JFK murder recalls a curious interview

brooks-at-lbj-swearing-in

Take a good look at this picture. You know the moment it has recorded.

Standing behind the grieving Jacqueline Kennedy, just over her right shoulder is a fellow I used to know pretty well. He is U.S. Rep. Jack Brooks, a Democrat from Beaumont, Texas, and arguably the crustiest, most partisan member of the Texas congressional delegation at that time … or perhaps any time.

Brooks died just a few years ago. He was one of the Democrats who lost his re-election bid in that historic Republican “Contract With America” tide that swept over Congress in 1994.

The previous year, I sat down with Brooks to interview him about the events that occurred in Dallas 30 years earlier. I sought to get into the man’s soul, into his heart. I wanted him to share with his constituents — through this interview to be published in the Beaumont Enterprise — what he felt that day.

Jack was riding in the motorcade that beautiful day in Dallas. It was Nov. 22, 1963. He was riding several vehicles behind the presidential limo that was carrying the Kennedys and Texas Gov. John Connally and his wife, Nellie.

Rifle shots exploded from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, hitting the president and Gov. Connally. Their car took off at full speed for Parkland Hospital. The world held its breath when news broke that “shots were fired” at the motorcade.

Then the terrible result flashed around the globe: The president was dead.

I sought to plumb deep into Rep. Brooks’ heart and soul that day.

But I learned something that day about Brooks that I knew intuitively all along. He wasn’t prone to thinking like that. I recall being disappointed at the seeming lack of pathos this man.

Brooks wasn’t the most gracious fellow I’ve ever met. He could be as mean as they come. Perhaps he wasn’t comfortable talking to a media representative about that terrible day.

Surely he knew, I speculated to him out loud, about the immense burden that his mentor and friend — President Lyndon Johnson — was carrying at that moment. Did he sense it? Did he grasp in the moment that the world was watching everyone’s move that day? Brooks didn’t confide much to me during our visit that day.

That interview stands perhaps as the most glaring missed opportunity I experienced during nearly four decades in daily journalism.

Oh, how I sought far more than I got from a veteran Texas politician.

Hillary need not heed activists’ plea to challenge election

aakd1s4

Activists, by definition, I suppose are those who cannot let certain things go.

Their belief in their correctness makes them a bit frenzied in their desire to achieve a desired result.

Thus, we hear that some political activists are encouraging defeated presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton to challenge the election results in three key battleground states in an effort to overturn Donald J. Trump’s Electoral College victory.

Don’t do it, Mme. Secretary.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/activists-urge-clinton-campaign-to-challenge-election-results-in-3-swing-states/ar-AAkD4w7?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

The three states in question are Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clinton lost all three of them to Trump — although Michigan hasn’t yet been called officially for the president-elect, as it’s still determined to be too close to call.

According to the Daily Intelligencer: “Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they’ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private.”

This would be a futile exercise. It also would be virtually unprecedented. Moreover, how long would it take to prove such an event occurred and how much damage could such a probe do our political system if the plaintiffs fail to make the case?

I feel the need to remind these activists of other close elections in which the loser chose to let the results stand. The most fascinating example occurred in 1960. Vice President Richard Nixon lost the presidential election to Sen. John F. Kennedy by fewer than 150,000 votes nationally, out of more than 60 million ballots cast. Questions arose about the vote totals in Cook County, Ill., which Kennedy won handily and which helped tip Illinois into the Democrat’s column.

Nixon didn’t challenge the result. He chose instead to let it stand. Kennedy went on to take the oath of office, over the expressed anger of the GOP activists who wanted Nixon to make an issue of an outcome that didn’t square with their desire.

Hillary lost the election under the rules set forth by the Founding Fathers. Even those of us who dislike the outcome ought to be able to accept it.

Just as many of us said in dismissing Trump’s assertion of a “rigged” election, I don’t believe that is what produced the stunning result.

‘Alt-right’ becomes euphemism for something ugly

082616-alt-right

I hate euphemisms, words meant to clean up ugly images, intentions and motivations.

“Alt-right” has emerged as the euphemism du jour of the moment. It describes haters on the far right.

We hear the term used most prominently from liberal-leaning commentators, pundits, journalists … whoever. They use it when they reference, say, Donald J. Trump’s new chief political strategist, Steven Bannon, former editor of Breitbart News, a far-right propaganda vessel.

“Alt-right” movements have popped up all over the country. They are cheering Trump’s election as president of the United States.

We need to shy away from this “alt-right” nonsense. These groups promote an ugly America. They want to roll back the tide of history.

“White nationalist” is another make-nice word that means “white supremacist.” No need to define what the white supremacist seeks to do. We all know.

This use of verbiage to give these groups some semblance of legitimacy is a relatively new phenomenon. Let’s recall, for a moment, the 1960s.

The nation was roiling with protests from groups one could have said at the time comprised the “alt-left.” We didn’t get that. The “alt-left” described groups such as the Weathermen, or the Students for a Democratic Society. They acted violently to protest government policies in prosecuting the Vietnam War or at home.

Those lefty groups were a destructive force that contributed little to the nation’s political discourse.

Today’s righty groups — which we now call the “alt-right” — are just as destructive.

Trump ‘mandate’ keeps slipping away

ballot-box

I don’t intend to beat this issue to death, but I do intend to drive home what I believe is an important point about the 2016 presidential election.

It’s this issue of Donald J. Trump’s supposed “mandate” from the election result.

You see, the president-elect is trailing Hillary Rodham Clinton in the popular vote total by an increasing margin.

As of this very moment — at 8:32 p.m. CST on Nov. 22 — Clinton’s vote lead over Trump totals 1,737,744 ballots. They’re still counting ballots in Clinton-friendly states out west. Hillary’s vote lead will approach, perhaps even exceed, 2 million ballots when they’re all done with the counting.

I am not challenging that Trump won the election. He has 306 electoral votes; Clinton’s electoral vote totals 232. Trump needed just 270 of those votes to be elected. He’s going to become our 45th president in January.

He won it under the rules.

Nor am I advocating an end to the Electoral College.

However, Trump needs to be careful when he talks about “mandate,” and whether his victory awards him sufficient political capital to do all the things he vowed to do.

Build a wall? Ban Muslims from entering the country? Revoke trade deals? Appoint arch-conservative ideologues to the federal bench?

Yes, the president-elect won the Electoral College by a comfortable margin, but he’s falling farther and farther behind in the actual votes for president. More than half of those who voted for president cast their ballots for someone other than the guy who won. Hillary won’t achieve a majority of all the votes, but her plurality is looking healthier every day.

That vote deficit must give even a brash braggart like Donald J. Trump pause … or one might think.

Then again, we’re dealing with someone who broke virtually every conventional rule in the book while winning the presidency. Still, he ought to take great care when declaring a “mandate” to do anything once he takes his oath of office.

‘You’d be in jail’ … except that Hillary won’t go there

aakdd3c

Donald J. Trump spoke a lot of trash during his winning campaign for the presidency.

He turned to Hillary Rodham Clinton during a presidential debate and said “You’d be in jail” in response to a statement she made about his lack of understanding of the rule of law.

Then he talked about appointing a special prosecutor to look for proof that she was as “crooked” as he said she was.

Except that now he’s not going to anything of the sort.

That is a very good call from the president-elect.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-political-calculus-behind-trump%e2%80%99s-decision-not-to-push-for-a-clinton-prosecution/ar-AAkm2l0?li=BBnb7Kz

Trump says now he wants to focus on the fixing the country. He doesn’t want any distractions, such as a futile special prosecutor’s probe into matters that already have been determined to be out of reach for any prosecutor.

The e-mail controversy? The alleged “pay for play”? Benghazi?

It’s all been settled. The FBI determined there was no criminality involved with the e-mail server Clinton used while she was secretary of state. Pay for play has been nothing more than a political talking point. A congressional select committee has been unable to prosecute Clinton for anything involving the Sept. 11, 2012 fire fight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

I wonder now if Trump is going to offer any expressions of “regret” or — dare I say — an actual apology for defaming Clinton with the “crooked Hillary” label.

