Uncategorized

Wendy Davis struggles to reclaim authenticity

Authenticity.

Politicians of both major stripes, Democrat and Republican, rely on it to sell themselves to voters who have grown weary of shills and slick presentations. Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis, a candidate for Texas governor, had portrayed her own brand of authenticity as a divorced single mom.

Oops. Turns out she wasn’t quite as authentic as she has let on.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/20/report-wendy-davis-life-story-more-complicated-than-compelling-narrative/?hpt=hp_t3

She’s left out some details of her marriage and her divorce. She said was divorced at 19, when she really was 21 when her marriage officially ended. She also hasn’t told Texans that her former husband had custody of her children for a time.

Details to follow? They should.

Texas Democrats have been all a-flutter over Davis’s gubernatorial candidacy, believing she presents the Democratic Party with its first honest shot at winning back the governor’s office that’s been in Republican hands since George W. Bush beat Ann Richards in 1994.

Will she make good on her pledge to talk with more precision about her life? She needs to get in front of this story, although it’s looking like the story itself may lap her quickly.

Davis has built a successful law career while struggling with some domestic issues. She also has become a political superstar while telling that story. Now we hear she’s only told part of it. Voters will demand to know all the nitty-gritty of that life story, which they figure is their business, given that Davis wants to become governor of a large and prosperous state.

Sen. Davis needs to set the record completely straight. Election Day, Nov. 4, will be here before she knows it.

Uncategorized

Political foes can become friends

These kinds of stories give me hope that all may not be lost in U.S. politics.

Former first lady Barbara Bush says she “loves Bill Clinton.” She might not agree with him politically, but she is truly fond of the 42nd president of the United States, who in 1992 defeated the 41st president — Barbara’s husband, George.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/195946-barbara-bush-i-love-bill-clinton

Democrat President Harry Truman detested his successor, Republican Dwight Eisenhower. They reportedly grew closer as the nation mourned the assassination of Ike’s successor, John F. Kennedy.

GOP President Gerald Ford and Democrat Jimmy Carter waged a fierce campaign in 1976. Carter won, but the new president and his immediate predecessor forged a warm friendship that lasted until Ford’s death.

Carter never developed that kind of relationship with Ronald Reagan, who beat him in 1980, nor did Reagan form a bond with Walter Mondale, whom he clobbered four years later in a landslide re-election.

George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton’s friendship seems to be real. Mrs. Bush talks about her husband becoming the father Clinton never had. She says President Clinton visits the Bushes annually. “We don’t talk politics,” Mrs. Bush says.

You hear about these kind of inter-party friendships from time to time. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, had a warm friendship with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. Talk about coming from differing ideologies, parties, lifestyles, cultures … you name it. Yet they were big-time pals.

One of President Barack Obama’s closest friends in the Senate today is Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. You can list all the differences there, too, and wonder how these men — and their wives — have become so close.

Too little of this kind of camaraderie exists today, with partisans on either side viewing the other guy as the enemy, rather than just a political adversary.

Take a lesson, folks? Given the nastiness of the campaign her husband waged against Bill Clinton, there’s reason to believe you can make nice with your foes.

One word of advice, however: Don’t ask the 41st president his feelings about H. Ross Perot, the third man in that 1992 campaign. His feelings for the Texas billionaire aren’t nearly so magnanimous.

Uncategorized

Palin cheapens MLK memory with blast at Obama

It strikes me that some commemorations deserve dignity and decorum.

Honoring the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. ought to be one of those occasions … isn’t that right former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin?

The former half-term governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, took a swipe today at President Obama ostensibly while honoring the memory of the slain civil-rights icon.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/20/palin-slams-obama-in-mlk-post/?hpt=hp_t2

“Mr. President, in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. and all who commit to ending any racial divide, no more playing the race card,” she said in a Facebook post.

She didn’t offer a specific example of how the president was “playing the race card.” Some have suggested that Obama’s remarks in a New Yorker magazine interview provided the grist for Palin’s attack.

