all kin to each other, even though Franklin and Eleanor were husband and wife as well.

This is the kind of programming that the public needs to fund with public money.

You want educational television devoid of tacky commercials? That’s what public television provides us.

It’s also why the opposition to public television funding is ridiculous on its face.

Give me more of it.

International news, national news, political news

BHO 'ignores' military advice at some risk

Lawrence Korb is far more qualified than I am to discuss the ins and outs of military advice given to presidents of the United States.

He did so during the Reagan administration and he’s now suggesting something quite interesting to the current commander in chief, Barack Obama.

It’s that it’s all right to “ignore” the advice of military leaders at times of international crisis.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/09/why-its-ok-obama-ignore-military-advice/94649/

Korb understands a fundamental truth about U.S. government. Civilians run the military. It’s written into the Constitution and that’s the way it should be.

It’s interesting to me, though, that Korb cites several examples of presidents ignoring the advice of top military leaders:

* Harry Truman dismissed Gen. Douglas MacArthur after the U.S. military commander popped off and said U.N. forces should take the fight to China.

* Dwight Eisenhower ignored the advice of commanders who wanted the United States to get involved in Vietnam while the French were fighting for their lives at Dien Bien Phu.

* John F. Kennedy said “no” to calls to strike at Cuba during the missile crisis.

What do these presidents have in common? They all were combat veterans.

Barack Obama doesn’t have that kind of background on which to rely. I’m not saying it’s a requirement for the office, but it serves as a cautionary tale for a president who chooses to ignore the advice of individuals who’ve worn their country’s uniform, let alone been to battle.

Sometimes presidents ignore advice at their own risk. Korb writes: “Certainly, there have been instances where presidents had overruled the advice of military leaders, with dire consequences. The most recent examples occurred under President George W. Bush. He not only ignored Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki’s advice that several hundred thousand ground troops would be needed to remove Saddam Hussein and restore order in Iraq after his removal. Not only was Gen. Shinseki ignored, he was publicly derided and undermined by the president and the secretary of defense when they appointed his successor early, even though Shineski still had a year left in his term. Ironically some of the same people now calling on Obama to listen to his generals and keep the door open to having combat ground troops in Iraq did not speak up for Shinseki. Bush also ignored the advice of his military commanders by diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, before the mission of restoring stability in Afghanistan and capturing Osama bin Laden and destroying al-Qaeda was completed.”

The Constitution grants the president the final say in all military matters. That’s as it should be.

Still, the commander in chief should listen carefully to what the brass has to say. They’ve been there. They understand the consequences of war better than most.

business news, national news, political news, Sports news

Revoke NFL's 'non-profit' status

If Congress is going to get involved in anything involving the National Football League, it should be quite specific and it should deal exclusively with matters of taxation.

Take the league’s status as a “non-profit” entity, which exempts it from paying federal taxes.

Yank that status. Now.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/218301-reid-joins-bill-aiming-to-revoke-nfl-nonprofit-status

We’ve heard some clamoring from lawmakers about the House and Senate convening hearings over the issue of domestic violence. Accordingly, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., has proposed a bill that would remove the non-profit status and dedicate revenue received toward paying for programs dealing with this tragic issue.

The hearings are a waste of time. All they would do is give senators and House members a platform to pontificate in public about their indignation over domestic violence.

Other senators, such as Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., are targeting the non-profit issue as a way to punish the league for its support of the Washington Redskins team nickname, which many Americans believe denigrates Native Americans.

Whatever the cause, the tax issue is the only way Congress should get involved in the affairs of a private enterprise.

Frankly, I’m astonished that the NFL enjoys the tax-exempt status at all. To suggest the league is a “non-profit” organization is laughable on its face.

Congress has a role to play in fixing what’s wrong with the NFL. That role, though, should focus solely on taxation.

national news, political news, State news

'Roosevelts' has curious relevance to today's reality

Public television is by definition supposed to be educational.

Thus, PBS’s series titled “The Roosevelts” is educating a nation about the 32nd president of the United States, his wife and his fifth cousin, the 26th president, Theodore Roosevelt.

As for “32,” Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Ken Burns-produced documentary offers and interesting insight into the norms of the time FDR was coming of age politically. Moreover, it tells me how times have changed per one of those norms.

FDR took great pains to conceal from the public that he was stricken by polio, that he was wheelchair-bound and that he had great difficulty standing and walking. Photographers were not allowed to take pictures of him being helped in and out of automobiles; Secret Service agents would confiscate the cameras and film of the offending photographer.

Image was everything and FDR believed in projecting an image of a vibrant man.

Now, let’s flash forward — about 80 years.

Texas is about to elect a man who also is wheelchair bound. Greg Abbott has been confined to a wheelchair since his mid-20s, when he was struck by a falling tree in Houston, suffering a broken back.

