Small-government conservatives?

08-dallas-shooting.w529.h352

I’ve already commented on a bill authored by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn that would federalize the crime of killing a police officer.

I’m against it. States that have the death penalty — such as Texas (Boy, howdy! Do we ever!) — already make cop-killing a capital punishment offense.

Cornyn’s bill is a reaction to the deaths of the five police officers in Dallas this past week.

A friend of mine reminds me, though, that he opposes Cornyn’s legislation, too, for another reason. It flies in the face of conservatives’ usual mantra that calls for “limited federal government.”

He wonders why GOP lawmakers react with this expansion of federal authority.

I think I know. They do it because it’s politically popular. Quite naturally, Democrats do the same thing when the issue suits their philosophical bent.

In this case, Americans are outraged over the officers’ death. So, in swoops Sen. Cornyn — a true-blue GOP conservative — to propose a bill that deals directly with that outrage. He wants to add another federal law to the books.

But what has happened, though, to the conservative view that less federal authority is better for everyone?

Killing a cop need not become a federal issue

cornyn

John Cornyn is angry about the deaths of those five Dallas police officers.

So am I. So are millions of other Americans.

Is that reason enough to create a new federal law, as Sen. Cornyn, is proposing? No. The states have it covered.

Cornyn, the Republican senior U.S. senator from Texas, wants to make killing police officers a federal crime. He’s gotten some co-sponsors for his bill, including his fellow Texan, Republican Ted Cruz.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/13/Cornyn-Bill-Makes-Killing-Police-Federal-Crime/

My hunch is that Cornyn’s bill is meant to toughen penalties in states that do not now impose the death penalty for any capital crime.

I understand Cornyn’s interest in this issue. He’s a former Bexar County trial judge and a former Texas attorney general.

Texas, though, already makes killing cops an automatic death penalty prosecution, as do most states in the country.

According to the Texas Tribune: “Law enforcement officers selflessly put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, and in return they deserve our unparalleled support for the irreplaceable role they serve,” Cornyn said in a statement. “The Back the Blue Act sends a clear message that our criminal justice system simply will not tolerate those who viciously and deliberately target our law enforcement. As our country continues to grieve following last week’s tragedy in Dallas, we must come together in support of those who risk everything to keep us safe.”

My goodness, we can support our officers in many tangible ways. Texas already has enacted strict punishment for those convicted of killing officers.

Cities can support their police departments by ensuring they have adequate resources, staffing, up-to-date equipment and training. Legislatures can buttress local governments with sufficient grant funds that they can funnel to communities to assist in providing the best law enforcement that money can buy.

Millions of Americans are justifiably outraged over the attack that occurred in Dallas. Do we need another federal law that proves how mad we are? No.

This is what you call ‘outreach’

RPTThuEve228TT_JPG_800x1000_q100

I hereby crown Barack Obama as the King of Political Outreach.

The president is convening a town hall meeting at the White House to discuss racism in the nation.

Who do you think he’s invited to take part? None other than Texas Lt. Gov. Dan “They Are Hypocrites!” Patrick.

This is awesome, man!

Patrick popped off right after the shooting erupted in Dallas that killed five police officers. He appeared on “Fox and Friends” to criticize the Black Lives Matter protesters for fleeing the gunfire and seeking help from the very police whose conduct they were protesting.

Thus, came the “hypocrites!” charge.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/13/patrick-attend-town-hall-obama/

It’s good that Lt. Gov. Patrick will attend this event. It will be televised on ESPN and ABC. The White House is seeking to assemble a diverse group of participants to get as many different points of view as possible.

This, I submit, is the real beauty of town hall meetings, which shouldn’t be used as political echo chambers where everyone applauds the views of everyone else.

As the Texas Tribune reports, quoting White House press secretary Josh Earnest: “I think the president is hopeful that those kinds of interactions will both illuminate a variety of perspectives for the American people to see,” Earnest said, according to a transcript of his daily briefing with reporters. “I also think he’s hopeful that it will illustrate what can happen when people open up their hearts to a different perspective.”

