Should Fox give its media stars the boot?

The Fox News Channel, Donald Trump’s favorite cable “news” network, has issued a curious statement.

It says it does “not condone” its celebrity talkers taking part in partisan political rallies. So, what’s the network going to do about it? What will it do to punish right-wing blowhard Sean Hannity and Jeannine Pirro for their appearances with Trump at a Missouri campaign rally?

I think they need to be sanctioned seriously. Maybe yanked off their air. Perhaps suspended without pay while they consider what they did. Or … fired outright for cause.

Hannity is a known shill for Trump. He’s been standing behind the president for a couple of years. He refused to disclose to viewers about his “professional relationship” with Michael Cohen, the lawyer who once was Trump’s Mr. Fix It, but who has turned on the president.

Do you think the network would go ballistic if, say, one of its rivals at MSNBC or CNN had appeared at a campaign rally for a Democratic candidate campaigning for office this year? Yeah! Do ya think?

Fox has crossed the line that separates it from the politicians it covers. I understand fully that the network is acknowledged to be friendly toward the president. The network and its commentators are entitled to speak their minds.

They are not entitled, though, to become active and highly visible participants in a partisan campaign rally.

According to The Hill: “Fox news does not condone any talent participating in campaign events,” read a statement to The Hill. “We have an extraordinary team of journalists helming our coverage tonight and we are extremely proud of their work. This was an unfortunate distraction and has been addressed.”

It has not been addressed sufficiently, in my view.

Dad would be appalled in the extreme

My late father wasn’t a particularly political individual. He didn’t have a lot of deep-seated political views that he shared regularly.

Dad, though, was a proud veteran of World War II. He served in the Navy, seeing combat in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations.

Thus, when I see pictures such as the one above — taken at an April 2018 neo-Nazi rally — I wonder: What would Dad think? How would he react?

He’s been gone for more than 38 years. To this day I have no particular memory about a discussion between us about neo-Nazis or those who sympathize with the monsters who in the 1940s tried to kill Dad and those who fought alongside him.

There has been a significant increase in the open demonstrations of neo-Nazis, white supremacists and others of their ilk during the past few years. Some of it was a response to the 2008 election of our first African-American president, Barack H. Obama. More of it came with the election of his successor, Donald J. Trump.

Indeed, such KKK luminaries as David Duke, the former Klan grand lizard, er … wizard, have commented openly about the joy they felt when Trump was elected in 2016.

So, I am able to some dots. Duke and other KKK members praise Trump’s election and we see a rise in Klan and Nazi activity across the land. Coincidence? I, um, don’t believe so.

The sight of this political idiocy makes my blood boil. I realize that our Constitution grants all citizens — no matter how disgusting their political views — the right to carry on as these idiots are doing.

I only can ask: How in the name of human decency can they burn a swastika and believe it will persuade anyone to join their perverted cause?

Dad and all those members of the Greatest Generation would be appalled.

No line at polling station … hmm

I was half expecting to wait in line this morning when I went to my Collin County, Texas, voting station down the street where my wife and I live.

It didn’t happen. We walked, checked in, got our access card, cast our ballots and left. Just like that. In and out in, oh, 12 minutes.

All this talk about the huge surge in early voting? Does it mean a surge in overall turnout? Does it mean Texas won’t be among the worst performing voter turnout states in the Union?

I don’t know. I get that one polling station doesn’t tell the whole story.

Still, I hope the huge spike in early voting doesn’t portend a scenario that results in the early vote detracting from the number of Election Day voters.

We’ll know in due course.

Clear your throat, but first … be sure to vote!

You’ve heard it said, “Don’t bitch if you don’t vote.”

I’m going to keep bitching because I am going to vote later today.

My polling place is 8 minutes away by car. It’s at a school in Collin County. Will there be a long line? I don’t know. Nor does it matter. I’ve got time on my hands. I have nowhere to go today.

My post-election griping might take a little different turn. To be candid, I am getting a little weary of speaking so critically about Donald John Trump. I am running out of ways to say the same thing, which is that Trump is not fit to be president.

But … he is the president.

I want to concentrate more on issues that concern me. The world is in a perilous place because of climate change, the war on terror, the fight over nationalism vs. globalism, nuclear proliferation … those kinds of things. I won’t abandon completely my criticism of the president, but I want desperately to take this blog into another direction as we head into the second half of Donald Trump’s term as president.

My vote later today will give me license to speak out and to criticize the president of the United States.

How about you?

Signs point one way, but do not take a thing for granted

I am getting ready to call it a day.

I’ll wake up Tuesday, eat some breakfast and then my wife and I will head to our polling place in Collin County, Texas, to cast our votes in this vital midterm election.

The polls say Democrats are going to capture the U.S. House of Representatives; they rate the Senate as a tossup, but Republicans holding a possible slight edge.

The president of the United States is campaigning on behalf of GOP candidates as if he, Donald Trump, is on the ballot. He’s tossing out insults, innuendo, he is slashing and burning as only he can, he is hurling epithets. His campaign has taken a racist turn, causing networks — Fox and NBC — to pull ads off the air.

