Monthly Archives: August 2014

Uncategorized

Partisan divide develops in Perry case

It took barely an instant for the partisan divide to present itself in the indictment of Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

A Travis County grand jury has indicted Perry on two felony counts involving abuse of power regarding the drunk-driving arrest of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. As Ross Ramsey of the Texas Tribune reports, the politics of this matter plays more heavily perhaps than the actual alleged crime.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/15/analysis-its-not-crime-its-politics/

What’s fascinating to me, though, is how Perry supporters are linking what Perry is accused of doing to what Lehmberg actually did, and served time for doing it.

Perry is accused of coercing Lehmberg to quit after her DWI conviction. He threatened publicly to veto an appropriation for the public integrity unit she runs out of her office in Austin. He blustered and sought to bully the DA, which Ramsey notes is likely what got him into trouble with the grand jury.

Lehmberg did her time, 45 days in jail. She didn’t quit, although she should have left office. By my way of thinking, a prosecutor who sends drunk drivers to jail loses his or her moral authority when he or she is convicted of the very same crime. Lehmberg, though, isn’t running for re-election, so she’ll be gone too.

The two incidents, though, are not related. One relates to bad behavior off the clock; the other involves alleged criminal behavior in the performance of his public duties.

Will this indictment have an impact on Perry’s reported interest in running for president in 2016? Yeah, it will. No doubt about it. Take a gander at Ramsey’s analysis. My hunch is that Perry’s going to give serious thought to ending his political career when he leaves office at the end of the year.

Meanwhile, let’s not confuse the issue by suggesting that the DA’s decision to stay on the job has anything to do with what Perry is accused of doing.

Uncategorized

Who's in charge at AMA?

A brief follow up is in order for a blog I posted about the deplorable condition of the grounds surrounding Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport.

I wrote that weeds are taking over the place. The parking lot, and the grounds next to the parking garage, look terrible. Seedy. Unkempt.

AMA going to seed

Then I heard from a member of the Amarillo City Council who told me that the city might not be responsible for the appearance of the place. The Texas Department of Transportation might be the offending public agency, I was told.

The council member reportedly spoke with City Manager Jarrett Atkinson about it. Atkinson said he would research the matter.

Here’s my take. City Hall, take care of the place.

Passengers who are flying in and out of AMA believe they are using a municipally-owned airport. That should include the grounds on which the airport sits. Someone walking from a jetliner into AMA understands implicitly they are entering the city of Amarillo. Thus, the city has its face on the air terminal.

Crappy-looking grounds is a blight on the city, not the state transportation agency.

Therefore, the city needs to step up, get rid of the weeds, manicure the place, and make our international airport look presentable.

Uncategorized

Oops … Gov. Perry indicted on coercion charges

A Texas grand jury has issued a two-count indictment that goes far beyond any definition of a run-of-the-mill accusation.

The Travis County panel today indicted Gov. Rick Perry on two counts of abuse of power relating to his threat to withhold money from a district attorney’s office if the DA didn’t resign.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/08/15/grand-jury-indicts-perry-abuse-authority/

One charge is of “abuse of official capacity,” the other is “coercion of a public servant.” The former is a Class A felony, the latter a Class C.

OK, I get that Perry is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Thus, he need not quit an office he is leaving voluntarily at the end of the year.

This, however, is a big political deal apart from the criminal justice aspect.

Perry got himself involved in the Travis County DA’s affairs after DA Rosemary Lehmberg was convicted of drunken driving. Perry threatened to veto money appropriated by the Legislature for Lehmberg’s office. Lehmberg also runs the state’s public integrity unit. Lehmberg is a Democrat; Perry is a Republican.

Perry wanted her moved out. Did he abuse his power to seek her ouster? The grand jury has issued an accusation, which I’m going to presume means the panel believes it has enough evidence to support an indictment.

Well, what does this mean for Perry’s believed desire to run for president in 2016? For my money, it delivers a near-mortal wound to whatever ambition he has for higher office. Whether this case gets adjudicated in time for the presidential campaign or not, the indictment becomes fodder that every Perry foe in both political parties will use to beat him senseless.

One final thought …

Let’s not accuse the grand jury of acting on political motives. The prosecutor in this case was a special counsel brought in to avoid any potential conflict of interest.

The political damage is evident. My hunch is that Gov. Perry also has a serious legal fight on his hands.

Uncategorized

Ferguson becomes face of brutality

A small Missouri town, Ferguson, has become a metaphor for harsh police action.

A young man is dead. He was shot to death by a police officer as he was walking down the middle of the street.

And oh yes. There’s a racial component here. The young man, Michael Brown, was African-American; the police officer is white.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/15/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

We heard reports of Michael, who was unarmed, robbing a store. Turned out the report was false. But even if it was true, is shoplifting a crime that merits a death sentence? The answer is obviously a resounding “no!”

The Ferguson police department has been inept in its response to the protests that erupted. The cops responded with a military-style show of force. Fortunately, the local police have given way to a Missouri state police captain, Ron Johnson, who’s become the face of the law enforcement response.

Yet another national discussion about police response to a young African-American man has erupted. It should go on, reasonably and with intelligence.

I’m a little late getting into this discussion. A lot has happened in Ferguson. Emotions are as raw there as they were in Sanford, Fla., when Trayvon Martin was shot to death by George Zimmerman.

What did Brown do to provoke the officer to shoot him? Did the officer think the teenager was armed, even though he was shot when his hands were in the air? Will the officer face criminal charges?

Race relations always remain in a tenuous state in the United States. They’re good, then they turn bad. Cooler heads prevail. Then another incident explodes. Here we go again.

The incident involving a single small-town police officer should not reflect the nation’s outlook. Let’s hope, at least, that it stands on its own.

Meantime, let’s get to the facts.

Uncategorized

Gregory out, Todd in at 'MTP'

Tim Russert didn’t do his successors at “Meet the Press” any favors.

The late host of the iconic news-talk show set a seemingly impossible standard, or so it seems. How, you ask? Only by being a student of politics, knowledgeable about his guests, intensely interested in what they had to say and having an ability to let their own words be (a) their nemesis or (b) their friend.

Russert died suddenly in 2008 at age 58. David Gregory was named to replace him at NBC’s premier Sunday talk show.

Gregory didn’t make the grade. It took some time for the network to realize the problem it had on its hands.

Now it has made a change.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/14/media/meet-press-david-gregory-chuck-todd/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Chuck Todd is the new host of “Meet the Press.” Gregory is leaving NBC after 20 years. He’s receiving the obligatory good wishes from his colleagues at NBC and other networks.

For news junkies such as yours truly, I hope this latest change works for NBC.

Gregory eventually “led” “Meet the Press” from its customary No. 1 ranking to No. 3 among the broadcast networks’ Sunday news-talk ratings pile.

It really doesn’t matter to which talk show is on top. I just want “Meet the Press” to regain the stature it once enjoyed.

I don’t know much about Todd, other than I do enjoy his presence on TV. He’s generally reasonable, balanced, fair and inquisitive — all the things you want to see in a broadcast journalist.

And if it’s true that Todd is more of a student of politics and policy than Gregory, then the network — and viewers like you and me — will be served better.

Uncategorized

Fox rolls out another blowhard

Keith Ablow isn’t looking at the same person many of the rest of us are seeing.

Ablow is a Fox News Channel commentator. He’s a shrink who has declared that first lady Michelle Obama needs to “drop a few” pounds if she is going to be a credible spokeswoman for healthy eating.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/fox-keith-ablow-michelle-obama-109985.html?hp=l20

OK. Let’s see here. The woman I have watched functioning as first lady of the United States looks pretty damn fit. She’s also, shall we say, easy on the eyes.

Michelle Obama also is an accomplished lawyer and an individual who speaks fervently and eloquently on behalf of her husband … which, of course, shouldn’t surprise anyone.

Ablow popped off on a Fox talk show and was taken to task immediately by some of his cohorts on the program. He didn’t back down. He’s standing by his comment that the first lady isn’t fit — pun intended — to lead the discussion on childhood nutrition.

Well, it’s no use trying to pick apart the comments of someone who — I’m supposing — doesn’t support much of anything that comes out of the Obama White House, given that he’s a Fox News Channel talking head/gasbag.

He’s taking on the first lady, whose message — which has been to encourage healthier food choices in public schools — has been resonating with most Americans already and according to medical studies has produced tangible results by reducing childhood obesity.

Keep up the good work, Mrs. Obama. Never mind the musings of a goofy psychiatrist.

Uncategorized

Dowd obsession nothing new

Maureen Dowd apparently has it in for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The New York Times columnist been pounded by critics over her blog post in which she used a tribute to the late comic genius Robin Williams as a jumping-off point to blast the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/08/13/maureen-dowd-reaches-self-parody-links-robin-wi/200415

I guess that’s what happens when zealots latch onto an issue, or a personality, and cannot let either of them go.

To be blunt, I’ve seen my share of them during my own career in print journalism. One of them stands out.

He lives in Amarillo. His name is David Grisham, who purports to be a preacher. I guess he is, given that anyone can preach his or her version of the Bible to anyone willing to listen.

Grisham also is an avid anti-abortionist. And I do mean avid. Maybe fervent is a better word.

He’s submit letters to the editor on this subject or that, but somehow would find a way to insert his view of abortion into the discussion.

I can’t recall precisely how he did it, but he might be prone to use such references while discussing, let’s say, downtown Amarillo redevelopment. He might say something like this: “I oppose downtown Amarillo’s planned redevelopment because I don’t want to see my tax money paying for an abortion clinic that could be built within the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone.”

