Take care of the home folks

Memo to congressional incumbents all across this great land: You’d better pay careful attention to the people you represent in Washington, D.C.

That might be the most significant takeaway from U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning, Earth-shaking defeat this week in his race for Congress from Virginia’s 7th Congressional District.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/06/cantors-defeat-is-all-about-frustration-with-washingtons-old-ways.html/

I still haven’t grasped fully what happened back in Virginia this week, when political novice David Brat smoked Cantor by 11 percentage points in a low-turnout Republican primary election.

Still, I keep reading from those close to the situation that Cantor had become too much a Man of Washington and less of a Man of the People Back Home. Perhaps they grew tired of him standing in front of those banks of microphones among House GOP leaders. Maybe they didn’t think it mattered to them that their guy was part of the GOP caucus elite in the House and that he was in line to become the next speaker of the House when John Boehner decided he’d had enough fun.

OK, now pay attention here, House Armed Services Committee Chairman-to-be Mac Thornberry.

You’re going to win re-election this November from the 13th Congressional District of Texas. You’re also likely to become chairman of a powerful House committee when the next Congress convenes in January.

This is just me talking, Mac, but you’d better start scheduling a lot of town hall meetings and photo ops back home in your district well in advance of the next congressional election, which occurs in 2016.

If Eric Cantor — one of the House’s more conservative members — can get outflanked on the right by a novice, then it can happen to anyone, it seems to me.

It well might be that in this political climate, no member of Congress — no matter how powerful and media savvy they are — is immune from the kind of political earthquake that swallowed Eric Cantor whole.

Yep, that means you, too, Rep. Thornberry.

Texas GOP's madness is catching on

It now appears that the Texas Republican Party’s insanity is a communicable disease.

The madness has taken hold of the Virginia GOP, which this week booted a tea party congressional heavyweight out of office in favor of someone who’s even more in the tea party camp.

Go figure that one out.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/11/opinion/brazile-eric-cantor-gop/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Donna Brazile, a noted Democratic strategist and talking head for CNN and other media outlets, believes the tea party wing of the Republican Party can declare victory in its civil war with the establishment. The battle’s over, at least for now, says Brazile.

U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had his head handed to him by political novice David Brat. Cantor outspent Brat by a lot and still lost. Brat now is the favorite to win the House seat that Cantor occupied for seven terms.

If the tea party can knock Cantor off his feet, well, the Republican Party that many of us have grown to know and respect — at some level, at least — is a goner.

Texas Republicans met this past week and passed a party platform that includes a lot of extreme right-wing planks, one of which is to endorse something called “reparative therapy” that is supposed to persuade gay people to become, well, no longer gay.

By my way of thinking, that is a sure sign that the Texas GOP had gone around the bend.

What I guess I didn’t realize — until this week’s returns came in from Virginia — is that other state Republicans have been similarly afflicted. I had thought the tea party had talked itself out of business.

It’s ba-a-a-ck.

Grand jury no bills animal control

A Randall County grand jury has returned what could be seen as an unsatisfactory decision on Amarillo Animal Control’s controversial treatment of animals in its possession.

The grand jury decided against indicting anyone for criminal wrongdoing in what has been a major embarrassment for the city.

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=1056604#.U5kLwFJOWt8

District Attorney James Farren expressed surprise at the no-bill decision.

I guess we have to live with the grand jury decision, given the system we have of investigating these kinds of activities.

The good news for the animals under the care of the city, however, is that (a) the two people at the top of the Animal Control Department chain of command are gone and (b) changes have been implemented to stop the kind of abuse inflicted on the unwanted pets.

Former director Mike McGee and assistant director Shannon Barlow both have “retired” from the city. They should have been canned after it was revealed that animals had been euthanized improperly. They were being administered the wrong drugs and there had been reports of considerable suffering by the animals during the process.

Changes were made almost immediately, while McGee and Barlow were put on “administrative leave,” which meant they were getting paid while being ordered off the job.

The city issued a press release that stated: “Operations at Animal Control move forward under the guidance of interim director Scott McDonald, as the search for a permanent animal control director takes place. The City continues to look at areas for improvement at the animal shelter with the goal of increasing adoptions and making the shelter a sanitary, comfortable place for animals. Improvements include operational changes and improvements to facilities, animal intake and care procedures, and employee training practices. An internal management review will be undertaken immediately to determine if there have been noncriminal violations of policies or procedures and to further assist in improving shelter operations.”

The city should proceed with that “internal management review.” Meantime, look long and hard for an administrator who will take better care of these animals. After all, a “shelter” by definition is a place where unwanted animals at least can be granted temporary sanctuary for the time they have left.

Sandy Hook didn't stop anything

Hey, wait a minute. Wasn’t that mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., supposed to be the Mother of All Wakeup Calls to end gun violence in America?

