Category Archives: political news

That did it: Valdez has lost me

I know this isn’t exactly a scoop, that it’s been out there for a bit. I guess I’m a little slow on the uptake but what the heck. Better to know it now than after an election.

Democratic candidate for Texas governor Lupe Valdez will not get my vote in two weeks. I am not yet sure whether Republican Gov. Greg Abbott will get it; I’m inclined to vote for the incumbent, if only to hope that he is willing to reel in a wacky lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, who wants to discriminate against transgender individuals by forcing a Bathroom Bill down our throats.

The Beaumont Enterprise, where I used to work for nearly 11 years before we moved to the Panhandle, endorsed Abbott’s re-election today. It noted the following about Valdez, the former Dallas County sheriff: The Democratic candidate for governor, Lupe Valdez, disqualified herself from any serious consideration for this job when it was revealed that she was delinquent on $12,000 in 2017 taxes on seven properties is Dallas and Ellis counties. If candidates for public office don’t pay their tax bills, it’s hard to have confidence in them handling the tax revenues of other people. If nothing else, Valdez should have understood how embarrassing this would be in political terms and taken care of her obligations. The fact that she did not shows she is not ready for the highest job in state government.

That’s a two-fer. Failure to pay taxes and failure to understand the blowback she would get once that failure became known.

I had hoped that Valdez would have done better as a major-party candidate for governor. Well, nice try, sheriff.

If she cannot pay her own tax bills, Texans have no reason to trust her with our money.

Big first day of early voting might portend an upset

They’re all agog in Harris County over the size of the first day of early voting in Texas’s most populous county.

The early vote totals have smashed to smithereens the previous record, according to reports from down yonder.

Democratic partisans believe the interest bodes well for their slate of candidates, led by U.S. Senate challenger Beto O’Rourke, who’s running against Republican incumbent Ted Cruz.

Republicans, meanwhile, say, “Not so fast. We’ve got some mojo building, too, for our guy and our slate of candidates.”

Well, I hope it’s the Democrats’ who have reason to cheer the big turnout. My stated preference for O’Rourke to shoot down the Cruz Missile is well-known to readers of this blog. I am cautious, though, about ascribing too much value into the big early vote totals.

Why? My concern is that the early vote totals might not reflect a huge jump in total vote, that Texans are trading in their Election Day vote for an early one.

But … having said that, my hope springs eternal.

My hope is that the big-time spike in early voting activity signals a sea change, that Texans finally might be getting off their duffs and casting ballots in a highly critical midterm election.

We don’t do too well usually when it comes to voting, particularly when it’s merely for members of Congress. This one does feel different.

Let’s hope the difference is mirrored in the number of Texans who cast their ballots.

I’m going to wait until Election Day, per my usual practice.

See you at the polls then.

‘Middle Easterners’ in the caravan mix?

Donald J. “Fearmonger in Chief” Trump is at it again.

He said the “caravan” of refugees heading for our nation’s southern border contains “criminals” and “unknown Middle Easterners.” Does the president have any evidence of it?

Of course not! He never produces evidence of anything when he makes these bellicose assertions. It makes his crowds cheer. It fires him up. He speaks the language that his “base” understands and to which it is drawn.

The unknown Middle East component, of course, harkens back to 9/11 and the view being promoted by those on the far right that the Middle East is populated by millions of Muslims who “hate America” and will do whatever they can to do harm to Americans.

So now, according to Trump, they’re slipping into the crowd of Latin American refugees and are heading toward our soft underbelly.

I wish I had an answer to what we should do when that “caravan” arrives along our Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California borders. I don’t.

I do not believe the president is helping quell the fear of many Americans by suggesting — without attribution — the notion that the refugees are full of criminals and “Middle Easterners.”

No. Donald Trump is stoking the fear. That’s what he does. It is how he rolls.

Lyin’ Ted becomes Texan Ted? Sure thing, Mr. POTUS

There once was a time when Donald Trump and Ted Cruz detested each other.

Trump called Cruz “Lyin’ Ted”; Cruz called Trump “amoral,” a “coward” and a “pathological liar.” As I recall the back-and-forth as the men fought for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, I remember some sincere anger in their voices, particularly in Ted Cruz’s voice.

It’s two years later. Trump is now the president. Cruz is fighting for re-election to his U.S. Senate seat from Texas. Trump is coming to Houston tonight to campaign for Cruz as he battles Democratic challenger U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke.

Now we hear Trump calling Cruz “Texan Ted” and saying he gets along so darn well with him, that he is willing to spend some political capital on his former foe’s behalf.

I do not believe for one instant that Trump now thinks highly of Cruz; nor do I believe that Cruz has forgotten the hideous innuendo and insults that Trump laid on him during the 2016 GOP campaign.

Trump posted that hideous video on Twitter that denigrated Heidi Cruz, the senator’s wife; and then he also suggested that Cruz’s father might have been complicit in President Kennedy’s murder, given that, according to Trump, the elder Cruz was seen in the company of Lee Harvey Oswald, the president’s murderer.

It was the video and the innuendo about Cruz’s dad that ignited the senator’s rage at Trump.

