Category Archives: political news

Trump opens door to new breed of pundit

Donald J. Trump’s election as president of the United States has been a godsend to so many Americans. Those who support him think he’s the best thing to happen since pockets on shirts. Those who oppose him think, well, quite a bit differently. I’ll leave it at that.

I believe we all can agree that his election has opened doors to many new types of political pundits. My favorite new breed is the late-night comic.

Most of them are teeing off on the president nightly. They are giving him the what-for on any manner of issue. And, oh brother, he keeps proving so much grist.

As expected, though, the late-night comics’ incessant barrage has drawn criticism from those who believe that entertainers — such as these comics in particular — are “not qualified to comment on political matters.”

That brought, in my view,  a classic response from one of those comics. Jimmy Kimmel answered the other day that Trump’s election as president gives him all the credibility he needs to comment on his performance in office.

“I mean, we elected Donald Trump as president of the United States,” Kimmel answered recently with a healthy dose of faux astonishment. I guess I should mention that Trump is as qualified to be president than the comics are to comment on him.

Trump vowed to bring jobs back to this country as part of his “America first” plan and his strategy to “make America great again.”

Trump’s election has delivered an unintended benefit. He has delivered huge stashes of political humor ammunition to those who work in his former calling — in the entertainment industry.

Trump assumes role of ‘armchair hero’

Donald J. Trump’s profoundly stupid boast today underscores perfectly a point I sought to make in an earlier blog post.

The president assumed the role of “armchair hero” in declaring — during a White House gathering with the nation’s governors — what he would have done had he been present at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., on Valentine’s Day.

He said he would have stormed into the building when the gunman opened fire, killing 17 students and educators.

Really, Mr. President? This is the kind of idiotic nonsense that drives many of us nuts.

He was speaking about former Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson, who reportedly stood by — frozen — while the gunfire erupted inside the high school. He called the deputy’s conduct unacceptable. On that score, the president is correct.

However, to insert himself into a tragedy and assert how he would have acted — days after the fact — speaks to a curious form of projection from someone who one would think should know better.

There can be plenty to say about the deputy’s lack of action when it was need in the moment. We haven’t yet heard from him. I am one who hopes he is able and willing to explain why he didn’t do what he was trained to do.  I don’t expect him to offer a plausible explanation, but the nation has a need to hear his version of events.

Americans do not need to hear senseless boasting from a president who was nowhere near the tragedy when it struck — and broke everyone’s heart.

Who should we trust in this battle of wills?

Whenever the president of the United States challenges the credibility of the special counsel assigned to examine alleged collusion with Russian hackers, I believe I will think first of the article I have attached to this blog post.

The Washington Post article goes into great detail about the similarities and the differences between Donald John Trump and Robert Swan Mueller III.

When the president suggests that the former FBI director is unfit to conduct a probe into “The Russia Thing,” it would be good to understand from where both these men came and the choices they have made.

The Post piece tells of how they both were born into wealth. They both attended private schools. They attended Ivy League universities.

One of them chose after college to get into his father’s business. The other — pained by the Vietnam War combat death of a lifelong friend — chose to enlist in the Marine Corps and report for duty in the war that killed his friend.

Trump built a fabulous business and entertainment career with help from his father. Mueller decided to pursue a career in public service — starting with his duty on battlefields far from the comforts of home.

Trump has become a loudmouth and a braggart. Mueller became something quite different; he rarely talks about himself in public.

Trump got elected president of the United States amid considerable consternation over whether he is up to the job. Mueller got selected for the special counsel job of investigating the Trump campaign’s allegedly improper ties to Russian hackers amid universal praise and acclaim that he was the perfect man for his new job.

The investigation is ongoing. Mueller isn’t going to divulge when he intends to finish it. He will keep plowing straight ahead. He won’t be deterred by efforts to derail, divert, deflect, degrade and disparage his investigation.

I will place my faith in the career prosecutor rather than a novice politician whose entire professional life has been built on self-enrichment and self-aggrandizement.

Condi Rice: Squishy liberal? Hardly

Can we add Condoleezza Rice to the ranks of those who are thinking aloud about how the Second Amendment applies to the real world of today, compared to when it was written?

Let’s start by dismissing the notion that the former secretary of state, national security adviser to President George W. Bush and all-round brainiac is some squishy liberal. She isn’t.

The Parkland, Fla., school slaughter has Rice thinking about the Second Amendment. According to The Hill: “I think it is time for us to have a conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern world,” Rice told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt. “I don’t understand why civilians need to have access to military weapons.”

“We wouldn’t, we wouldn’t say you can go out and buy a tank,” she continued. “So I do think we need to have that conversation.”

Could the authors of the Second Amendment in the 18th century envision a time when weapons such as the AR-15 that the Parkland shooter used would be available? I doubt it, folks.

So, let’s have that discussion. Shall we? Can we have it without going apoplectic?

Maybe someone as distinguished and admired as Condoleezza Rice can lead it.

Empower Texans: It’s hitting the fan

The media are beginning to peel back the mystery surrounding a political action group that calls itself Empower Texans.

What are we seeing now? It ain’t pretty, folks.

