This DUI doesn't get under Perry's skin

Texas Gov. Rick Perry must have gotten over his anger at a public official’s arrest for drunken driving.

What got him all worked up when Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg got busted doesn’t seem to phase him when it involves Jack Stick, the top lawyer for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

Oh, I know now what it is.

Lehmberg is a Democrat; Stick is a Republican — like Perry.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/09/28/top-republicans-dwi-case-being-seen-softer-light/

Stick got popped for DUI and faces a pre-trial hearing. We’ve heard nary a peep from Perry’s office over this one. Compare that to what happened when Lehmberg got arrested, pleaded guilty and then served jail time. Perry threatened to veto money for her public integrity office, which he did. A Travis County grand jury looked into that and indicted him on abuse of official power.

Perry just couldn’t stand it when a Democrat got busted for drunken driving. When it’s a Republican, though, well that’s different.

OK, the cases aren’t identical. Lehmberg behaved boorishly when she was booked into jail. Stick apparently has minded his manners.

It still interests me that the lame-duck governor would get so worked up over one case but clam up on another one.

Aren’t they both worthy of the governor’s righteous anger?

Time for a declaration of war?

The more I think about it, the more I am inclined to believe it is time for Congress to step up to the plate in this “war on terror.”

As in really step up. As in it should perhaps do its constitutional duty and declare war. Formally. In writing. After a thorough and comprehensive debate.

I have been vacillating on this war vs. counter-terrorism business. Now, though, I am thinking it’s time to take the gloves off with the monsters who claim to be acting on behalf of some religious tenet.

***

The 9/11 attacks signaled a new era in warfare. President Bush committed troops to battle after the terror attacks on New York and Washington. He then took us to war in Iraq by invading a sovereign country after selling us essentially a bill of goods about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and its bogus nuclear weapons development program.

Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but he didn’t pose an imminent threat to the United States. We went to war anyway.

So, we fought that war and then pulled out. Our war in Afghanistan, where we began fighting right after 9/11, is about to wind down.

Now the terrorist group calling itself the Islamic State has decided, in effect, to declare war on the United States.

What should be our response?

It’s time for Congress to get in the game — all the way.

***

Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution lays out the powers of Congress. It says flatly that our legislative branch — and only the legislative branch — can “declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Capture on Land and Water.”

Not since Dec. 8, 1941 has Congress declared war on anyone the way it did on the Empire of Japan after “the date which will live in infamy.” We’ve no shortage of armed combat, though, since the end of World War II. Indeed, we’ve lost more than 100,000 American lives in undeclared wars ever since — with vast majority of those deaths occurring in Korea and Vietnam.

Presidents have gone to Congress to seek permission to fight these conflicts. They’ve also exercised their role as commander in chief when the need has arisen.

This time, as we prosecute this war against terrorists all around the world, it is time for Congress to declare its intention. Does it want to declare war or not?

If we’re going to take this fight to the evil forces around the world, then it ought to be time for the government to commit itself fully to that effort.

Does a war declaration mean necessarily that we commit ground troops to battle? Not at all. It merely states that the United States means business as it seeks to destroy the forces intending to us harm.

Mr. President, get that request written and send it to Capitol Hill. Members of Congress, put up … or shut the hell up.

Let's debate this war declaration notion

Matthew Dowd, a former adviser to President George W. Bush, is quite correct to call attention to whether the United States of America has gone to war under the rules set forth by the U.S. Constitution.

He was speaking this morning on ABC-TV’s “This Week” and said the debate should have commenced 30 years ago.

The Constitution states in Article I, Section 8 that Congress has the power “To declare war.”

There it is. No argument. No qualifier. The power to declare war rests exclusively with Congress.

And yet …

We’ve been to war in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea — am I missing anything? — without Congress voting on a declaration of war.

The discussion this morning comes just as the United States is gathering a coalition of allies to bomb the Islamic State into oblivion as it seeks to destroy what’s been called “an existential threat” to this country. Congress has authorized the training and arming Syrian rebels, but hasn’t yet debated whether to send American aviators into hostile air space to bomb ISIL forces.

That’s warfare, as I understand the meaning of the term.

Shouldn’t we be having this debate? Shouldn’t Congress declare war on ISIL if that is what the commander in chief says is occurring as we seek to “degrade and ultimately destroy” this terrorist cult?

