Monthly Archives: March 2015

national news, political news

Scalise needed to be in Selma

If there was one member of the congressional leadership team who needed to be in Selma to mark the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday, it was Louisiana U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise.

He should have been there. He should have sought to make amends for a significant error in judgment some years ago, before he became a Republican member of the House of Representatives.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/steve-scalise-skip-selma-march-conference-116232.html?hp=lc3_4

Scalise had the bad taste in 2006, prior to his election to Congress, to accept a speaking engagement before a group founded by noted Ku Klux Klan grand lizard David Duke.

Scalise, who’s now the House majority whip, has since expressed regret over attending the Duke-sponsored event.

Where was he the day of the Selma commemoration? He was in Sea Island, Ga., attending an American Enterprise Institute conference, along with some other key conservative thinkers and politicians.

One of them attending the AEI event was House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who also took time to attend the rally on the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

McCarthy was one of a handful of key Republican politicians to attend the Selma event; another key Republican in Selma was the 43rd president of the United States, George W. Bush, who was there with his wife, Laura.

Scalise, who still has some damage to repair from the fallout from his David Duke speech all those years ago, missed a chance to demonstrate that he really doesn’t subscribe to the views held by the KKK.

 

International news

What if the bin Laden mission had failed?

You hear this on occasion from conservative critics of President Obama.

The president “had nothing to do” with the killing of 9/11 terror attack mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly repeatedĀ the preposterous notionĀ this week on an edition of his “O’Reilly Factor” talk show.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/03/18/oreilly-obama-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-killin/202957

I’ve heard it from others on the right, many of them right here in the Texas Panhandle, where the president is about as popular as … oh, let’s see, bin Laden.

O’Reilly said the Navy SEALs had everything to do with killing bin Laden in May 2011. Well, yes they did. The brave men risked everything by flying into Pakistan on a moonless night, landing their helicopters in bin Laden’s compound, looking for bin Laden, finding him, killing him and then hauling his corpse out of there.

However, to say that a commander in chief who issues the order “had nothing to do” with its success ignores the truth of what would have happened had the mission failed.

Did President Carter have “nothing to do” with the mission to rescue the Iran hostages in April 1980, the one that failed, costing eight American lives in the middle of the desert? He wasn’t at the controls of any of the helicopters that crashed. But he certainly got the blame — chiefly from those on the right — for the mission’s failure.

Did President Truman have “nothing to do” with ending World War II when he issued the order to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What if the Enola Gay B-29 bomber had crashed on its flight over Japan? Give ‘Em Hell Harry would have caught plenty of hell himself.

This ridiculous notion that presidents don’t risk enormous political capital when they make these difficult decisions is the stuff of nonsense.

Barack Obama had to weigh the risks of sending in the commandoes when he ordered the hit on bin Laden. He could have ordered air strikes that could have killed innocent civilians. He didn’t. He could have passed, deciding the risk was too great. He didn’t do that, either.

The president did what presidents get paid to do. He made the difficult call.

Thus, he, too,Ā had everything to do with the success of the raid to kill Osama bin Laden.

 

International news

Bibi changes his tune on Palestinian state

You have to hand it to Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israeli prime minister had us going for awhile. As the Israeli election drew near, he seemed to suggest that he was pulling back his support for a Palestinian state in the Middle East.

Then what happens? Bibi goes and wins re-election, his Likud Party keeps control of the Knesset and then he said, “Hey, I didn’t mean quite what I seemed to say just the other day.”

And to think some folks thought Bibi had emerged as the world’s premier statesman. It turns out he’s just like most of the rest of the world’s politicians: He’ll say just about anything to get elected.

Frankly, I’m glad he’s softening his tone on Palestine.

Bibi said on MSNBC: “I donā€™t want a one-state solution; I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution, but for that, circumstances have to change,ā€ he said. ā€œI was talking about what is achievable and what is not achievable. To make it achievable, then you have to have real negotiations with people who are committed to peace.ā€

Ah, yes. But as the New York Times reported: “The White House and European leaders had expressed alarm over Mr. Netanyahuā€™s pre-election statement, on the eve of what had seemed like a close race, that there would never be a Palestinian state as long as he remained in office.”