It fascinates me to no end to watch “The Roosevelts,” learn of how certain secrets were kept out of public view and then realize just how virtually everything has changed in the decades since.

There would be no way a high-profile public figure today could keep secret a physical condition such as what afflicted Franklin Roosevelt.

It’s been said by many historians and pundits over the years that FDR likely couldn’t be elected president today, given his peculiar marriage to Eleanor and the myriad relationships both them had outside of their marriage. They also have noted his physical condition as a deal-breaker back then with voters.

It’s a better, more enlightened time now. A political figure’s physical ailment has nothing to do with his or her mental or emotional state. In FDR’s case, his own disability perhaps made him stronger, more empathetic to others’ suffering.

As for the Texas attorney general seeking to be elected governor, he too has been strengthened by his own struggle. It’s good that he has no reason to keep it a secret.

national news, political news, State news

Perry to be 'better prepared' next time

So, lame-duck Texas Gov. Rick Perry vows to be “better prepared” to run for president of the United States — if he decides to do so.

My gut tells me he’s made up his mind, just as Hillary Rodham Clinton has made up her mind to run for president in 2016.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/texas-politics/2014/09/eyeing-white-house-again-perry-knows-to-be-prepared-this-time/

The only decision left for either of them is when to make the announcement.

We’ll get back to Clinton another day.

I am hopeful Gov. Perry will be prepared for this next run. No more “oops” moments; no more tantrums; no more strange soliloquies that have people asking, “Is this guy drunk, stoned or what?”

If he keeps his wits about him, I am hopeful the national media will probe one important thing about Perry’s interminable time as Texas governor: his governing style.

I’m referring specifically to the way he would mass-veto legislation after the Legislature ended its session. I believe he set some kind of record for vetoes after the 2009 or 2011 sessions. What was most astonishing about the vetoes is that they included legislation that had passed both legislative chambers by unanimous or near-unanimous votes.

With Republicans in Congress upset that the Democrat in the White House is allegedly misusing his executive authority, I’ll be waiting to hear how some GOP lawmakers will react to the knowledge that as governor, Rick Perry has used his own executive authority as governor with more than a touch of zeal.

Then again, Republicans won’t mind that one little bit. Perhaps the Democrats in Congress can raise the issue.

I’ll await the governor’s well-prepared answer.

International news, national news, political news

Scots show the way

Well done, Scotland! 85-percent turnout, 10-percentage points won the voting question, a solid, unquestionable majority. Scotland won either way. It will now wield more sway in the UK. Democracy works. I hope we would take a lesson from it and regard ours as lovingly.

The above message comes from my friend Dan Wallach, who posted it on Facebook today.

His comment comes in the wake of Scotland’s landmark election in which the Scots decided to remain a part of the United Kingdom.

Dan isn’t making any judgment here on the correctness of the Scots’ vote, but he is saying something profound about Americans’ own lack of civic involvement in matters of vital national importance.

Eighty-five percent of Scotland’s eligible voters turned out. Americans are facing a mid-term election in a few weeks that likely will draw less than 40 percent of those who are eligible to vote.

What’s at stake in the U.S. of A.? Oh, just the control of Congress, one-third of that thing we call “co-equal government.” We elect our presidents usually with less than 60 percent of eligible voters taking part. That’s a big deal, too, given that presidents get to select judges to sit on our federal court benches, giving them lifetime jobs in which they interpret whether laws are constitutional.

The Nov. 4 election turnout in Texas, I’m sorry to predict, will be less than the national average. I fear it’s going to be significantly less.

Americans don’t quite care enough to vote for lawmakers or for their president. At least they don’t care the way the Scots showed they cared about whether to declare their independence or stay attached to England as part of the UK.

Dan is right. “Democracy works.” It always works better the more people get involved in that exercise we call voting.

national news, political news

No outcry over congressional break

It’s certain that many Americans remember the outcry when President Obama took time off this summer to relax with his family.

“How dare he leave town with all this important work to do?” came the outcry from conservatives. He had crises to manage, they said.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/nice-work-if-you-can-get-it-0

OK, now the other side has taken a powder — to campaign for re-election.

The GOP-run House of Representatives has left town, leaving a ton of important work still undone. It doesn’t matter to them that they are now the slackers in this equation.

Yes, the House did stick around long enough to vote on a Syrian-training-and-arming resolution, as did the Senate. Obama praised them for their votes and the bipartisan support his request receives in both congressional chambers.

Then Congress said, “You’re welcome, Mr. President. We’re outta here.”

Take a look at the graphic attached to this post and you’ll see why Congress has earned its moniker as the latest edition of the “Do Nothing Congress.” They’ve done, well, virtually nothing. They’ve passed little legislation.

Now the legislative branch has split. They’re running for re-election. How will the incumbents frame their “accomplishments” to voters?

national news, political news

Kansas race now gets seriously interesting

Who would have thought that a campaign for a U.S. Senate race in little ol’ Kansas would have such profound national implications?

