Category Archives: political news

national news, political news

Waiting for the swamp to be drained

Donald Trump was elected president of the United States largely on a pledge to “drain the swamp” that muddies up Washington, D.C.

It was a solid pledge, met with considerable support.

How has he done so far? Not too well. The president still needs to find the plug, pull it from the drain and let the swamp water run out. He needs, moreover, to start within the White House.

The White House staff secretary Rob Porter has quit amid allegations that he beat up his two former wives and a former girlfriend. Spousal abuse is a serious matter, right? Of course it is!

But we’ve see too many other instances of swampy behavior within the White House already. Michael Flynn lied to the FBI and to the vice president over contacts with Russian government officials; the national security adviser was gone after 24 days. Former campaign chief Paul Manafort is under indictment for money laundering. Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price quit over ethical allegations.

I want the president to make good on his pledge. D.C. is full of officials who are operating under questionable circumstances. The swamp needs draining.

Donald Trump, though, needs to focus much closer to his inner circle than he has to date.

A lot of us out here, even the president’s critics, would welcome some actual progress in the effort to drain the swamp.

local news, political news

Where does ideology fit in this office?

I get a kick out of looking at political campaign signs … and Lord knows we’ve got a lot of them sprouting up all over Amarillo, Texas, as our state’s primary election is less than a month away.

One such sign caught my eye this morning and it brings to mind a question I’ve pondered for nearly as long as I’ve lived in Texas; that’s nearly 34 years.

Susan Allen is running for Randall County clerk. The current county clerk, Renee Calhoun, isn’t seeking re-election. I don’t know Allen, but I am struck by a message on her sign, which reads “A Conservative Choice.”

Hmmm. So, the long-pondered question is this: Why do we elect some of these statutory offices on partisan ballots?

Moreover, when does political ideology matter when we’re pondering for whom to vote for an office such as county clerk?

I’m not sure how a “conservative” county clerk is more desirable than a “liberal” one. How does one apply the duties of county clerk to fit a political ideology? Now that I think about it, I can come up with only one possible avenue: whether the county clerk would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as required by federal law. It is my fervent hope that I might be reading too much into that explosive issue and how it might determine whether voters will make a “conservative choice” in selecting their next county clerk.

The county clerk is responsible for maintaining records for county courts at law. The clerk also manages voter registration and serves as the chief elections officer for a given county. Where does it really matter whether the county clerk adheres to a conservative or liberal political philosophy?

I’ve wondered before — on the record — about the partisan or ideological requirements for a number of such offices. They include tax assessor-collector, treasurer, district clerk (which administers records for state district courts) and, yes, even for sheriff and district attorney.

Does it really matter if a county’s top cop and top prosecutor belong to a particular political party? For that matter, how does a Republican tax collector-assessor do his or her job any differently from a Democrat? Same for treasurer.

Perhaps you’ve known that I also dislike the idea of electing judges on partisan ballots. I won’t go there — this time!

I’m sure Susan Allen and all the other county clerk candidates are fine people. They all are more than likely technically qualified to do the job required of them under the state laws they take an oath to follow to the letter.

Ideology should be a non-starter. I damn sure hope that’s the case in Randall County.

national news, political news, Sports news

Non-politician has learned how to politicize

Edwin Jackson died in a tragic automobile accident over the weekend.

He was a linebacker for the Indianapolis Colts. His death is a tragedy for his family, his teammates and for professional football fans who followed his career.

So … how does the president of the United States respond?

He fired off two tweets. The first one said this: So disgraceful that a person illegally in our country killed @Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson. This is just one of many such preventable tragedies. We must get the Dems to get tough on the Border, and with illegal immigration, FAST!

Five minutes, Donald Trump wrote this: My prayers and best wishes are with the family of Edwin Jackson, a wonderful young man whose life was so senselessly taken. @Colts

Which of these tweets more accurately reflects the president’s instincts? Is it the one that offered the typical knee-jerk political reaction to a human tragedy? Or is the second one that should have been the only comment coming from the president?

Donald Trump entered the 2016 presidential campaign by touting his non-political background. He boasted of his business acumen, his instincts, as well as his ability to cut the “best deals” in the history of Planet Earth.

Here we are. One year and a few days after Donald Trump became president, the non-politician has acquired the politician’s taste — if not the nuanced ability — for politicizing an event that should remain far from the political arena.

Shameful.

military news, national news, political news

Military parade in D.C.? You can’t be serious!

I cannot believe what I just read. Maybe someone can explain this to me.

Donald J. Trump apparently wants to stage a military parade along the boulevards in Washington, D.C. You know, the kind of spectacle we’ve witnessed in places like, oh let’s see, Moscow. Beijing. Pyongyang.

My reaction when I stumbled across this item was simple: Are you f****** kidding me?

According to The Washington Post: Trump has long mused publicly and privately about wanting such a parade, but a Jan. 18 meeting between Trump and top generals in the Pentagon’s tank — a room reserved for top-secret discussions — marked a tipping point, according to two officials briefed on the planning.