He’s back-pedaling from his pre-election hard line.

The Obama administration still doesn’t seem to trust him fully. The White House doubts his commitment to a two-state solution.

Whatever the case, Bibi shows that even would-be statesmen are capable of saying one thing in public and meaning something else in private.

 

International news, national news

U.S., Israel: friends for life

The media have gone ballistic over reports of strains between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

My goodness. May we clear the air here?

There is no way on God’s planet Earth that the United States of America is going to abandon Israel in a time of international crisis. None. There is about as much chance of that happening as there is a chance of Congress repealing Social Security and/or Medicare.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/israels-america-united-116203.html?hp=r3_4

Netanyahu scored a decisive parliamentary victory this week with his Likud Party maintaining a semblance of control over the Knesset. To win the election, Bibi had to shift dramatically to the right, such as pulling back his previous support for the creation of a Palestinian state.

As Politico reports, that pullback of support is prompting the Obama administration to rethink the longstanding U.S. policy of serving as a “shield” for Israel.

What does it mean? I’ll tell you what I believe it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean the United States will walk away from a fight if Israel is attacked by, say, Iran.

I’m still holding out hope that Obama and Netanyahu can reach some kind of private rapprochement that results in an eventual warming of public relations.

Yes, the tensions flared dramatically in the days and weeks preceding the Israeli election. They flared because Bibi broke a longstanding diplomatic tradition by agreeing to speak to Congress without consulting with Barack Obama; they also flared when House Speaker John Boehner decided to inject himself into a sort of quasi-head-of-government role by extending the invitation in the first place — again, without consulting with the president of the United States.

All this diplomatic and political byplay means little, though, when you consider this fundamental fact: The United States and Israel are — and will remain — the best of friends in a world that can go crazy.

If and when the shooting starts in Israel, the United States will be standing at its ally’s side.

 

national news, political news

Mandatory voting? Bad idea, Mr. President

President Obama believes big money has too much influence in determining who gets elected.

I agree with him.

He also suggests that mandatory voting is a constructive reform that would counteract big money’s pervasive idea.

I disagree with that idea.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-suggests-mandatory-voting-might-be-a-good-idea/

The president spoke at a town hall and pitched the idea of requiring citizens to vote to an audience. He said other countries require it. He cited Australia as one example.

Allow me to argue that oneĀ of the many aspectsĀ ofĀ “American exceptionalism” is the notion that Americans are free to vote or not vote. We proclaim our love of liberty and while I bemoan constantly the hideous voter turnouts — particularly in state and local elections — I remain enough of an optimist to think we can browbeat complacent citizens to get off their duffs and vote.

We elect presidents with, say, 60 percent turnouts. Political scientists are happy to see that kind of turnout. I find it disgraceful. That means 40 percent of the eligible population doesn’t care enough to vote for those seeking to lead the greatest nation on Earth.

But should we force people to vote?

I’m dubious of that requirement. The freedoms we enjoy should include the freedom to be apathetic. It’s individuals’ call.

Besides, requiring people to vote removes the great political putdown that many Americans — myself included — are proud to utter when the situation presents itself: If you haven’t voted, then keep your trap shut.

But, yes, the president is correct about one aspect of his remarks. Big money wields way too much power.

legal news, local news, State news

Texas grand jury system under review

The Texas criminal justice system has this strange idea about how to select trial juries and grand juries.

Grand jurors are chosen in most counties by jury commissioners, who are selected by a presiding judge; the commissioners then look for people they believe are “qualified” to serve on a panel that determines whether a criminal complaint should result in officials charges brought against someone. The issue is whether a grand juror can commit to meet over the course of several weeks to make these determinations.

Trial jurors are selected at random. District clerks go through voter registration rolls to find people whose names are put into a large pool of potential jurors. The only qualification is that they be residents of the county and be of sound mind, etc.