It appears that something like that is shaping up.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/218262-kansas-supreme-court-ruling-grants-democrats-request-to-be

The Kansas Supreme Court has removed the name of a Democrat from the ballot after he dropped out of the race unexpectedly more than a week ago. Chad Taylor pulled out of the race because (a) he didn’t have a prayer of beating incumbent Republican Pat Roberts and (b) the independent candidate, Greg Orman, is surging and is now leading Roberts in most polls.

What does this mean?

It might mean that Republicans could fall short of winning control of the Senate, which is the dream of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who wants to become majority leader in January.

Roberts took a serious beating in the GOP primary when questions arose about his residency and whether he actually lived in Kansas any longer. He said he does and he beat back the challenge.

Orman, though, has cut seriously into Roberts’s standing among voters. He’s casting the incumbent as out of touch and all the usual anti-incumbent stuff one hears. The difference, however, is that it’s sticking to Roberts.

Taylor was running third in the polls. The word now is that he dropped out merely to try denying Roberts’s re-election to the Senate. He’s what one would call a “team player,” meaning he took one for the team if it helps the non-Republican candidate win the contest. Republicans wanted to keep his name on the ballot, but the state’s high court dismissed the GOP appeal.

Most polling around the country shows the race for Senate control to be tight. A RealClearPolitics average of polls suggests Republicans would fall one seat short if the election were held today. If Roberts loses in reliably Republican Kansas, then the odds of a GOP takeover would appear doomed.

Yes, there’s a certain twinge of chicanery involved here. It’s legal, just as it was legal for African-American Democrats to vote for Republican Sen. Thad Cochran in Mississippi to deny tea party GOP challenger Chris McDaniel an upset.

As the saying goes — and I’m not even sure what it means: Politics ain’t bean bag.

local news, national news, political news

Will lame-duck status signal end to incessant griping?

Barack Obama becomes a lame-duck president officially on Nov. 5, the day after the midterm elections.

He in fact became such the moment he won re-election in November 2012, given that the Constitution prohibits him from running for a third term.

That hasn’t stemmed the constant carping about his presidency and his alleged “failures” as the nation’s chief executives.

I have a friend who keeps yammering about the president being an “empty coat.” Other conservatives keep blathering about how his economic policies have “failed the country,” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Still others right-wingers blame the president for the myriad international crises that that keep flaring up all around the world, as if the United States has the power to put them all down — all at once.

I’m wondering when the constant griping will start to subside. My best guess is that the midterm elections might provide some relief for those of us out here who actually support the president, who voted for his re-election and who believe he’s done a good job given the horrible circumstances he inherited when he took office.

I live smack in the middle of Anti-Obama Country. The Texas Panhandle voted 80 percent against him in two presidential elections. So I get that he doesn’t have much cache in this part of the nation.

Here’s what I don’t get: I don’t get why the Obama haters — and they truly hate the man, perhaps for reasons they dare not acknowledge publicly — can’t start looking ahead to the next election and start scouring the landscape for a suitable alternative.

Are they out there? Is there a Republican on the horizon who can do better at reducing the budget deficit, reducing the jobless rate, helping private business hire more Americans, help provide health insurance for millions of Americans who didn’t have it, protect us against terrorist attacks, round up illegal immigrants and end two costly wars?

Barack Obama’s lame-duck status ought to be good news for his enemies.

Come on, folks. Cheer up. The nation is still standing. And we’re still the strongest nation on the planet.

International news, national news, political news

Why so many speeches at these hearings?

This is not exactly a scoop, but I thought I’d ask it anyway: Why do members of Congress have to make speeches when they’re assembled to seek answers to questions from key government officials?

http://www.politico.com/livestream/

It’s happening as I write this brief blog post.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is quizzing Secretary of State John Kerry about the U.S. plan to defeat and destroy the Islamic State. But without fail, from senators on both sides — Democrats and Republicans — are embarking on long-winded soliloquies before getting to whatever question they want answered from the nation’s top diplomat.

Kerry, of course, knows the score. He served in the Senate for nearly three decades and engaged in some tiresome speechmaking while grilling witnesses before the very committee he once chaired.

Many of out here in the Heartland know what gives, too. Politicians by definition usually are in love with the sound of their own voices. So they want to hear themselves being heard, yes?

I’m reminded of the time during Senate confirmation hearings to decide whether Samuel Alito should join the U.S. Supreme Court. The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee gave each senator 30 minutes to “ask questions” of the nominee. Then it came to Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del. CNN put a clock on Biden, who then pontificated for more than 28 minutes.

Biden eventually asked the question and Alito had less than two minutes to respond. Time ran out and the chairman called on the next senator.

I’d much rather hear what a witness has to say hear for the umpteenth time what a senator of House member thinks about this or that issue.