Do fundraisers count?

This just in: State Sen. Dan Patrick, the Republican candidate for Texas lieutenant governor, attended a fundraiser at the home of state Sen. Kel Seliger, R-Amarillo.

I blogged earlier today wondering whether Seliger would stand with Patrick as he sought to become the next presiding officer of the Texas Senate.

Still waiting for Seliger and Patrick to share a dais

According to someone who was there, Seliger did in fact play host to a fundraiser for Patrick.

I’ve noted a time or two that Seliger and Patrick aren’t exactly close. I’ll stand by that assessment. I’ll also stand by my view that Seliger is a loyal enough Republican to want to see a fellow GOP official win his election against a Democrat.

I’m still not clear as to whether this fundraiser was common public knowledge. Many times politicians “sneak” into communities under the media radar to attend these fundraisers. The events are known to (a) the candidate (b) the host, obviously and (c) potential deep-pocketed donors who want to see the candidate elected.

They have dinner, a few cocktails, the candidate makes his pitch off the record to the donors who either write a check on the spot or pledge to do so later.

That’s my understanding.

The question, though, remains: Are we going to see these two loyal Republicans arm-in-arm in public?

Independent probe needed in Rice case

The case of Ray Rice is getting serious.

The former Baltimore Ravens running back who hit his fiancée — who’s now his wife — is out of a job after knocking his wife unconscious in a New Jersey casino elevator.

http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/investigation-has-bought-nfl-roger-goodell-time-he-needs-ray-rice-091114

But it’s getting complicated now.

National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell said he didn’t see the video of Rice smashing his wife in the face until just the other day. The Associated Press reports that the league office got the video in April, two months after the incident.

The question: Did the commissioner cover up what he knew and when he knew it?

That’s where former FBI director Robert Mueller comes in. He’s going to conduct (presumably) a thorough, independent investigation of what happened. He’ll report back to the NFL and to the public.

At issue is whether the NFL sought to whitewash this case to protect its image. If it turns out Goodell knew far earlier than what he’s acknowledged, he ought to be fired summarily.

The bigger issue, of course, is how the organization is going to handle domestic violence cases involving its employees in the future. Rice initially got a two-game “suspension.” Then the video showing him punching his wife came out. The league suspended Rice indefinitely and the Ravens fired him from the team.

Robert Mueller needs to get to the bottom of this case and he needs to follow every lead he gets to get to the truth — and to who knew what and when they knew it.

Still waiting for Seliger and Patrick to share a dais

The November election is now just a few weeks away.

It’s more or less a given that Republican Greg Abbott will be elected governor over Democrat Wendy Davis.

It’s less of a given — but still somewhat likely — that Republican Dan Patrick defeat Democrat Leticia Van de Putte in the race for lieutenant governor.

The lieutenant governor’s race arguably is more important, given that the lieutenant governor presides over the Texas Senate and controls legislative flow from the upper chamber. So I’m watching this one with a keen sense of anticipation.

That said, I’m still waiting for an announcement that Patrick is coming to the Texas Panhandle to look for votes. It’s not that he needs the Panhandle, the most reliably Republican region in a most reliably Republican state.

My taste for political drama also is wondering whether state Sen. Kel Seliger will join Patrick on a dais at, say, the Tri-State Fair. Seliger is an Amarillo Republican who serves with Patrick in the Senate, as he does with Van de Putte.

Here’s what I know about Seliger’s relationship with Patrick: It’s not good. Patrick is being counseled heavily by Michael Quinn Sullivan, who Seliger more or less detests. He’s said so openly. His very own primary challenger, Mike Canon of Midland, is a Sullivan disciple who touted the tea party rhetoric that has become so popular among Texas Republicans. Seliger would have none of it.

Seliger is enough of a loyal Republican that he wouldn’t dare endorse Van de Putte openly, in public. There’s no telling how he’s going to vote once he gets the chance to cast his ballot.

He also is enough of a so-called “establishment Republican” to loathe many of the tea party faithful’s unwillingness to work with Democrats. Indeed, Patrick himself has laid down that marker by suggesting that if he’s elected lieutenant governor he’ll steer away from picking Senate Democrats to chair committees, which David Dewhurst has done while he’s been lieutenant governor.

The prospect of a Lt. Gov. Patrick taking office in January is going to make serving in the Senate a lot less fun for Seliger than it has been to date.

And for that reason, I remain fairly certain we aren’t going to see the two men slapping each other on the back when Patrick comes calling on the Panhandle for voters’ support.

Bad guys at the gate? Hardly

The Washington Times, a leading conservative-leaning newspaper, splashed a large headline Wednesday proclaiming that Islamic State terrorists are “planning to infiltrate” our southern border.

There you have it. Panic has set in.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/10/us-confirms-islamic-state-planning-infiltration-bo/

Social media is starting to churn up some dire stories about Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant getting ready to invade the United States. The Washington Times story suggests, if you parse the language with just a bit of care, that ISIL is merely “making plans” to do some bad things to us.

Does that mean ISIL is at the gate? Does it mean an attack is imminent? Does it mean ISIL is all set to start exploding bombs, capturing Americans and doing terrible things to their captives?

It means nothing of the kind.

All the story really means is that ISIL wants to do all those things. Well, duh? Who doesn’t know that already?

We should do well to take a deep breath and place just a bit of trust in the national security professionals’ ability to do the job for which they are highly trained.

I’m less willing at this point to listen to politicians looking to get their names in the news by making dire assertions that to date cannot be proven.

Do we dismiss the suggestions that ISIL is “planning” to attack the United States of America? Of course not.

We shouldn’t interpret such expressions of intent as anything more than that. I’m going to continue to place my trust on the men and women who are trained to keep us safe. I’ll start to worry when they sound the alarm.

'Residual force' in Iraq? No thanks

At the risk of sounding as if I’m blaming George W. Bush for today’s difficulties in Iraq, I want to offer this notion of how we got to this point.

President Bush took us to war in Iraq in March 2003 intending to overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein and install a government friendly to this country. He succeeded in the first part and succeed partly in the second.

What never has been accomplished is ensuring that the new government and its military infrastructure can defend itself against evil forces.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-and-jay-carney-have-a-heated-showdown-on-isis-2014-9

We’re now dealing with a government that is trying to fend off the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Remember that this is the government we wanted in power. President Bush left office in January 2009 and President Barack Obama has taken up the fight.

All this blustering and posturing about who’s responsible for the chaos in Iraq seems to ignore what we did more than a decade ago to bring this about.

Sen. John McCain and former White House spokesman Jay Carney went toe to toe on CNN, arguing over whether Obama’s latest strategy against ISIL is sufficient. McCain keeps arguing about whether the president should have kept a “residual force” in Iraq to prevent ISIL’s surge. Residual force? How many men and women should constitute such a force?

McCain knows full well that American public opinion remains in no mood to keep American forces planted squarely in harm’s way if the Iraqi government is incapable of defending itself, which has been the goal of two U.S. administrations.

Barack Obama has announced his strategy in destroying ISIL. He wants to use air power and wants to enlist regional allies to provide intelligence, technical support and arms to assist “moderate” opposition forces in Iraq and Syria.

This idea of returning to a combat role in Iraq is a non-starter. We are learning the hard way that building a democratic society from scratch is virtually impossible — especially when the people who you intend to run that society have zero knowledge of what democracy looks like.

That’s what we got when we invaded Iraq.

9/11 videos get tougher to watch

There’s a lot of remembering occurring today.

Where were we when we heard the news about the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. 2001? What did we feel? What went through our minds?

I remember where I was and what I was doing. I was at my job, working at the Amarillo Globe-News. A colleague stuck his head in my office and asked, “Did you hear? Someone flew a plane into the World Trade Center?” My response: “What’s the weather like in New York?” “Beautiful,” he said. “What kind of moron would do that?” I asked in disgust.

I turned on the TV and watched the second plane fly into the second WTC tower.

The rest is history.

Today I’ve been watching MSNBC replay the events of that terrible day. I cannot watch any more video of the towers burning. I know what comes next. They crash to the ground. My anger boils up all over again.

On this 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I am filled once again with the dread that filled me that day. It is fear that someone will hit us again. We’ve been saying it ever since the 9/11 attacks: It’s not a matter of “if,” but “when.”

So far so good. We haven’t been hit like that since.

But watching the video of that horrific moment just gets harder with each passing year.

It might be the realization that the terrorists were destined to pull this kind of attack on us all along. Our national security team knew it was possible. The terrorists just have elevated that concern to the top of our national consciousness. It’s still there, which is where it belongs.

And as long as the threat remains at the top of our minds, we’ll remain ever-vigilant.

That’s my hope, at least.

ISIL strategy laid out … more or less

President Obama has laid it out there.

We’re going to bomb the daylights out of ISIL in Iraq and will start doing so in Syria; we’re going to enlist the aid of regional allies, such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia, to join in the fight; we’re going to arm and equip “moderate rebel forces” in Syria fighting against the dictator Bashar al-Assad.

What I didn’t hear tonight from President Obama was how we’re going to know when we’ve defeated the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

http://news.msn.com/us/obama-to-launch-airstrikes-in-syria-for-first-time

Ever since the war on terror began after the 9/11 attacks, the United States never has set a standard for declaring victory. We cannot ever actually win this war. The president tonight noted that it is impossible for the United States to root out every single individual who terrorizes others. Therefore, I believe, the war against terror will continue probably forever, for as long as people coalesce into groups with the intention of committing terrorist acts.

I heard a commander in chief dedicated to keeping us safe from evil. I saw in his face precisely the same level of determination I’ve seen, say, in President George W. Bush when he announced his intention to go after the “axis of evil.” I heard Barack Obama declare his immense pride in our military personnel.

Can we defeat ISIL with air power alone? Barack Obama believes we can, if we’re smart and if we work diligently with our allies in the region to hunt ISIL fighters down and destroy them.

Although it might be impossible to declare ultimate victory against ISIL or any other terror group that seeks to harm us, it isn’t too much to hope that there might be a day when we can declare the imminent threat to America has been eliminated.

The fight, though, must go on.

 

ISIL guessing game has commenced

What precisely is President Obama going to say about the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant?

The guessing game has begun in advance of the president’s speech.

What should he say?

In my view, he needs to announce:

* A regional coalition of nations that will join the United States in its fight against ISIL.

* More intensive air strikes against targets in Iraq.

* Intentions to ask Congress to for authorization to start air strikes in Syria.

* An intensive manhunt for the individual who beheaded the two American journalists.

* Americans must expect a response from the terrorists.

* That this new campaign is expected to last years, just as the war on terror has gone on ever since 9/11.

I’m not one of those who believes we need to put “boots on the ground” back in Iraq or in Syria.

Can we destroy ISIL only with air power? I don’t know.

I do know that we have tremendous firepower that we can bring to bear on military targets. Barack Obama has demonstrated time and again a willingness to use it with extreme effectiveness.

Yes, there have been missteps in recent weeks. The president’s rhetoric has been clumsy at times. He has talked about “destroying” ISIL, then talked about turning ISIL into a “manageable” situation, then gone back to destroying the monstrous organization.

He should stick with the destruction goal.

An anxious nation awaits.

 

Puppy tales, Part 6

Mark Lowry has it exactly right about dogs. They exhibit extraordinary loyalty to humans … no matter what.

Lowry is one of our favorite Christian singers, who laces his musical performances with plenty of humorous asides. One of his favorite quips explains how dogs are far more loyal and happy to see you than most humans. “Imagine leaving your wife in a car. How do you think she would react when you return? Compare that reaction with how your dog greets you,” he will say.

We are learning that about Toby, our Chihuahua mix puppy, who joined our family just a few days ago.

My wife and I are longtime cat owners/lovers. We’ve owned dogs before; the last one came into our lives briefly about 25 years ago.

Toby took no time at all to endear himself to our hearts.

We took him on a quick trip to the Metroplex, where he got acquainted with Madden, an equally exuberant Lab-mix puppy who lives with our son and daughter-in-law in Allen. They hit it off famously.

Well, on our return home, we stopped for a grand total of about 8 minutes at a convenience store to get something to munch on and drink on our long drive from the Metroplex to the Panhandle.

We left Toby in the car. We returned a few minutes later. His greeting? Well, he acted like we’d gone a week. He was all over us.

This is the kind of thing one doesn’t get from cats. Don’t misunderstand, our kitties love us. They demonstrate it constantly, often in the middle of the night when we’re trying to sleep. They climb into bed, purr in our faces, snuggle up and usually make annoyances of themselves. But their hearts are in the right place, so we don’t get angry.

Our puppy is, well, exuberant in the extreme.

Dog owners know this, so I’m not telling them anything new.

It’s just new — to us.

We’ll get used to it.

Regents chose well with Lowery-Hart

OK, so I’m a little late commenting on this one, but I’ll weigh in nonetheless.

Amarillo College’s Board of Regents made a sterling choice in naming Russell Lowery-Hart as the college’s next president.

Having said that, I still wish Lowery-Hart would have been put to a stronger test than he got before regents named him their sole finalist for the post, succeeding Paul Matney, who retired after a 40-plus-year affiliation with the college.

Lowery-Hart was second in command at AC. So he doesn’t climb many rungs on the ladder to take the top administrative job.

I get that regents know him well, that he knows the college political and academic infrastructure inside and out, and that he has virtually no learning curve to negotiate as he takes command of the staff.

Over the past few weeks I’ve visited with friends associated with Amarillo College. They all sang Lower-Hart’s praises as a man, an administrator, educator and someone who loves AC. They like his vision and the way he expresses it. They like that he’s “one of us.”

My only wish would have been that regents invited in candidates from other regions, interviewed them along with Lowery-Hart and then considered their visions, outlooks, approaches and credentials.

Something tells me Lower-Hart would have stacked up well against any set of applicants with whom he would compete.

A thorough vetting and comparison with other candidates would have strengthened the local guy tremendously and — were he to still get the job — strengthened the school he was chosen to lead.

Still, I extend my best wishes to the new Amarillo College president.