What will president say about his tenure

right_way

President Obama vows a different kind of State of the Union speech.

Such events usually involve a lengthy laundry list of policy proposals. Frankly, they bore the daylights out of me.

I prefer loftier rhetoric for these events.

What might the president say? The pessimists have laid down their marker. The country is going to hell; we’re in danger of being attacked; the economic recovery isn’t as good as it should be; most Americans think we’re heading along the “wrong track.”

My hunch is that Barack Obama is going to sound significantly more optimistic. To wit:

  • We’ve added millions of new jobs over the past seven years.
  • Joblessness has been cut in half.
  • The budget deficit, which was more than $1 trillion annually when Obama took office, has been cut by more than half.
  • Automakers, the housing industry and financial institutions are back.
  • Stocks are way up (the recent correction notwithstanding).
  • We’re still the most powerful nation on Earth . . . by a long shot.
  • We haven’t been attacked by a terrorist group.
I’m not naïve to think there are no problems. Yes, the Middle East remains a powder keg. Then again, when has it not been?
Barack Obama will have much on which to hang his hat by the time he leaves office.
But he’s not going to assuage the critics. Not for a second.

Democrats conspiring to nominate Trump?

ted-cruz-sexy-eyes

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz might be on to something.

He seems to believe that Democrats are conspiring to ensure that Donald J. Trump is the Republican presidential nominee. Thus, it’s the Democrats who are floating the Cruz-ain’t-eligible-to-run notion . . . allegedly.

Trump’s been making hay of late over the fact that Cruz, R-Texas, was born in Canada. Therefore, the idea goes, he isn’t eligible to run for the presidency, let alone actually occupy the office.

I happen to think Trump’s argument is more basic than that. He’s delusional and, I believe, he’s so much of an entertainer that he’d say anything to get Americans to talk about him.

My own belief is that Cruz’s citizenship was settled the moment he was born to an American mother. End of argument, as far as I’m concerned.

However, pundits keep raising the Cruz citizenship issue simply because it comes from Trump, who for the moment is the GOP frontrunner. Trump’s standing at the top of the polls gives his words a certain gravitas.

As for whether Democrats are working in cahoots with Trump, though, seems to suggest a certain fear of running against, say, Ted Cruz.

I tend to think Democrats would relish the idea of running against Cruz.

Having declared my disbelief in a Democrat-Trump co-conspiracy, absolutely nothing — not a damn thing — would surprise me at this point.

This campaign has taken so many twists and turns I’m getting motion sickness watching it unfold.

 

Conservatives dig in against Obama appointments

90

U.S. Senate Republicans had better hope that the nine men and women who comprise the U.S. Supreme Court are still on the job when President Obama checks out of the White House.

Politico is reporting that conservative lawmakers are set to all but block future presidential appointments for the remainder of Obama’s term.

Why am I not surprised?

They’ve been holding up presidential appointments all along, so it doesn’t come as any shock that they’d lay down that marker.

I keep coming back to the highest court in the land.

The president already has selected two members of that court — Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. It still has a narrow conservative majority, but some of the conservatives on the court — as well as some of the liberals — are getting a bit long in the tooth. Don’t misunderstand me here. I do not wish ill on any of them.

But suppose the president must make an appointment . . .

That’s just a single example of how the legislative branch can gum up the process that allows the president to make these critical selections.

I totally understand that the Constitution gives the Senate the power to “consent” to such appointments. I honor that provision. However, as one who long has stood behind the principle of presidential prerogative, I believe the “advise and consent” constitutional clause can be abused.

If Senate conservatives are merely intending to stick it in the president’s ear just because they can, well, that’s not in keeping with the concept of good government . . .  in my humble view.

Tanya Couch becomes face of parental dysfunction

CCrav9

Ethan Couch needs to be punished the fullest extent of Texas law.

The problem, though, lies with the law itself. The so-called “affluenza” teen likely won’t spend much time behind bars for violating the conditions of his parole when he fled to Mexico after taking part in a drinking game.

Couch, you’ll recall, is the teenager convicted of killing four people in that hideous drunken-driving wreck in Tarrant County. HIs defense team threw out a defense that his ritzy lifestyle — and his wealthy parents — were responsible for his failing to understand right from wrong.

He should have spent time in juvenile detention, as he was 16 when he committed the crime.

Two years later he’s an adult.

But . . . what about Mommy Couch, Tanya?

She’s more of a villain than that goofball son of hers. She enabled his escape to Mexico and, in fact, fled with him.

Is there a better example than this of parental dysfunction that what Tanya Couch has provided? I’m hard-pressed to find one.

She’s out of jail now, but is confined to her residence; she’s wearing an ankle monitor to track her whereabouts.

Mommy Couch needs to do some serious jail time, although I don’t really know what the maximum sentence is for the crime for which she is likely to be charged with committing.

Whatever it is, she deserves it.

While we’re at it, let’s take a look at the role Daddy Couch might have played in this ridiculous drama.

 

El Chapo interview continues to provoke debate

photo

I heard a media analyst make an astonishing comparison this afternoon on National Public Radio.

The discussion on NPR was about actor Sean Penn’s interview — published in Rolling Stone — with Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the despicable drug lord who was on the lam from his escape from a Mexican prison.

This analyst seemed to make a direct comparison between El Chapo and Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Moammar Gadhafi, all of whom were interviewed by the media before they met their deaths.

Hmmm. There’s something of a difference here.

Hussein and Gadhafi were heads of state; bin Laden hadn’t been convicted of anything, even though the entire world knew of his involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Guzman was an escapee from a maximum-security prison. Mexican authorities had been scouring the country looking for him since his escape six months ago.

Penn’s access to this individual — whose drug activities have produced so much death and misery — was a function of his own celebrity status as an Oscar-winning film actor.

I keep coming back to what I believe is a central question: Doesn’t an American citizen such as Penn have an obligation to assist authorities in their search for a notorious drug dealer?

Sen. Marco Rubio was asked over the weekend to comment on the interview. The Republican presidential candidate said Penn is entitled to his First Amendment rights, but then he used a term with which I agree.

He called the interview “grotesque.”

 

What we might expect from a winning ticket?

games_of_chance

OK, I’m about to offer a not-so-bold prediction.

One day, maybe soon, someone — or some people — is going to win the Powerball prize that totals more than $1 billion.

That’s a billion bucks, man.

The prediction? The place where the winning ticket was purchased will become the target of suckers seeking to win the next big payoff.

It happens whenever they give out a lot of money.

I recall it happening in Amarillo not many years ago when someone here won a Texas Lottery payoff; I think it totaled a paltry $100 million, or something like that.

The convenience store — the location escapes me — where the guy bought the ticket became flooded with customers looking to buy the next winning ticket.

It’s an amazing aspect of human nature, I suppose. Those who like the play these games of chance are drawn to where the winning ticket is sold.

They apparently forget that the chances of the same outlet selling a winning ticket twice in a row are infinitely more remote than the outlet selling a winning ticket in the first place.

Whatever . . .

This Powerball mania is getting serious, folks.

I hope the winner — or winners — are ready to fend off the overtures from their millions of new best friends.

 

SOTU won’t fill us with warm, fuzzy feelings

2011_State_of_the_Union

It never really had to be this way.

Barack H. Obama took office in January 2009 as the 44th president of the United States after an election that many had hoped would be a “transformational” political event for a country that had just elected its first African-American president.

Not long afterward, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that his top priority would be to make Obama a one-term president. Yes, that’s right. McConnell said that defeating the president’s re-election effort would be his No. 1 priority.

That set the tone — right off the top — for the kind of relationship that the White House would have with Congress.

It hasn’t gotten any better, even as President Obama prepares to deliver his final State of the Union speech to a joint congressional session.

Ugly relationship coming to an end

To be blunt, the president didn’t do his part to develop a good working relationship with Congress. I’ve lamented before how the young president never learned how to build upon those relations with his congressional friends. To be honest, the president arguably served too little time in the Senate to have crafted a lot of friendships and political alliances among his fellow legislators.

I had hoped the president could have followed the Lyndon Johnson model of transferring his Senate experience into effective legislative accomplishment.

He didn’t.

However, Congress made it clear that it had no intention of giving any quarter to the president.

So, the president’s final State of the Union speech — which the White House says will be an “unconventional” presentation — isn’t expected to produce any bright lights of hope for a smooth and successful final year of the Obama presidency.

Republicans almost unanimously say that next to nothing will get done in this final full year of Barack Obama’s administration.

Perhaps, then, it will be left to the president simply to declare victory on the accomplishments that his presidency has delivered.

I’m wondering now if the president is going to remind us that Sen. McConnell’s top priority never came to pass.

 

The culling of the fields is about to begin

Leader

The American presidential nominating process is a grueling exercise.

It’s also a useful one.

The Iowa caucuses are about to begin in three weeks. Right after we’ll witness the New Hampshire primary elections.

The usefulness comes in the form of the culling of the fields that’s about to commence.

The candidates at the back of the Republican and Democratic packs have been able to retain their campaign viability by insisting that “no votes have been cast.” That argument ends in Iowa.