Empower Texans is pouring lots of money into campaigns around the state. It has targeted a couple of seats in the Panhandle with a reprehensible smear campaign.

The group’s actions have been noticed by the media, which are reporting on them with the kind of gusto one saw during other hot political disputes. Watergate comes to mind. So does the Lewinsky scandal.

Let’s take a gander at Michael Quinn Sullivan, the guy who detests state Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo, and is backing former Midland Mayor Mike Canon’s bid to unseat Seliger.

Sen. Seliger has not hidden his dislike of Sullivan, who runs the ultra-right-wing organization. Sullivan has returned the favor by pouring lots of money into Canon’s campaign. Texas Monthly’s R.G. Ratcliffe takes particular note of an essay that Amarillo Globe-News columnist Jon Mark Beilue wrote in which he compared Empower Texans to Netflix’s “House of Cards.”

Read Ratcliffe’s essay here. Ratcliffe contends that Empower Texans is subverting democracy by falsifying incumbents’ records, as it has done with Seliger.

Empower Texans also has glommed onto something called the Granny Tax in its effort to unseat state Rep. Four Price, another Amarillo Republican.

Price’s challenger, Fritch City Manager Drew Brassfield, has campaign contributions from wealthy downstate interests that comprise 61 percent of his total campaign intake. Empower Texans has its mitts on that race, too, having endorsed Brassfield over Price.

Empower Texans has fabricated an issue, contending that Texas House members intended to raise taxes on nursing homes, thus penalizing elderly residents of those facilities. Thus, the “Granny Tax” was born.

It didn’t exist.

Scott Braddock of the Houston Chronicle lays out Empower Texans’ deception here.

We are witnessing a despicable display of demagoguery perpetrated by interests who have zero interest in the Texas Panhandle or in West Texas. They are seeking to unseat individuals who don’t grovel at the feet of powerful interests.

Sen. Kel Seliger and Rep. Four Price must not fall victim to this kind of defamation.

As Beilue noted in his column: “They (Empower Texans) are using their typical campaign playbook—paint their guy as the conservative choice, and the other guy as basically a Democrat by distorting and taking facts out of context to make them seem soft on abortion and a patsy for big government. Their hope is enough voters are gullible and naïve to believe it all.”

Man, I certainly hope West Texas Republican primary voters are smarter than that.

I tip my hat, moreover, to the Texas political media for revealing this lie to a voting public that needs to see it.

Let ’em allow guns anywhere

This editorial cartoon appeared in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and it speaks to an interesting irony about those who believe “more guns will keep us safe.”

The Conservative Political Action Conference, the Republican National Convention and the White House all prohibit guns. That’s fine with me.

The cartoon, though, does remind me of something a former boss of mine once asked a prominent Republican Texas senator before the Texas Legislature enacted a law allowing Texans to carry concealed handguns.

The 1995 Legislature approved a concealed-carry bill, which Gov. George W. Bush signed into law. The Amarillo Globe-News, where I worked, opposed the legislation and we editorialized against it. The publisher of the paper at the time was Garet von Netzer, as conservative a fellow as anyone I’ve ever known. He didn’t like the concealed-carry bill.

I’ll never forget the time von Netzer asked the late Sen. Teel Bivins, R-Amarillo, this question: “If you think it’s all right for people to carry guns under their jackets, why don’t you allow them to carry those guns onto the floor of the Legislature?” The Legislature chose then to ban guns inside the State Capitol Building.

I don’t recall Sen. Bivins’s answer.

Von Netzer’s question then seems totally appropriate today.

Trump needed reminder to show compassion?

Check out the picture. It shows you Donald Trump’s hands clutching some notes he held while he listened to the pleas of those who survived the Parkland, Fla., high school massacre.

I was truly ready to give the president unvarnished props for his listening to those who survived the shooting along with the loved ones of those who perished in the carnage.

Then this picture showed up.

I am struck by the last notation: “I hear you.” Yep. It seems the president needed crib notes to remind him to offer a word of compassion to the grieving survivors and family members.

I almost don’t know how to respond to this.

OK, I won’t beat up the president too savagely over this. I have a reason. He is far from the only politician to rely on notes.

Do you remember how President Reagan would carry 3-by-5 note cards into Cabinet meetings? How he would glance at them to remind him of the talking points he wanted to address?

Get this, too: A man who represented me in Congress used the same technique when he came to visit our editorial board at the Beaumont Enterprise in Southeast Texas.

The late Rep. Jack Brooks was a ferocious Democrat who pretty much detested almost any Republican he encountered. Brooks was not the least bit bashful about denigrating Ronald Reagan’s intelligence. He actually would chide the president over the way he depended on those note cards.

Brooks, though, did precisely the same thing when he sat down with us to talk about the issues of the day. Actually, Brooks often would launch lengthy soliloquies using the notes he held in front of him.

That all said, I get that Donald Trump is employing a tactic that others have done.

I’ll just add a final thought. The only reason I mention this at all is because the president has insisted many times since running for office that he is “like, a really smart person” who knows “the best words” and who attended “the best schools.”

Does an intelligent, well-spoken, well-educated man really need note cards to remind himself to say “I hear you”?

