Uncategorized

Thad Cochran: civil rights champion

The renomination in Mississippi of Republican Thad Cochran to another term in the U.S. Senate has brought up an interesting talking point.

Will the conservative Republican senator now become a civil rights champion to pay back the favor African-American voters delivered in helping him beat back a near-certain defeat in a GOP runoff?

Think about this for a moment.

Cochran was considered dead meat when he finished second in the GOP primary in the Magnolia State. The favorite to beat him was tea party golden boy Chris McDaniel. Then a strange thing happened.

Thousands of African-American Democrats who hadn’t voted in their own primary turned out to cast their votes for Cochran in the runoff. It turned out to be the difference for the six-term senator who reportedly will serve his final term in the Senate if he’s re-elected this fall. As for McDaniel, he’s not going away quietly. He’s continuing to raise a ruckus over the way he lost a contest he was thought to be a shoo-in to win.

So, does the senator now become a champion of, say, renewing the Voting Rights Act when it comes up? Might he resist efforts to make voting more difficult for voters — mainly minorities — who have difficulty providing photo identification when they register to vote? Will this lawmaker realize that with no more campaigns to run, no more challenges from his right to fend off and with no more money to raise he will be free to pay back those to whom he likely owes his latest political victory?

I rather like the idea of a conservative Dixie state Republican becoming a friend of African-Americans.

Is it political expediency? No. It’s political gratitude.

Uncategorized

U.S. loses to Belgium; back to other sports now

My World Cup fascination is now over, thanks to a 2-1 victory today by Belgium over a valiant U.S. team that found its way to the Round of 16 despite losing previous games.

I’ll need someone to explain that one to me. Later, perhaps.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/belgium-beats-u-s–2-1-in-extra-time–survives-late-rally-to-advance-223507512.html

I’ll go back now to awaiting the start of college football — American-style, the game played by 300-pound behemoths in helmets and pads. I’ll also resume my sporadic interest in Major League Baseball.

Allow me to recall one World Cup memory from a few years ago. I’ve seen such sports fanaticism up close.

During the 2006 World Cup, which was played in Germany, my wife and I had the pleasure of visiting the country just north of there. We were in Denmark, attending the Rotary International Convention being held in Copenhagen and across the strait in Malmo, Sweden.

Denmark was playing in the World Cup — of course! One evening my wife and I sought a place to have dinner with some Amarillo friends of ours — fellow Rotarians Mike and Vicki Hooten — who also were attending the convention. We walked for many blocks looking for a nice place to eat, have a beverage or two and visit with our friends.

“Hey, this looks pretty good,” one of us said. We stuck our heads in the door. The place was packed with screaming Danes who, as luck would have it, were watching their national soccer team playing a World Cup match with, um, some other team.

Pandemonium ruled the place. As it did in the next place we visited. And the one after that, and after that one.

Cheers rang out through the streets of Copenhagen that evening as we walked through the city on the hunt for somewhere to have a meal. We finally settled on an outdoor place, an Italian eatery if memory serves.

We had a good time visiting with our friends. All the while we heard cheers ringing throughout the neighborhood as Danes cheered their team’s every move toward the other guys’ goal.

I have no clue who won that game. Nor do I have any interest in knowing.

Yes, it’s an international game. Most of the rest of the world is mad about this sport.

More power to them. I’m getting ready for college football to kick off.

Uncategorized

Israel vents its anger at Hamas

Can there be any doubt — any at all — as to why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke off peace talks with the Palestinian Authority?

Three Israeli teenagers have been killed by terrorists linked to Hamas, the monstrous group that helps govern Gaza, which is part of the Palestinian Authority. Israel in return has launched air strikes against the terrorists. Hamas is continuing its violent campaign against Israel, all the while joining the PA in some form of “unity government” arrangement agreed to by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

It was that unity government arrangement that angered Netanyahu enough to break off the talks. The PA cannot “have it both ways,” he said of Abbas’s agreement with Hamas and his desire to seek peace with Israel.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/west-bank-kidnappings/israel-palestinian-tensions-near-breaking-point-over-dead-teens-n145096

I cannot proclaim to be an expert on this subject, but I have had the honor of seeing Israel up close. I’ve seen some of the damage that Hamas terrorists have inflicted on Israeli cities close to Gaza. I’ve gotten a pretty good feel for how close Israel is to its sworn enemies and I understand fully how Israel must be on constant vigil against terrorist attacks from Gaza, the West Bank, Golan and Lebanon.

Five weeks touring Israel in the spring of 2009 gave my traveling companions and me a deeper appreciation for what the Israelis face every single day.

And now we have this latest tragedy involving the three teens who were captured in the West Bank.

Hamas comprises a lot of very bad actors. Those are the individuals with whom Israel must co-exist. If they have to bomb them to keep them at bay, then so be it.

Uncategorized

POTUS plans immigration push

As one who generally endorses the notion of presidential prerogative, I welcome the news that Barack Obama is going to use the power of his office to move immigration reform forward — with our without congressional buy-in.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/210995-obama-pledges-to-take-executive-actions-on-immigration

Obama is steamed that Congress won’t vote this year on a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It seems to matter little that most members of Congress — including Republicans — want reform legislation enacted. House Speaker John Boehner says it won’t happen because, he says, lawmakers and “the American people” don’t trust the president to enforce immigration laws.

Obama’s response: “If Congress will not do its job, at least we can do ours.”

He hasn’t yet specified how he’ll act. He plans on the Fourth of July to naturalize several U.S. military men and women who aren’t yet citizens.

“I don’t prefer taking administrative action,” Obama said in a Rose Garden event, standing beside Vice President Biden. “I’ve made that clear multiple times. … I only take executive action when we have a serious problem, a serious issue, and Congress chooses to do nothing.”

Congress already is angry over what it says is the president’s “excessive” use of executive authority. That’s a phony argument on its face, given that Barack Obama has issued fewer such orders than any president of the past 100 years.

The president has asked for more money to secure our borders in the wake of the Central America immigration crisis that has stranded thousands of illegal immigrants — mostly children and young adults — on our southern border. Boehner’s response to date? He’s just content to dig in his heels even more.

The Constitution and federal law give the president wide latitude on taking action. As the president has noted, Congress should lead, follow or get out of the way.

Uncategorized

Time to 'dampen' Canyon

A little birdie has tipped me off to a possible sea change election coming up in a sleepy little town just south of Amarillo.

There might be a ballot measure up for decision this November that would determine whether Canyon, Texas — in the words of my little birdie-snitch — goes “damp.” He means voters could be asked to decide on a measure to allow the sale of liquor by the drink within the city limits.

My question is as it’s always been with regard to “dry” counties and communities: Why in this age of extreme mobility, when people can travel quickly from town to town, county to county, would you want to maintain a prohibition on the sale of liquor by the drink?

There once was a time — when we traveled by horse-drawn wagons or walked by oneself — when establishing dry communities made a modicum of sense. If you didn’t want people drinking in your town, then you banned it and forced them to stay in their own towns to drink until they passed out.

The invention of the automobile changed that.

Now we can drive from one city to the next. If your town doesn’t allow liquor by the drink, you get into your car and go the next city that does allow it. In Canyon’s case, it’s only about a 12-mile drive to the southern outskirts of Amarillo.

Another question: Why subject motorists, passengers — or other motorists — to those who might have imbibed a bit too heavily in Amarillo but choose to drive home to Canyon to sleep it off?

Am I condoning excessive drinking? Of course not. As one who only occasionally enjoys a cold beer on a hot day, I am acutely aware of the dangers of alcohol abuse. No one should fall victim to it and I do not wish our communities to become full of drunken sluggards.

My Canyon snitch said something about a meeting planned for Wednesday in which this ballot measure idea is discussed. I hope it produces a plan to proceed with an election.

I also hope the election occurs and the good folks of the Randall County seat decide to enter the 21st century.

Uncategorized

SCOTUS slaps down women's health concern

I’ll try to figure out what the Supreme Court said Monday in that much-anticipated Hobby Lobby health care case.

The court ruled 5-4 that family owned businesses, such as Hobby Lobby, can exempt contraception coverage for women who work for the company under the Affordable Care Act.