Who’ll pack it in?

Martin O’Malley will exit the Democratic Party race, leaving the field to just Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

On the Republican side, the outcome is a bit murkier.

It has become a battle for third place. The top two spots will go to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Third? It’ll be either Marco Rubio, Chris Christie or maybe Jeb Bush. After that, the rest of ’em ought to bail out.

Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Rand Paul and Jim Gilmore (yes, the former Virginia governor’s still in the hunt) all need to exit the stage.

Of the also-rans, my biggest disappointment would be Ohio Gov. Kasich. He’s got a tremendous substantive argument to make: that he, as House Budget Committee chairman in the late 1990s, helped produce a balanced federal budget by working with President Bill Clinton.

That hasn’t worked with the GOP base, which lusts for the red meat being fed to it by the likes of Trump and Cruz.

The process, though, does produce winners. It’s often not pretty to watch. This year has been ugly, to be sure.

However, the process has worked every four years for as long as most of us can remember.

The serious winnowing of both parties’ fields will commence soon.

Let’s all stay tuned.

 

What? Discrepancies in Trump’s background?

CCm2tj

Karma can be a bitch.

Donald J. Trump’s account of his years at a military academy is now being challenged.

The Republican presidential candidate has portrayed his years at the academy as sufficient preparation for making him commander in chief. Now come reports that Trump’s years in the New York military school weren’t nearly as rosy as he has portrayed them.

Trump had received medical and student deferments that kept him from serving in the military during the Vietnam War. Trump, though, has portrayed his enrollment at New York Military Academy as being the next best thing to serving in the military.

Some former classmates now say that Trump wasn’t nearly as attentive to the students under his command as he should have been . . .  and as he has portrayed himself as being.

Turnabout is fair play, yes? Trump and others have asked questions about Barack H. Obama’s past. His academic records at Columbia University; his birth records.

Now the proverbial shoe is on the proverbial other foot.

How will Trump answer these questions?

Others and I are waiting.

 

How would this guy do in the Internet Age?

Internet

My mind wanders occasionally into strange places.

I think of people I used to know and wonder things like, oh, how would they fare in today’s world?

The name of a one-time Amarillo gadfly came to mind today. His name was Michael Wyatt. He’s deceased now; he died in an automobile accident in the late 1990s at a fairly young age.

I came to Amarillo in early 1995 to become editorial page editor of the two papers published by the same owner: the Amarillo Daily News and the Amarillo Globe-Times.

One of the things I learned upon arrival was that the opinion section operated under a policy that I felt compelled to change immediately. It did not place any time restriction on the frequency of people submitting letters to the editor. Put another way: One could get letters published every day of the week if he or she were so inclined.

Michael Wyatt was a prolific letter writer. He had opinions on just about anything — and anyone — in public life. He was unafraid. He took on City Hall, the school districts, county governments, the chamber of commerce. You name it, he had something to say about it.

The frequency of Wyatt’s submissions, I would learn, had a chilling effect on others who had something to say about a public issue. Wyatt scared people off, kept them from expressing their views. “Why get into a public p*****g match with this loony bird?” they would ask themselves.

Well, we changed the policy right away, settling finally on a once-per-calendar-month rule.

He also would come engage us face to face, talk our ears off about this and/or that. He wanted to know what we thought about something and, of course, he would share his own view.

I’m wondering now how Wyatt would fare in this Internet Age.

I have to believe he’d be in hog heaven with the availability of venues, forums, platforms, websites — whatever — to express himself.

I wrote a column for the newspaper upon hearing of Wyatt’s death. I saluted him as someone who felt the calling to contribute to the public dialogue. He did so with gusto and demonstrated great courage in speaking his mind. A member of the Amarillo City Commission at the time called me to complain about the column paying tribute to Wyatt; he told me he “couldn’t stand him.” Why? “Well he was just so damn critical all the time.”

My reaction at the time, as best as I can remember, was “umm, too bad.” He sought to keep our elected officials on their toes.

To be blunt, Wyatt likely would put many of the individuals who respond to this blog to shame. I’ve got my share of “regulars” who like to comment on this or that; many of them get into arguments with each other on the social media outlets through which I channel these blog posts (and which will receive this one once I’m finished with it).

I find myself chuckling at the notion of Michael engaging in these seemingly endless exchanges. He was quite capable of devouring anyone rhetorically.

It’s too bad he didn’t live long enough to witness the dawn of this new “information/disinformation age.”

Michael Wyatt — wherever he is now — no doubt is wishing he could come back to take part. He would be right at home.