Trump voter offers a reason

donald-trump-speech-promo-getty-491877616

I had a conversation this morning with a friend, who announced to me she’s going to vote for Donald J. Trump this fall for president of the United States.

She is likely among a majority of Texas Panhandle voters who’ll do so. That’s no surprise, given this region’s strong Republican ties and its apparent intense loathing of Democratic nominee-to-be Hillary Rodham Clinton.

OK, so the conversation progressed.

I took a deep breath, looked over my friend’s shoulder at the TV screen in the lobby — which always is turned to the Fox News Channel — and said without offering specifics, “But Trump is not fit for the office.”

“Neither is Hillary,” my friend said.

I could feel my eyebrows lift.

“What has she done” to make her unfit for the presidency? I asked.

“I don’t know,” my friend said. “All I know is that I cannot vote for her.” She said she intends to vote for someone for president, it just won’t be Hillary Clinton.

I mentioned Gary Johnson, the recently nominated former New Mexico governor who’s going to run for the second election in a row as a Libertarian candidate for president.

She was unaware of Johnson’s candidacy. I encouraged her to take a look. She said she would.

We then agreed that we won’t talk politics from this day on … until after the election in November.

We’re still friends. I hope she still considers me a friend.

I took a profound feeling of non-acceptance away from that brief conversation this morning. I don’t get the sense that there’s anything in Trump’s alleged “platform” that appeals to my friend. She’s just not going to vote for Clinton because, I presume, she doesn’t trust her.

As for Trump, he’s tapped into some unknown reservoir of something among voters.

I know that he’s reeled in at least one Texas voter who’ll cast her vote for him.

My sense, though, is that the my friend has revealed more about the general electorate’s mood going into this presidential campaign than perhaps she realized.

There’s a lot negative karma in the air.

City enters new era of council selection

eades

I’m going to get something off my chest right off the top.

The person I wanted the Amarillo City Council to select to join its ranks didn’t make the cut; he’s not one of the five finalists chosen from a pool of 14 applicants.

Given that his name already is out there, I will just tell you it was Cole Camp. He’s the one I was hoping would get the job. He’s a friend of mine who, in my view, would have served with great distinction.

OK. That’s out of the way.

Now, about the selection process, which is a most fascinating departure from what has been the norm at City Hall. In the past, council members would solicit replacements privately, consider the individuals who’d expressed interest, meet and then announce the selection to the public. That’s what happened a couple of years ago when Councilman Jim Simms died and the council appointed Ron Boyd to serve until the next municipal election.

Council members are going to interview the five finalists — all fine folks, I’m sure — in public. They’re going to ask them questions prepared in advance. Each candidate is going to have 30 minutes to answer them.

Then the council members will consider their selection. The person they pick will succeed Dr. Brian Eades, who’s leaving the council this summer when he moves to Colorado. I presume they’ll declare it to be a “personnel discussion,” so they’ll have that deliberation in private, in executive — or closed — session.

You know what? With all this talk about “transparency,” I wonder why council members need to have that discussion in secret. It they were discussing, say, the job performance of a senior administrator and were considering terminating that individual, I get how that would qualify as an exemption under the Texas Open Meetings Act.

Selecting a City Council member, though, doesn’t qualify as a “personnel” matter in that context. They’re selecting someone who would answer to the council’s constituents. That would be about, oh, 200,000 of us who live here. Many of us pay property taxes that fund city government.

Why not open the process the rest of the way, to allow us to hear from the elected governing council how they’re deliberating? What factors are they considering as they ponder this important decision?

One of the aspects of the Texas Open Meetings Act that few of us ever seem to grasp is that the act doesn’t require governing bodies to convene these executive sessions. It only empowers them to do so. Some governing boards are more apt to convene executive sessions than others.

If the Amarillo City Council now comprises a majority of its members who got elected a year ago as agents of change, well, here’s a chance for them to demonstrate some serious change in the manner in which they decide to appoint one of its members.

Media simply ‘afflicting the comfortable’

donald-trump

Journalism has its share of clichés that seek to define its mission.

One of them is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

It doesn’t betray a bias, per se. It simply defines one of the tenets that drives journalists to do their job with thoroughness, while being fair to those they are examining.

Thus, a group of journalists sat before Donald J. Trump on Tuesday and grilled the presumptive Republican presidential nomination on donations he said he made to veterans organizations.

Trump’s response was to throw a tantrum.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/opinions/donald-trump-tantrum-media-role-louis/index.html

The issue at hand dealt with whether Trump actually donated the amount of money he said he had donated to veterans organizations.

Washington Post reporters had detected a discrepancy in what Trump had said, that the money went to the organizations many months after he said he made the donation. So, media representatives questioned him about that discrepancy, only to have Trump respond with another round of name-calling and insults.

Trump seems to demonstrate a casual disregard for the facts. He said after the 9/11 attacks that he witnessed “thousands and thousands of Muslims” cheering the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

He didn’t witness anything of the sort.

Some pundits have accused Trump of being a “pathological liar,” defining it as a case in which the candidate tells a lie knowing it to be a lie and understanding full well that others who hear it also know it to be a lie.

It’s the media’s responsibility to ensure that candidates be held accountable for statements they make.

That’s what happened at the news conference Tuesday as the media grilled the candidate on what he said he’d done on behalf of veterans organizations.

Sure, they have “afflicted the comfortable.” It’s their job.

 

This man must think the media will go soft on him

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump reads from a list of donations to veteran's groups, during a news conference in New York, Tuesday, May 31, 2016. (AP Photo/Richard Drew) ORG XMIT: NYRD102

Donald J. Trump’s exhibition of petulance was a sight to behold.

Standing before reporters who had gathered to question him about whether he’d actually raised the money he said he had raised for veterans, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee sought to turn the tables on the questioners.

He called one of them a “sleaze.” He called another one a “loser.” He called the media “dishonest,” and the political media even more dishonest than that.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-veterans-donations-223730

He proclaimed that he didn’t want to make the veterans contributions a big public deal. Oh, but when he backed out of a Fox News debate, he said out loud and in public that he’d raised $6 million and given a million bucks himself.

Media representatives have questioned whether Trump actually raised the money for the veterans. They want Trump to account for the money.

And for that they get called “sleazy”?

Does this individual — the GOP nominee in waiting — expect the media to back off in the highly unlikely event he’s ever elected president?

Listen to the press conference in its entirety. It’s gone viral out there in Social Media Land.

Then get back to me and tell me this guy really is suited for the job he is seeking.

 

Two sources offer differing versions of same story

kyle

Two Internet websites are reporting something about an American war hero that differ in their emphasis.

One of them leans left; the other leans right. The specific subject of their analyses is an essay by former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who’s challenging contentions by yet another source about the veracity of a former Navy SEAL’s account of his battlefield exploits.

Here’s the right-leaning site:

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/05/30/perry-jumps-defense-american-snipers-reputation-leftwing-media-attack/

Perry questions doubts raised about the late Chris Kyle’s medals. Kyle, who was shot to death after returning from multiple deployments to Iraq, reportedly fudged the number of Silver and Bronze stars he received for his work as a SEAL sniper.

Breitbart.com sides with Perry’s accusation that the doubts have served to smear the memory of Chris Kyle, whose military career was the subject of an acclaimed film “American Sniper.”

Here’s the left-leaning site:

http://deadstate.org/rick-perry-attacks-left-wing-media-for-doing-actual-journalism-on-american-sniper-chris-kyles-lies/

Deadstate.org says the report reflects journalists doing actual journalism.

Gov. Perry, quite naturally, disputes that side of the story.

Perry said the DD-214 — the Defense Department official record of every person’s military service — is the definitive source for this information.

Here’s my take.

I don’t particularly care whether Kyle received two Silver Stars or “merely” one of them, or that he received six Bronze Stars instead of just four, or five.

The man is a hero, no matter how you slice it.

As for whether the report constitutes a “smear,” and has “libeled” a dead man, I’ll make two quick points.

One is that you cannot libel someone who’s dead. The other is that the truth has yet to be determined. If the reporters who dug up the discrepancy in Kyle’s record have done so accurately, well, you cannot libel anyone by telling the truth.

I’m not going to obsess over the number of medals for valor Kyle earned while doing his duty.