Actually, there’s no need to wonder. The president-elect has told us already he never regrets anything … ever.

Dealing with heartbreak … the sudden kind

boredom

We’ve all been through this.

You get to know individuals. You work with them, share a joke with them, learn a little about their family. You consider them to be a friend, but you don’t socialize with them or get to know them too much beyond what they reveal in the context of your professional relationship.

Then you get a phone call. You hear that this person has just died. He’s gone! Forever! Just like that!

The news sucks the air out of your lungs. You feel like you’ve just been kicked in the gut, or the chops … or both — at once!

Matthew Hutchison was a young man in his late 30s. He and I worked together at the Amarillo Globe-News for a number of years. Our duties were vastly different. Matt was an assistant city editor in charge of managing reporters and editing their stories to ensure they were accurate and complete. I edited the Opinion page at the paper. We kept a professional separation, but we maintained a cordial, friendly personal relationship.

Were we close friends? Did we see each other after hours?

No. But when the news arrives as it did this morning that your friend and former colleague has passed away, well, it’s still difficult to assess.

Especially at this time of year. We’re entering the holiday season. We are about to give thanks for our blessings. I cannot imagine how Matt’s young wife and their three precious little girls are going to cope with their heartbreak at this moment.

We all feel their pain. We also know that even as they feel the love that will pour their way, it won’t lessen their grief.

I just hope they know they are not alone. They have plenty of company during this terrible moment.

Oh, man. This really hurts.

‘Tough guy’ bristles at this? C’mon, man!

snltrumpalecbaldwin

Donald J. Trump is showing himself to be the master of mixed messages.

Consider some of the proclamations that have come from the president-elect’s mouth.

He vowed during the campaign to “bomb the s*** out of ISIS” while saying out loud that he knows “more about ISIS than the generals, believe me”; he said he’d look Vladmir Putin in the eye and tell him to behave himself in Eastern Europe; he promised to negotiate the greatest trade deals in the nation’s history; he said that “I, alone” can fix all the terrible things he contended are afflicting the nation.

Tough talk, right? Sure.

Then the president-elect gets his skivvies in a knot over media coverage here at home. He invites TV news anchors to his office and blisters them with a scathing critique of the way they cover him.

There’s more.

He blasts out Twitter messages demanding that the cast of a Broadway play “Hamilton” apologize to the vice president-elect over boos that came from the audience.

He tweets out another message criticizing “Saturday Night Live” for its portrayal of Trump by actor/comedian Alec Baldwin; this guy Trump can dish out the insults, but he cannot take ’em in any form. Has this clown never seen the “SNL” parodies of, oh, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Joe Biden, Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter?

Oh, and then he canceled a meeting he had planned with the New York Times, citing its “nasty tone” in covering his transition.

Which of these men is going to take the presidential oath of office on Jan. 20?

Will it be the tough guy who’ll assert American resolve across the world stage? Or will it be the petulant punk who cannot stand up under the criticism that has been leveled at every person who’s preceded him in the nation’s highest office?

Trump stiffs the media; good luck with your message

aakamyn

I guess I’m just an old-fashioned guy.

The president of the United States needs to talk to the media to deliver a message to the people he governs. Not so, apparently, with the man who’s set to become the next president.

No, siree. Donald J. Trump today asked several network news anchors to meet with him at his New York City office. Then he blasted them to smithereens, to their face. He told them they’re dishonest; they got the election outcome wrong; he doesn’t need them; he’s going to talk “directly” to the people.

This tirade really got the Trumpkins out here all fired up. You go, Donald!

I, though, wish the president-elect would rethink this attitude he has toward the media.

The media in truth were quite good toward this guy as his campaign launched in the summer of 2015. Pundits and pols thought his presidential campaign couldn’t be taken seriously. The media, though, provided Trump with thousands of minutes of free air time and thousands of inches of newsprint space reporting on his comings and goings, his boasts and threats.