Obama told The New Yorker that some Americans just don’t like him merely because he’s black. Umm, I think he’s correct on that one. Denying as much is to ignore the reality that race still does matter in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans.

My larger point, though, is that Dr. King’s memory deserves to be honored only on its merits — and not used as a cheap political weapon by someone who doesn’t deserve the national political attention she continues to get.

Uncategorized

What if feds had done nothing in ’09?

Many of my friends on the right — and the far right — have taken great pains to blast the smithereens out of President Obama’s economic policies.

Namely, their target has been the increase in the national debt, which now stands at $17 trillion. What has run up the debt? It’s been that federal stimulus package the Obama administration pushed forward while the nation’s economy was in free fall.

You remember those days, right? The economy was shedding 700,000 jobs a month; banks were failing; the real estate market was collapsing; the stock market was flushing itself down the toilet.

Barack Obama’s response was a costly one. The Federal Reserve Board reduced interest rates to near zero, making it easier for borrowers to pay back loans, while making it tough on lenders who are in the business of making money on what they loan.

My pals on the right and their Republican pals in Congress keep harping on the difficulties the Obama administration has endured trying to restore the economy.

I keep circling back to this question, which Sen. John McCain in 2008 and former Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012 both ignored as they ran for president against Barack Obama: What would have happened had the feds done nothing, had the government not instituted its stimulus package to shore up an economy that was on the verge of collapse?

I’ll add this follow-up: Why do they dismiss the clear evidence that the economy is in recovery at this moment? Is it back completely? Probably not.

* The job losses have stopped and have been replaced by job gains. Yes, the December job growth was disappointing. But we’ve gained back all the jobs lost during the final years of the Bush administration and the first year of the Obama administration.

* The annual budget deficit, which once topped $1.1 trillion has been cut in half — and is declining. Will we balance the budget by the time Obama leaves office? Probably not but it’s trending in the right direction.

* The jobless rate is at 6.7 percent, down from nearly 10 percent. Has it declined because every unemployed American has found work? No. Many of them have quit looking for jobs but the signs are indicating that opportunities are opening up on the job market.

* The stock market is setting records, which ought to please Wall Street investors — not to mention those of us with retirement accounts that depend on a healthy market.

I’m not naĂŻve. I know there are myriad problems out there. The world is a restive place. Conflicts are erupting all over the planet. The United States is involved actively in a war that it is trying to wind down; we’ve already ended our involvement in another war. We’re killing terrorists almost daily, but the dead ones are being replaced almost immediately by recruits dedicated to waging war against the Great Satan. This war on terror won’t end anytime soon, folks.

Economically, though, I am feeling better about my future than I was, oh, about six years ago.

What’s more, I hate to think how I’d view our future if the government had kept its hands off the economic rudder.

Uncategorized

Memo to Cuomo: Diversity is a good thing

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., needs a serious intervention, a lesson on why the United States of America exists in the first place.

It exists because some folks splashed ashore in the 17th century looking for freedom of expression, religion and assembly. They sought to build a nation where all opinions, philosophies and principles are welcome.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/109373-governor-cuomo-listen-right-lifers-gun-nuts-place-state-new-york/

The New York governor had the cajones to say that “extreme conservatives” have no place in New York.

Here is part of what he said Friday in Albany, N.Y.:

“you have a schism within the Republican Party. … They’re searching to define their soul, that’s what’s going on. … The gridlock in Washington is less about Democrats and Republicans. It’s more about extreme Republicans versus moderate Republicans.

“You’re seeing that play out in New York. … Their problem is not me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves. Who are they? Are they these extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay? Is that who they are?

“Because if that’s who they are and they’re the extreme conservatives, they have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

He clearly disagrees with extreme conservatives. Well, so do I. That doesn’t mean they have no place, nor that they do not have just as much right as anyone else to have their voices heard. I’ve always believed it is better to have your adversaries out there in plain sight where you can keep your eye on them. I reckon some of my friends on the far right say the same thing about, oh … me.

Last time I looked, I thought this country represented something called the “marketplace of ideas.” Isn’t that a place where everyone presents their views, tests them before the public and then lets the public decide whether their ideas are worth anyone’s time and attention?

Gov. Cuomo needs to get a grip here. Take a breath and remember that he represents everyone in his state, not just those who voted for him. Indeed, officeholders on both extremes need to understand that concept as well.

Uncategorized

Super Bowl played in the cold, snow, rain … whatever

Two weeks from today two professional football teams are going to play the Super Bowl in an outdoor stadium.

No big deal, right? Yes, except that this particular stadium is in New Jersey, where it gets pretty cold in the winter. Make that very cold.

I should add that the place is known to get a good bit of snow, rain, hail, sleet, slush, high wind … am I missing anything?

I don’t worry about the teams and the athletes. The football players get paid a lot of money to play a game that occasionally gets played outdoors in the snow, such as in Green Bay, Cincy, Cleveland, Denver, Chicago, Buffalo, Foxboro and, oh yeah, New Jersey. It gets nasty as well in Seattle, but the culprit there usually is rain and wind.

OK, I so worry little about the athletes.

What’s going to happen, though, to the halftime show that has become as big an attraction to some as the game itself? Bruno Mars and the Red Hot Chili Peppers are slated to headline the halftime extravaganza. I’m not much of a fan of either of those acts, but if the snow/sleet/wind disrupt the game, doesn’t it stand to reason that the halftime show is going to suffer as well?

http://fansided.com/2014/01/11/super-bowl-halftime-show-2014-red-hot-chili-peppers-confirmed/

What would they do if they can’t perform?

Woe it will be to the Super Bowl and to the brain trust that decided to stage the Biggest Game of the Year outdoors in the Snow Belt.

Let’s all pray for good weather, OK?

Uncategorized

Obama has learned: You need to keep tabs on folks

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said it well this morning on “Meet the Press” while commenting on President Obama’s National Security Agency reforms.

He said Obama ran for president as someone “inclined to support civil liberties,” but has learned that “after five years” he has to depend on surveillance techniques to keep Americans safe.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/19/22358363-congressional-intelligence-chairmen-applaud-obama-for-backing-surveillance?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

The chairs of the Senate and House intelligence committees understand that as well in backing Obama’s reforms while acknowledging the president has developed a keen appreciation for spying on potential bad guys.

This came from the Republican House chairman, Mike Rogers: “The most important victory was the president standing up and saying, ‘Hey, the program did not have abuses. This wasn’t sinister. It wasn’t a rogue agency. It was legal and proper.’”

And this came from the Democratic Senate chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein: “A lot of the privacy people perhaps don’t understand that we still occupy the role of the Great Satan. New bombs are being devised. New terrorists are emerging, new groups, actually, a new level of viciousness. We need to be prepared. I think we need to do it in a way that respects people’s privacy rights.”

The president has recommended putting NSA efforts to listen to phone conversations under more intensive judicial review.

I’ve noted already that NSA activities don’t get me too worked up. I’ve got not a single thing to hide from those guys. Besides, Obama has said the NSA is listening only to those who it believes are up to no good.

That works for me.

As the former speaker — no shrinking violet when it comes to criticizing the president — has said, Barack Obama has learned to appreciate the need to keep eyes and ears on those who would do us harm.

Uncategorized

Elect a ‘prosecutor’ for Texas AG?

“I have sued Obama 7X and am the only candidate 4 attorney general who’s a proven prosecutor! Help me secure our Texas border.”

That is a tweet from Barry Smitherman, one of the Republican candidates for Texas attorney general who’s seeking to succeed Greg Abbott, the presumptive GOP favorite for the party’s gubernatorial nomination.

I have been awaiting this kind of chest-thumping, which if you consider the nature of the office, is quite irrelevant.

