Rep. Castro gets Dems’ hearts to flutter

Castro_in_IA_3_jpg_800x1000_q100

That pitter-patter you might be hearing belongs to the hearts of Texas Democrats who might seem to be excited at the prospect of an actual serious challenger to run against U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz.

The cause of the racing heartbeat is U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro of San Antonio, who has let it be known that he might run in 2018 against the man I’ve enjoyed referring to as the Cruz Missile.

Cruz is a Republican lawmaker who was the last man standing in the fight to deny Donald J. Trump the GOP presidential nomination. He made a heck of splash at last week’s Republican national convention by declining to endorse the man who beat him to the finish line.

He got booed off the Cleveland stage.

Will this damage him in Texas? My gut tells me he might face a stronger challenge from within his own party than he might face from a Democrat, even one as attractive, articulate and polished as Joaquin Castro.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/26/joaquin-castro-considers-texas-senate-run-cruz/

I remain fervent in my belief that Texas is better served with a vibrant two-party system. We do not have a Democratic Party that is yet able to challenge Republicans at the statewide level. Republicans win big — every time. They’ve held every statewide office in Texas since 1998. I don’t see any sign of weakness in the GOP vise grip.

Will it present itself in 2018 when Ted Cruz runs for re-election to the U.S. Senate. Rep. Castro seems to think it might.

I hope he’s correct. Cruz simply is not my kind of senator.

However, I’m not yet ready to presume that the Cruz Missile will fizzle out.

What a difference a day makes

BBuRyjq

Let’s see … today is Tuesday.

Democrats opened their presidential nominating convention a day earlier. They had been rocked and rolled by allegations that their lame-duck national party chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had sought to rig their nominating process in favor of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Schultz quit the chairmanship. Democrats opened their convention amid signs of open rebellion by delegates loyal to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who battled Clinton throughout the primary process.

Then came those rousing speeches by first lady Michelle Obama, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Cory Booker and, oh yeah, Sen. Sanders.

What happened to that dissension? What happened to the insurrection?

Well, today is a new day. And Democrats proceeded to make some history by nominating Hillary Rodham Clinton as their candidate for president of the United States.

What’s more, the roll call of votes cast on the convention floor ended with Sanders himself calling for a “suspension of the rules,” which the convention chair interpreted as a call for nominating Clinton by acclamation.

The delegates cheered loudly as they endorsed the acclamation vote.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/clinton-wins-historic-nomination-%E2%80%94-with-a-boost-from-sanders/ar-BBuSbWh?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

Just as the party made history eight years ago by nominating the first African-American to run for president, it did so again today by sending its first woman nominee into political combat against the Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Will the anger subside over the shenanigans of the former DNC chair? Oh, probably not. Republicans will make sure to keep it roiling along with the dedicated Sanders supporters who might have to be dragged kicking and screaming to vote for Clinton this fall.

Former President Bill Clinton is going to speak tonight.

This is just a hunch, but my gut tells me he’s going to bring the house down, just as he did in 2012 when he lit up the convention hall in Charlotte to exhort the delegates to fight for Barack Obama’s re-election.

It’s been said many times that “a week is a lifetime in politics.”

So, too, it appears is a single day.

Government: It’s a partnership, yes?

13631414_1745253302411619_3376219339678446266_n

This graphic showed up on a social media feed that I get.

I find it most instructive. I won’t recite it to you, as you can see it for yourself.

It does, though, prompt a thought or two about government and its very nature as created by the founders of our great country.

They created a partnership. They limited the power of the president on purpose by dividing the power among three co-equal branches of government … and by allowing states to create their own governments to deal with issues germane to those who live within those states and other territories.

So, when I hear Republicans these days yap and yammer about how the country is going to hell — a notion to which I do not subscribe — I also have to wonder if they’re really ready to take ownership of the government in which they, too, are an integral part.

The party that opposes the individual in the White House has been as much a part of what supposedly ails the country as the president.

Sure, the president — and vice president — are elected in a nationwide vote. Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are elected by those who live within their states and/or congressional districts. Collectively, though, they also represent a national constituency.

The same logic can be applied to governors and state legislators.

As the graphic points, most of those office at this point are occupied by the Republican Party.

Which begs the question: Why are they bitching so loudly?

Clinton doesn’t need a ‘reintroduction’

hillary

I am skeptical of political operatives who say they want to “reintroduce” their candidate to the American public.

What’s more, I am extremely skeptical — dubious, even — of efforts to reintroduce arguably the nation’s most recognizable woman to Americans whose votes she is seeking.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been on or near the national stage for nearly a quarter century. She stood by her man — pardon the pun — when he ran for president in 1992; she weathered the storm of Bill Clinton’s impeachment involving that disgraceful relationship he had with the White House intern; she ran for the U.S. Senate in 2000 and served for eight years with many of the same individuals who voted to toss her husband out of office; she then served for four years as secretary of state.

Is a reintroduction necessary? Hardly.

I believe the term “reintroduction” is a sort of code for “extreme political makeover,” which the Democratic presidential nominee’s handlers believe is necessary, given the incessant pounding she’s been getting for, oh, the past 25 years.

I’m sure you’ve seen — or perhaps even used — some of the hideous perversions of her very name when referring to her.

If the Democrats’ candidate for president has demonstrated anything she has shown herself to be filled with an iron will and an emotional constitution that defies most of our understanding. I am one who has trouble grasping just how she has endured this withering fire.

But she has. As for the “reintroduction,” it’s not necessary.

She’s been called a liar and a crook. She’s been tarred by accusations that she and her husband are actual murderers; do you remember the “Clinton Chronicles,” a video produced by none other than the late Jerry Falwell, founder of Liberty University and a “Christian pastor”? Lately, she’s been labeled a traitor who should be executed.

It’s all phony.

A reintroduction — if that’s what you want to call it — is going to require some serious marketing.

Sometimes old makes way for new

polk street

This picture is of a building that’s coming down on Polk Street,  near Seventh Avenue, in downtown Amarillo.

A friend of mine, Wes Reeves, snapped it and posted it on social media earlier today.

I’ve known Reeves for many years and I have developed a keen affection for his own love of local history and things that are old and worth preserving.

Reeves loves old buildings. He believes communities must honor their past by doing all they can to preserve those vestiges of history.

He also noted as he posted this photo that there’s some good news accompanying the demolition of something old. It is that Amarillo is getting something new: a brew pub that is planned to be built in the city’s evolving downtown business-and-entertainment district.

Which brings me to the point here.

It is that the city is changing its central district personality.

Is the city going to forsake every single shred of history? Good heavens, no!

Amarillo already has preserved the historic Fisk Building and turned it into a classy hotel. Potter County has renovated the exterior of its courthouse, along with restoring and reviving the Santa Fe Building. There will be plenty of other restoration projects ahead; I’m hoping — along with the rest of the city — for eventual restoration of the Barfield Building and the Herring Hotel.

The new features, though, ought to be as welcome here as efforts to preserve the old ones.

And no doubt about it, we’re getting plenty of new business.

Yes, downtown is changing. That change necessarily means we have to make way for the change. If it involves the occasional removal of something old that no longer is functional, well, I’m all for that, too.

Let the change continue.

FLOTUS gives ’em some tough love at DNC

FILE -- In a Nov. 12, 2011 file photo first lady Michelle Obama listens during a visit to  MA’O Organic Farms in Waianae, Hawaii.    Michelle Obama cajoled Jay Leno into nibbling on apples, sweet potato fries and a pizza made with eggplant, green peppers and zucchini on the "Tonight Show," Tuesday Jan. 31, 2012.     (AP Photo/Susan Walsh/file)

Did you hear what I heard first lady Michelle Obama say to the Democratic National Convention delegates?

I’m pretty sure I heard her deliver a tough-love lecture to the Bernie Sanders supporters who earlier in the day were booing the sound of the name “Hillary Clinton.”

The first lady had the courage to inform them that Clinton did not walk away and sulk after losing the Democratic presidential primary in 2008 to Sen. Barack Obama. She informed them that Clinton joined the team that helped elect the young senator as president.

My hunch as I listened to her speech tonight was that the message was not lost on the Sanders legions who stood in front of her on the convention floor — let alone those at home who might be feeling a bit down and out.

Her message? Get over it.

Schultz gets tossed; the recriminations continue

dem chair

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has violated one of the fundamental tents of running a major political party.

You’re supposed to be neutral while your party seeks to nominate candidates for high office.

She wasn’t. Schultz, as chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, has the bad taste to say negative things about Bernie Sanders as he battled Hillary Rodham Clinton for the party’s presidential nomination.

What’s been the impact of that revelation as Democrats have convened their gathering in Philadelphia? It has energized the Sanders supporters. They’ve been booing any mention of Clinton’s name. Even their guy — Bernie himself — has been booed and jeered for encouraging his delegates to rally behind Clinton … as he has done himself.

Then came the amazing mea culpa from the DNC. It has apologized publicly to Sanders, effectively tossing Schultz under the proverbial bus.

She has earned the hoots and jeers she is getting at this convention. Schultz this morning got the bum’s rush from her own home-state delegates in Florida.

Did she rig the primary campaign, greasing it for her friend Clinton? It is beginning to feel that way.

Schultz, though, is gone. Her resignation from the chairmanship is effective at the end of the convention. The reality, though, is that she’s done.

The task for Clinton’s team — and for Sanders — is to bring the delegates together. We’ll see if Schultz’s resignation and the apology from the DNC will be enough to calm the storm.

