Monthly Archives: December 2016

national news

New president might face huge intraparty hurdle

mcconnel-and-trump

Donald Trump has good reason to smile.

He won the presidency over someone thought to be the prohibitive favorite. He is now selecting members of his team … to mixed reviews to be sure. Hey, what difference does it make? He won the election.

Now comes the sternest of tests for the new president. He has to govern alongside the very members of Congress he disparaged whenever he could; he demonized them; he called them names, such as “loser.”

I’m not talking about Democrats, mind you. I’m talking about Republicans who control both congressional chambers.

They’re grinning these days, too. I’m not sure whether they’re happy to be working with a fellow Republican (In Name Only) or whether they’re anticipating being able to stick it to the guy who called them all those nasty names.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/republican-party-obstructionism-victory-trump-214498

The Politico story attached to this post talks about how the Republicans’ strategy of “no” worked so well against President Obama. It also reminds us of how that strategy enabled them to win back the House of Representatives in 2010, the Senate in 2014 and now the White House in 2016.

Who do they get as president? The guy from within Republican ranks who ran against them!

All this sets up an interesting dichotomy for Republicans, many of whom are those “establishment” types who don’t trust Trump as being truly one of them.

It’s a given, of course, that Democrats who detest Trump are going to do all they can to stop anything the new president wants to do — much like Republicans sought to do when Barack Obama arrived in the Oval Office. The Politico article reminds us that the president got his $800 billion economic stimulus package approved in 2009 with virtually zero GOP support.

How is Trump going to cope with those Republicans who will resist him on, say, his enormous proposed infrastructure project? They keep telling us the Treasury doesn’t have the money.

I guess Trump could remind them that they didn’t have the money to go to war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in 2001, but they did — while approving tax cuts proposed by President Bush. My guess is that GOP leaders in the House and Senate wouldn’t like to hear such a thing coming from one of their own.

We talked during the length of the election campaign that we were entering a new era. This would be the most unconventional election in history. That presumed a Hillary Clinton victory, for crying out loud.

The other person won. Let’s get ready for the most unconventional governance in U.S. history.

My often-trusty trick knee tells me the Republicans who run Capitol Hill might try to wipe the smile off Donald Trump’s face.

International news, national news

No equivalency between phone call and comments about Castro

2 Comments

ttd_chinataiwan_hate_thumb_oo

Mike Pence knows better than to attach a false equivalency to two events.

One of them involved comments from U.S. officials about the death of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro; the other involved a phone call from the leader of a nation — with which the United States has no diplomatic relations — to the president-elect.

The vice president-elect said this morning he cannot understand why the phone call is getting all the criticism while praise to Castro is overlooked.

Please, Mr. Vice President-elect.

Donald Trump’s 10-minute conversation this past week with the president of Taiwan has smacked decades of U.S. diplomatic protocol right in the face. The People’s Republic of China has filed a formal complaint, declaring that the “one-China policy” that the United States has followed has been compromised egregiously by Trump’s congratulatory phone call from Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen.

Meanwhile, according to Pence, the death of Castro has drawn some muted praise of the late Cuban dictator from Obama administration officials. Even the president himself has delivered remarks that some have interpreted as complimentary.

The Taiwan-China dustup, though, is far more serious.

Taiwan’s very creation came at the end of a bloody civil war in China that the communists won. The nationalists who once governed China fled to Taiwan in 1949 to set up a new government. The United States recognized the Taiwan version of China until 1979, when it declared it would recognize the PRC.

You want a complicated relationship? There you have it.

What if China decides to retaliate against the United States by launching, say, a trade war? What if the PRC decides to yank its ambassador out of Washington? What if the PRC goads Taiwan into declaring its independence from China, giving the Chinese a pretext to launch a military attack against the nation it considers to be a “renegade province”?

There can be no equivalence attached to saying some mildly nice things about a dictator and the serious breach of protocol that the president-elect has committed.

entertainment news

C’mon, Donald … grow a set and let ‘SNL’ have its fun!

trump-tweet

Donald J. Trump defends his use of Twitter because of its currency as a “modern” form of communication.

But, honest to bleeping goodness, Mr. President-elect. Get a grip here!

“Saturday Night Live” has been poking fun at presidents and presidents-elect since it first went on the air in 1975. Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger and Obama all have felt the good-natured barbs tossed by the “SNL” cast.

I guess I need to remind the president-elect how George H.W. Bush invited “SNL” comedian Dana Carvey to the White House to participate in a 1992 Christmas party the president was hosting for his staff. Carvey introduced the president as the president, doing his famous impression of GHW Bush. The president loved it!