Smitherman is a smart guy who happens to serve on the Texas Railroad Commission, the agency that regulates the state’s oil-and-natural-gas industry. He also appears to be running for attorney general in the Jim Mattox mold of Texas grandstander.

The attorney general essentially is the state’s top lawyer, representing the state’s interest in litigation. Say, the state is taken to court. The AG’s office represents the state in the courtroom. The state does not “prosecute” bad guys. That task is left to district attorneys who are elected by county voters.

Why the Mattox comparison? Well, Mattox was the former Democratic attorney general who traipsed around a crime scene in Mexico vowing to capture and prosecute the individuals responsible for murdering a University of Texas student in the late 1980s.

Mattox had no business making the that pledge, just as Smitherman’s prosecutorial experience really doesn’t matter in the race for attorney general.

Uncategorized

Imagine this cynical ploy in Austin …

Recently, a friend of mine and I had this brief discussion about traffic problems in Austin.

They’re becoming legendary and infamous. I mentioned to my friend — who, because of his standing as a public official of significant standing in Amarillo and because he doesn’t know I am using what he said as grist for this blog post, I won’t name him here — that I heard a recent NPR report about traffic woes in the state’s capital city. My pal, who was talking to me just as an Austin native and a University of Texas graduate, agreed that traffic there needs fixing.

NPR’s report noted that Austin’s population is booming and figures to continue booming for the foreseeable future and perhaps beyond.

We talked about driving on that nearby race track, aka Texas Highway 130, where the speed limit is 85 mph. We talked about the city’s zero mass transit planning. We talked about how long it takes to get anywhere in Austin. We mentioned the Interstate 35 gridlock that occurs seemingly at all hours of the 24-hour day.

Then he offered this view, which he admits isn’t his own, but is what he’s heard on the street when he’s gone back to Austin to visit family and friends: It is that some folks there believe the city fathers/mothers are deliberately avoiding any remedy to the traffic woes because they want Austin to become such a miserable place that no one else will move there and that some of the residents already there will want to move out.

My first reaction was that such a view is the height — or depth — of cynicism. What an amazingly cynical view for city planners to deliberately avoid doing something just to make life so miserable in a growing city. It’s even more cynical, I believe, for others to believe that the city would consider such a strategy.

My take-away from that discussion, though, is that conspiracy theories can thrive in any scenario imaginable. If that’s the case in Austin, then the city has a potentially serious public-relations nightmare on its hands.

Uncategorized

Evolution, creationism aren’t mutually exclusive

Bill Moyers is one of the smarter people on the planet.

He’s also one of the more spiritual folks around, given that he once was ordained as a Baptist minister back in his native East Texas.

The link attached here talks about the “partisan divide” over whether life on Earth evolved over billions of years or was created by God in six days. The blog is written by a staffer on his “Moyers and Company” PBS show. Even though Moyers himself didn’t write it, he likely endorses its content.

The Growing Partisan Divide on Evolution

I’ll posit this notion: The polling examined in this link is meaningless.

I’ve never for a moment believed that creationism and evolution were mutually exclusive theories. In my own heart and soul I believe they are the same.

I’ve read the Bible my entire life — or at least that portion of it in which I’ve been able to read. I know what it says in Genesis about how God created the world. However, I’ve always had difficulty believing He completed the task in six calendar days, you know, the way we measure time today.

I have long believed that the creation as told in the Bible is a metaphor for what actually occurred over a much, much, much longer period of time.

I’ll concede there’s no mention of T-Rex in the Bible or other such creatures. I cannot ignore, however, the mountains of scientific evidence of T-Rex’s existence at one time. Did God put those creatures on Earth? Sure he did. He’s God and is capable of doing anything — any … thing … at … all!

Gallup notes that Republicans believe more in the biblical story of creation more than Democrats. This is just me here spouting off, but that doesn’t make Republicans more God-fearing than Democrats.

Nor does the discussion of creationism and evolution mean they couldn’t have occurred at the same time.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience