Regretting a stance on Amarillo’s congressional alignment

Every now and then, as I wander through Amarillo, I encounter people I knew in my previous life as a journalist and with whom I maintain friendly relations to this day.

I ran into one of them today. He is former Bushland School Superintendent John Lemons. We chatted about this and that, about people we know and how they’re doing these days. Then the conversation turned to an old friend of his, former U.S. Rep. Larry Combest.

Our discussion pivoted to a position the Amarillo Globe-News had taken while I was working as editorial page editor of the newspaper: It dealt with congressional reapportionment.

I told John that I have grown to regret a position the paper had taken, and which I had expressed through editorials published on the matter. The G-N argued for the “reunification” of Amarillo into a single congressional district.

A brief history is in order.

***

The 1991 Texas Legislature, which was dominated by Democrats, redrew the state’s congressional districts. Seeking to protect Democratic U.S. Rep. Bill Sarpalius, the Legislature split Amarillo in half: Potter County would be represented by Sarpalius in the 13th Congressional District; Randall County’s congressman would be Republican Larry Combest.

The realignment outraged the G-N at the time. They paper began calling for the city to be made whole by being put back solely into the 13th District.

The gerrymandering worked through the 1992 election, as Sarpalius was re-elected to his third term in Congress; so was Combest. The paper kept up its drumbeat for unification. The city’s interests were being split between men of competing political parties, the G-N said.

Then came the 1994 election. Sarpalius ran into the Republican juggernaut. A young congressional staffer named Mac Thornberry defeated him. Thus, the city would be represented by two congressmen from the same party.

I arrived at my post in January 1995 — and the paper kept hammering away at the unification theme. Bring the city together, we said. I scratched my head a bit over that one. I couldn’t quite understand why we were so upset with divided representation, given that both Reps. Combest and Thornberry were of the same party. They were rowing in unison, singing off the same page, reciting the same mantra … blah, blah, blah.

I told Lemons today that the city was able to “double its pleasure, double its fun” with two members of Congress representing its interests. One of them, Combest, held a leadership position on the House Agriculture Committee.

But we kept it up.

I told my pal John Lemons today I regret not pushing my boss at the time to rethink the notion that Amarillo needed to be made whole.

So … now I’m sharing my regret here.

I had a wonderful — and moderately successful — career in daily print journalism. However, it wasn’t regret-free.

McCain to Trump: Don’t go after a ‘free press’

I’ve never really considered John McCain to be a friend of the press.

Silly me. I guess I was wrong about the Republican U.S. senator from Arizona. He is now telling the president of the United States to back off from his declared war against the media, which Donald Trump has labeled as the “enemy of the people.”

“That’s how dictators get started,” McCain said.

Well …

McCain denies calling Trump a would-be dictator, insisting he’s just spelling out what has happened throughout history. Dictators seek to weaken — if not destroy — the press, giving them an avenue to complete power.

McCain detests Trump, it seems quite clear. The senator’s loathing of the president, though, seems well-earned.

Candidate Trump once declared that he didn’t consider McCain — a decorated Navy pilot and one-time Vietnam War prisoner — a “war hero.” Trump said McCain was a hero only because “he was captured. I like people who aren’t captured, OK?”

Some of us thought that ridiculous assertion would doom Trump’s presidential candidacy. Hah! It didn’t happen. It seemed to energize his supporters.

McCain, though, has kept up his drumbeat of criticism of Trump. I happen to applaud the senator’s verve as he challenges Trump’s ignorance about Russia and now about the dangers of seeking to weaken the Fourth Estate.

Those of us toiled in the craft of reporting and commenting on events of the day don’t consider ourselves to be “enemies” of the people. I have never thought of myself to be anyone’s enemy, although I am certain some of individuals I’ve encountered along my lengthy journalism journey perceive me as their enemy.

As Sen. McCain has noted correctly, the president ought to tread carefully if he continues this fight with the media.

What? No outrage over pricey Trump outings?

Wait for it. The fiscal conservatives who were so outraged over President Barack Obama’s vacation tabs are going to go ballistic over the cost to taxpayers of Donald J. Trump’s jaunts to his posh Florida estate.

Do you think they’ll cry the blues over it?

Naw. Me neither.

It’s a fascinating case of selective outrage. The current president’s outings to Mar-a-Lago have cost taxpayers nearly as much in a month as the Obamas cost in an average year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

What was outrageous is now acceptable. Isn’t that the message?

I am having difficulty understanding any of this, much as I am having difficulty understanding why Trump’s behavior has been given a pass by those who continue to hang on his every inarticulate sentence.

I should note that Trump was among those who were critical of Obama’s golf outings, his family vacations and his assorted visits to whomever and wherever away from the White House.

Judicial Watch, a conservative think tank, estimated the annual cost of Obama’s travel expense at $12 million annually. Meanwhile, the Trumps’ three visits to Florida since he became president a month ago have cost about $10 million. It’s a rough equivalence, but it’s telling nevertheless.

Still, the silence from the right about the president’s pricey travel to his resort home in Florida is deafening in the extreme.

And, what the heck: I haven’t even mentioned — until this very moment — the cost of providing Secret Service protection for the first lady and the couple’s son, who are living in Trump Tower in New York City.

Council to lose its loudest mouth

I do not know this person, only witnessed his antics from some distance. Still, I feel the need to offer a brief critique of someone who is going to exit the Amarillo political scene.

I hope his departure is permanent … unless he learns to change his way of doing things and learns how to act in a more collegial manner.

Randy Burkett has served one occasionally tumultuous term as an Amarillo city councilman. He has chosen not to seek re-election to a second term. I won’t miss him or his occasional outbursts and fits of petulance.

Burkett was one of three newbies elected to the council in May 2015. He promised to change things. He did — in his own sort of way.

You see, I’ve always viewed Amarillo City Hall politics to be a fairly genteel endeavor. I have watched it up close — as a journalist — for more than two decades and have grown fairly familiar with the rhythm of the place and of the governing body once known as the City Commission and now known as the City Council.

There’s always been a sort of unwritten code among City Council members: You are welcome to disagree with policy matters, but once we make a decision, we prefer to lock arms and speak with one voice. The city has had a couple of notable contrarians who have served during the years I have watched its governing body. I can think of the late Commissioners Dianne Bosch and Jim Simms. They generally, though, lived by the terms of that unwritten code.

Burkett didn’t seem to adhere to that code. He would mouth off publicly when he disagreed with a city policy, or if he had differences with the way Mayor Paul Harpole conducted City Council proceedings.

Burkett seemed quite willing to call attention to himself.

He recently talked out loud about a so-called pending deal to lock up a minor league baseball franchise relocating to Amarillo. He drew a sharp rebuke from the head of the Local Government Corp., which is negotiating the deal. The deal is far from done, said LGC chairman Jerry Hodge, who said he was “ashamed” of Burkett for speaking out of turn.

Burkett loves to use the social medium known as Facebook. He has posted some pretty, um, controversial messages. Some critics have complained about what they consider to be some xenophobic comments regarding Muslims.

A TV reporter just recently broadcast a story that questioned whether Burkett — the owner of an outdoor advertising company — had profited from a City Council vote he had cast that benefited the firm he owns. Burkett denied it — vigorously and vociferously on social media.

Burkett makes no apologies for the manner in which he helped govern the city. I don’t expect any from him. And I do wish him well as he departs from the public arena after the May 6 municipal election.

My expectation would be for the city to return to a more civil public demeanor among its governing council members.

And, no, I don’t want a pack of “yes” men and women. However, it’s not unreasonable to hope they can return to the credo that has helped keep this wonderful city moving forward smoothly for the past several decades.

‘Fake news’ now gets under Trump’s skin

Does anyone else see the irony of Donald J. Trump’s bitching about “fake news”?

This is the guy who for about a half-dozen years kept alive the bogus “news” about Barack Obama’s place of birth. He questioned whether the former president was qualified to serve in the office he held for eight years.

He kept harping on the rumor that Obama was born in Kenya, the birthplace of his father. He fomented the Mother of All Fake News Stories.

Now the president — the one-time bard of the birther movement —  calls anything he considers negative to be “fake news”?

Oh, the irony is rich. Isn’t it?

Media are ‘the enemy’? Seriously, Mr. President?

The unique aspect of social media forums — such as, say, Twitter — is that no matter how quickly you take something down the original expression remains embedded in the public mind.

Donald J. Trump tweeted a statement declaring that the “media is the enemy of the American people.”

The president deleted it almost immediately. But … oops! … it’s still out there.

Thus, we’ve gotten another look into the weird mind of our nation’s head of state.

The media aren’t the “enemy.” Trump might believe it simply because media representatives are asking sometimes-difficult questions. His senior White House political strategist, Steve Bannon, has encouraged the media to “keep quiet” and has called the media “the opposition party.”

What neither of these men quite get — or so it appears — is that the media are part of the American fabric. The Constitution guarantees a “free press” that shouldn’t be shackled or silenced by government pressure or coercion.

Yet that seems to be part of what is happening now with the new president, who’s been in office less than a single month.

Trump’s critics have lamented what they consider the “danger” that the president  presents to our democratic system. I am beginning to believe a president who blurts out ill-considered statements about the media being the “enemy” of Americans is painting a frightening picture for the country he purports to lead.

City faces second straight ‘change’ election

Amarillo voters opted for “change” when they cast votes for their City Council in 2015.

Three new guys got elected to the council two years ago, giving the body a new majority.

Guess what, folks. The city is setting up for its second straight “change” election this coming May. The context is a bit different than the 2015 earthquake, but it’s fascinating in the extreme nevertheless.

Word came out today that one of the “change agents,” Councilman Randy Burkett, has decided against seeking re-election. From my vantage point, City Hall won’t miss him.

Burkett becomes the third incumbent to forgo another go on the council. Councilwoman Lisa Blake, appointed to succeed former Councilman Brian Eades, won’t seek election. And then there’s the mayor, Paul Harpole, who has decided to call it a public service career.

What I see shaping up is a City Council that will be a more functional and collegial body, now that Burkett has decided to bow out.

Ginger Nelson appears to be the prohibitive favorite to be elected mayor. That would be a good thing for the city.

Elisha Demerson and Mark Nair — the other two newbies who got elected in 2015 — are seeking re-election to their seats.

Blake endorsed Freda Powell to succeed her in Place 2. From what I’ve observed of Powell over the years, she would add a great, fresh new voice to the council.

Burkett’s Place 3 seat well might be filled by Eddie Sauer, an Amarillo dentist apparently with many friends within the city’s business community.

Two years ago, two of the three new council members defeated incumbents; this year, three new council members will succeed incumbents who are bowing out voluntarily.

Despite the differing circumstances, the city is facing its second consecutive “change election.”

I have been a longtime supporter of Mayor Harpole, but I believe the city is poised to welcome a strong new presiding officer on its council, assuming that it’s Ginger Nelson.

I don’t know Lisa Blake well, but I’ve been impressed by her own commitment to the city and hope she returns to the arena eventually.

Demerson and Nair have done fine in their first term as council members. I trust they’ll continue to grow and learn as they work with a city administration led by City Manager Jared Miller.

As for Burkett — a social media gadfly and occasional loudmouth who’s argued openly with Harpole about city policy — his “contribution” won’t be missed. I’ll concede that my knowledge of Burkett lies only in what I’ve read in local media reporting of his antics.

If his successor is Eddie Sauer, then I have a good bit of faith that the city will be served well.

Can we handle a second straight “change election”? Sure we can.