Here’s an interesting aspect of the selection processes. The state believes it is fine to select someone at random, and then ask that person to determine whether some lives or dies if that individual is convicted of a capital crime. But a grand jury requires more of a screening process to find individuals who can serve on that panel.

Texas legislators are considering a bill that would make the grand jury selection system look more like the trial jury selection method.

I say, “Go for it, lawmakers.”

BackĀ in 1984, when I arrived in Texas, the newspaper where I worked at the time, the Beaumont Enterprise, was involved in an editorial campaign to change the grand jury selection system. There had been questions raised about whether a particular grand jury had been chosen because grand jurors had a particular bias. The paper raised all kinds of heck with the two judges in Jefferson County with criminal jurisdiction. We argued vehemently that the system needed to be changed. Over time, the judges heeded our calls and changed to a random selection method.

State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, thinks the state should require a random method in all 254 Texas counties.

He says the system needs total confidence in all its working parts. As The Associated Press reported, the current system is ridiculed as a “pick a pal” system in which friends pick friends to serve on a grand jury.

Now, for the record, I once served on a grand jury in Randall County. I was asked by a friend, who was serving as a jury commissioner for the 181st District Court, presided over by Judge John Board.

I agreed. Board chose me along with several other people and we met regularly for three months. We confronted no controversy during our time and our service ended without a whimper of discontent.

That particular grand jury worked well. The threat, though, of dysfunction created by potential bias has created a need for the Texas Legislature to change the selection system.

If the random selection method is able to seat people who then can determine whether someone should die for committing a crime, then it will work to select people who can decide whether to charge someone with a crime.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Race enters Lynch debate over AG vote

I didn’t predict it would happen, but the debate over when to vote on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as the next U.S. attorney general has taken an unsurprising turn.

The issue of race has entered this debate, as Lynch is the first African-American woman ever nominated to head the Justice Department.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/dick-durbin-loretta-lynch-back-of-bus-116180.html?hp=t1_r

The introduction was made by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who said the delays in voting on Lynch’s confirmation has forced the nominee to “sit at the back of the bus.” Durbin’s reference, of course, was to the great Rosa Parks, the civil rights icon who famously refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in the 1950s.

To my mind, the issue more about partisan politics than it is about race and Durbin should not have gone there during his Senate floor speech.

Durbin drew the expected criticism from Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., the Senate’s lone black Republican, who accused Durbin of being a race-baiter.

ā€œIt is helpful to have a long memory and to remember that Durbin voted against Condoleezza Rice during the 40th anniversary of the March [on Selma]. So I think, in context, itā€™s just offensive that we have folks who are willing to race bait on such an important issue as human trafficking,ā€ Scott said. ā€œSometimes people use race as an issue that is hopefully going to motivate folks for their fight. But what it does, is it infuriates people.ā€

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is wrong to hold up the Lynch vote. She needs to be confirmed and the Justice Department needs to get refocused exclusively on its job, which is to enforce federal law.

I just wish we could have kept the race argument out of this so we can stick instead to the raw political gamesmanship that the GOP leadership is playing while delaying Lynch’s confirmation vote.

 

International news

Bibi's no nut, but he needs to rethink some things

2 Comments

Benjamin Netanyahu has won another extension as Israeli prime minister.

His Likud Party won more seats in the Knesset than any other party, but it still lacks an outright majority. So Bibi’s going to have to compromise here and there if he hopes to govern his country.

Contrary to what you might have gathered from a couple of recent posts about Bibi’s campaign, I actually feel a bit of sympathy for the tough line he takes in governing Israel.

Netanyahu is an Israeli army veteran. He’s seen the enemy up close. His brother was killed in that daring 1976 hostage rescueĀ mission in Uganda. So, Bibi’s heart has been broken by violence.

I still believe he made a mistake in coming to the United States to speak to Congress without first consulting with President Obama. The snub — by him and by House Speaker John Boehner, who invited him — has damaged U.S.-Israel relations. But let’s get one thing straight: The nations remain critical allies.

All that said, his victory now enables Netanyahu to work with Obama to repair the damage. I trust he’ll do so. He talked while in this country about the special relationship the countries have had for the past six decades.

He campaigned hard in the waning days of the campaign by declaring an end to Palestinian settlements. That, too, was a mistake. Perhaps he can rethink that ban, given that the Palestinians are seeking to build a home of their own.

It’s good to understand, though, how Netanyahu views security in his country. It’s the single most vital issue with which he must deal.

The Hamas terrorists who govern Gaza have been lobbing missiles into Israel periodically since, oh, for as long as missiles have existed. Israel must be allowed to defend itself and to use whatever force it has to put down the attacks. To that end, Netanyahu is unafraid and I happen to applaud his courage in fighting Hamas.

The bigger picture, though, requires Netanyahu to understand that his country comprises citizens of widely diverse views. Not every Israeli shares his world view. I told you recently about a couple in Haifa who oppose Likud’s hard line and rest assured, there are others just like them.

Israel enjoys a special place in our network of allies. It deserves that special place and some special treatment. Benjamin Netanyahu, educated in this country — and able to speak to Americans like an American — isn’t going anywhere any time soon.

 

State news

An interesting argument on open-carry …

Many of my friends, acquaintances and colleagues seem to think I live, breathe, eat, drink and smell politics and policy … 24/7. Most of them know that I once was a full-time print journalist whose job was to stay abreast of these things.

That’s all they want to discuss with me. That and my granddaughter.

A friend and colleague, though, posed an interesting notion this week about the proposal in the Texas Legislature to allow Texans to carry firearms openly, where everyone can see them.

My friend told me he has a concealed-carry license and carries a gun, presumably where the sun doesn’t shine.

“I think open-carry is a stupid idea,” he said. “Why? Because of something happens and someone starts shooting a gun, he’s going to shoot the guy with the gun. The individual who’s carrying openly becomes a target.”

Interesting, yes?

My friend wants the open-carry legislation to become law in Texas. He and I shared our views on it and I told him I remain concerned about it, although I perhaps could change my mind on it over time as I did — more or less — with the state’s concealed-carry law.

I certainly will pray my friend’s concern about the target aspect of open-carry legislation doesn’t pan out.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/18/brief/

 

local news, State news

State senator incurs power broker's wrath

2 Comments

State Sen. Kel Seliger is no fan of Michael Quinn Sullivan … and vice versa.

A piece of mail arrived at my home this week from an outfit called Empower Texans, a political action group headed by Sullivan, a would-be state political kingmaker. Its subject? Seliger absent on tax relief efforts.

It seems that Sullivan is on board with the tax cutting frenzy that many conservatives seem to prefer at the moment. Gov. Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick have put forth an agenda of “reducing property and business taxes,” which Sullivan said has been “set as a priority for conservative lawmakers for the legislative session.”

Senate Bill 1 would provide $4.6 billion in tax cuts. Only two Republican senators oppose it. One of them is Seliger of Amarillo. My strong hunch is that the other GOP senator to oppose it is Kevin Eltife of Tyler.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/03/03/ex-mayor-sounds-cautious-tone-in-texas-senate/

This disagreement highlights one of the critical difficulties facing the Texas Republican Party. Does the party keep cutting taxes while the state has the money on hand to do things, such as fix roads and bridges? Or does the state do what Eltife and, presumably, Seliger want to do, which take is care of some vital needs before cutting taxes?

I happen to agree with the Eltife approach (as mentioned in the blog post attached to this item).

That’s not the case with the folks who are calling most of the shots in the Legislature. Eltife,Ā wrote the Texas Tribune’sĀ RossĀ Ramsey, “wants the meat and potatoes before dessert. Most of his colleagues, however, have their eyes on the pies.ā€

I should add that Sullivan found a candidate to run in 2014 against Seliger, former Midland Mayor Mike Canon. Sullivan backed Canon to the hilt, only to fall short when the votes were counted throughout the sprawling Senate District 31.

Are you having fun yet, Sen. Seliger?