Weren’t we supposed to have been shaken to our core, energized in an unprecedented way to seek an end to this madness?

I thought so, too.

Silly me.

Check out the map here and ask yourself: Why has this violence continued?

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5797306/map-school-shooting-sandy-hook

Seventy-four.

That’s the number of school shootings that have occurred since Sandy Hook, where 20 first-graders and six teachers were killed by that single madman, who then shot himself to death.

The latest incident occurred near my hometown of Portland, Ore., where a 15-year-old Reynolds High School student walked into a locker room and killed a 14-year-old freshman instantly with a single bullet. The shooter then took his own life.

We’re outraged yet again. President Obama said after the Portland tragedy that “we’re the only industrialized nation” where this kind of violence occurs with such regularity.

I don’t have the answer. Nor do I know where to find it.

The Second Amendment says we have the right to keep and bear arms. I don’t believe it says everyone in America — regardless of their mental condition — has the same rights to a firearm as most of the rest of us.

There must be a way to prevent them from putting their hands on deadly weapons — and putting our children at such horrifying risk.

Cantor loss leaves mixed feelings

Eric Cantor’s stunning loss Tuesday almost seems like a punch line in one of those “good news, bad news” gags.

You walk up to a Democrat and say, “Hey, I’ve got some good news and some bad news. What’s the good news? Well, the good news is that Eric Cantor was defeated in the Republican Party primary race for Congress; that means he won’t be around much longer to obstruct legislation at every turn.

“The bad news is that the guy who beat him will be even more of an obstructionist.”

That’s how I’m feeling just a few hours after Cantor got drummed out of office by a college professor, Dave Brat, who was running for political office for the very first time — and who got outspent a zillion-to-one by the well-heeled incumbent.

Cantor’s never been my favorite member of Congress. I always thought the tea party wing of the GOP loved the guy. Didn’t he boast about being one of them? Wasn’t he proud of the votes he cast to oppose initiatives proposed by his Democratic colleagues?

Well, it turned out that immigration was the deal breaker for tea party zealots. Cantor signed on to a version of the Dream Act pushed by President Obama. That did it as far as the tea party faithful went. They would have none of that.

Dave Brat seized on it and won by 11 percentage points.

I would be glad to see Cantor go except that the guy who’s now favored to win the House seat is even more extreme than the guy he beat.

And that, I submit, is really and truly saying something.

Cantor loss deals blow to campaign reform

The thought occurred to me this morning after I awoke from a good night’s sleep.

U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning loss Tuesday to tea party candidate Dave Brat in the Virginia Republican Party primary Tuesday might have dealt a serious blow to the cause of campaign finance reform.

Why? Cantor outspent his Brat by something like 25 to 1 in a losing bid to keep his congressional seat.

Cantor was the well-funded superstar within the Republican Party. He had it all: looks, brains, the “right” ideology,” a gift of gab, ambition. You name it, he had it.

He also had money. Lots of it, which he spent lavishly to hold on to his House seat.

None of it worked. Brat is a college professor who’s never run for public office at any level.

Yet he beat Cantor by 11 percentage points in a shamefully low voter-turnout primary.

What happens, then, to effort to limit campaign spending? The argument always has been that money buys votes, that it buys people’s loyalty, and that it gives deep-pocketed donors more influence than Mr. and Mrs. Average Joe in setting public policy.

Dave Brat’s stunner in Virginia has just blown the daylights out of those arguments.

Let that discussion get fired up all over again.

Gun violence erupts yet again

The nation mourns another tragic loss of life because of gun violence.

This incident hits me hard. I grieve for the family and friends of Emilio Hoffman, the freshman student at Reynolds High School in suburban Portland, Ore.

As of this moment, I am grieving for the community that I know quite well.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/emilio-hoffman-14-identified-victim-oregon-school-shooting-n127861

I grew up just a few miles west of where the shooting occurred. I attended Parkrose High School, which essentially is the next school district over from the Reynolds district. This one scares the daylights out of me.

Enough of that, however.

The more important issue is going to center on the gun culture and whether that culture is overwhelming the majority opinion of Americans who insist that government do more to require stricter background checks on those who seek to possess guns.

That gun culture also is arguing that the way to curb gun violence is to put more guns in the hands of, say, public school educators. National Rifle Association honcho Wayne LaPierre said (in)famously that the best defense against “bad guys with guns is to put more guns in the hands of good guys.”

Emilio is dead, as is the shooter, who hasn’t yet been identified.

The gun culture is going to dig in, of course, against those who want stricter controls. Those who adhere to that culture will assert that current laws are strict enough, that the Constitution forbids any control over firearm possession and that the best way to fight this epidemic of school shootings is to put more guns in the hands of “good guys.”

The latest shooting suggests that laws aren’t strict enough. I suggest also that the Constitution does allow for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

To the argument that we put more guns out there in good guys’ hands? No … thank … you.

First things first. Let’s learn about this latest bad guy and how — in all that is holy — he was able to get his hands on a deadly weapon.

Tea party fights back, ousts (gulp!) Rep. Cantor

My bad.

I’ve been among those who’ve talked openly about the seeming demise of the tea party wing of the Republican Party everywhere but in Texas.

Oops. Something really, really weird has happened back in Ol’ Virginny. U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Reps and someone who knows the tea party playbook by heart, has been beaten for re-election by a first-time candidate for any public office.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/eric-cantor-primary-election-results-virginia-107683.html?hp=t1

Dave Brat is now the Republican nominee for Congress from the Richmond, Va., area.

Cantor was thought to be the next speaker of the House once John Boehner decided he’d had enough fun in Congress. Cantor also was known to be a staunch conservative lawmaker.

No one saw this coming. No one predicted Cantor would lose. No one even predicted even a close race. It turns out it wasn’t that close after all; the challenger won with a comfortable margin, for crying out loud.

I’m going to take some time now to catch my breath and try to understand what this means to the congressional political balance of power.

If I were Speaker Boehner, I just might start thinking even more seriously about quitting. He’s griped already about how the tea party wing of his GOP House caucus is making his life so miserable. Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s going to get really nasty.

New poll: O.J. did it

Time has a way of healing wounds, they say. It also has a way of changing hearts and minds, apparently.

A new CNN poll says that most African-Americans now believe O.J. Simpson killed his former wife and her friend in that gruesome knife attack 20 years ago.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/09/majority-of-african-americans-now-say-simpson-was-guilty/?hpt=hp_t2

The poll was done by CNN/ORC International, a reputable polling outfit.

So, why the change in heart?

A couple of things come to mind.

* A new generation of Americans has come along since the so-called “trial of the century” acquitted Simpson after an eight-month circus act in that Los Angeles Superior courtroom. You’ll recall the video recorded reaction to the acquittal, which a jury reached after just four hours of deliberation.

White Americans were crushed; African-Americans were jubilant. Many white Americans sobbed; African-Americans cheered, laughed, high-fived and embraced.

The state of race relations wasn’t good in southern California at the time, you’ll also remember. A black man, Rodney King, was beaten senseless by some white police officers, who then were acquitted of wrong-doing in that beat down. The verdict enraged African-Americans, who then rioted.

Three years later came the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

O.J. went on trial and the rest is history, correct?

That brings me to the second reason for the change in attitudes.

* Despite the jubilation felt in the African-American community over Simpson’s acquittal, it became immediately clear that Simpson was not going to give back any of the love and affection he felt from his fellow African-Americans. He sought to return immediately to the life he enjoyed prior to the murder. Did he avail himself to troubled black youth, or did he work as a violence counselor with minorities? No. Was he a high-profile presence at, say United Negro College Fund events or at NAACP gatherings? Nope.

He played golf at exclusive courses and sought to ingratiate himself with gambling interests.

How do you think that looked to those who cheered his acquittal? I’m betting it didn’t look good at all.

He ended up getting sued in civil court by the Goldman family, who won a multimillion-dollar settlement after a jury determined Simpson was responsible for the deaths of Nicole and Goldman. And after that? He was arrested for assault in a case involving the recovery of some keepsake items. Another jury convicted him of that crime and sent him to prison, where he remains to this day.

And remember when Simpson said he would move heaven and Earth to find the “real killers”? He had the chance before getting tossed into the slammer. I’d bet real money he didn’t lift a finger.

HRC's second-most surprising comment …

Having already declared surprise that the Benghazi flap would encourage Hillary Clinton to run for president, I’ve found perhaps the second-most interesting thing she said in that TV interview that aired Monday night.

It’s what she didn’t say.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/208757-clinton-doesnt-deny-narcissistic-looney-tune-comments

ABC News’s Diane Sawyer asked Clinton about a comment she made about Monica Lewinsky — you remember, yes? — in which she was quoted as calling “that woman” a “narcissistic loony tune.” Clinton’s response? “I am not going to comment on what I said or didn’t say in the late 1990s,” she said.

There it is. She said it.

Frankly, I have to agree with that description … not that it excuses her husband’s behavior, and that’s all I’ll say about that.

Sawyer then noted that Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has said that the Lewinsky scandal that resulted in the impeachment of President Clinton is fair game if Hillary Clinton runs for president in two years.

“You know, he can talk about what he wants to talk about. And if he decides to run, he’ll be fair game too for everybody,” she said. I’m reminded a bit of what the late U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Lufkin, once said about an opponent who kept bringing up negative aspects of Wilson’s admittedly flamboyant lifestyle. “I have never initiated a negative campaign,” Wilson told me, “but if my opponent keeps saying those things, I’ll be prepared to respond.” Brother, did he ever.

Message to Sen. Paul? Be very careful if you intend to go there.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience