Monthly Archives: July 2016

national news, political news

‘Gun cops’ are nowhere to be seen

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I am hurtling toward my 70th year on this Earth and for most of that time I’ve been fairly politically attuned to the various debates of the time.

One debate that seems to have outlasted many of the others has been about guns.

Gun violence breaks out and we hear the squeals of gloom and doom from the gun lobby that politicians are going to call on the cops to break down our doors and confiscate all our weapons. Those nasty pols simply hate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and they’re going to do away with it. They’re going to steal our civil liberties and deny us the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Such nonsense came flying out of the mouth last night of Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump. The Democrats’ nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton, wants to do away with the Second Amendment, he said, and by gosh-and-by-darn, he won’t let that happen.

The pro-gun-rights lobby has been saying the same thing about President Obama. They said it about the first President Clinton, and about President Carter, President Johnson and President Kennedy.

What do all these pols have in common? They’re all Democrats, the gun-hating, squishy liberal political party that wants to disarm Americans and leave us vulnerable to a government takeover of all our rights.

If any of that were true, wouldn’t any one of those aforementioned individuals have done so already?

Of course not!

They can’t. Congress won’t allow it. The gun lobby — which has sunk its teeth deeply into lawmakers’ necks — won’t allow it. The Constitution won’t allow it.

Yet the fear-mongering continues — as it did from the podium on the final night Wednesday at the Republican National Convention.

I do believe there are ways to regulate firearms a bit more tightly while remaining faithful to the Second Amendment. The merchants of fear, though — now led by Donald Trump — won’t allow it.

national news, political news

‘I, alone’ will cure the nation’s ills

trump

Two words stood out for me after I heard Donald J. Trump accept the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.

They comprise six letters, all told.

“I, alone” will repair the things that are afflicting the nation.

There. He said it. He’s is The Man. He will do it all by himself.

Trump will make Americans safe from international terrorists; he will restore “law and order” to our communities; he will toss out the Affordable Care Act and create a new health insurance system; he will renegotiate “great” trade deals; he will bring jobs back to the country; he will build a wall that keeps illegal immigrants out.

Well, government happens to be a partnership. At least that’s how the framers built it. They created a legislative branch to write the laws, an executive branch to administer them and a judicial branch to ensure that they do not violate the U.S. Constitution.

As has been said many times: A president proposes, but Congress disposes.

Trump, though, sees it differently. He’s going to grab the government by the throat and throttle it long enough to accomplish all that he intends to do.

However, he’s got a tiny concern with which he needs to deal. It’s the 535 men and women — many of whom have egos as large as Trump’s — who comprise the two legislative houses perched atop Capitol Hill.

Trump got the convention crowd fired up. He gave a pretty good speech. He was disciplined and “on message.” I give him props for that.

One, however, heard only a smidgen of humility and that occurred in the very first line of his speech when he accepted the party’s nomination for president.

He’ll hit the trail now. He’ll take his message — whatever it is — to the battleground states. Trump will seek to persuade voters that, by golly, since he’s built that business of his all by himself that “I, alone” will be able to repair the damage done to the country.

Which brings me, briefly, to this final point.

The country he and his surrogates described during the past four days does not resemble in any way the country I’ve seen emerge from the fiscal meltdown it suffered eight years ago.

The nation’s military isn’t “decimated.” The economy is recovering; yes, it could be a stronger, more vibrant recovery, but then again, it’s never reached perfect economic pitch. Crime has gone down, not up — and there’s plenty of data to back that up.

I get that political conventions are intended to put the other party in the worst possible negative light. Republicans did a great job of it this week, even though they distorted the truth beyond all recognition.

Their nominee completed the distortion by declaring that “I, alone” am able to do all these things to “make American great again.”

Now … bring on the Democrats.

national news, political news, State news

Cruz gets pounded … by Texas delegates!

Cruz_Trump_ap_img

So help me, I think I need an intervention.

I’m about to stand up for U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Cruz spoke last night to the Republican National Convention. The so-called “smart money” had been put down by those who were certain he would endorse GOP nominee Donald J. Trump.

Cruz didn’t go there. He didn’t go anywhere near there. He stood before the convention crowd and encouraged them to “vote your conscience.”

A lot of delegates took that to mean “vote for anyone other than our nominee.” They started booing. Loudly.

This morning, Sen. Cruz stood before the Texas convention delegation and defended himself against his fellow Texans.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/21/cruzs-failure-to-endorse-trump-upsets-voters-video/

I totally support Cruz’s decision to decline to endorse Trump.

Sen. Cruz has good reason. The nominee “defamed” Cruz’s father by implying that Daddy Cruz might have been complicit in the assassination of President Kennedy. Rafael Cruz supposedly had spoken to Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK was shot to death. Therefore, the innuendo was planted.

Trump also released a tweet showing Heidi Cruz, the former GOP candidate’s wife, in an unflattering picture.

Cruz said this morning that Trump had defamed his father and maligned his wife.

How in the world does a candidate toss all that aside and then endorse a candidate for the presidency of the United States?

I am not privy to Cruz’s ulterior motive. There’s been much chatter today about how is now planning to run for president again in 2020, presuming that Trump loses the election this fall.

In the context of the current convention climate and the current nominee, I believe Ted Cruz did what he felt he had to do.

Sure, he’s going to take plenty of flak from other Republicans.

He’s not, though, the “sore loser” others have called him. I prefer to think of him as a loving husband and son.

national news, political news

Clinton might announce VP pick very soon … or later

here-are-the-top-vice-president-picks-for-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton_1

One of the more fascinating theories being kicked around about the timing of Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential selection announcement deals with the outcome of the Republican National Convention.

If the GOP finishes the convention tonight on a downer, the theory goes, Clinton is going to wait a day or two before making her big announcement.

If it finishes on a high note, if Donald J. Trump hits it out of the arena tonight when he makes his presidential nomination acceptance speech, Clinton well might be set to announce her selection Friday morning.

She might even leak it out over Twitter, say, around midnight.

My own gut tells me that she’s made up her mind, that she’s notified all the candidates she “vetted” for the VP post and that she has worked out a pending appearance with whomever she has selected.

Whether announces her selection early — or later — well might depend on the way the Republicans conclude their convention.

I’m all ears.

national news, political news

What has happened to the Grand Old Party?

Republican_Party1

I miss Jacob Javits, Everett Dirksen, Nelson Rockefeller, Charles Percy, Mark Hatfield, Howard Baker and even Ronald Reagan.

I miss the old-guard Republicans who used to see their political opponents as “adversaries” and not “enemies.”

These are the guys who used to work with Lyndon Johnson, George McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Sam Rayburn and other Democrats to seek a way forward for the nation.

These days we hear talk of doing away with the “enemy.” It’s all over the air and in print coming out of the Republican National Convention, which concludes tonight in Cleveland.

Where did this “enemy” talk come from?

I cannot answer that with great precision, although I do remember a quote attributed to the former speaker of the House, Newton Leroy Gingrich, who led a GOP “revolution” back in 1994.

It was Newt who spoke to his minions of the need to characterize Democrats as “the enemy of normal Americans.”

Let that sink in for a moment.

There. Now let’s ponder whether the “enemy” characterization has worked well for the nation.

A New Hampshire delegate to the GOP convention has said Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton should be “shot for treason.”

Yes. Shot! The Secret Service is examining whether this fellow presents a clear and present danger to a leading American politician. Clinton hasn’t been charged with a crime, let along convicted of one. That doesn’t matter to this fellow.

Yes, we’ve gotten more than a bit testy these days.

To think that this once-great political party, where politicians used to take pride in their ability to work with the other side, has devolved to this point.

Is the other side innocent of this kind of division? No. They, too, have their share of loudmouthed demagogues. But in the halls of Congress, which is controlled by Republicans, we see the majority party using language that seeks to drive a wedge between men and women on both sides of the aisle.

It’s all coming to bear this week in Cleveland and the Grand Old Party sends its nominee off to campaign against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats.

I’m usually not one to harken back to the old days. I wouldn’t want to be a teenager ever again.

In this instance, though, I am left to wish for a return — in the words of another grand old-school Republican, George H.W. Bush — to a “kinder, gentler” time.

International news, military news, national news, political news

NATO remains our premier alliance

formation-of-nato-hero-AB

Here’s a quick pop quiz question for you …

Of all the alliances that included the United States, which of them was deemed the most crucial and which of them has lasted the longest?

Time’s up!

The answer is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, formed in 1949 as the Cold War was reaching a fever pitch. It was formed as a defense alliance against the military threat posed by the Soviet Union and its bloc of nations against Western Europe.

Its mission has changed a bit since 1991, when the Evil Empire collapsed. The Soviet Union no longer poses a threat, but Russia does.

So, what does the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, propose to do? He wants to establish financial conditions on whether the United States would honor its treaty obligations in case Russia were to attack, say, any or all of the Baltic States.

Trump told the New York Times that if he’s elected president that he would examine whether a threatened NATO nation had upheld its financial responsibilities as part of the defense pact. I mention the Baltic States because they once were Soviet provinces, but they became independent as the Soviet Union fell; Russia has been making some noise about re-annexing Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, all of which are now NATO members.

With that statement, Trump has proposed a fundamental rewriting of our oldest post-World War II military alliance.

According to the New York Times: “The United States created the 28-nation alliance, and Article 5 of the NATO treaty, signed by President Truman, requires any member to come to the aid of another that NATO declares was attacked. It has been invoked only once: NATO pledged to defend the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Yes, we’ve been a charter member of the United Nations, which was formed in 1945. I’m wondering if Trump — in stating his nationalist fervor — is going to propose we withdraw from the U.N. as a sop to the TEA Party faction with the GOP that has been supporting his presidential candidacy.

GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney in 2012 called Russia the nation’s No. 1 geopolitical threat. Given that hindsight provides such clarity, Romney’s view now appears to be quite prescient.

Trump now is going to put conditions on whether we rise to the defense of a NATO member nation. Are they paying their bills? Have they made good on maintaining their financial obligations to NATO? Are we going to let the citizens of a country under attack be subjected to the tyranny that Russian rule would bring to them because their government hasn’t paid their fair share of the cost associated with NATO membership?

How many more examples is the GOP presidential nominee going to provide that demonstrate his absolute ignorance of geopolitical alliances before it sinks in that he is unfit for the office he seeks?

Great nations do not go back on their word to protect their allies.

national news, political news

Oh, yes, and then there’s the Golden Rule

Golden-Rule-1

“Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets.”

Matthew 7:12

Ah, yes. You’ve that said before, yes?

The New Testament of the Bible attributes that admonition to none other than Jesus of Nazareth.

I am extremely nervous melding Scripture with contemporary American politics. But the Golden Rule seems somehow appropriate to mention in this context.

Ted Cruz last night stood before the Republican National Convention and delivered a stem winder of a speech that said almost everything he was expected to say … except for this: “I hereby endorse Donald J. Trump for president of the United States.”

He didn’t go there. And why do you suppose he declined to take that step?

Because of what he described as the “slander” and “defamation” of this wife and father. Trump tweeted that unflattering picture of Heidi Cruz during the primary campaign. Then he implied that Sen. Cruz’s father might have been complicit in President Kennedy’s assassination. Sen. Cruz told the Texas convention delegates this morning that he couldn’t endorse someone who had treated two of his loved ones with such cruelty.

“I am not in the habit of supporting those who attack and slander my wife and my father,” he said.

It’s fair to ask: How do you suppose Donald Trump would react if someone had said anything like that about his father and his wife?

The Golden Rule can be found in many religious contexts, be it Judaism, Hinduism and Islam … in addition to Christianity.

Trump has said he is a “religious person.” Well, someone who knows and follows the teachings provided in the Holy Bible might be aware of what Matthew’s Gospel tells us about how to treat others.

The Golden Rule seems always to take a beating during the heat of a fierce political battle. Politicians say things about their opponents that they never would tolerate from others and none of this is unique to the current campaign.

Trump’s way of tossing out insults and innuendo as weapons against his foes — and against their family members — puts the Golden Rule into sharper-than-usual focus during this election cycle.

I know that critics of this blog will respond with rejoinders about how politicians dating back to the beginning of the Republic have said far worse than what Trump has uttered.

Fine. Bring it on.

However, at this very moment my particular focus is on a major political party’s nominee for the presidency of the United States of America. This man has failed to abide by the Golden Rule.

national news, political news

‘I did not say a negative word about Donald Trump’

578133554-ted-cruz-GOP-convention

Ted Cruz did not endorse Donald J. Trump when he spoke to the Republican National Convention delegates.

No. The junior U.S. senator from Texas spoke about conservative principles, the Constitution and faithfulness to principle.

But he didn’t “say a negative word about Donald Trump.”

Thus, Cruz said this morning in remarks to the Texas convention delegation, he is comfortable with the theme of his speech.

I am scratching my head this morning. I’m trying to shake the cobwebs loose.

I watched most of Sen. Cruz’s speech Wednesday night. I waited for the “Therefore, I intend to endorse …” moment. It didn’t come.

And when Cruz finished his speech, the hoots and jeers from the convention floor drowned out whatever cheers were coming from the floor.

My question this morning centers on this issue: If you’re a presidential nominee and you are in charge of the convention agenda, don’t you want to be sure that if your chief challenger is going to speak to the convention — during prime TV time — that the challenger endorses your candidacy?

So, this morning the punditry across the country isn’t talking about vice-presidential nominee Mike Pence’s remarks at the end of the evening. We’re talking instead about what Ted Cruz didn’t say.

I get that this isn’t the first example of challengers failing to endorse their party’s nominee at the convention. Ronald Reagan’s speech at the1976 GOP convention didn’t exactly offer a ringing endorsement of President Ford; Nelson Rockefeller was booed during his entire speech by Barry Goldwater delegates at the 1964 GOP gathering; Ted Kennedy finished his 1980 speech at the Democratic convention without endorsing President Carter and then was chased around the stage as Carter sought to raise his hand in that symbolic pose.

Trump has campaigned on his take-charge, can-do approach to everything.

He hasn’t taken charge of the political convention that has nominated him to run for president of the United States.

national news, political news

Cruz’s ‘dream’ still burns brightly

cruz-trump_jpg_800x1000_q100

So much for the anticipation of an endorsement from one of Donald J. Trump’s chief Republican rivals.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz strode to the microphone this evening to speak to GOP convention delegates. Many of them expected — or at least hoped — that the Texas lawmaker would endorse the man of the hour, Trump.

He didn’t.

Cruz mentioned the party presidential nominee’s one time. He did it early in his remarks … and then tore into a riff about the fight for freedom, liberty and working men and women.

He spoke to the strong conservative principles that helped fuel his own presidential candidacy. Cruz said he’ll continue to fight for those principles during this campaign and into the future.

I haven’t heard anyone say it just yet, but to my ears Sen. Cruz seemed to echo an earlier speech given by the “liberal lion of the Senate,” the late Ted Kennedy.

It was Kennedy in 1980 who fought President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. That campaign was bitter, as was this year’s GOP campaign.

Did Kennedy endorse Carter during his time on the podium? Oh, no.

Instead, he spoke to the progressive principles that fueled his failed presidential campaign, concluding his stem winder with “the dream shall never die!”

Yes, I saw some symmetry in those two speeches.

I should note that Carter went on that year to lose h-u-u-u-u-g-e to Republican Ronald Reagan.

Is the No. 2 GOP primary finisher’s non-endorsement speech a harbinger of what’s going to happen this fall?

Let’s all stay tuned.

local news

Not so fast, Mr. Manager

childers

Amarillo City Council members have put the brakes on a search for a city manager.

This is an interesting — but I’m not yet sure it’s a necessary — development in the rebuilding of the city’s top administrative infrastructure.

Interim City Manager Terry Childers came on board after Jarrett Atkinson resigned a job he held for about six years. Childers then got entangled in an embarrassing kerfuffle involving the city’s emergency communications center. He apologized for bullying a dispatcher over an incident involving a misplaced briefcase.

Then the search commenced.

Why the delay … now?

Mayor Paul Harpole said the city has a lot of big projects in the works that require some administrative continuity.

He noted that the city has a potential bond election coming to seek voter approval on a number of big construction projects; plus, the city is in the midst of negotiations to bring a AA baseball franchise top play hardball in the to-be-built downtown ballpark; and … the city is enacting a series of administrative overhauls within the police department.

Childers is leaving his footprint on City Hall. He’s selected an interim police chief, Ed Drain, to succeed former Chief Robert Taylor, who recently retired.

As an outsider sitting in back row of the peanut gallery, though, I wonder about the status of the individuals the city has examined for the city manager’s post. The delay in hiring a permanent manager could take as long as a year. Do the individuals already looked at hang around, waiting for the phone call from City Hall?

My initial concerns about Childers centered on that silly exchange over the briefcase. He blundered and blustered his way into local headlines over that tempest and, to my mind, it seemed appropriate for the council to proceed with all deliberate speed in finding a permanent city manager.

I’m guessing the waters have calmed a bit at City Hall. If that’s the case, then the council is moving with all deliberate prudence in this search.

However, if the interim manager is here temporarily, then the council needs to get on with the search for someone who’ll take his or her post permanently.