The catalyst for all this, of course, is the shooting of the two young men in Baton Rouge and suburban St. Paul, as well as the Dallas march and the shooting that erupted there. Two young black men died after being shot by white police officers and the shooter — another young black man — opened fire in Dallas in an act of revenge against white police officers.

It’s good that the White House is playing host to this town hall.

It’s even better that the president of the United States has invited an outspoken critic — Dan Patrick — to take part.

You want outreach? This is it.

Not a perfect speech, but still pretty darn good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5IcMdwV6Hg

This video is 30-something minutes long.

It is President Barack Obama paying tribute to the five slain Dallas police officers, the men who were gunned down in that spasm of violence at the end of the Black Lives Matter march through downtown Dallas.

If he had asked me what he should say, I would have counseled him to keep the politics out of it. He didn’t ask.

It isn’t the perfect speech, but it is still heartfelt and sincere and I am quite certain the president — as did former President Bush — delivered some measure of comfort to the men’s grieving families and to the heartbroken community they all served.

It was a damn good one nevertheless.

Thank you, Mr. President, for honoring these men’s service.

So long, Dr. Eades, and thank you for your service

eades

Brian Eades is about to call it a public service career in Amarillo.

I wish he wasn’t leaving, but a man’s got to do what’s best for himself and his family.

The best thing for the City Council member is to pull up stakes and replant them in western Colorado, where he’ll open a medical practice.

He served nine years on the City Council and was on the front row of some fascinating and invigorating debate. He served the community with great distinction.

Lisa Blake is going to take the seat that Eades will vacate and I hope — for the sake of the city — that she continues the level of service that Eades provided.

Eades represents — for lack of a better term — the “old guard” on the council. He managed to win re-election in May 2015 while two of his colleagues got booted out by challengers. It likely was a combination of the quality of the challenge he faced and the fact that voters weren’t as outwardly angry with him as they seemed to be with the incumbents who lost their re-election bids.

You can shout all you want about the level of anger that had been expressed at City Hall, but here are a few things to note.

I’ll start by noting that Eades helped make policy decisions affecting these elements.

— The city has continued its steady and robust population and business growth.

— Downtown redevelopment efforts take several key steps forward. It created an agency devoted exclusively to downtown redevelopment. It crafted a Strategic Action Plan to implement certain steps.

— The city has gone on a water-rights purchasing spree, buttressing its water reserves that now will last for the next century or two.

— Amarillo debated whether to enact indoor smoking bans. Two referendums failed narrowly, but the word has gone out to businesses: Don’t allow smoking in your establishments, as it is hazardous to people’s health.

— The city has deployed red-light cameras at intersections in an effort to deter lawbreakers from running through stop lights and posing hazards to other motorists and to pedestrians.

Eades had a hand in all of that.

I join others in wishing him well as he trudges off to rural western Colorado where, I presume, he’s going to deliver more babies into the world.

He served the city well.

Thank you, doc.

Let’s stop the ‘consequences’ talk

ginsburgruth_012814getty

How about settling down just a bit, Republican members of Congress?

They’re all up in arms over remarks Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made about presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, about how she cannot imagine a country with Trump as president.

Rep. Randy Weber of Texas said Ginsburg ought to resign. Trump said the same thing. As the Hill reported: “The recent comments of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg on Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump are the antithesis of Lady Justice and in direct violation for what the highest court in the land stands,” he said. “Justice Ginsburg’s actions must be met with consequences. I agree with Donald Trump that she should resign.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/287537-house-republican-ginsburgs-actions-must-be-met-with-consequences

While I agree that Ginsburg crossed a line, violated an unwritten rule about justices getting too politically partisan, let’s take heed of what the framers did when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

They created an independent branch of government called the “judicial branch.” Judges get lifetime appointments to their posts. The idea was to enable them to be free of political pressure brought by the executive or legislative branches of government.

The founders got it right.

Ginsburg didn’t need to pop off as she did about Trump. But she isn’t the first justice to get involved in politics. In the earliest years of the Republic, justices ran for political office while sitting on the Supreme Court.

That kind of overt politicking, of course, hasn’t occurred in many years.

I don’t expect the Supreme Court to hear cases involving Trump while Ginsburg is sitting on that bench. However, I don’t doubt the justice’s ability to judge any case involving Trump fairly.

Although the framers had the right idea when they created an independent judiciary, they could not possibly remove politics from its actions.

I bring you Bush v. Gore in 2000, in which five Republican-appointed justices stopped the ballot-counting in Florida with GOP candidate George W. Bush leading Democratic opponent Al Gore by 537 votes out of more than 5 million cast in that state. Bush won Florida’s electoral votes and became president by the narrowest of margins.

Do you think politics played any role in that decision?

Well, that’s how the system worked.

As for the present-day dustup over Justice Ginsburg’s remarks, she made them, but let’s quell the talk about “consequences.”

Ginsburg was entitled to say what she said.

Gov. Pence waiting in the wings

pence_122_072811

The speculation around who Donald J. Trump will select as his Republican Party running mate seems to be focusing on Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.

Honestly, I have trouble believing anyone Trump picks is going to be decisive, that the individual will spell the difference between victory and defeat for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. VP nominees usually don’t sway elections. I say “usually,” because we do have evidence that Lyndon Johnson’s presence on the Democratic ticket in 1960 helped John Kennedy win the Lone Star State on his way to a narrow victory over Richard Nixon and Henry Cabot Lodge.

But as long as we’re talking about Pence, let’s look briefly at a couple of aspects of this fellow’s record.

He’s a former congressman. He’s been governor of Indiana for a while. Thus, he has Capitol Hill and executive governing experience. That’s a plus, given Trump’s “record” of hosting a reality TV show, slapping his name on garish hotels and casinos, not to mention his various failed business ventures.

Pence also is a social conservative. He opposes a woman’s right to obtain an abortion; he opposes same-sex marriage.

The question anyone Trump picks as a running mate, though, is this: Will the presidential nominee actually heed whatever political advice the VP candidate gives him?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkings/donald-trump-ultimate-outsider-turned-insider-mike-pence-indiana-republican-congress?utm_content=buffer03d8b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Until this very moment, Trump is exhibiting a go-it-alone approach to just about everything as he runs for the presidency. He isn’t showing — as far as I can see — any tendency to seek advice from political pros. After all, he’s the ultimate “outsider,” so he doesn’t need any stinkin’ advice from those who he has said all along are part of whatever problems are afflicting the federal government.

Pence doesn’t strike me as someone who’ll be able to change Trump’s modus operandi while he continues his campaign for the presidency.

Suppose it is Pence. Suppose, too, that Pence gets assurances that he’ll be taken seriously as a key member of Trump’s campaign team.

Has the GOP’s presidential nominee exhibited a commitment to keeping his word? Is he totally trustworthy?

Well, I’m guessing Pence — or whomever gets the call from Trump — will have to weigh all of that, too, before deciding whether to hoist the nominee’s hand at the convention in Cleveland.

Well, let’s see what happens Friday. Trump will let us all know who gets the call.

Litmus test for VP hopefuls? You bet

The-Litmus-Test-ICON-v3

Politicians all sing in unison when the question involves “litmus tests.”

They “never” apply such tests, politicians say. They don’t “believe in litmus tests.”

They all are lying.

I mention litmus tests because both major-party presidential nominees-to-be are about to select their vice-presidential running mates. Should Republican Donald J. Trump and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton require their VP picks to pass these litmus tests?

Sure they should.

In reality, though, there really is just one question that presidential nominees should always ask their VP choices: Are you ready to become president in the event something happens to me?

Trump is now apparently ready to choose between former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. Both of those fellows no doubt would answer “yes” to the Big Question. The task for the campaign, though, is to persuade a majority of voters that they would be able to step into the job on a moment’s notice.

