Monthly Archives: October 2018

State news

Bathroom Bill looms over Patrick candidacy

I cannot forget or forgive the effort to legislate a patently discriminatory policy regarding the use of public restrooms.

And I put the responsibility for that effort right at the feet of Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who is running for re-election against Mike Collier.

Spoiler alert: I plan to vote for Collier.

Patrick managed to engineer a Texas Senate approval of a bill that would have required people to use public restrooms in accordance with the gender assigned to them on their birth certificate. It’s known now as the Bathroom Bill.

The lieutenant governor presides over the Senate and is arguably the state’s most powerful elected official. The Senate approved the Bathroom Bill at Patrick’s insistence. Then it ran into House Speaker Joe Straus, another Republican, but one with common sense and the belief that Texas should not discriminate against transgender individuals, which is what the Bathroom Bill would have allowed.

Straus, who isn’t seeking re-election, blocked the Bathroom Bill, much to his credit. The House never approved it in its special session in the summer of 2017.

The Bathroom Bill remains an indelible scar on Lt. Gov. Patrick’s tenure as the Man of the Senate.

Collier is a former Republican who switched to the Democratic Party. The Houston Chronicle, which has endorsed Collier’s candidacy, likens him to another former lieutenant governor, Republican Bill Ratliff, one of the state’s great statesmen.

The Chronicle’s endorsement notes that Collier doesn’t look for simple solutions to complex problems.

Patrick, meanwhile, is quick with the quip — owing to his days as a radio broadcaster — and simplistic demagoguery.

The Bathroom Bill died the death it deserved in 2017. I don’t know what’ll happen when the 2019 Legislature convenes. My hope is that the next Texas Senate will be run by someone who won’t seek to demonize transgender individuals by resurrecting this patently hideous legislation.

political news, State news

Beto backs off from an attack line against Cruz

As a former colleague and friend was fond of saying, “You can’t unhonk the horn.”

Beto O’Rourke is trying to unhonk the rhetorical horn by telling a CNN correspondent that his use of the “Lyin’ Ted” epithet against Ted Cruz perhaps is a step too far. He now sounds as if he regrets going quite so negative in his most recent debate with the Republican U.S. senator.

There’s a bit of charm in hearing the Democratic challenger acknowledge a case of weak knees in using the tag first hung on Cruz by Donald Trump when the men were competing in 2016 for the GOP presidential nomination.

Trump called him “Lyin’ Ted” and got huge laughs from campaign crowds. O’Rourke said in the men’s debate that the negative moniker sounded true to him, so he used it against Cruz.

Meeting in a town hall in McAllen with CNN’s Dana Bash, O’Rourke said he doesn’t feel “totally comfortable” taking what he called “a step too far.”

O’Rourke has second thoughts

The midterm campaign is drawing to a close. Cruz appears to be clinging to a lead of about 6 to 8 percentage points. O’Rourke is looking for any edge he can find. He has gone negative in his TV ad campaign in recent days. Indeed, he now joins Cruz, who’s been firing shots at O’Rourke for several weeks. We likely won’t hear any utterances of regret from The Cruz Missile over the tactics he has used to (mis)characterize O’Rourke’s policy pronouncements.

Do I believe O’Rourke went too far with the “Lyin’ Ted” reference? Aww ā€¦ no. He didn’t. However, I don’t have to deal with any blowback from campaign rhetoric. O’Rourke believes he “may” have gone too far.

I would prefer O’Rourke to stay on the high road.

And … by the way ā€¦ I still plan to vote for Beto.

International news

Tread carefully, Rep. Castro

Come on, U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro. Just because some folks on the other side toss out unsubstantiated accusations, you do not have license to do the same.

Castro, a Texas Democrat, has said — without sources or evidence — that Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, might have had a hand in the gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Castro doesn’t offer a shred of evidence to back up his contention, but he made it anyway in an interview with CNN.

Khashoggi was murdered by Saudis at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. The Saudis say he died in a fistfight; the Turks, though, say he was dismembered while he was still alive. His body was cut to pieces and disposed of.

Now we have a U.S. representative alleging that Jared Kushner played a role in this?

Give me a break.

This kind of innuendo has gotten out of hand. CNN anchor Poppy Harlow had to remind Castro that no media have reported what he has alleged, but Castro answered with some vague response that there has been “some reporting” on it. He didn’t cite the source.

According to the Texas Tribune: “To be clear, I did not intend to accuse Jared Kushner of orchestrating the killing ā€¦ But based on several press reports, the close relationship between Kushner and Mohammed bin Salman is a source of concern for the U.S. intelligence community and those of us who want a transparent American foreign policy,” (Castro) said in a statement to the Texas Tribune.

Read the Tribune storyĀ here.

This is ridiculous!

I am left to say only that Rep. Castro should be ashamed to be joining this game of gossip and innuendo.

political news

Big early vote = big total vote? Maybe, maybe not!

I love the chatter about the huge early vote in states that have opened up balloting for the 2018 midterm election.

They say that more than 4.3 million Americans have cast their ballots already, signaling — perhaps, maybe, possibly — a huge increase in total vote turnout.

Excuse my skepticism, but I need to wait for Election Day to make that determination.

I detest early voting as it is. I prefer to vote on Election Day, standing in line, giving some semblance of the pageantry that goes along with voting.

I am likely to wait until Nov. 6 to cast my ballot in Collin County.

Experience tells me that a big boost in early voting doesn’t necessarily translate into a big boost in total turnout. These early-voting statistics tell me that it well might mean only that more voters are casting their ballots early than waiting until Election Day.

Oh, how I hope I’m mistaken this time around.

A big turnout at minimum suggests that Democratic and Republican “base” votes are energized to the hilt. Democrats want to seize control of both congressional chambers, but likely will have to settle for taking control of the House. Republicans want Donald Trump to continue his agenda and believe a GOP-controlled House will enable him to proceed without the fear of getting impeached.

Are these external dynamics going to fuel a huge midterm/off-year election turnout? That remains to be seen, quite obviously.

My belief for years is that representative democracy works best with more voters taking part. I hate the idea of letting someone else determine who sets public policy that affects all of us. I love voting for president ā€¦ and for members of Congress, the Legislature, and for municipal and county government.

Still, I am not going to salute the expected huge turnout in this year’s midterm election.

At least not quite yet.

State news

Where did this ‘open borders’ nonsense originate?

1 Comment

I have taken a look at Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke’s campaign website. I looked high and low for anything in there that suggests that O’Rourke favors “open borders.” I cannot find it.

Which makes me wonder: Where is this nonsense coming from, other than from the pie holes of demagogues intent on distorting the young man’s record.

https://betofortexas.com/issue/immigration/

You can look for yourself on the link attached directly above this sentence.

Sen. Ted Cruz, O’Rourke’s Republican opponent, accuses O’Rourke of favoring “open borders,” suggesting that he wants to let anyone walk into this country without any kind of documentation. I don’t see anything approaching that kind of policy on Beto’s policy profile.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, another Texas GOP demagogue, accuses Democrats of “favoring open borders.”

Oh, and then we have the Republicans’ Demagogue in Chief, Donald John Trump, saying the same thing on campaign stumps across the country as he seeks to bolster the campaigns of GOP candidates.

O’Rourke and other Democrats keep talking about “reforming immigration policy.” They want a policy that doesn’t result in erecting a wall along our southern border. They want to allow the so-called “Dreamers” — immigrants who were brought here illegally as children by their parents — to remain in the United States, the only country they know; they want to grant the Dreamers a “fast track” to obtaining U.S. citizenship. O’Rourke wants to “modernize the visa system” to enable employers to fill jobs that Americans won’t do.

This is reasonable stuff, man. It doesn’t call for an opening up of our borders. It doesn’t suggest that we allow anyone — including known criminals — free and unfettered access to the United States of America.

This kind of perversion of stated public policy is nothing new. It’s been going on since The Flood. However, I still detest its effectiveness when pitched to a gullible audience.

Uncategorized

Tell the troops you love them — to their faces — Mr. President

Donald Trump is fond of extolling his love and admiration for the troops who serve in harm’s way.

However, the president who’s been in office for nearly two years has yet to venture into a war zone to tell them so to their face.

He needs to go. Trump needs to fly to Iraq or to Afghanistan, shake the hands of the men and women who serve there and tell them in no uncertain terms that he supports them fully.

Trump critics point that he has spent a lot of time on the golf course while serving as president. I don’t begrudge him fully for that; he is always “on the clock.” What is maddening is how he criticized former President Obama for playing golf, although Trump’s immediate predecessor did so far less frequently than Trump has done. Hypocrisy? Oh, just a bit ā€¦ yes?

Visit the troops, Mr. POTUS

I spent a bit of time in Vietnam. I remember when President Nixon went there in 1969, shortly after taking office that same year — and the year I began my service in Da Nang. The president didn’t come to Marble Mountain, but he did mingle with the troops south of us and, I presume, told them to their faces how much he appreciates the sacrifice they were making in defense of our nation — and in defense of South Vietnam, which needed our help against the communist Viet Cong and North Vietnamese army.

Donald Trump has boasted about all he has done for the military. He brags about how strong we are — and about how “busy” he is building the strongest economy in our nation’s history.

OK, butĀ  he’s not too busy to spend a few hours on an airplane and then express his admiration for the work these men and women are doing.

 

economic news, local news, State news

Amarillo no longer ‘ignored’ by state

It’s hard for me to believe that at one time many residents of Amarillo and the rest of the Texas Panhandle felt “ignored” by the powers that be way down yonder in the state capital in Austin.

Every now and then I still hear the occasional gripe that Austin doesn’t give a damn about Amarillo, or the Panhandle, or those who live there. Those who say such things — or think them privately — need to get out more.

I’ve moved away from there but I return on occasion with my wife. I am amazed at what I see transpiring along the city’s major highways.

I see dozens, maybe hundreds, of work crews toiling to renovate Interstates 40 and 27. I see dozens of trucks, front-end loaders, backhoes, road-grading equipment and assorted vehicles of all shapes and sizesĀ  with “Texas Department of Transportation” decals plastered on the doors.

No longer can anyone with a straight face complain about Amarillo being “ignored” by the state.

I don’t know what the dollar figure is on all this work, but it’s got to be in the mid- to high eight figures.

A former state legislator, Republican David Swinford, was known to grumble out loud about the lack of attention Austin was paying to the Panhandle. I arrived in Amarillo in January 1995 to become editorial page editor of the Amarillo Globe-News. I met the Dumas lawmaker shortly after arrival and asked him whether it was true — as I had heard — that he wanted to split the Panhandle off from the rest of the state. Swinford didn’t deny it categorically and said that he was miffed that the state didn’t pay the Panhandle enough attention.

Well, I guess my old buddy David Swinford has seen his wishes come true.

These work crews are tearing up the highways, not to mention along Loop 335 along the southwest corner of the city. Eventually, TxDOT will begin work extending the loop along Helium Road about a mile west of Soncy Road.

I look forward to watching this all take shape from some distance — except when my wife and I return to do battle along the I-40 as we enter from the east.

You’ve heard it said to “be careful what you wish for”? These days, the grumbling I hear in Amarillo speaks mostly to there being too much attention being paid by the state.

International news

Reporter died in a ‘fight’? Then gets disemembered?

A hideous event that resulted in the dismemberment and death of a journalist who lived in the United States has taken the strangest turn possible.

Saudi Arabia government officials have confirmed that Jamal Khashoggi is dead. He died in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. He reportedly was cut into pieces while he was still alive by Saudi agents.

But now the Saudi government says he died in a fight at the consulate. With whom? Why? Do we now believe that Khashoggi died because he got into a tussle?

What happened to his body?

Saudi officials say they have arrested 18 individuals. One of the suspects reportedly died in an automobile accident. The Saudis have fired five men linked to the tragic event in Istanbul.

It needs to be said that Saudi Arabia is an ostensible ally of the United States of America. The Saudis are about to make a major arms purchase from this country. Donald Trump hasn’t yet condemned the attack, other than to say “it’s a bad thing,” and other words to that effect.

Khashoggi wrote for The Washington Post. He lived in Virginia and had been a U.S. resident for many years. His gruesome murder has shocked and repelled many Americans.

As for the Saudi relationship with this country, it needs also to be said that of the 19 terrorists who attacked this country on 9/11, 15 of them were Saudis. Yet the Saudi government said at the time that the attack was the work of Israeli intelligence agents, that it was an inside job meant to implicate Arab nations. What horse manure!

The president of the United States needs to turn the heat up full blast under the backsides of the Saudi royal family, which also has been implicated in this matter. He should do so on behalf of a journalist and his grief-stricken family.

I don’t believe for an instant the Saudi “explanation” that Jamal Khashoggi died in a fight.

media news, State news

Cruz had the paper’s nod, then he lost it

Six years ago, Ted Cruz scored a key endorsement from a major Texas newspaper, the Houston Chronicle.

He was the hometown guy, a Houston resident who had become Texas solicitor general. Then he knocked Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst out of the saddle while winning the 2012 Republican U.S. Senate primary; he would win the Senate seat handily that year.

Six years later, Cruz has squandered the support of the Chronicle, which has “enthusiastically” thrown its support behind Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke.

At one level this is a big deal. The Chronicle’s editorial spells out why Cruz has disappointed the paper’s editorial board. He’s self-serving, overly ambitious, too intent on furthering his own political interests, he ignores Texas’s needs, he is a grandstander.

Read the editorialĀ here.

The paper suggests that O’Rourke, a native of El Paso and a member of the U.S. House, might be “the next Bobby Kennedy.” The paper is impressed with O’Rourke’s enthusiastic campaign and his stated commitment to Texas and to Texans. It notes that O’Rourke has “strong opinions” but “reaches out” to those with whom he disagrees.

At one level, I welcome the endorsement. Then reality kicks in. Will a newspaper’s statement matter? Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry kicked sand in the faces of editorial boards statewide in 2010. He said he wouldn’t meet with editorial boards, preferring to “speak directly” to Texans as he campaigned for re-election; newspapers across the state endorsed former Houston Mayor Bill White — and Perry still won by a double-digit margin.

That all said, it’s advisable to take the Chronicle’s endorsement with a degree of skepticism. I don’t doubt for a moment that the paper believes O’Rourke would do a better job in the U.S. Senate. I agree with the paper, which makes it credible to my eyes.

I want to take particular note of how Cruz has become a Trump acolyte — even after Trump hung the “Lyin’ Ted” insult on him during the 2016 GOP presidential primary; he also denigrated Heidi Cruz, the senator’s wife; and suggested that Cruz’s father was involved in President Kennedy’s assassination. O’Rourke is likely to serve as a necessary check on a president who presents a host of dangerous notions for Americans to ponder.

If only this endorsement can turn the tide. One can hope. I will do so.

national news

Don’t keep the findings secret, Mr. Special Counsel

There’s some chatter developing about the conclusions that special counsel Robert Mueller might reach at the end of his investigation into what Donald Trump referred to as “the Russia thing.”

It goes something like this: There might not be an explosive finding that spells the end of Donald Trump’s administration; moreover, Mueller might not allow the findings to be made public.

None of us can control the first part. The second part, about secrecy, we can. I want to urge the special counsel to make damn sure the public gets to see the conclusions he draws.

My goodness! The Department of Justice charged Mueller with determining whether there was any “collusion” between Trump’s presidential campaign and Russian operatives who hacked into our electoral system and sought to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The DOJ is our agency. It runs on our tax money. We are the bosses. We have a right — if not a need — to know the investigation’s outcome and how Mueller and his legal team reached it.

As Politico reports: “That’s just the way this works,” said John Q. Barrett, a former associate counsel who worked under independent counsel Lawrence Walsh during the Reagan-era investigation into secret U.S. arms sales to Iran. “Mueller is a criminal investigator. He’s not government oversight and he’s not a historian.”

But he is operating on the public’s time and on its dime.

To my way of thinking, that entitles the public to know the outcome and how Mueller’s team reached its conclusion.