Now? We get these idiotic tweets from the next president, bitching about how “SNL” is unfunny and “unwatchable.”

Suck it up, Mr. President-elect. If you’re as tough as you say you are in dealing with foreign leaders — friend and foe alike — you need to learn to accept a little good-natured satire.

It’s part of the job … that you sought willingly.

business news, national news, political news

‘Emoluments clause’ to be put to stern test

founding-fathers-junius-brutus-steams-560x292

I am not a constitutional scholar, but I know enough about the document to be able to talk about most of its contents with at least a smattering of intelligence

But a new phrase has popped up on many Americans’ radar in recent months. It’s the “emoluments clause” of the U.S. Constitution.

It’s contained in Article I. It’s the final clause in Section 9. It reads:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Why the interest in this relatively obscure portion of the nation’s government document?

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/68/emoluments-clause

We have a president-elect, Donald J. Trump, who possesses business interests that span the globe. He has done a lot of business with kings, princes and foreign states. He’s gotten money from them, enriching himself — and his family.

Now that he’s about to become president of the United States, we’re hearing more chatter about this emoluments clause … just as we did during the campaign when Trump’s allies used it to describe the so-called favors Hillary Rodham Clinton earned while she and her family ran the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative.

Those Hillary haters are quiet about Trump’s dealings.

Trump has announced he’s going to turn everything over to his children: Ivanka, Don Jr. and Eric. He’s going to walk away from the myriad business dealings.

That would be OK, except that he is planning to hand it all over the Younger Trumps. My hunch is that they’ll remain in his family and, thus, will rake in the revenue derived from whatever deals they strike.

What’s the better option for Trump? Sell it all. Liquidate everything and remove yourself entirely from every single aspect of the business. Give the kids their portion of what you get from the sale and let them invest their largesse any way they wish.

Absent a  complete and total severance from these business dealings, we are about to hear a lot more about the emoluments clause. It will not be pretty.

political news

Democrats should reject congressman as party chair

ellison

Keith Ellison has a full-time job that pays him about $174,000 annually. He gets a nice office and a staff of professionals to help him tend to business. Ellison has a lot of other perks associated with his office.

Ellison is a member of Congress, representing a congressional district in Minnesota. The people he represents in Congress need him on the job full time.

Is he satisfied with that important post? Oh, no. He wants to run the Democratic National Committee. He wants to take another full-time job that, by my way of looking at it, removes from the job he was elected to do.

I don’t know much about Ellison, except that Democrats like trotting him out to speak on behalf of party policy … or to criticize Republicans, such as, oh, Donald J. Trump.

My concern about Ellison seeking the Democratic Party chairmanship doesn’t have nearly as much to do with that job as it does the job he already is doing.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/keith-ellison-dnc-chair-howard-dean-232154

I believe the DNC needs to look to someone other than a full-time congressman to lead the party. Ellison’s constituents deserve to have their guy on the job full time, not part time while he expends energy trying to shore up the national party.

Congress already suffers from dismal public opinion ratings. Last time I looked at a national average of polls, Congress’s approval rating stood at around 15 percent. Ellison’s role as one of 435 members of the House of Representatives likely doesn’t factor into the body’s abysmal public approval rating.

It ought to matter, though, to the residents of his congressional district. They sent him to Washington to fight for their causes and concerns. They’re paying him pretty good money to do that job. He ought to answer only to his constituents — and leave the effort to rebuild the party to someone who’s got more time on his or her hands.

State news

Rep. McCaul: Solid choice, maybe, for Homeland Security

mccaul

I’ve spent a good deal of time criticizing some of Donald J. Trump’s picks for his Cabinet.

I now will say something good about someone under consideration for a key national security post: Rep. Michael McCaul might become secretary of homeland security in the Trump administration.

McCaul would be a solid choice.

The only remotely negative thing that comes to mind is that he reportedly is the richest member of Congress, so he would be continuing Trump’s pattern of picking rich folks to help him govern the country.

Beyond that? Well, McCaul has law enforcement experience and has chaired the House Homeland Security Committee.

It also is good that McCaul hails from Texas, one of the states on the front line of this homeland security debate.

Some critics have suggested that McCaul isn’t tough enough on illegal immigration. As the Texas Tribune reported: “In recent days, McCaul has come under fire from illegal immigration opponents who claim he has not been tough enough on the problem in Congress. In a TV interview Wednesday, McCaul called such criticism ‘incredulous and inflammatory and … slanderous.'”