I guess this one does.

Dear Mac: Step up on gun violence

Congressman Mac Thornberry:

I’m not one to write “open letters” to public officials, but I’m making an exception with this note. A lot of your supporters read this blog regularly and my sincere hope is that one or more of them will forward it to you.

Congressman, I want to join millions of other Americans who are calling for some action from you and your congressional colleagues on this sickening, maddening and tragic issue of gun violence.

I won’t belabor what you already know about the latest spasm of violence that erupted on Valentine’s Day in Parkland, Fla.

But you’re a big hitter in the U.S. House of Representatives these days. You no longer are a back-bencher. Your high profile as chairman of the Armed Services Committee gives you a louder voice than some chump who’s been in Congress for far less time than you.

Hey, we go back a ways together … you and I. I started my job at the Amarillo Globe-News the same week you took office after your stunning election in 1994. I’ve supported you while working for the Globe-News. I also have opposed you on occasion.

I am acutely aware of the constituency you represent. You are elected to one of the nation’s most reliably Republican congressional districts, even though it’s been redrawn considerably since you took office. Your constituents by and large are big Second Amendment proponents. They don’t much like any idea that monkeys around with the gun amendment.

Surely, though, you must understand that slaughtering school children and their educators is not normal. This is not how a civilized society should behave. Civilized societies should tolerate this carnage. Not for an instant! But, for God’s sake, we do!

Tougher background checks? Yes. End of those “bump stocks” that turn semi-automatic rifles into fully auto killing machines? By all means. How about a ban on assault rifles? Yes, I know many of your constituents are hunters, but who needs an assault rifle to shoot deer, turkeys or feral hogs in the Texas Panhandle?

Just for the record, though, I oppose arming teachers. My thought is this: More guns do not create a safer environment.

Given that you are now a member of the congressional leadership team, I want you to speak out clearly about what you think should be done to prevent recurrences of these tragedy.

I am tired of the canard that “no legislation would prevent” a madman from shooting someone. I will not tolerate a lame notion that there is nothing to be done that doesn’t tear the guts out of the Second Amendment. You can find a solution and you must communicate your ideas to those you represent in the halls of power.

Silence won’t do it for me, congressman. It shouldn’t do it for your other constituents, either.

Seize the moment, Rep. Thornberry.

Candidates don’t deserve free ‘ad space’

I get that the Amarillo Globe-News has endorsed state Sen. Kel Seliger’s bid for re-election to the Texas Senate. That’s their call and, frankly, it was the wise decision.

Now, though, the newspaper has crossed a line it shouldn’t have crossed. One of Seliger’s Republican primary opponents, Amarillo businessman Victor Leal, has been allowed to write a letter to the editor excoriating Seliger’s voting record. The newspaper published it!

Leal’s letter makes no mention of the editorial. It doesn’t challenge the G-N editorial board rationale for its decision to back Seliger.

Read Leal’s letter here.

Instead, it challenges Seliger’s statements touting his voting record on a variety of issues.

Why does this set a slippery-slope precedent? Because political candidates should have to pay for their political advertisements. Newspapers and other media offer candidates space and air time to espouse their own real or perceived virtues, but they don’t usually give it to them for free.

I worked for a couple of newspapers that didn’t even allow people to speak on behalf of candidates during election season for that very reason. The idea was to reserve the free space for issues and discussions that steered away from political campaigns. As a former boss of mine used to say, “We aren’t going to give away political ad space with letters to the editor that endorse a candidate’s virtues.”

I moved away from that policy years later. The candidates themselves, though, did not get that space to speak for free to speak on behalf of themselves or against their foes. If they wanted the space, they had to pay for it.

We now can await Seliger’s response to Leal and quite possibly Mike Canon — the third GOP candidate in this contest — will get to boast about his own virtues.

Sheesh!

Bad guy with a gun, meet good guy with a gun

I believe it was Wayne LaPierre, the spokesman for the National Rifle Association, who said the following: The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.

I probably mangled the quote a bit, but I am pretty sure it’s essentially what he said.

The Parkland, Fla., high school massacre on Valentine’s Day has launched a new round of national discussion about gun violence and how we can stop this kind of insanity from recurring.

One talking point — and I hear this among some of my social media acquaintances — is to arm school teachers. Give ’em guns to use in the event someone enters the school to do serious harm. Some school districts in the Texas Panhandle have armed faculty members on duty.

Is that a wise option? It gives me serious concern.

I worry that an armed teacher — who would be certified to carry a concealed handgun under Texas law — might be unable to stop a gunman with a kill shot or at least with a bullet that disables the shooter.

If the teacher, let’s say, is a former Army Green Beret or Navy SEAL, then I would have much more faith in the teacher’s ability to “neutralize” whoever opens fire in the school.

I fully expect to get some criticism for this blog post from teachers, for whom I have the utmost respect and admiration already. I just fear that more guns beget more violence.

A potential solution lies out there somewhere. I don’t know where it is or how we find it. I am going to remain queasy about the notion of arming school teachers without an ironclad guarantee that they can drop a shooter in his tracks immediately when gunfire erupts.