Surrounded by the military’s highest-ranking officials, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., Trump’s seemingly abstract desire for a parade was suddenly heard as a presidential directive, the officials said.

What is the purpose? I read in the Post that Trump wants to show the world just how tough we are. He wants to demonstrate U.S. military muscle, to put it on display, to show North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, for instance, just how much hardware we possess.

Is this man for real? Does he really intend to clear out the streets of Washington and roll Abrams tanks, heavy pieces of artillery — and parade thousands of American soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and Coast Guard personnel in front of the world?

As the Post reports: A White House official familiar with the planning described the discussions as “brainstorming” and said nothing is settled. “Right now, there’s really no meat on the bones,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.

Still, the official said Trump is determined to have a parade. “The president wants to do something that highlights the service and sacrifice of the military and have a unifying moment for the country,” the official said.

The American military is strong enough to have persuaded the rest of the world already that we can destroy Planet Earth with the push of a button. Do we really and truly need a military parade?

No! Let me put it another way. Hell no!

local news, political news

This contest doesn’t pass the smell test

I have watched political contests with keen interest for nearly four decades.

I’ve seen curious matchups to be sure. An upcoming Republican Party primary race in the Texas Panhandle, though, has me scratching my noggin. I’m seriously scratching it … hard!

State Rep. Four Price of Amarillo is facing a primary challenge from Panhandle resident Drew Brassfield. Who is the challenger? He’s a first-time political candidate who also happens to serve as the city manager of Fritch.

“I want the voters to have an option, and I think the voters around here want conservative leadership,” Brassfield told the Amarillo Globe-News. There you have it. Conservative leadership. Yeah.

Of all the political campaigns I witnessed up close during my years in journalism, this one features the first one involving a full-time municipal administrator seeking a partisan political office.

It’s not illegal for a city administrator to run for a public office. It somehow seems to stink just a little bit. It doesn’t pass the proverbial smell test.

Why is that? Well, suppose Brassfield were to be elected, which is highly unlikely, given my understanding of Price’s standing within Texas House District 87. How would be possibly be able to serve the residents of Fritch while serving in the Texas Legislature for a minimum of five months every odd-numbered year?

I don’t have a dog in this particular fight. I am registered to vote in Randall County, so I cannot cast a ballot for House District 87.

However, were I to get a chance to pose a single question to Drew Brassfield, I would ask him how he intends to hold two publicly funded jobs at the same time. And I would want to know how in the world he could continue to serve in his full-time day job while traveling throughout a multi-county legislative district searching for votes.

There’s just damn little about this fellow’s candidacy that feels good.

I believe there might be an ethics issue to resolve.

International news, national news, political news

When will POTUS ever recognize the Russia threat?

I guess there’s not a single thing I do can do except keep yapping out loud about it. So, therefore, I will.

When is the president of the United States going to acknowledge publicly what many of his fellow Americans already know: Russia threatens our sacred political process.

Instead, Donald John Trump Sr. continues to disparage our law enforcement agencies, our counterintelligence organizations, our criminal justice system, our key protectors.

Trump ratcheted up that criticism of our law enforcement agencies today by allowing the release of a Republican-authored memo that accuses the FBI of bias in its investigation into Russian hacking of our electoral process.

The president attacked the leadership of the FBI and the Justice Department. Oh, sure, he managed to say a good word about the “rank and file” within the FBI. The men and women on the front line, though, work for the very leadership that Trump has continued to criticize, undermine and — some might argue — defame.

I won’t accuse the president of defaming the FBI and DOJ leadership, but I keep returning to a fundamental question: When is the president going to admit in the open that Russia is a bad actor?

Russian President/strongman Vladimir Putin is no “friend” of the United States. I don’t know this as fact, but I cannot believe for an instant that the former KGB boss thinks as highly of Trump as the president says he does. A large part of me believes Putin is laughing his backside off at the confusion, chaos and controversy he has delivered to the United States as a result of the Russian meddling in our 2016 presidential election.

Putin committed an act of aggression against this country and for the life of me, I cannot accept why the president of the United States refuses to call that aggression what it is.

I have my share of theories as to why he remains quiet on Russia. I maintain my belief that Americans deserve to see the president’s full tax returns and financial disclosure. They very well could tell us plenty about the president’s reluctance to call the Russians out.

Donald Trump’s silence is deafening in the extreme.

national news, political news

There goes the quest for national unity

The all-too-brief search for national unity has ended.

Donald J. Trump said his State of the Union speech would be a unifying message. The president delivered it Tuesday night and then went on another Twitter tirade that blamed Democrats for the failure to reach an agreement on immigration reform.

Then the president officially called off the unity quest this morning. He agreed with the release of a memo written by Republican House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes that accuses the FBI of bias in its investigation of the Russian meddling allegation.

The memo release has launched yet another partisan battle. Democrats opposed its release; Republicans favored it. The FBI opposed it, too. Its release just might trigger the resignation of FBI director Christopher Wray, whom Trump selected to lead the agency. Who knows, too, whether the release is the last straw for the attorney general, Jeff Sessions, who has drawn plenty of presidential pique himself because he decided to recuse himself from the Russia probe.

I am no Sessions fan, but he made what I consider to be the right decision by recognizing his own bias in the Russia investigation, given his former role as a key member of Trump’s presidential transition team.

So, the president has now pitted the parties against each other; he also has squared off against the Department of Justice and the FBI. It’s now Trump vs. the DOJ/FBI.

Unity? Are you kidding me?

The president isn’t wired to unify anyone. He thrives on confrontation. He basks in conflict. He glories in calling attention to himself.

Oh, and have I mentioned that Donald Trump is unfit to lead the greatest nation on Earth? Hey! I just did!

national news, political news

Suck it up, Michael Wolff, and take the heat

I am well into Michael Wolff’s book “Fire and Fury” and am finding it an interesting and entertaining piece of work. Much of it rings true as well.

But when the author goes on these national TV talk shows to discuss some of the more, um, salacious elements of the book, he needs to prepare for the grilling he should expect to get.

He got grilled hard this week on MSNBC by “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski, who wondered why he would suggest that U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley would be engaging in an affair with Donald John Trump.

Wolff took offense at the question. Brzezinski persisted, noting that he implies an alleged Haley-Trump “relationship” near the end of his book.

The back-and-forth continued for a few moments before Brzezinski shut the interview down.

Wolff defamed Haley, according to Brzezinski. Wolff decided to go after the MSBNC co-host in a series of tweets after his appearance on “Morning Joe.”

I won’t comment yet on “Fire and Fury,” as I have a good bit of it yet to read. I do object, though, to assertions he is making about our nation’s U.N. ambassador and the president. This is a serious head-scratcher, given the ubiquitous presence of cameras, recording devices and other gadgets that can detect any kind of, um, “suspicious” behavior.

As for the author’s inability or unwillingness to endure tough questioning from journalists, well, he needs to toughen up.

local news, political news

‘I am not a politician’: Sure thing, pal

I always snicker under my breath, sometimes out loud, when I hear politicians say, “I am not a politician.”

A Texas Panhandle candidate for the Texas Legislature has made such a declaration. He is Richard Beyea, a Republican running for the Texas House District 88 seat now held by fellow Republican Ken King of Canadian.

Why the snicker?

Here’s the thing. Every dictionary definition of the word “politician” I have seen defines the word as someone who seeks political office or is “active” in politics. Thus, Beyea — who I do not know — becomes what he says he isn’t. He’s a politician.

His website touts his business experience and how he has been a conservative “my entire life.”

Let me offer this bit of perspective: John Smithee is a lawyer who also serves in the Texas House; so is Rep. Four Price; Kel Seliger ran a steel company before he ran for the Texas Senate. Pete Laney was a cotton farmer before he ran for the Texas House.

Donald Trump was a hotel magnate before he ran for president; Barack Obama was a law professor before he ran for his first political office; George W. Bush was a big-league baseball team owner before he ran for Texas governor.

On and on it goes. Damn near every single politician who entered politics for the first time can make precisely the claim that Richard Beyea is making.

Maybe this so-called “non-politician” ought to re-calibrate his message. He’s a politician now, by golly.

national news, political news

FBI set to clash with POTUS over memo

This is a new one.

The director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, is now clashing openly with the man who nominated him, the president of the United States.

At issue is the release of a Republican-authored memorandum that alleges FBI misdeeds relating to a dossier that suggests improper relations between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government.

GOP House committee members want the memo released, suggesting it contains “evidence” of a “secret society” within the FBI. Wray disputes the idea. He is standing foursquare in defense of the agency he has led for just a few months. He’s also taking on the president himself, urging him against releasing the memo.

Trump has let it be known he is inclined to release the memo, which could undermine the FBI with critics of the document say doesn’t tell anywhere near the whole story of what the FBI knew and when it knew it. White House chief of staff John Kelly has said the memo will be made public “pretty quick.”

We might be witnessing something virtually unprecedented. Trump might fire the second FBI director in less than a year, unless Wray quits beforehand. And standing with Wray is the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, who appointed special counsel Robert Mueller — another former FBI director — as special counsel to examine the “Russia thing.”

From my vantage point, I believe we are witnessing a big-time train wreck that is going to produce more than its share of collateral damage.

One of the casualties — if Trump releases the memo to the public — might be Rosenstein. Wray might hit the road. Oh, and what about Mueller, the man who was universally praised when Rosenstein selected him to lead the Russia investigation after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself?

I keep circling back to the president’s assertion that there’s no evidence of “collusion” between his campaign and the Russians who hacked into our electoral system in 2016.

If that is the case, then let Mueller’s investigation proceed. If there’s nothing there, then let the special counsel make that determination. The more protests that come from Republicans — and from the president — the more I am inclined to suspect there’s a fire burning under all that smoke.

As for Wray, he told senators he would be unafraid to challenge the president if the need arose.

The need has arisen.