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/02/cruz-praises-mccaul-trump-mulls-cabinet-job-him/

I like the fact that McCaul has congressional experience and that he represents a congressional district in a state where the homeland security issue has become arguably the most acute in the country.

From what I’ve heard from Rep. McCaul over the years, he doesn’t come across as a screamer. Instead, he sounds relatively reasonable and nuanced — which is a quality that Trump is going to need once he becomes president.

McCaul’s most vocal backer well might be U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, a fellow Texan. It’s an interesting twist, too, as the Tribune reports, given that many Republicans have hoped McCaul would challenge Cruz for the GOP Senate nomination in 2018.

Hmm. Imagine that. Cruz now wants him ensconced in the Trump administration — and perhaps out of the way of his own run for re-election.

Whatever. Rep. McCaul would be a good fit at the Department of Homeland Security.

media news, State news

Texas GOP fed up with agriculture commissioner?

miller-4_jpg_800x1000_q100

Sid Miller blew into Amarillo the other day, ate dinner at a downtown restaurant and then proceeded to make an ass of himself by making a big show of his displeasure with the meal he received.

That’s not even close to describing the misdeeds of this loudmouth politician.

The Texas Tribune is reporting that Miller, the Republican commissioner of agriculture, has become the king of fake news. He puts out bogus items as if they are true. He makes defamatory statements on his social media feeds about Muslims, Democrats … anyone who opposes what passes as his world view of politics and public policy. He collects these gems from ultraconservative websites and then posts them on his Facebook page, which he boasts as having tens of thousands of followers.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/12/03/texas-ag-chiefs-facebook-account-fake-news-flows/

The Tribune’s analysis of Miller playing fast and loose with the facts is in the link. It’s so very interesting, and damning!

Get this: Texas Republicans just might be embarrassed and ashamed enough of this guy to run a serious primary challenger against him in 2018. How do I know that? Well, I don’t know it to be a fact, as it hasn’t happened yet.

However, I got a snootful today from a member of the Texas legislative delegation — a Republican, no less — who said damn near anyone would be better in the job as agriculture commissioner than Miller.

I happen to agree with that assessment. The guy is a loon.

My hope now is that if Texas Republicans are truly angry at the manner in which this statewide elected official has conducted himself that they’ll do something to get this individual out of office.

national news, political news

On second thought, Palin talks herself out of job?

palin

Sarah Palin must not want a job in the Trump administration after all.

How else does one explain the former half-term Alaska governor going after the president-elect’s deal to save those Carrier jobs in Indiana? She calls it “crony capitalism,” which is shorthand for a policy that gives tax breaks to political allies and large corporations.

Donald J. Trump took credit for allegedly persuading Carrier — the Indiana-based air conditioning and heating company — from moving jobs off shore. In exchange, the company was able to get a big tax break from the state of Indiana, which is governed by Mike Pence, the soon-to-be vice president of the United States.

Palin, meanwhile, had emerged as a possible candidate to become secretary of veterans affairs. Ugghh! Perish that thought.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/308575-palin-slams-crony-capitalism-after-trump-seals-carrier-deal

Now she pops off — goes “rogue,” if you will — by declaring the Trump deal with Carrier is no good.

“When government steps in arbitrarily with individual subsidies, favoring one business over others, it sets inconsistent, unfair, illogical precedent,” Palin wrote in an essay. “Then, special interests creep in and manipulate markets. Republicans oppose this, remember?”

OK, the Carrier deal has nothing to do with overseeing veterans issues. So, is Palin wrong to speak out against this crony capitalism idea? Not really.

Then again, she has just tossed a mud ball at the guy with whom she supposedly is trying to curry favor. She wants a job in the Cabinet.

I would say her chances of getting any nod in a Trump administration normally would be tossed into the crapper … that is, until I recall all those mean things Mitt Romney said about Trump during the GOP primary campaign.

What does Mitt get for speaking the brutal truth about the president-elect? A nice dinner at a Trump-owned eatery and a possible nomination as secretary of state.

International news

Study up on U.S.-China-Taiwan relations, Mr. President-elect

taiwan-president

Donald J. Trump has committed one of two egregious errors by conversing on the telephone with the leader of a country with which the United States has no diplomatic relations.

The president-elect either doesn’t know about the “one-China policy” to which the United States has adhered since the end of World War II, or he does know about it and decided to flout it willfully.

Trump spoke on the telephone this week with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. It was the first time a U.S. president-elect has spoken to the leader of Taiwan since the two countries severed diplomatic relations in 1979. The conversation has resulted in a formal complaint from the People’s Republic of China, which considers Taiwan to be a “renegade province” and has vowed to take it back, by force if necessary.