Early vote totals are skyrocketing beyond the atmosphere. They reportedly bode well for Democrats.

Is this a Democratic election year? Maybe.

Then again, let us remember something. It’s important to keep this in mind: 2016 was supposed to be the year Democrats kept the White House; they nominated a superior candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton; Republicans nominated a reality TV personality and hotel developer, Trump.

Trump won the election. He managed to toss damn near every single bit of political conventional wisdom into the crapper.

I don’t want him to score another upset Tuesday. I want Democrats to hand the man’s, um, personal parts to him. I just am not yet willing to accept the polls’ summary on the eve of this election.

I will cheer if they are correct. If not, well, I won’t be cheering.

Let’s check in Tuesday night.

Beto scores endorsement from ‘conservative’ media outlet

The Texas Tribune reported recently how Beto O’Rourke and Ted Cruz are fighting for victory in what it called the nation’s “largest conservative county.”

Tarrant County fits the bill as a conservative bastion, according to the Tribune.

Thus, the county’s newspaper of record — the Fort Worth Star-Telegram — usually backs conservative candidates for public office. Not this year in the race for the U.S. Senate seat that the Republican Cruz now occupies.

Here’s a snippet of what the Star-Telegram wrote in endorsing O’Rourke, the Democratic challenger.

“Only O’Rourke seems interested in making deals or finding middle ground. That is why the El Paso Democrat would make the best senator for Tarrant County’s future, and the future of Texas. This Editorial Board has recommended conservative Republicans such as George W. Bush and Mitt Romney for president, along with U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison. But Cruz does not measure up. This office needs a reset. The Star-Telegram Editorial Board endorses Beto O’Rourke.”

O’Rourke also has earned the editorial board endorsements from the San Antonio Express-News, the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle and (not surprising in the least) the hometown El Paso Times.

It’s certainly fair to ask: Will these endorsements matter? I am not sure that endorsements from newspapers prove decisive. Texans are like most newspaper readers. They make up their minds on a whole host of factors: personal bias, philosophy, traditional family political history.

Still, I believe it’s instructive that the Star-Telegram, which purports to speak for the “largest conservative county” in America has decided that a self-described TEA Party conservative, Cruz, no longer earns its blessing.

No regrets in supporting Hillary … none!

Americans are going to vote Tuesday for members of Congress and a whole host of statewide and local offices.

And, yes, Donald John Trump will be on the proverbial ballot, too. He has said so, telling voters at his campaign rallies to “vote for me.”

I don’t have the burden of voting for Trump again, or voting for whatever it is he stands for. I cast my 2016 ballot for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I want to declare right here that I don’t regret that vote for an instant. Not one bit.

We lived in Randall County, Texas, when we voted in the 2016 presidential election. We were among the 15 percent of voters who cast their ballots for Hillary; Trump carried Randall County with 80.15 percent of the vote, which is no great shakes, given the county’s heavy GOP tilt.

Hillary Clinton would have been subjected to a level of questioning and interrogation that Trump is facing right now. Of that I have no doubt. The difference, I am certain, would be that she would keep her mouth shut. She wouldn’t be tweeting her fingers to the nub over every crazy turn the Republicans would take their investigation.

She would know and appreciate the meaning of “acting presidential.” She would conduct herself with dignity and with grace. She would have kept the United States involved in the Paris Climate Accord, which is intended to reduce carbon emissions worldwide; she would have kept the Iran nuclear deal in force; she would have refrained from offending our NATO allies; Hillary would have known better than to hurl baseless accusations against opponents.

I concede readily that she wasn’t the perfect candidate. Then again, I haven’t yet seen political perfection among any of the candidates who have received my voting support.

Her years as first lady, then as a U.S. senator and then as secretary of state prepared her amply for the job of president.

She just fluffed her chance in 2016. I do not want her to run again. She’s had her time in the arena. I trust she’ll stay on the sidelines and let someone else pick up the banner she carried to a near-victory two years ago.

I just felt compelled to stand foursquare behind a decision I made two years ago to vote for someone who I am convinced would be superior to the fellow who defeated her.

What is so wrong with a ‘pathway to citizenship’?

The 2018 midterm election might be setting an unofficial record for demagogic statements and rhetoric.

One of them goes something like this: Democrats want to grant immediate citizenship to illegal aliens. Hmm. Really?

Here is what I understand is the talking point that Democrats are pitching and it has next to nothing to do with what their Republican foes keep saying about them.

They say they want to grant a “pathway to citizenship” to those who entered the United States illegally. Does that equate in any fashion to granting immediate citizenship? Not to me.

One of the most-watched Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate, Texan Beto O’Rourke, has been vilified as someone who favors “open borders,” one who says we have “too much border security” and someone who favors allowing illegal immigrants to vote.

Yes. I actually heard that last thing stated on a Fox News interview O’Rourke conducted with talking head Sean Hannity.

What I believe is the truth is that O’Rourke and other progressive candidates want is to grant a reprieve from deportation for illegal immigrants. Then he has suggested a form of screening of those immigrants, seeking to determine the reasons they are here. He and others want to allow them the chance to apply for citizenship or to seek permanent resident status.

Why, I must wonder, is that such a bad thing? Why is it preferable in the minds of many others to just round ’em up, keep ’em restrained and then deport ’em without giving them a chance to build new lives in the Land of Opportunity?

The xenophobe in chief keeps implying that every illegal immigrant is here to do harm. Yep, grandma and grandpa, along with their small grandchildren, as well as married couples have sneaked into our country to commit terrible, heinous, despicable crimes against unsuspecting Americans. That’s how the demagoguery goes.

It is untrue. It is a lie fomented by those with ghastly motives.

Do I favor “open borders”? Do I favor an absence of border security? Do I want to grant anyone permission to enter this country without the proper documentation? Of course not. Neither do politicians seeking election to important public offices.

None of that will stop the demagogues from continuing their campaign of lies.

One-party rule: dangerous for democracy

High Plains Blogger critics aren’t likely to believe this, but I have been opposed to one-party domination for, oh, as long as I can remember.

Yes, that means Democrats who control all the power can be as harmful to the cause of good government as Republicans.

That stands as one of the reasons I favor flipping at least one congressional chamber on Tuesday when we go to the polls for the 2018 midterm election. I want Democrats to seize control of Congress to act as a check on the narcissistic maniac who has hijacked the Republican Party and brought otherwise sensible GOP members along with him on his dangerous journey toward who knows what.

You can stop chuckling now, critics of mine.

There was a time when I commented publicly about how Democrats controlled local government in a region I used to call home. That would be the Golden Triangle of Texas, that region between Houston and the Sabine River, which serves as the border between Texas and Louisiana.

I arrived in that part of the world in the spring of 1984. Democrats occupied virtually every public office there was to be found. Republicans were an endangered species in that bastion of Democratic policies and politicians. The Triangle was so reliably Democratic that Democratic politicians running for statewide office rarely campaigned there. They took the region for granted. They knew they could depend on their votes on Election Day.

That began to change before I left the region in January 1995 for the Texas Panhandle. Jefferson County elected a Republican to its commissioners court and GOP candidates began winning a smattering of offices.

Then we moved to the heart of Republican Country, where the modern Texas conservative movement called its heart and soul. The Panhandle is as reliably Republican as the Golden Triangle used to be reliably Democratic.

The Panhandle isn’t changing its stripes.

But on the national level, we see the GOP in control of both the legislative and executive branches of government. I do hope that changes when the ballots are counted late Tuesday and/or early Wednesday. I want Democrats to seize control of Congress. It appears they might take control of the House; the Senate likely will remain in GOP hands.

Whatever the outcome, if the Democrats take the House, they’ll at least be able to institute some checks on the nutty nonsense that emanates from the White House and is endorsed by the Senate.

If it happens, then we might see a return to good government.

Let us hope for the best.

Stop speaking for me, Lt. Gov. Patrick!

I should have written this note to Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick long ago. OK, I’m late with it, but I’ve got to get something off my chest.

Here goes:

Dan — I’ll call you Dan, OK? — I wish you wouldn’t purport to speak for me. Your TV ads keep saying “Democrats” want to do this and that. The implication is that Democrats all think as one. They’re all lemmings. Sheep. Mindless robots.

Let me stipulate something right off the top. I consider myself a liberal. I align with the Democratic Party. I am inclined to vote for more Democrats than Republicans when I vote on Tuesday. However, I do split my ticket and I’ve found a few Republicans on the ballot worthy of my electoral support.

However, not all Democrats support the things you say they do.

Open borders? Nope. Sanctuary cities? This one’s tougher, but “no” on that one, too. Granting undocumented immigrants the right to vote? C’mon, man … knock it off!

And I do not want to “turn Texas into California.” I moved to Texas for a reason back in 1984. I came here to take a job as an opinion journalist in Beaumont. I like Texas just fine. I like the people. I like the diversity. I like the lay of the vast land. I like not having to pay a state income tax. That was 34 years ago, Dan.

I am not crazy about the political climate here, but then again, my life isn’t centered on politics. There’s more to living than worrying about politicians. I choose not to be consumed 24/7 by the whims of political leaders.

If I wanted to “turn Texas into California,” Dan, I would move to California. Just so you know, I happen to like California, too. I am sure you’ve been there. The state has a lot to offer. Tall trees and mountains, pretty beaches, sandy deserts, great skiing, glitz and glamor.

And San Francisco, Dan, is arguably the most beautiful city on Earth.

But for crying out loud, dude, stop trying to put words in my mouth! Stop purporting to speak for me. You and others of your political ilk don’t know what you’re talking about.

Well … Now, I feel a lot better.

I intend to vote Tuesday with a clear head and clearer conscience and I am hoping it all turns out the way I want it to turn out.

Have a great day, Dan.