So, let’s see if I have this right: If a female employee of Hobby Lobby wants to prevent a pregnancy through contraception, she is unable to apply for insurance under the Affordable Care Act because, again as I understand it, her employer disagrees with the policy on religious grounds.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-obamacare-108435.html?hp=f2

The employee, therefore, is denied coverage because of her employer’s devotion to his or her faith.

I have to agree with critics of the ruling. Women, they say, have seen their health care put in jeopardy because of a narrow court ruling that applies only to contraception.

Let the firestorm rage all over again.

Hobby Lobby is a fine company. My wife and I shop there on occasion for picture frames and Christmas decorations. It’s also owned by a devote Christian family. I honor their faith as well.

What is troubling is the denial of contraceptives under the ACA and why it’s such a bogeyman in the eyes of Hobby Lobby.

Here’s how Politico reported it: “The contraception coverage mandate isn’t central to the law, the way the individual mandate is. By letting some closely held employers — like family-owned businesses — opt out of the coverage if they have religious objections, the justices haven’t blown a hole in the law that unravels its ability to cover millions of Americans. They didn’t even overturn the contraception coverage rule itself. They just carved out an exemption for some employers from one benefit, one that wasn’t even spelled out when the law was passed.”

The ruling along those true-blue political lines: the five conservative justices outvoting the four liberal ones. Well, that’s the way it goes. I accept the ruling as legit, as opposed to some on the right who two years ago raised holy hell when the court voted, also 5-4, to uphold the ACA.

I accept the ruling. I surely don’t agree with it. I believe a privately held company owner has been given license to stand in the way of a woman’s health care needs on grounds that have little to do with, oh, health care.

Uncategorized

Makeout Man going to run after all

Hey, wait a minute. Didn’t Vance McAllister say he would forgo another run for Congress after getting caught making out with his married staffer?

Now he says what? He’s going to run after all?

This is awesome news! I cannot wait to learn whether his constituents want to have this guy representing them in Congress.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/210949-reversing-decision-mcallister-to-run-for-reelection

McAllister, a north Louisiana Republican, got caught in a most, um, embarrassing moment planting a lengthy wet kiss on his female staffer. McAllister had won the seat just a little more than a year ago, proclaiming himself to be madly in love with his wife and devoted to his children. He’s a family man and that was reason enough to vote for him, his campaign ads suggested. His ads featured his family prominently.

Then he got caught committing this indiscreet act with a married staffer who — last I heard — had her marriage fall apart.

McAllister said this about his reversal: “I wanted to make sure everything was good with our family. Our family is stronger than ever, so I think the people should decide whether or not I continue to represent them.”

More power to him. I’m waiting to see, however, if he portrays himself in quite the same family-man context that he did during his first campaign for the office.

I’ll bet he’s going to reframe his public profile.

Uncategorized

States' rights or federal authority over marriage?

1 Comment

The debate over same-sex marriage keeps roiling.

I continue to straddle the fence on whether to endorse the notion of full “marriage” for same-sex couples, even though my view of it is “evolving” toward favoring it. I do understand the reason that federal courts are tossing out states’ prohibitions against same-sex couples tying the knot, as in getting married.

The argument against the courts getting involved usually centers on states’ rights. Foes of same-sex marriage — or “marriage equality,” as proponents call it — keep harping on a misconstrued notion that since sexual orientation isn’t mentioned specifically in the U.S. Constitution that judges have no jurisdiction or legal standing to comment on these issues.

The latest such contention came from an editorial published Sunday in my local newspaper, the Amarillo Globe-News. “The 14th Amendment (read it) does not specifically mention marriage — gay or straight,” the editorial notes. OK, I then read the amendment, for the umpteenth time. Here’s part of what it says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States …” It goes on at the end of that section to say states cannot “deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

No, the amendment doesn’t mention gay marriage. I’d bet some serious dough, however, that the founders deliberately intended to include all citizens regardless of any orientation — sexual or religious, to name just two — under the equal protection clause. Gay couples are seeking to be recognized as being equally entitled to all the rights guaranteed straight couples. That’s a fairly uncomplicated proposal. I’m quite certain the U.S. Constitution covers it nicely in that pesky 14th Amendment.