Let’s toss ‘boring’ out of describing Democrats’ convention

democratic-national-convention

It seems as though Democrats’ wish for a “boring” national presidential nominating convention has been flushed away.

It remains an open question, though, whether the lack of boredom bodes ill for the Democrats as they battle Donald J. Trump and the Republicans for the presidency of the United States.

The raucousness of the GOP convention last week now seems a bit quaint.

Democrats have convened their gathering amid a lot of tumult over some e-mails that included unflattering language from DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her open disdain for Bernie Sanders and his insurgent candidacy for the party nomination.

Someone, I suppose, needed to remind Schultz that party chairs are supposed to at least put on the appearance of neutrality. Not so with the chairwoman, who has quit her job.

Hillary Clinton is going to be nominated this week as the Democratic presidential candidate. Tonight, Sen. Sanders will speak to the delegates. Yeah, he’ll get a lot of cheers. He’ll get some boos, too, when he tells his supporters he intends to back Clinton and will work hard to get her elected.

He’ll endorse Clinton — again tonight. It’s a certainty he won’t draw the kind of boos and jeers that Ted Cruz did when he declined to endorse Trump during his big night at the GOP convention.

This convention, though, won’t be boring.

‘Damn e-mails’ plaguing Clinton once more

Cassidy-Bernie-Sanders-Loud-and-Clear-1200

Do you remember when Sen. Bernie Sanders told Hillary Clinton he was “tired of hearing about those damn e-mails”?

He said so during a Democratic Party primary debate. It drew big laughs and applause as he sought to put to rest  the hubbub over Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as secretary of state.

Well, it turns out that “damn e-mails” of quite another variety are rising up to nip at Clinton as she prepares to become the Democrats’ presidential nominee.

This time they involve Sanders himself. They also involve communication from lame-duck Democratic Party chair Debbie Wasserman Shultz, who apparently really and truly didn’t want Sanders to be nominated by her party.

The e-mails appear to paint a picture of a conspiracy to deny Sanders the nomination. Schultz, after all, is a good friend of Clinton. So, she wanted her pal nominated, as the e-mails suggest.

The chairwoman has tendered her resignation. She won’t gavel the convention open this evening. She’s going to be keeping the lowest of profiles possible for the next four days.

That’s probably a good thing.

But oh brother, the chatter has begun about the “rigged system” that’s going to nominate Clinton. The chatterer in chief is none other than Republican nominee Donald J. Trump, who had his own political rigging to deal with as he sought his party’s nomination.

I’m not going to take the Hillary-colluded-with-Debbie bait. No one has offered any proof that the Clinton campaign was party to what Schultz sought to do, which allegedly was to use skullduggery to deny Sanders the nomination.

Still, Clinton’s got another e-mail matter she must clear up.

I don’t know how she does that. She’s pretty damn smart. My advice to her is to get busy and find a way to get this mess cleaned up.

Tim Kaine: serious about the oath he takes

24KAINE1-master768

Tim Kaine’s selection as Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential running mate is bringing forth the expected public vetting of the U.S. senator’s public policy record.

One item that’s been drawing some attention has involved capital punishment.

A New York Times story Sunday notes that although Kaine is vehemently opposed to executing people for capital crimes he was able to carry out executions while serving as governor of Virginia.

My reaction: Well, duuuhhh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/us/politics/tim-kaine-death-penalty.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Felection-2016&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=14&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Kaine has moved on to the Senate, where he gets to vote on laws that affect all Americans. But while serving as governor, he took a solemn oath to do one thing essentially: to follow the law as prescribed and written by the legislative assembly of his state.

Governors really have little leeway as it regards capital punishment. Sure, they can commute sentences, which Kaine did while serving as Virginia governor, and which he was empowered to do under the state constitution.

However, if the state executed someone who had been sentenced to death by a jury, then it follows that the governor — barring some extraordinary circumstance — is obligated to do what the law tells him to do.

Virginia is No.2 in the nation in executing capital criminals. No. 1? Oh, yeah … that would be Texas!

The two hats Kaine wears — as one who opposes certain public policy but who must adhere to the law –aren’t the least bit confusing, to me at least.

He struggles as well with abortion. Kaine is a devoted Catholic who believes in the doctrine of his church, which opposes abortion for any reason. However, abortion is legal in this country and, therefore, Kaine must follow the law.

Indeed, he also remains pro-choice on that issue, regardless of his personal opposition to the practice based on his own moral compass and the teachings of his church — believing, apparently, that the government should allow women to make that gut-wrenching decision for themselves.

Sen. Kaine is a serious man who now has been given a serious task, which is to run alongside the Democrats’ presidential candidate. His executive government experience owing to his days as a governor demonstrates he also is a serious public servant.