Welcome aboard, Sen. Cruz

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz speaks during the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at the National Rifle Association's 142 Annual Meetings and Exhibits in the George R. Brown Convention Center Friday, May 3, 2013, in Houston.  The 2013 NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits runs from Friday, May 3, through Sunday, May 5.  More than 70,000 are expected to attend the event with more than 500 exhibitors represented. The convention will features training and education demos, the Antiques Guns and Gold Showcase, book signings, speakers including Glenn Beck, Ted Nugent and Sarah Palin as well as NRA Youth Day on Sunday ( Johnny Hanson / Houston Chronicle )

Ted Cruz is now aboard Air Force One.

Right there — that sentence — tells me a lot.

Air Force One is the plane that carries the president of the United States. It could be a two-seat prop plane; when it carries the Big Man, it becomes Air Force One.

Sen. Cruz, the junior Texas Republican, has been a harsh critic of the current president, Barack Obama.

The two of them, though, are flying to Dallas to attend an interfaith memorial service later today in honor of the five policemen shot to death this past week in the hideous rampage at the end of a peaceful march protesting two police-involved shootings earlier in the week.

The president will speak at the memorial, as will former President George W. Bush. That, too, symbolizes a remarkable coming together during this troubling time.

I wonder if the president and the senator are going to schmooze, talk nice to each other. Or will they — to use the diplomatic parlance — have one of those “frank” discussions about the issues that divide them.

Whatever. My hunch is that we well might hear a bit less of the harshness from Sen. Cruz whenever he speaks in the near future of the commander in chief.

Get ready for record low turnout … possibly

jeb-bush-donkey-hotey

John Ellis Bush likely spoke for a lot of Americans over the weekend.

He doesn’t like Donald J. Trump and he won’t vote for him for president. Nor does he trust Hillary Rodham Clinton, so she won’t get his vote, either.

Bush — aka “Jeb” — is quite likely going to leave the top of his ballot blank when the time comes for him to vote.

He said it “breaks my heart” that he cannot support the Republican Party nominee, Trump. But he and the presumptive GOP nominee have some history that Bush cannot set aside.

Bush told MSBNC’s Nicolle Wallace — a former communications director for President George W.  Bush — that Trump has conducted what amounts to a successful mutiny of the Republican Party. He praises the real estate mogul/TV celebrity for winning the party nomination fair and square. Trump, though, did it by tapping into a voter sentiment that none of the other GOP candidates — including Jeb Bush — could locate.

This makes me think my earlier prediction of a potentially record-low-turnout election might not be too far off the mark.

The current record belongs to the 1996 contest that saw President Bill Clinton re-elected over Bob Dole and Ross Perot with just a 49 percent turnout of eligible voters.

Now we have polling data that tell us Hillary Clinton and Trump are profoundly disliked by most voters. FBI Director James Comey’s stunning critique of Clinton’s handling of classified information on her personal e-mail server has only heightened voters’ mistrust of her … and to think that the director then said he wouldn’t recommend criminal charges be brought against her!

As for Trump, well, I won’t weigh in here. You know how much I despise that guy.

Jeb Bush won’t attend the GOP convention. Neither will his brother and father — two former presidents. Nor will Mitt Romney or John McCain, the party’s two most recent presidential nominee.

Oh, and the governor of the state where the convention will take place? Ohio Gov. John Kasich, another former Republican presidential candidate, won’t darken the door at the Cleveland arena where delegates are going to nominate Donald Trump.

Let’s face the daunting reality that a lot of Americans just might follow Jeb’s lead and stay home.

Shooter committed a ‘hate crime’

obama

The lunatic who opened fire on Dallas police officers this past week committed a “hate crime.”

So said President Barack Obama in a meeting today with police officials. He added that if the shooter had survived the rampage — in which he killed five policemen — he would have been prosecuted for committing a crime on the basis of his hatred for white police officers.

The thought occurs to me: Why do Obama critics keep insisting in light of this tragic event that he’s somehow “anti-police”?

I am having trouble processing this particular criticism. The president has spoken about the “vicious, despicable and calculated” act of violence against the officers. He has said such attacks on law enforcement is never justified. He has offered words of condolence to family members of the fallen officers and to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.

But the criticism persists.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-dallas-police-shooting-hate-225390

Now he has referred to the shooter’s crime as of being of the “hate” variety. He compared the Dallas gunman’s act to the dastardly deed committed by the individual who killed those nine Charleston church members; those victims were black, the young man accused of that crime is white.

Sure, the president had his well-publicized “beer summit” after police wrongly accused an African-American academic of trying to burglarize his own home. Obama did accuse the police of acting “stupidly.” Those remarks seem to have stuck far more than the repeated statements in support of law enforcement that the president has made.

Well, the president will get another chance Tuesday to restate his support of the many thousands of police officers who perform their sworn duties with honor and distinction. He’ll speak in Dallas at an interfaith memorial service to honor the slain police officers.

Will those remarks quell the unfounded criticism? Hardly. He still needs to make them.