Texas’s state constitutional amendment “abridges” those rights, a federal court judge has ruled. The ruling is under appeal. Gay marriage isn’t legal in Texas, at least not yet.

This curious argument by foes of “marriage equality” that states’ rights trump the U.S. Constitution on issues not delineated by the founders doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

I’m guessing the surest way for those who oppose same-sex marriage to have the practice banned entirely in this country is to campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that supersedes the 14th Amendment.

Good luck with that. A majority of Americans now favors same-sex marriage.

Me? I’m still grappling with it.

Uncategorized

More than a filibuster, Sen. Davis?

One filibuster does not a governor make.

Pay attention, Wendy Davis. You’re trying to ride a single political event into the most visible — if not the most powerful — office in Texas.

It likely won’t work.

Davis, the state senator from Fort Worth, is running for governor as a the Democratic Party nominee. The latest polling on the race shows her Republican opponent, Attorney General Greg Abbott, with a 12-point lead. That’s a good bit of ground to make up for Davis, who burst onto the national scene by filibustering an anti-abortion bill nearly to death in 2013. It came back to life in a special legislative session and became law shortly thereafter.

Davis’s filibuster, which occurred a year ago this week, made her a celebrity with the reproductive-rights activists.

She should be able to mount a stout challenge to Abbott. However, as the summer progresses and the autumn campaign season approaches, it’s beginning to look as though Davis hasn’t yet found her voice.

My sincerest hope is that Texas can become a place where Republicans and Democrats can battle each other on a level playing field. It hasn’t been that way in Texas for more than two decades. Ann Richards was the most recent Democrat to become governor, and that was in 1990. John Sharp was re-elected comptroller in 1994 and he was the most recent Democrat to be elected to any statewide office.

It’s been Republican-only ever since.

The preferred outcome is for both parties to be strong so they can keep the other party bosses honest, keep them alert and keep the crazies from infiltrating them. The Texas Republican Party has been hijacked by its very own tea party wing. Formerly mainstream Republicans — such as Abbott — now are tacking far to the right, apparently in keeping with the prevailing mood of Texas voters.

Democrats? They’ve been languishing in the political wilderness.

Many Democrats saw a superstar in the making when Davis burst onto the scene. Her campaign has been floundered. Her campaign manager quit, so she’s starting from scratch.

Yes, Davis has banked a lot of campaign money. Her task will be to spend it wisely and effectively.

Relying on the feelings of those who thought her filibuster against the abortion restrictions was an act of heroism isn’t going to get the job done.

“Anybody that thinks that this campaign is over, or somehow she’s irrelevant, isn’t thinking,” said Garry Mauro, a former Texas Democratic land commissioner. Then he added, “Nobody with $20 million is irrelevant.”

Money talks. What’s it going to say about Wendy Davis?

Uncategorized

Time to pony up on border emergency

Republicans in Congress have been griping about Barack Obama’s so-called imperial presidency.

They want the president to consult more with them before acting.

OK, then. The president — and Congress — have a serious border emergency on their hands right here in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. It involves the mass migration of thousands of children and adults from Central America.

To help fight the problem believed to part of an international human trafficking ring, the president has asked Congress for more than $2 billion in emergency money to beef up detention facilities along the border and to bolster border security.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/29/obama-to-request-billions-to-deal-with-border-crisis/?hpt=hp_t1

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has asked the president to do more. So has Texas Gov. Rick Perry, another Republican.

The question of the day: Will GOP lawmakers consent to the request or will they continue to dig in their heels, contending that the United States can’t afford the money and, thus, keep sniping away at the administration for its “failure” to protect the border against illegal immigration?

CNN.com reports it this way: “A White House official told CNN the money will go to securing appropriate space for the detention of children but also stemming the tide of immigrants. The government hopes to increase its ability to investigate and dismantle smuggling organizations as well as quickly return children and adults to their home countries if they do not qualify for asylum.”

For his part, Obama is sending stern messages to governments south of Mexico. “Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they’ll get sent back. More importantly, they may not make it,” Obama said to ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos.

Can he do more? Sure. First, though, he needs the resources, meaning the money, to pay for the stepped-up efforts to stop the illegal immigrant flow. The funds can come from Congress.

Will the legislative branch put it up?

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience