Trump’s ‘thank you tour’ needs some diversity

trump_thankyoutour

Donald J. Trump proclaimed on Election Night his intention to be the president for “all Americans.”

He said so while he was declaring victory after being elected president of the United States. Trump said he intends to bind the deep political wounds that divided Americans.

Wise words. A wise message. Was it heartfelt? Was it sincere?

Consider this: The president-elect has embarked on a tour of locations where he was victorious over Hillary Rodham Clinton. He’s been to Wisconsin, to Iowa, to Ohio, to Pennsylvania. Today he was in Louisiana. He’s going to Florida.

Trump won all those states. He has spoken to cheering crowds. He has soaked up the love flowing from the cheering audiences.

However, I am wondering along with some other observers why he hasn’t scheduled any appearances in, say, California, or New York (his home state, by the way), or Illinois, or Minnesota. Those states all were won by Clinton.

Were the votes cast in those states for the former secretary of state unanimous? Of course not! It would seem that the next president could muster enough of a crowd at any location in any of the states that Hillary won to offer a word of thanks for those who did support him.

Imagine for just a moment what the reaction would be if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency and visited only those states where she had won and ignored those that went for her opponent.

I get that those would merely be symbolic steps. However, symbolism matters at times. It sends important messages.

This could be one of those times when the president-elect, still aglow from his stunning victory, tells Americans living in those states where most voters opposed him that, by golly, he’s their president, too.

University hears white supremacist … and students protest

richard-spencer-national-policy-institute_milima20161123_0013_11

Texas A&M University isn’t generally known as a bastion of progressive causes the way, say, the University of Texas-Austin is known.

They don’t call it the “People’s Republic of Austin” for nothing,  you know.

Still, it’s heartening to see the reaction to a speech delivered by white supremacist Richard Spencer at the College Station campus. The students protested the rantings of this guy who leads something called the National Policy Institute, but he was allowed to speak his mind and offer views that come from whatever it is that passes for his heart.

“America belongs to white men,” Spencer said. Yes, he really said that and I guess he means it.

It’s utterly preposterous and reprehensible on its face, but this clown had a right to deliver his idiotic message.

http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/07/america-belongs-to-white-men-controversial-alt-right-leader-s/21622550/?ncid=facebookfanpageusaolp00000002

The university didn’t sanction Spencer’s appearance at its flagship campus. The A&M System office made it clear that Spencer was invited by a private group that had requested use of a student hall to allow him to speak. There had been talk of trying to persuade the university to disallow his speech. That, in my view, would have been counterproductive.

It’s been said that it is better to keep the bad guys out in the open where you can see them and track their every move.

Richard Spencer was on full public display at Texas A&M. Now he’s gone on to spread his disgraceful message in other venues.

Don’t hurry back, young man.

Municipal incumbents need to defend themselves

14409651

David Swinford used to feign anger at me whenever I wrote a column insisting that state legislators — no matter how effective they were — deserved to be challenged every election cycle.

The Dumas Republican, who served in the Texas Legislature for several terms, usually would skate through without much opposition — although he did get a stout primary challenge late in his legislative career from Anette Carlisle, who now serves on the Amarillo College Board of Regents.

My only suggestion then was that all incumbents need to defend their record and it was up to challengers to make them do so.

Here we are in Amarillo, getting ready for the filing dates for our City Council. That rumble you hear around the city might be the sound of challengers getting ready to run against this five-person governing body.

We’ve seen the names of a couple of mayoral hopefuls. One of them belongs to Elisha Demerson, who currently serves on the council. Another name is Ginger Nelson, an economic development expert. The current mayor? Officially, Paul Harpole is undecided about seeking another term. I’m beginning to think he’s going to call it a municipal public service career.

What about the rest of the council. You have Randy Burkett and Mark Nair, two of the three change agents who were elected in May 2015. Nair also apparently is trying to decide whether to run again. Burkett seems a lock for another run.

Those two fellows clearly will need to defend themselves against challengers. They have some explaining to do, as does Demerson — the third new guy.

They engineered the departure of a competent city manager, Jarrett Atkinson. Then they brought in an interim manager, Terry Childers, who turned out to be, um, less than stellar; Childers is gone. There has been backbiting and needless bickering, causing Childers to bemoan what he called a “dysfunctional” atmosphere at City Hall. Atkinson wasn’t the only senior city administrator to hit the road. City Attorney Marcus Norris resigned and Assistant City Manager Vicki Covey retired. All in all, City Hall’s level of expertise took a serious nosedive … rapidly!

Then came the departure of Melissa Dailey — apparently at Childers’ insistence — from her post as head of Downtown Amarillo Inc. I’m still puzzled over that move, given the demonstrable success that DAI had delivered in downtown’s ongoing revival.

The fifth council member, Lisa Blake, is new to her job. She was appointed by her colleagues to succeed Brian Eades, who quit the council when he moved out of state.

Does the council deserves a stout challenge? Do all five incumbents — whether they’re running for re-election or seeking another seat on the body, which Demerson might do — need to account for the actions they have taken during the past two years?

Absolutely! Without question!