How in the name of letting bygones be bygones are we supposed to believe that the men have buried the hatchet — and not in each other’s skulls?

Meanwhile, we have O’Rourke fighting to regain the momentum that carried him to a position of having a puncher’s chance of upsetting Cruz.

He ought to dredge up the videos of Cruz and Trump talking trash to and about each other to help him make the case that the rally in Houston is a exhibition in political expediency.

Hoping for a change of direction in Austin

I am beginning to make up my mind on some of Texas’s higher-profile statewide races in this year’s election. It involves my desire to see a change in the makeup of many public offices.

I thought I’d share a few thoughts with you here … just for grins and giggles.

Lieutenant governor: Mike Collier, the Democrat, needs to succeed the incumbent Dan Patrick. I don’t know a great deal about Collier, but I know plenty about Patrick, the main force behind the 2017 Bathroom Bill that met its demise in the Texas Legislature. The bill would have required people to use public restrooms in accordance with their gender at birth. It discriminated against transgender individuals. It was a patently poor idea that needed to die. Patrick needs to go.

Agriculture commissioner: This office usually is hidden in anonymity. Republican incumbent Sid Miller, through his buffoonery and bloviating, has elevated it. Democrat Kim Olson needs to replace him, if only because she appears to be a more serious individual who can devote her full attention to promoting Texas farming and ranching interests.

Attorney general: Texas needs an AG who isn’t under criminal indictment. Republican Ken Paxton is facing a trial for securities fraud. Democrat Justin Nelson is clean. He teaches law and practices law. Paxton’s tenure as attorney general has been shadowed by the pending trial that awaits.

U.S. Senate: I won’t belabor this one. My feelings about GOP Sen. Ted Cruz are well known to readers of this blog. I want Democrat Beto O’Rourke to win next month. Cruz puts himself first and Texans’ needs second.

There’s one more race I want to mention. The governor’s race is important, too. GOP incumbent Greg Abbott is running against Democratic challenger Lupe Valdez. This race is a snoozer. I am still undecided. I happen to think well of Gov. Abbott personally. I have had the pleasure of interviewing him when he was serving on the Texas Supreme Court and later as state attorney general. I don’t know Valdez, although I am aware she is the former Dallas County sheriff.

She has made next to zero impression on me. Abbott will win handily. He might have my vote. Or, I might leave that ballot spot unmarked.

I’m still weighing my options for Texas Legislature and for the Third Congressional District.

Time is running out. I have to get busy and make up my mind. Wish me luck.

Clean house at state AG’s office

Texas can do a lot better than it has done in selecting its top law enforcement officer.

State Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican (naturally!), is seeking re-election against Democratic challenger Justin Nelson. Paxton isn’t a normal incumbent. He happens to be an incumbent who’s been indicted for securities fraud.

But here’s the surreal part of it, the maddening element: Paxton is likely to win re-election when all the ballots are counted on Nov. 6.

I am going to cast my ballot for Nelson.

What’s fascinating to me is that Paxton — who used to represent Collin County, where I now reside — in the Texas Legislature. Yet a Collin County grand jury found enough credible evidence to indict him for securities fraud; Paxton allegedly didn’t register properly as an investment agent.

Here’s the fabulous part of it: While he was in the Legislature, Paxton voted against a bill that would have made it a felony to commit the very crime for which he has been accused.

The Dallas Morning News, which has endorsed Nelson, has taken note of Paxton’s penchant for partisanship while serving as AG. To be honest, I kind of expect such from most politicians in Texas. NOt that it’s acceptable, mind you. The partisanship doesn’t bother me nearly as much as having a state attorney general who is under criminal indictment.

Good grief, man! Can’t we do better than that? Of course we can! Will we do better when given a chance to select an attorney general on Election Day? Uhh, probably not, given the state’s hard-right lean.

Check out the Dallas Morning News editorial here.

The editorial board offers a solid reason to go with the challenger. Then again, I’ve been convinced for some time that Ken Paxton isn’t my guy.

Beto backs off from an attack line against Cruz

As a former colleague and friend was fond of saying, “You can’t unhonk the horn.”

Beto O’Rourke is trying to unhonk the rhetorical horn by telling a CNN correspondent that his use of the “Lyin’ Ted” epithet against Ted Cruz perhaps is a step too far. He now sounds as if he regrets going quite so negative in his most recent debate with the Republican U.S. senator.

There’s a bit of charm in hearing the Democratic challenger acknowledge a case of weak knees in using the tag first hung on Cruz by Donald Trump when the men were competing in 2016 for the GOP presidential nomination.

Trump called him “Lyin’ Ted” and got huge laughs from campaign crowds. O’Rourke said in the men’s debate that the negative moniker sounded true to him, so he used it against Cruz.

Meeting in a town hall in McAllen with CNN’s Dana Bash, O’Rourke said he doesn’t feel “totally comfortable” taking what he called “a step too far.”

O’Rourke has second thoughts

The midterm campaign is drawing to a close. Cruz appears to be clinging to a lead of about 6 to 8 percentage points. O’Rourke is looking for any edge he can find. He has gone negative in his TV ad campaign in recent days. Indeed, he now joins Cruz, who’s been firing shots at O’Rourke for several weeks. We likely won’t hear any utterances of regret from The Cruz Missile over the tactics he has used to (mis)characterize O’Rourke’s policy pronouncements.