The PRC-Taiwan relationship is amazingly complicated. It also sits at the heart of U.S.-China relations, given that this country has entered into a defense pact to protect Taiwan in the event of an attack by the PRC.

So, the president-elect — who is still about seven weeks away from taking office — has decided to step into the middle of this mess. Either he made the call to Taipei or received a call from the island nation. Whichever happened, Trump shouldn’t have made the call, nor should he have received it.

And that brings me to my point. The man has made a serious error.

Trump’s ignorance about geopolitical relationships manifested itself repeatedly during the presidential campaign. He said it would be OK for Japan and South Korea to have nuclear weapons; he said the same thing about Saudi Arabia; he once said NATO nations should have to pay for U.S. protection in case Russia attacked the alliance; he has vowed to force Mexico to pay for the “beautiful wall” he intends to build along our southern border.

He was elected anyway.

The New York Times has done a good job of explaining the Taiwan-China controversy. Here’s the link to the Times’ explainer:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/world/asia/trump-taiwan-and-china-the-controversy-explained.html?_r=0

Trump has got to wrap his arms around a lot of nuanced relationships that involve the country he is about to govern and its myriad friends and foes around the globe. The PRC-Taiwan relationship is among the most sensitive, complicated and fragile any world leader can imagine.

Having been to Taiwan five times since 1989, I’ve developed a pretty good understanding of the country and its place in the world. It is a vibrant economic powerhouse. Its military machine is pretty stout, as well, thanks in large measure to the weapons it buys from the United States and other nations willing to sell to the Taiwanese.

More than six decades after the nationalist government fled the mainland to the island, most of Taiwan’s residents today were born on the island; many of them still have family on the mainland but they are Taiwanese first. Much has changed as Taiwan has evolved into a de facto independent nation.

One fundamental aspect, though, remains the same. China will not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. Moreover, the United States maintains an embassy in China — and does not have one in Taiwan.

The president-elect needs to tread extra carefully here. The consequences of further mistakes are too grave to even contemplate.

Uncategorized

Still relying on time pieces

watch

This is the latest in an occasional series of blog posts commenting on upcoming retirement.

Take a good look at the watch you see in this picture.

I’ll have more to say about that in a moment.

I’ve decided that I likely will be addicted to knowing what time it is even after I enter full retirement mode. My reasons are simple and quite justifiable.

For nearly 37 years — as I toiled in daily journalism — I performed under deadline pressure. As a reporter I had to get stories turned in by a certain time — or else face the editor’s wrath. As an editor, I had to oversee other reporters’ deadline performance. As an opinion page writer and editor, I always had to get my work done by a certain time every day.

I lived by the clock. I looked at my wrist constantly. Am I late? Do I have more time?

This morning, I awoke to discover that my battery-powered Citizen watch — a nice watch, but nothing gawdy — had quit overnight. The battery croaked. Oh my goodness! What to do?

I thought about it for all of about 5 seconds. Then I went to my drawer and pulled out the watch you see in this picture. It’s a very old Bulova. It’s one of those self-winders. I set the time, strap it onto my wrist, jiggle my wrist two or three times and off she goes — the watch, that is.

Mom gave it to me in 1980 after Dad died. That was more than 36 years ago, which makes the watch old just by that measure. Except that Dad wore the thing for as long as I can remember before that. He wasn’t wearing the watch when he died suddenly in a boating accident all those years ago.

Mom wanted me to have it. I accepted it with great gratitude — and I cried like a baby, too.

It still works. It keeps perfect time. I took it to a jeweler here in Amarillo to see about having it cleaned. He removed the back of the watch, took one look at it, and put it back together. Then he said the watch’s innards are too delicate, too old to mess with. “When it stops working, that’s it,” he said. “You’ll just have to retire it.” It’s been semi-retired ever since, sort of like me.

I don’t see myself going without a watch on my wrist. It’s who I am. Sure, I could tell time by pulling my fancy-shmancy I-phone out of its holster. I’d rather not do that.

I know a lot of retired folks who no longer wear watches. What’s the point? they ask. Why do I need to be anywhere? Members of my immediate family are like that. My sons don’t wear watches, either. They rely on their big-time telecommunications devices to keep them on schedule. My granddaughter — who’s all of 3 years of age! — already is becoming tech-savvy. Will she ever wear a watch? I, um, doubt it.

I’ll stick with the old way of telling time. It’s worked well for me for more than six decades. Why change now?