The media didn’t challenge his endless string of false assertions. They didn’t call them what they were: lies.

The cable and broadcast news networks got caught up in the GOP-fed hysteria over Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy, the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Foundation.

All of it benefited Trump. He should thank the media, not condemn them.

Today the meeting with the TV news anchors became what one observer called a “f****** firing squad.” The guy with all the bullets, quite interestingly, was the president-elect.

So, perhaps Trump gored my own ox when declaring he has no desire to “work with” the media. I do believe he is making a mistake.

We haven’t heard him speak to the country via a time-honored tradition called a “press conference.” The media do their job, perhaps not to the president-elect’s liking. Too bad.

He ought to suck it up, face the media’s tough questions that every one of his predecessors have faced.

How about ignoring these ‘alt-right’ groups?

lead_960

I have a suggestion for those in the so-called “mainstream liberal media.”

It is to ignore the idiots who gather to cheer the election of someone they believe has endorsed their “alt-right” political world view.

I refer to the white nationalists. These are the bald-faced racists of the world. They comprise a small, but vocal minority of Americans who are cheering Donald J. Trump’s election as president of the United States.

I get that you want to keep the evil elements of society in plain view. You want to keep your eyes on them. You want them exposed for the moronic evil ideas they espouse.

But I struggle with this idea of giving them more media coverage than they deserve. A group gathered this weekend in Washington to cheer Trump’s election. They numbered a couple hundred individuals. The founder of a group called the National Policy Institute spoke to his followers, some of whom stood and cheered his remarks.

Oh, and then a few of them hoisted their arms in Nazi-style salutes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/?utm_source=fbb

They love the coverage. They lust for the attention they’re getting.

The founder of this group, Richard Spencer, said this, according to The Atlantic: “America was until this past generation a white country designed for ourselves and our posterity. It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us.”

A white country? Really?

The term “alt-right” has become a euphemism for the hate groups forming on the fringes of the American political spectrum.

I guess I am left to ask: Do those on the “fringe” deserve the kind of media coverage reserved normally for those in the mainstream?

Amarillo needs City Hall boss to shepherd its future

tx-amar-city-hall

I don’t think I’m alone in believing this, but Amarillo has reached a critical juncture in its development without a full-time, permanent city manager on hand to guide the city’s journey into the future.

The interim city manager, Terry Childers, quit his job this past week after muttering a profane epithet at a constituent. He cleared out his desk, his office and then he hit the road. The city has elevated assistant manager Bob Cowell into the interim post.

Now the city has to restart its search for a permanent manager.

Time seems to be a critical matter.

Demolition crews are knocking down a vacant building to make room for the planned construction of a downtown ballpark and event venue. Construction crews are working nearby to finish work on a convention hotel and a parking garage. It’s all good stuff and it speaks to the city’s desire to achieve a bright future.

The $45 million ballpark is the lynchpin, of course. The city is in the midst of negotiating with a San Antonio minor-league baseball team that reportedly wants to bring that team to Amarillo.

Given the city’s governing charter, the city manager is invested with a tremendous amount of authority and power. This individual makes all the major hires: police chief, fire chief, assistant city manager. The manager also should be involved in determining who fills other key positions.

Taxpayers fork over a good deal of money to pay the city manager and the individual earns every nickel of the six-figure salary if he or she does a good job.

The city has gone more than a year without a permanent manager. It started a search, then stopped searching. Childers was going to stay on until the May 2017 elections concluded. Then it all went to hell with that expletive muttered into a hot microphone.

All this has occurred against a backdrop of serious change afoot in the city. Amarillo is seeking to remake its downtown district. It involves some public funds as well as substantial private investment. The public part of it requires the city have a strong hand at the City Hall helm.

There needs to be some stability returned to City Hall.

My hope now is for the City Council to expedite its search for a permanent city manager. Time is critical, lady and gentlemen of the council. A lot of things are happening all at once and the city’s administrative staff needs a firm hand.

Let’s get busy.