Although I no longer am into predicting political outcomes, it does seem a pretty good bet — at least at this moment — that the City Council ballot is going to contain a healthy number of candidates. They will seek to persuade voters that they are the best fits for the job of governing a city in midst of profound change.

Voters deserve choices. I’m hoping we get them as the municipal election cycle comes to a full boil.

More eyes, not all of them, turn to Mitt

rudy

Rudy Giuliani won’t be Donald J. Trump’s secretary of state.

The former New York City mayor and current Republican rabble rouser has pulled himself out of the running. It might have been the questions over his foreign-government contacts that persuaded him he might not have been confirmed by the Senate, even with all those fellow Republicans running the place.

So …

Who will get the nod at State?

Mitt Romney might be the frontrunner. Then again, it might be someone else.

I’m kinda pulling for Mitt, although I cannot yet define my reasons why I am.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/giuliani-pulls-name-from-contention-for-secretary-of-state-232439

He once led the Never Trump movement. He made that extraordinary 17-minute blistering of Trump, calling him a “fraud, phony and con man.” He was so tough that Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, has lobbied publicly against her boss even considering him for the State job. Imagine that!

Why should Mitt get the job? He’s got street cred among foreign leaders. He’s a reasonable GOP conservative.

It appears he has been served his share of humble pie at that dinner date he had with Trump. The men must have talked about the State job and Mitt must have told Trump that he didn’t really and truly mean all those things he said. “I mean,” he could have said, “emotions were running high and it was, after all, a political speech. Politicians often say things they don’t really and truly mean, you know.”

I’m glad Rudy is out of the State Department picture, or so he says.

This is where I perhaps ought to caution everyone that Dr. Ben Carson — the renowned pediatric brain surgeon and former GOP presidential campaign rival of Trump’s — once declared he wasn’t qualified to run a federal agency.

So what did the president-elect do? He named him as the next housing and urban development secretary.

Let’s all stay tuned, shall we?

Hoping for the next true American hero

08butlandweb-master768

Dale Butland has written a truly depressing essay about the death of John Glenn.

Writing for the New York Times, Butland — who once worked for the one-time Ohio U.S. senator — seems to think Glenn is the “last American hero” … ever!

I wince at the thought. I shudder to think that there won’t be someone who can capture Americans’ hearts the way Glenn did in 1962.

The essay itself isn’t depressing. Its premise, though, surely is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/opinion/john-glenn-the-last-american-hero.html?smid=tw-share

Do I have any clue, any idea where the next hero will appear?

Of course not!

However, I am going to remain the eternal optimist that we haven’t yet traipsed through the portal that takes us all into some parallel universe where no heroes can ever exist.

Sure, Glenn was an exceptional American. A Marine Corps fighter pilot who saw combat in World War II and Korea. The astronaut who became the first American to orbit the planet. A successful business executive. A close friend of John and Robert Kennedy and their families. A four-term U.S. senator. A man who got the call once again, at age 77, to fly into space aboard the space shuttle Discovery.

He became “an American legend.”

That, dear reader, is a full life.

Is he the final legendary figure ever to walk among us?

Oh, man … I pray that someone will emerge.

A new ‘dump Trump’ movement surfaces

trump-wins

Media Matters, a left-leaning media watchdog organization, has raised a perfectly valid and intriguing question.

How can a major news organization cover the president of the United States when the president has a “fiduciary” connection to the network?

Media Matters is referring to Donald J. Trump’s continued association with an NBC-TV show, “The Apprentice,” where he will remain as an executive producer.

http://action.mediamatters.org/nbc_celebrity_apprentice_dump_trump

NBC — and its affiliate networks, MNSBNC and CNBC — cannot possibly cover Trump with any degree of impartiality if Trump is getting paid by NBC for his relationship with “The Apprentice,” according to Media Matters. What if the network felt compelled to cover the president aggressively? How does that square with the possibility that negative news coverage would harm the president’s public standing and, by association, harm the TV show he serves as an executive producer.

As Media Matters declared: “There is simply no way that citizens can trust the reporting of NBC News, CNBC, and MSNBC. Executives have put hard working reporters at these outlets in a completely untenable spot: No amount of disclosure is sufficient when the network is financially invested in the president.”

Well … ? How about it, NBC?

POTUS will moonlight as executive producer

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks with members of the press, Monday, Sept. 5, 2016, aboard his campaign plane, while flying over Ohio. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

This has to be almost poetic in nature, if you think about it.

Donald J. Trump won election to the first public office he ever sought. It’s a big one, for sure: president of the United States of America.

He knows next to zero about governance, so he’ll be learning much of it while working on the job.

Then there’s this: The new president is going to remain attached to the reality TV show that gave him notoriety, “The Apprentice.” He’ll be an executive producer of the show that will be hosted by former body builder/California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who will inherit the role Trump once played, getting the chance to say “You’re fired!” to would-be business executives.

This is just plain weird, man. Strange in the extreme. Goofy to the max.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/maybe-the-answer-is-that-he-can-t-divest

The president of the United States usually has a pretty full plate. He’s got to do things like, oh, protect us against our enemies, rev up the economy, ensure domestic tranquility and be the spokesman for the greatest nation on Earth.

How is this guy going to have time to devote to being executive producer of a TV show?

I guess the poetic element comes in as we realize that the president will be more or less serving as an “apprentice” in his own right while working his day job as head of state and head of government.

Thus, his role as executive producer of “The Apprentice” would appear to be a perfect fit.

Good … grief!

Fighter of the Year … finally!

bbtpxbu

The Ring Magazine has been called the pre-eminent publication about professional boxing.

It made a huge mistake in 1966, though, in failing to name the then-heavyweight champion of the world its Fighter of the Year.

The magazine declined to give the honor to a fellow named Muhammad Ali, who defended his title five times that year, wiping out the competition with ease. Ali was at the peak of his boxing powers.

The magazine, though, disliked his objection to the Vietnam War as well as his affiliation with the Nation of Islam. It refused to call him by the name he chose and used his birth name, Cassius Clay, when referencing The Champ.

Times change — and so do attitudes.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/retroactive-ring-magazine-names-ali-1966-fighter-of-year/ar-AAlk6a2?li=BBnba9I

The magazine has decided to grant Ali the title he deserved all along. Fifty years later, Ring has named Ali its Fighter of the Year for 1966, to along with several other such honors the magazine had granted him. It didn’t select a Fighter of the Year in 1966.

It’s a curious thing, though, about the timing of this decision.

Ali won his court fight over his suspension from boxing in 1971, when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that boxing authorities had violated his constitutional rights by denying him the chance to earn a living. Ring honored him with Fighter of the Year accolades in 1972, 1974, 1975 and 1978. It also honored him in 1963, before he announced his Muslim faith.

Ali died this year at the age of 74.

A more fitting tribute would have been to grant the honor denied to Ali while he was still able to accept and appreciate it.

Those of us — along with his loved ones — who marveled at the man’s skill in the ring and his courage outside of it will accept the honor on The Champ’s behalf.

Cool it with the Twitter account, Mr. President-elect

twitter-logo-bird

I know that Donald J. Trump wouldn’t ever heed this bit of advice from little ol’ me, mainly because he likely won’t see what I’m about to say … but I’ll offer it anyway.

Cease and desist with the constant tweeting, Mr. President-elect. You’re the Big Man now and you ought to pick your battles with a lot more care and caution.

A story in the Washington Post illustrates just how much damage this fellow — Trump — can do to someone who objects to some of his policy pronouncements.

The story talks about how, when he was running for president, Trump responded to a woman who challenged whether he was fair to women. Trump tweeted that the woman was a “plant” and called her an “arrogant young woman.”

Good grief, man! She was a citizen, a potential constituent making a comment about things he had said.

Here’s the story:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/this-is-what-happens-when-donald-trump-attacks-a-private-citizen-on-twitter/ar-AAljS3f?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Since his election, Trump has used his Twitter account with amazing result.

He told the world about how he talked with the president of Taiwan — a nation with which we have no diplomatic ties — roiling relations with the People’s Republic of China and causing potentially devastating friction between the two great nation; he called for cancellation of an order for a new Air Force One jetliner to be developed by Boeing, causing the aircraft manufacturer’s stock value to plunge; he called a union leader a “liar” after the leader challenged Trump’s assertion that he had saved more than 1,000 jobs in Indiana.

Trump, of course, defends his use of this particular social medium, saying it’s the way people communicate these days.

Uh, Mr. President-elect, you ain’t like the rest of us. You are about to possess immense power to influence global events. You are going to be the Top Dog, the Big Magilla, the Main Man. You’ll inherit a Twitter account set up for the president of the United States.

How about using it wisely? Use it with discretion. Be circumspect and careful. How about traveling along the high road at all times?

The new president ought to leave the incessant tweeting and other cheap social media banter … to shlubs like me.

Trump making a simple matter so very complicated

08divest-top-master768

I am having trouble understanding what it is about conflict of interest that Donald J. Trump doesn’t get.

The president-elect has an enormous business empire. He has contacts throughout the world. He has enriched himself beyond most people’s imagination.

Now he’s about to become president of the United States. What should a man with all that wealth do to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest?

Let’s see, how about selling those business interests outright? Or, how about putting them into a blind trust, let someone manage those interests — and stay the hell away from everything having to do with those business interests?

Is the president-elect going to do either of those things? Apparently not, according to the New York Times.

Trump now is letting it be known he intends to keep at least an interest in his businesses while his daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, run them.

Daddy Trump will still be involved, if only on the fringes, with the business empire he has built.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/trump-organization-ivanka-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The U.S. Constitution refers to “emoluments,” and states that the president must not make money dealing with foreign governments. The next president is treading dangerously close — as long as he retains an “interest” in his business — of violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution. His businesses have extensive relationships with many foreign governments.

This shouldn’t be a close call. This should be an easy decision for the president to make. If something presents the potential for conflict of interest, you must act aggressively to remove the element that creates that potential conflict.

Trump is not about to quit the office he fought so hard to win. The only alternative is for him to quit the business. Sell it. Put it into a blind trust. Have nothing — not a single, solitary thing — to do with it.

Why doesn’t he get it?