Clinton is facing a similar decision. Her field of hopefuls is much deeper than Trump’s. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia? Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts? Hey, how about the guy who’s got the job now, Joe Biden? All of them surely would answer “yes” to the litmus test question.

Another possible Clinton choice has been rumored to be Julian Castro, the current housing secretary and former mayor of San Antonio. He’d answer “yes,” too, but some of us wonder whether he truly would be able to step into the box.

But when presidents are looking for people to fill key positions, you can damn sure bet that they have a set of policies and principles they demand of those they are considering.

Does that constitute a litmus test? Of course it does.

Consider the test that Ronald Reagan put his VP hopefuls through in 1980. Were they pro-life or pro-choice on abortion? That appeared to be a major question the hopefuls needed to answer correctly. Reagan settled on George H.W. Bush who, during his time in Congress, had been nicknamed “Rubbers” because of his strong voting record in support of organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Bush became an ardent pro-life candidate the instant he said “yes” to the Gipper.

Do you think Ronald Reagan had a “litmus test” that Bush had to pass? Absolutely!

So it will be this time around, just as it always has been.

If politicians say they don’t have “litmus tests,” they’re lying.

Welcome to the arena, Lisa Blake

blake

Well, that didn’t take long.

Amarillo City Council members interviewed five finalists today for the vacancy on the body that will occur when Dr. Brian Eades hits the road.

Then the council chose the head of Leadership Amarillo, Lisa Blake, to fill the seat that Dr. Eades will vacate.

It wasn’t a unanimous vote. Councilman Randy Burkett voted “no” to appoint Blake.

Whatever the case, I guess we’re getting used to split votes on the governing body, which saw its makeup changed dramatically after the May 2015 municipal election.

This council member selection process was an interesting and enlightening exercise. The five individuals spoke to the council in full public view. They all answered the same set of 10 questions. I wasn’t there today, so I cannot comment on the quality of everyone’s answers.

I did visit today, though, with a community leader who did listen to the interviews and he came away quite impressed with Blake’s presentation, her background and her potential as a city leader.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/32430303/blake-appointed-to-place-2-seat

What happens now? How will Councilwoman-designate Blake work with this new council?

The City Council has been a contentious group at times. Indeed, it took power amid some fairly shrill rhetoric, which included calls for then-City Manager Jarrett Atkinson to quit and for the dismissal of the Amarillo Economic Development Corporation board.

It’s been a bit of a bumpy ride — at times — for the past year.

So now, we have a fourth new member of the council about to take office.

I am heartened to know that the new council member has a strong record of civic involvement. Leadership Amarillo has been a stellar organization for a long time and Lisa Blake represents the good work that the organization has done to promote a new generation of civic leaders.

Let’s see now what she can do on behalf of her new constituents.

She’s got 200,000 of them out here who need steady, strong and civil leadership at City Hall.

President speaks eloquently at memorial

memorial

President Barack Obama delivered a touching tribute today to slain Dallas police officers.

The president, along with Vice President Joe Biden and former President George W. Bush, was among the dignitaries lined up on the stage paying tribute to the men who were gunned down by the shooter this past Thursday.

He spoke of their dedication to duty, of their families’ bravery and of the officers’ devotion to protecting the very people who were protesting activities of their fellow brothers and sisters in uniform.

But then he veered briefly into a realm where I wish he hadn’t gone.

He talked about the ease of buying a Glock pistol.

Sigh …

I have noted in a couple of earlier blog posts that a memorial service paying tribute to the five brave police officers was not the place to politicize a message. I guess the president didn’t read my blog, let alone take my advice.

Did it diminish his tribute to the men who died in the line of duty?

Not to my ears — although I am absolutely certain more critical observers will say quite the opposite.

I get that Barack Obama has done this kind of speech-making too many times already during his presidency. I believe in the sincerity of his expression of grief over the victims of this kind of violence.

I also am glad he went to Dallas to hug the victims’ families, and to offer support for the beleaguered and grief-stricken city.

The healing of the city’s wounds, though, is just beginning.

Let it continue to restore a great American city’s sense of self.