Yes, Justice Ginsburg crossed that ‘line’

ginsburg

When judges get appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, they usually follow a set of certain practices.

One of them is to keep their partisan political views to themselves.

Sure, their judicial philosophy often reveals their political leanings, but that’s for others to assume.

With that said, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has crossed a line separating the judicial branch from the rest of the federal government structure.

She said the following: “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told the New York Times’s Adam Liptak. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-bashing-donald-trump-some-say-ruth-bader-ginsburg-just-crossed-a-very-important-line/ar-BBucVZt?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Ginsburg’s reference is to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Very bad call, Mme. Justice.

It’s OK for justices to think certain things about politicians. It’s quite inappropriate for them to say it out loud. Judicial decorum dictates that they stay above the political fray. These individuals aren’t politicians. Presidents nominate them and the Senate confirms them on the basis of how they determine the constitutionality of federal law.

Justice Ginsburg, selected for the high court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, would seem to have an axe to grind given her statements criticizing Trump’s candidacy. Trump, after all, is running against the wife of the man who selected her to the Supreme Court.

Don’t misunderstand me on this point: I have trouble contemplating a Trump presidency, too.

I, though, am not a member of the highest court in the nation. I can say these things out loud. Justice Ginsburg needed to keep her mouth shut.

Visiting a relic of a glorious past

parthenon

A young friend of mine has just returned from a trip spanning several days in Greece.

Butler Cain, a journalism professor at West Texas A&M University (for now) has been good enough to post many of the pictures he took of his journey on his own blog.

Here’s the latest batch:

https://butlercain.com/2016/07/11/acropolis-of-athens/

This group features shots taken at the Acropolis, which looms over Athens as a reminder of the greatness of the civilization it represents. The Greeks aren’t enjoying too much of that greatness these days, as their country struggles its way through a crippling recession.

But the pictures of the Acropolis — and of the Parthenon — remind me of two things.

One is that I’ve been able, along with my wife, to visit that magnificent place more than once. We went there together in 2000 and 2001; I was able to return a third time in 2003.

For those of us of Greek heritage, the sight of those antiquities sends chills throughout our body. I hope to return again.

The second reminder is of something my late father once told me when he was able to visit Athens with my grandfather — who came to the United States from Greece not long after the turn of the 20th century.

Dad told me that when he walked to the top of the Acropolis and was able to sit inside the Parthenon — which I guess you could do back in 1970 when he and my grandfather were there — he could feel his mind expand. He said something like, “I thought of things I never thought I could ponder.”

He felt smarter just being there, inside those columns erected 400-plus years before the birth of Jesus Christ.

Butler Cain is going to move on soon to another academic post in his native “sweet home Alabama.” I wish him well.

Thanks, young man, for sharing these wonderful pictures.

I feel smarter just looking at them.

Some pictures have this way of becoming iconic

baton rouge

Take a gander at this picture. It is rapidly becoming an iconic image of protest.

Police in Baton Rouge, La., were all suited up for the worst when demonstrators marched to protest the shooting death of a young black man by a police officer.

Why has this photo gone viral? Beats me. Perhaps it speaks to the fragile line between civil disobedience and armed conflict.

Yes, it does remind me of a couple of other historic images:

guy and tanks

We have this one, shot in 1989 as demonstrators marched through Tiananmen Square in Beijing to protest the dictatorial rule of the People’s Republic of China.

The man standing in front of the row of tanks would move back and forth, blocking the tanks’ progress.

I’ve heard reports over the years that the protester was arrested and has since died.

Then there’s this one:

Antiwar-demonstrators-tri-001

Those of us of a certain age and older remember this image and what it represents.

The Vietnam War was raging and it wasn’t going too well for us politically. Marchers took to the streets and at times confronted armed troops. Some of the marchers reacted badly. Others reacted the way this young man did.

Photojournalists were able to capture this — and many other — images. They are saved for posterity.

It does us well to look back at them to remind ourselves of how we arrived at the present day.

Step right up, City Council candidates

Councilmen_2015

A fascinating ritual is about to take place at Amarillo City Hall.

Five individuals seeking to become the fifth member of the City Council are going to interview Tuesday in person — in full public view — with those individuals they seek to join.

The city is seeking to fill the seat being vacated later this summer by Dr. Brian Eades, who’s leaving the city to set up a medical practice in Colorado.

http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2016-07-10/council-question-hopefuls

I wish Eades hadn’t taken this opportunity for professional advancement. But hey, a man’s got to do what he’s got to do. I wish him well and thank him for his service to this city.

Back to the task at hand.

The council is interviewing five folks who emerged as finalists from a pool of 14 original applicants. The 10 questions they’ve established I presume have been seen by the finalists. They’ve had time to bone up on the answers.

I sense we’ll know who among them have done the best preparation. Then again, we also might get a sense about which of them is the most rehearsed and whether that element of the preparation will present itself when they answer the questions.

Without question, the most provocative question is No. 4: How should a council candidate conduct himself or herself publicly and privately “when they may ultimately serve as the people’s ambassador?”

Pay attention to that one, Sandra McCartt. The question I’m sure is aimed at her, given the tempest that stirred when some social media posts she authored came to light. They weren’t exactly the type of messages that cry out “people’s ambassador!”

This process is new to the city. I hope it works well for the council. More importantly, I hope it works well for the public that will be listening to what these individuals say about how they intend to govern our city.

I’ll make one final point just one more time.

Council members are not obligated to convene an executive — or closed — session to deliberate over who they prefer. State open meetings laws only empower the council to do so.

If they are dedicated to full transparency and public accountability they now have the chance to demonstrate it.

Deliberate in public, gentlemen of the City Council.

Good luck to you all.

Partisan political debate will wait just a bit longer

dallas tribute

I don’t know about you, but I’m still trying to process the gravity of the events that took place last week.

Which means that I’m not yet ready to rejoin the political debate.

The “Main Event,” if you want to call it that, was the shooting in Dallas that killed five police officers, stunned a great American city and the nation and has — for the most part — brought many Americans together in the search for national healing.

The gunman is dead as the result of a totally justifiable use of force by the Dallas Police Department. Demonstrators in two other cities — where two young black men died in police-related shootings — have continued to march.

They’re all connected.

In precisely one week, Republicans will gather in Cleveland to nominate their presidential candidate. It’s likely going to be Donald J. Trump. I’ll have plenty to say about him and about his certain Democratic Party foe, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But as this week begins, I intend to focus instead on the interfaith memorial service set for Tuesday in Dallas. There will be some luminaries present to pay tribute to the fallen men.

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are two of them. A third one is former President George W. Bush.

I haven’t heard as of this very moment whether either Clinton or Trump will attend. Wouldn’t it be a remarkable sight to see the two nominees sitting side by side, heads bowed in prayer, perhaps holding hands in the spirit of unity?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

We’ll get the political stuff fired up in due course.

For now, though, let’s simply honor the men who died while upholding their solemn oath to protect and serve their community.

Time for Clinton to meet the press … head-on

hillary

As one who used to make his living trying to hold politicians accountable for their words and deeds, I am perplexed by Hillary Clinton’s aversion to answer questions from the media.

Politico Magazine calls it her “phobia” of press conferences.

Count me as someone who believes the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee should stand firm in front of microphones and answer the tough questions she knows would come at her during a formal press conference.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clintons-press-conference-phobia-214026

As Politico reports, Clinton hasn’t done so since December 2015. When CNN’s Jake Tapper asked her about that, according to Politico, Clinton “blithely” told him that she’d get around to it eventually.

Mme. Secretary, a lot has transpired since the end of this past year.

We’ve had the House Select Benghazi Committee complete its work. FBI Director James Comey announced just the other day that he won’t recommend bringing criminal charges against her in the e-mail controversy, which effectively ends that tumult. Republicans in Congress, though, plan to look some more into whether the FBI did its due diligence in examining the e-mail matter.

And oh yes, she’s got this presidential campaign and she ought to answer some of the weird insults that GOP candidate Donald J. Trump keeps tossing her way.

I get that politicians of all stripes are skittish when the press starts poking around. But hey, it’s their job to ask difficult questions when they need answers.

It’s also the politicians’ job to answer those questions when the media start asking them.

It’s not as if Hillary Clinton is a stranger to this exercise. She served as Arkansas first lady, then the nation’s first lady, then a U.S. senator from New York (which has a notoriously ferocious media climate) and then secretary of state.

She’s now campaigning for the most important office in the nation — if not the world!

It’s not going to get any easier for her from this moment on.

Inquiring minds, Mme. Secretary, are asking for answers to many serious questions.

Lt. Gov. Patrick reverted to his former self

dallas cops

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s amazing rant — only hours after the gunman cut loose on police officers in Dallas — didn’t sound like it should come from an elected statewide official.

No. It sounded like something that would shoot out of the mouth of, say, a talk-radio blowhard.

Oh, wait! It occurred to me that Lt. Gov. Patrick actually was a talk-radio blowhard before he entered politics as a state senator from Houston.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/a-tragedy-in-dallas/

Politicians of both major-party stripes spoke with calm assurance. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke of the need for national unity. Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump said our children need to be brought up in a safer, better world.

Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott called for unity, prayer and support for our police officers, five of whom died in that Dallas carnage this past week.

Democrats and Republicans sounded — more or less — alike in their statements of sadness and resolve.

Then the Texas lieutenant governor had to pop off as he did on “Fox and Friends.” He said the protesters who fled the gunfire, seeking protection from the police, were “hypocrites.” They were protesting earlier officer-involved shootings in Baton Rouge and near St. Paul. Therefore, they were behaving “hypocritically” by seeking protection from the cops who, by the way, were chumming around with the marchers before all hell broke loose.

He hasn’t taken any of it back. Patrick hasn’t reconsidered the tone of his remarks. He’s right and everyone else is wrong, correct?

Well, that’s the modus operandi of your typical blowhard.