Do I believe O’Rourke went too far with the “Lyin’ Ted” reference? Aww … no. He didn’t. However, I don’t have to deal with any blowback from campaign rhetoric. O’Rourke believes he “may” have gone too far.

I would prefer O’Rourke to stay on the high road.

And … by the way … I still plan to vote for Beto.

Big early vote = big total vote? Maybe, maybe not!

I love the chatter about the huge early vote in states that have opened up balloting for the 2018 midterm election.

They say that more than 4.3 million Americans have cast their ballots already, signaling — perhaps, maybe, possibly — a huge increase in total vote turnout.

Excuse my skepticism, but I need to wait for Election Day to make that determination.

I detest early voting as it is. I prefer to vote on Election Day, standing in line, giving some semblance of the pageantry that goes along with voting.

I am likely to wait until Nov. 6 to cast my ballot in Collin County.

Experience tells me that a big boost in early voting doesn’t necessarily translate into a big boost in total turnout. These early-voting statistics tell me that it well might mean only that more voters are casting their ballots early than waiting until Election Day.

Oh, how I hope I’m mistaken this time around.

A big turnout at minimum suggests that Democratic and Republican “base” votes are energized to the hilt. Democrats want to seize control of both congressional chambers, but likely will have to settle for taking control of the House. Republicans want Donald Trump to continue his agenda and believe a GOP-controlled House will enable him to proceed without the fear of getting impeached.

Are these external dynamics going to fuel a huge midterm/off-year election turnout? That remains to be seen, quite obviously.

My belief for years is that representative democracy works best with more voters taking part. I hate the idea of letting someone else determine who sets public policy that affects all of us. I love voting for president … and for members of Congress, the Legislature, and for municipal and county government.

Still, I am not going to salute the expected huge turnout in this year’s midterm election.

At least not quite yet.

It’s not about Bill Clinton

I got into a testy email exchange with a good friend and former colleague recently about Donald Trump, his behavior and the general state of his presidency.

My friend, a loyal Republican and staunch political conservative, compares Trump’s behavior toward women with what transpired with former President Clinton and the impeachment he endured during his second term in office.

He lambasted Democrats and progressives for giving Clinton a pass for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky and for what he allegedly did with her “in the Oval Office.”

I don’t intend make too much of a deal of this, except to say I, who supported Clinton’s election and re-election, never excused his behavior. In fact, I wrote editorials applauding his impeachment in 1998 on the basis of his committing perjury before a federal grand jury that questioned him directly about whether he had “sexual relations with that woman.”

I get that Republicans had a case for impeachment based on his perjuring himself under oath.

Trump likely would never get impeached because of his serial philandering and his admitted groping of women. There quite likely won’t be a grand jury to summon him to testify about any of that hideous conduct.

My issue with Trump and his ghastly behavior simply is that he brought all of that with him into the White House, yet enough voters in just the right states endorsed him and elected him by a narrow Electoral College margin. Yes, he is the president of all Americans and I do not question the legitimacy of his election.

I just question the wisdom of voting for a guy with an acknowledged record of behaving like a sexual predator.

As for Clinton’s impeachment, the founders set the bar high for conviction. The GOP didn’t reach that bar and the Senate acquitted him on all the charges brought by the House.

The U.S. Constitution, therefore, did its job in that case and it lends nothing to the argument over the here and now to dredge up what happened 20 years. ago.

Sagan gets a (sort of) endorsement

My old buddy Greg Sagan is trying to do the nearly impossible: defeat longtime incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Mac Thornberry in this year’s midterm election.

Sagan has gotten some help from a most unlikely source. The question now though is this: What good will it do? I have an answer: Hardly none.

Still, the Houston Chronicle, which sits way down yonder on the Texas Gulf Coast, has urged readers of the paper to vote against Thornberry, who’s running for re-election in the 13th Congressional District, stretching from the Texas Panhandle to the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.

The Chronicle said “voters from Amarillo to Wichita Falls” should endorse the Democrat Sagan or the Libertarian Calvin DeWeese. The paper referred to the challengers as “two politicians who didn’t kick us while we were under 50-plus inches of floodwater.”

The Chron is angry that Thornberry was one of four Texas Republican congressmen to oppose aid to the Houston area in the wake of Hurricane Harvey. You remember Hurricane Harvey, yes? It dumped all that rain a year ago along the Gulf Coast from Houston to the Golden Triangle.

Three of the four naysayers aren’t seeking re-election. Thornberry is the last man standing. He has drawn the ire of the Houston Chronicle. One of the GOP lawmakers who said “no” to Harvey funds is Sam Johnson of Plano, who happens to be my congressman now that my wife and I have moved to the Metroplex.

The task for Sagan now is spreading the word among Texas Panhandle voters about the seeming heartlessness of a native Texan who just couldn’t support legislation aimed at helping fellow Texans in maximum distress.

I am pulling for my pal, Greg Sagan.