How to define a 'Values Voter'?

It is amusing, although not in a guffawing kind of way.

The Values Voter Summit has declared U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be its kind of politician. They like his “values.”

Good for him.

I am left to wonder, though, why the conservative wing of the once-great Republican Party has laid claim to speaking for American voters’ values.

It must be marketing. The far right wing of the GOP has managed to brand itself as representing “values.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/ted-cruz-values-voter-conference-111363.html?hp=l4

Once-moderate GOP leaders need not step up to the microphone at this Washington, D.C. gathering. Democrats? Don’t even think about it. The podium belongs to those on the far right. It’s their values that count.

My values? Forget about it.

However, let’s look at the values of those who haven’t attended these “summits.”

I’ll gladly stand as an example of one of those Americans. For instance:

* I’ve served my country in uniform, gone to war for the U.S. of A. and served honorably in the U.S. Army.

* I have been married to the same woman for more than 43 years. We love each other deeply.

* My two sons are both upstanding men who now are in their 40s. We see and hear from them regularly. They’re hard-working, industrious, intelligent, well-educated, good-hearted men who make us proud every single day.

* I pay my taxes on time every year.

* I attend church fairly regularly and have served as an elder at the mainstream Presbyterian church my wife and I attend.

* I have voted in every presidential election since 1972. I split my ticket generously between Democrats and Republicans up and down the ballot. But I have voted Democrat for every presidential candidate going back to that first vote, when the Vietnam War was starting to wind down.

Ah, yes. There it is. That’s why I’ll never be seen at one of those Voters Values Summit meetings. I have voted for those dreaded Democrats for president.

The rest of it? I think I am an individual with pretty sound values — and I am quite sure I speak for many millions of other values-driven Americans who aren’t part of that right-wing fringe of society that shouts about its own values and thinks it speaks for all Americans.

Hardly.

Rove calls Holder a 'hack'

That’s the spirit, Karl Rove.

When Eric Holder, the attorney general of the United States steps down after nearly six years of service to the country, “Bush’s Brain” Rove calls him a “partisan hack.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/eric-holder-resign-karl-rove-react-111345.html?hp=l11

Therein lies a big part of the problem with today’s political debate. You have differences with an administration and then as the nation’s top lawyer steps down you inflame those differences with a statement that is stunning in its lack of self-awareness.

It’s been part and parcel of the right’s reaction to Holder’s impending departure. An editorial in my local newspaper, the Amarillo Globe-News, spent a good deal of space condemning him for various perceived and alleged errors while on the job. It made no mention of his sincere commitment to voting rights for all Americans.

As for Rove, the godfather of partisan hacks everywhere, it galls me to no end that he would hang that label on someone else.

The big picture at times is just too complete and puts too much context on someone’s public service to suit some of us.

Palin gets a pass for this goof

Former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin did it again: She got a fact wrong while speaking at the Values Summit.

I’d make a bigger deal out of it, but I won’t for a reason I’ll explain in a moment.

She referred to the “truth” being missing “at 1400 Pennsylvania Ave.” She was referring, of course, to the White House, which actually is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Sarah Barracuda does this on occasion. I’ve spent too much emotional energy getting worked up over these gaffes and goober-like goofs.

I won’t go there this time. Why?

Well, the president of the United States, Barack Obama, once referred to the “57 states” of the Union.

Nobody’s perfect.

Pick an AG successor quickly, Mr. President

Here’s a tidbit that will surprise no one.

Senate Republicans are insisting that President Obama delay nominating a successor to Attorney General Eric Holder until after the new Congress takes office in January.

Imagine that.

You see, Republicans smell victory in the mid-term elections. They believe they’ll comprise a Senate majority when the new Congress convenes. That makes it theoretically more problematic for the president to get a nominee confirmed. That’s how it goes these days: Democrats and Republicans look to stick it to each other, no matter what.

It also forces the president to select someone who is, um, less controversial. With Republicans holding the Senate majority, Obama will have to find a safer choice for AG than he otherwise might select.

We’ll see probably in fairly short order what the president is thinking about when to make a nomination announcement. Does he follow the advice of Republicans or does he move quickly while Democrats still run the Senate, which has to confirm whoever is nominated to be attorney general?

If this mid-term election is going to be decided in a Battle of the Political Bases — Progressives vs. Conservatives — then my guess is that the president will move sooner rather than later.

So … why not go for someone who will be as courageous and out-front on issues — such as voting rights — as Eric Holder has been?

Tax cuts pushed off GOP table

Tax cuts used to be the mantra of the Republican Party.

No more, or so it seems. Cutting taxes now appears to be the bane of the Grand Old Party. Why? Some states that have cut taxes too much now face the dreaded “d” word, budget deficits that are blowing apart any effort to do something constructive for constituents.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/republicans-shift-away-from-tax-cutting-mania-111359.html?hp=t1

Meanwhile, at the federal level we’re seeing the deficit shrinking as the federal government has reduced spending while holding the line — for now — on tax revenue.

“We have to stop being one-trick ponies,” said California Rep. John Campbell, a member of the arch-conservative Republican Study Committee and the No. 4 Republican on the House Budget Committee.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, a Republican who once served in the U.S. Senate, might be in serious trouble this election year because he’s pushed too hard for tax cuts that have cost the state too much revenue to pay for certain things — such as, oh, road maintenance and public education.

As Politico reports, the tax cuts that once were the mainstay of a party dominated by Ronald Reagan are MIA in the current political discussion. GOP candidates are talking about the Affordable Care Act and terrorism. Tax cuts? Forget about it.

Well, rest assured that Democrats will remind voters of the danger of cutting too much. They’ll be talking enough for both political parties right up until Election Day.

Jeter gets monumental sendoff

Derek Jeter’s sendoff as he ends his 20-year career playing baseball for the New York Yankees has been something to behold.

Yes, he’s had a stellar career and yes, he’s been a model of decorum off the field.

The first element is worthy of praise. The second element is what has triggered the media love affair with the Yankees’ captain.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2211445-derek-jeter-authors-one-more-legendary-moment-in-goodbye-to-yankee-stadium?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=cnn-sports-bin&hpt=hp_bn15

Think about this for a moment.

The public has been bombarded with an incessant downpour of bad news about high-profile athletes. Wife-beating. Child abuse. Drug abuse. Drunken driving. Carousing. Fights in bars. It’s been going on for years.

Then we have this story about Derek Jeter, a young man from Kalamazoo, Mich., who at one time thought about enrolling in the University of Michigan. Then fate came calling. The Yankees drafted him and he went to The Big Apple to play shortstop for the most storied franchise in all of sports — not just baseball.

Now as his career is drawing to a close, the media are looking back on his career with a fondness that seems as much an appreciation for the man he has become as for the skill he brought to the game.

Jeter is now being mentioned in the same breath as Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio and Mantle — the Four Horsemen of Yankee greatness. I suppose Jeter’s career stats would put him in that category no matter what.

The backdrop of all this pro athlete misbehavior, though, has helped stimulate the affection of a nation that is now saying “so long” to The Captain.

We are not engaging in a religious war

The Values Summit is underway in Washington, D.C., and the usual cavalcade of kooks is drumming up something akin to a religious war.

The international war on terror, they imply strongly, is a war between Christians and Jews against Muslims.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/ted-cruz-values-voter-conference-111363.html?hp=f2

Let’s hold on here.

It is a war pitting civilized human beings against cult followers.

Michelle Bachmann, the lame-duck Minnesota congresswoman, kept harping on what she called “Islamic terrorists.” So did lame-duck Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and a roundtable of “experts” who contend that Muslims pose an existential threat to our way of life.

Give me a break.

Another conservative American president, George W. Bush, was quite astute back when this war began immediately after 9/11 to declare that America is not waging war against Islam. He singled out the terrorists who have perverted a great religion to suit their insane political cause. Does anyone remember when President Bush visited a mosque in New York immediately after touring the wreckage of where the World Trade Center stood?

The Islamic State is not a religious organization. It is a cult. It is a cabal of sociopathic murderers who seek to use religion as a pretext to commit heinous acts of terrorism on innocent people.

They are the enemy. The do not represent Islam any more than, say, the crackpots at Westboro Baptist “Church” in Topeka, Kan., represent Christianity.

The task now is to persuade the goofballs on the right to quit trying to make this a religious war.

It is no such thing.