A true GOP leader passes from scene

Today’s congressional Republicans don’t invoke the name of Bob Michel these days.

Why is that? Well, Michel represented another Republican Party, one that knew how to legislate, to govern even when it was in the minority. The former Illinois congressman had friends and allies who happened to be Democrats. The GOP of today is more partisan, angrier, more committed to ideology than to actual governance.

Bob Michel has died at the age of 93. He won’t be feted with a huge state funeral. There might be the perfunctory words of praise for his service to the country.

Actually, though, this man represented a kinder, gentler — and more effective — time in government.

Michel served as GOP leader in the House of Representatives. Then he got pushed aside by firebrand Newt Gingrich, the GOP congressman from Georgia who led that Contract with American revolution that took command of Congress in January 1995.

As Politico reported, Michel often car-pooled to and from work at Capitol Hill with crusty Democratic Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, a fellow Illinoisan. He didn’t shy away from his across-the-aisle friendships.

He also was a fierce champion for President Reagan’s conservative Republican agenda. But he fought hard while maintaining his friendships with those on the “other side.”

If only more lawmakers — Democrats and Republicans — could mirror the temperament exhibited by Rep. Michel. There actually could be some effective legislation enacted that would become laws that most of us — if not all of us — could embrace.

How does a ‘one-state solution’ work?

Let’s revisit for a moment Donald J. Trump’s statement that backs away from a decades-old U.S. policy in support of a two-state solution for lasting peace in the Middle East.

The president, meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said he could support a “one-state solution” if both sides agree to it.

Hmmm. How would that work?

One side would be the Israelis. The Palestinians are on the other side. A one-state solution, I am going to presume, suggests that Israel would be the sovereign state that would operate under a peace agreement. How do you suppose the Palestinians — who say they want an independent sovereign state — would react to that? My take is that they wouldn’t stand for it.

This is why previous presidents of both parties have supported a two-state solution that would allow Israel and the Palestinians to live side by side.

Yes, there remains a huge hurdle to clear: The Palestinians must accept Israel’s right to exist and they must cease the terrorist attacks — launched by groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah — against Israeli citizens.

If there can be an accord reached, it appears that the only option is for a two-state solution.

Why, then, did the president back away from what all of his predecessors have sought for the embattled Middle East?

It’s the temperament, man … the temperamant

I’ve been trying to determine when I’ve ever seen a president of the United States treat the media in the manner being displayed by the current one.

I cannot remember a single time. Not even during President Richard Nixon’s time in the White House.

Donald Trump has shown utter contempt and disrespect for the men and women assigned to cover the White House for their various news organizations.

It manifests itself when he gets a question he dislikes. He tells reporters to “sit down, that’s enough” when they seek to elaborate on their question, to fill in a blank or two. No, the president will have none of it.

Forget for a moment that he calls them “dishonest” out loud, in public, to their face … and then expects these fellow human beings to treat him with kid gloves.

The disrespect — as I’ve witnessed it — is unlike anything I’ve ever witnessed, even from afar.

If we march back through time — starting from Barack Obama and going backward — I cannot remember a president acting the way this one does in front of the media.

There was one memorable, testy exchange in the 1970s between then-CBS News correspondent Dan Rather and President Nixon. The president was getting entangled in the Watergate scandal and Rather asked him a pointed question. Some members of the press gallery chuckled, some even clapped. Nixon asked Rather, “Are you running for something?” Rather responded, “No, Mr. President, are you?”

Presidents usually have strained relations with the media. They dislike negative coverage, as does any politician — no matter what they might say. As I’ve watched presidential/media relationships from a distance over the years, I have noticed a sometimes cool cordiality between the Big Man and the media that cover him.

What we’re getting now is open hostility and an exhibition of extremely bad manners from the guy who needs the media as least as much as they need him.

I’m trying to imagine what will occur if and/or when the crap really hits the fan at the White House. I fear the president will go berserk.

Didn’t someone mention temperament as a quality we look for in a president of the United States of America?