Dowd’s connection between Hillary Clinton and Robin Williams does seem like a stretch. These things do present themselves, sadly, when one cannot hide his or her zeal.

Uncategorized

Cadillac Ranch popularity is evident

Having just returned from visiting Cadillac Ranch, a curious thought popped into my skull.

I took my great-niece who’s here for a visit to the late Stanley Marsh 3’s iconic roadside attraction. That’s when it hit me: Interstate 40 has zero signs in either direction telling motorists that the Ranch is just ahead.

Why not?

While we were at Cadillac Ranch — the internationally known art exhibit featuring 10 vintage Cadillacs planted nose-down in the High Plains dirt — we noticed cars from Alabama, New Jersey, California and an unknown location, as it was too far away for me to read.

We walked among the Cadillacs for a few moments, snapped a few pictures, turned to walk back to our vehicle and noticed an even larger gathering of vehicles. Visitors were streaming through the rickety gate. I heard a couple of foreign languages spoken; the visitors speaking the languages likely are European.

Cadillac Ranch is one of the more unique attractions in the U.S. of A. It’s even identified in red letters on the official Texas state highway map, the one with a picture of the governor and the state’s first lady on it.

The state, though, doesn’t put any signage on I-40 to let motorists know they’re approaching the Cadillacs. I didn’t think to ask the motorists if they saw the cars in the field and turned their vehicles around to take a closer look or if they knew the Cadillacs were there all along and made a planned stop alongside the freeway.

I’m wondering about whether the state should give motorists a heads-up on Cadillac Ranch or whether the site’s popularity and notoriety is so evident that signage is unnecessary. Suppose the state did publicize the Ranch. What would SM3 think of the state, Potter County or Amarillo reaping some financial windfall?

Anyone have thoughts on that?

Uncategorized

Should Obama counter-sue Congress?

This isn’t going to happen, but a political author thinks President Obama should sue Congress, given that Congress has sued him.

Thomas Geoghegan’s reason? Gerrymandering.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/08/obama-should-sue-right-back-109990.html?ml=m_t1_2h#.U-ybRVJ0yt-

What a concept.

House Speaker John Boehner has been given authority to sue Obama over the president’s use of executive authority as it relates to the Affordable Care Act. The president has chided Boehner over his threatened lawsuit. Some polling indicates the public is on Obama’s side, that the GOP is engaging in a purely partisan exercise to fire up its base in advance of the mid-term election.

Geoghegan thinks Obama should take it a step further. The gerrymandering of House congressional districts to favor Republicans has disenfranchised voters who cannot elect candidates of their choosing. The deck is stacked in favor of the GOP, thanks to legislatures’ redrawing of the lines to give Republicans a built-in advantage.

He writes: “In Ohio, for example, about half the votes in the House races of 2012 went to Democrats, but the GOP took 12 of the 16 seats. In Pennsylvania, it was more than half, but the GOP grabbed 13 of the 18 House seats.”

There’s more: “Does Obama have such a right to sue? You bet he does. The United States has standing to sue any state that interferes with any attribute of its sovereignty. And when state legislatures try to interfere with the right of the people under Article I of the Constitution to elect House members of their own choosing, they are interfering with such an attribute of U.S. sovereignty—indeed, disrupting a relationship that runs from the people to their national government. So, yes: If Obama chose to fire back, the administration would have standing to say: ‘State legislatures that engage in gerrymandering are interfering with a constitutional scheme that gives the states no role at all in influencing who does or does not go to the U.S. House.’”

Interesting, don’t you think? I do.

Will the president do it? I doubt it. He’s probably wise to let Boehner and the House Republican majority stew in their own juices, while continuing to chide them at campaign fundraisers across the country.

Besides, if he’s going to join the chorus that gripes about Boehner’s “frivolous” lawsuit, it hardly seems right to engage in yet another exercise in frivolity.

Uncategorized

On second thought …

Second thoughts usually are more reasonable and rational than first thoughts.

With that, I am having second thoughts about something that burst forth from my keyboard the other day about John Hinckley, the assailant who nearly killed President Reagan and gravely wounded White House press secretary James Brady.

I suggested it might be worthwhile to try Hinckley for murder, given that Brady died this past week from complications related to the brain injury he suffered when Hinckley shot at the presidential party in March 1981.

The earlier post is attached here:

R.I.P., James Brady

Medical authorities have ruled Brady’s death a homicide. Hinckley was acquitted of the attempted assassination by reason of insanity.

Thus, the question: Should we try Hinckley for a crime after he’s been judged to have been insane when he committed it?

A Washington, D.C. jury rendered that verdict after the assassination attempt. I’m wondering now how another jury could rule differently were he charged and tried for murder in connection with James Brady’s death.

It’s tempting, I suppose, to try Hinckley for murder. Given that he’s been acquitted already for the very same act, it’s reasonable to ask: To what end?