This guy for POTUS? No-o-o-o-o!

Tom Steyer is precisely the kind of individual I do not want to run for president of the United States of America in 2020.

He’s a billionaire gadfly/philanthropist/impeachment activist.

Steyer has been on a two-year-long campaign to round up enough interest to impeach Donald John Trump Sr. The way I see this guy, that is his sole claim to fame. It’s his sole vehicle for notoriety.

It is no reason at all to consider this guy for president, the leader of the free world, the commander in chief, the head of state and government of the world’s most indispensable nation.

Indeed, Donald Trump himself has demonstrated since the day he was elected that his own lack of government experience renders him — along with his myriad personal failings — totally unfit for the office he occupies.

Steyer now wants us to believe he is the answer to what ails us?

C’mon, man! Get real!

The dude has a website. He is planning some town hall meetings. He appears to be setting up one of those “exploratory committees” to determine the level of support he has among Democrats.

The guy is mega-rich. He’s a loudmouth gadfly who thinks he can parlay his wealth and his big mouth into enough votes to defeat Trump in a 2020 presidential confrontation.

I don’t mind that he’s raising a ruckus about Trump’s many failings as president. I do mind that he considers himself a serious contender for the presidency.

I want to hold out hope that Americans will realize they’ve been snookered one too many times already into falling for the flim-flammery offered by Donald Trump.

Let’s not traipse down that road again.

Rep. Schiff does not deserve to have his name denigrated

I have tried seemingly forever to avoid criticizing public figures on at least two levels. That is, two aspects are off limits.

I avoid making fun of their physical appearance and also their name.

Donald Trump has managed during his meteoric political career to do precisely both of those things. He has poked fun/mocked a New York Times reporter’s physical disability; he has made snarky — and unfounded — remarks about the physical appearances of former Republican presidential primary foes Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul; he’s denigrated the appearances of women who have accused him of sexual assault.

Now he has bastardized U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff’s name with that vulgar tweet in which he refers to the incoming House Intelligence Committee chairman as “Little Adam Schitt.” The California Democrat has taken the hideous insult with a good bit of humor, but hasn’t dwelled on it. Those of us on the sidelines are making the big deal of it. As we should, in my humble view.

Even a few conservative voices are speaking out against Trump’s insult against Schiff. This came from radio talker Laura Ingraham:

“Being tough is great, we all love it. Tough, strong president. You don’t have to ridicule Adam Schiff’s name. It’s an unforced error. There’s no reason to do that.”

No, Laura: You all love it. I don’t.

Ingraham is giving the president the benefit of several doubts. She’s far more tepid in her criticism than I would be. Still, at least she has said something about it.

Trump’s use of Twitter to insult foes at this level reveals a serious flaw in his own emotional, intellectual and perhaps even psychological makeup.

Good grief, the president is free to criticize people’s policies, their public statements, their actions in front of their constituents.

But their appearance? Their family name?

Disgraceful.

Commander in chief shows disregard for military

I have to ask: How in the name of pride in our military does the president of the United States get away with the utter denigration he heaps on distinguished military personnel?

Donald Trump did it (in)famously in 2016 when he said the late U.S. Sen. John McCain was a “war hero only because he was captured. I like people who aren’t captured.”

Trump went on to win the presidential election after declaring he knows “more about ISIS than the generals.” Then he surrounded himself with current and former four-star officers, proclaiming some sort of phony affinity for the expertise they bring.

And now the latest tumult has erupted. The president has disparaged the May 2011 raid that killed 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden and, particularly, the man who coordinated that effort, retired Admiral William McRaven.

McRaven, a decorated Navy SEAL, headed the Special Operations Command when President Obama issued the order to kill bin Laden.

Trump now says we should have taken bin Laden down “a lot sooner.” Again, the commander in chief has denigrated a war hero and has mocked the effort that was carried out with precision and professionalism by a dedicated team of SEALs, Army Green Beret pilots and CIA deep-cover operatives.

Moreover, he gets away with it! The “base” that adores him gives him a pass. They don’t care that the commander in chief thinks so little of the brave men and women who volunteer to do something that the president waffled on when he had the chance when he was of draft age during the Vietnam War.

I do not get it. I never will get it.

CNN/Acosta matter contains quiet back story

Psst. Let me bring you in on a secret that virtually no one is talking about.

Federal Judge Timothy Kelly’s ruling that required Donald Trump and the White House to reinstate CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press credentials speaks to the value of an independent federal judiciary.

The president ordered Acosta’s White House press pass yanked after the two men had a contentious exchange during a press conference the day after the midterm election.

CNN filed a complaint against the White House. Late this past week, Judge Kelly ruled in favor of CNN.

What makes the story interesting is that Kelly is a Donald Trump appointment. The new president nominated Kelly to the federal bench and he was confirmed by the Senate.

We’ve all talked at length about how U.S. Supreme Court justices side with the presidents who nominate them. The same occasionally is said about lower-court federal judges.

Judge Kelly took off in the opposite direction. His ruling wasn’t overly harsh, but it did go against the president who nominated him.

I mention this because it validates the value of an independent federal judiciary and the fact that these judges get lifetime appointments, leaving them free to rule independently. They are charged with interpreting the U.S. Constitution and with determining whether government actions concur or run counter to constitutional principles.

The president’s revocation of Acosta’s press credentials didn’t make the constitutional grade and Judge Kelly sided with the Constitution . . . and not the president who selected him.

That’s a good sign for the health of our federal judicial system.

No chants to ‘Lock her up,’ please

Ivanka Trump has been busted for, that’s right, using her personal e-mail account to convey government policy matters.

Sound familiar? Sure it does. Republican officials and politicians led chants from faithful audiences to “Lock her up!” when the subject was Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state who also ran as the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

I am not going to join in any kind of payback as it regards the president’s daughter, who doubles as a senior policy adviser in the Trump administration. Doing so would expose any of those who bristled at the chants aimed at Clinton to charges of rank hypocrisy.

However, I do expect the new Democrat-controlled House to launch hearings next year into what Ivanka Trump disseminated via her personal e-mail account.

That, I submit, is fair treatment. What mattered for Hillary ought to matter as well for Ivanka.

What if Obama had done any of this?

“We should be intellectually honest here at this table that if President Obama had missed Veterans Day or missed the Armistice ceremony in France for the 100th anniversary of World War I, my head would have exploded right here on this table in front of all of you.”

So said Meghan McCain, daughter of the late, great Republican U.S. senator, John McCain, and a co-host of the TV show “The View.”

I believe she speaks for a lot of Americans who are dismayed, disgusted and so very disappointed in recent actions and remarks by Donald J. Trump, the president of the United States.

So many on the right and the far right have been strangely silent regarding the president’s recent action — or inaction — in Europe. He declined to attend a ceremony in France honoring the Americans who fell during World War I, then skipped Veterans Day services at Arlington National Cemetery.

Now, to his credit, the president did express some regret at failing to show for the Arlington cemetery event. That doesn’t excuse what he declined to do in the moment.

Couple all of that with what he has said in recent days about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the disparaging he has leveled at the Navy admiral, William McRaven, who coordinated the May 2011 assault and you have even more reason for “heads to explode.”

They aren’t. Except for Meghan McCain, a self-described political conservative.

Yes, just try to imagine the reaction had all of this come from a liberal Democrat. It is pointless to suggest how progressives, such as yours truly, would react had any of this occurred on Barack Obama’s watch. Thankfully, I don’t recall it ever happening prior to Donald Trump becoming president.

I do believe Meghan McCain’s assertion about her own noggin “exploding” on national TV.

RNC backs POTUS in attack on McRaven

Well, here we go.

The Republican National Committee, I guess to few people’s surprise, has backed Donald J. Trump in his idiotic attack on the Navy SEAL who coordinated the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

The RNC says that retired Admiral William McRaven “reportedly” was on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s short list of potential running mates when she ran for president in 2016.

Hold … the … phone!

The president went off on McRaven during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” He contended that the Special Operations Command chief was a “Hillary Clinton backer” while he was criticizing him for not getting bin Laden “a lot sooner” than he did.

“Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace sought to mention that McRaven was a SEAL at the time of the bin Laden raid, but that didn’t dissuade Trump from alleging that McRaven was some sort of partisan hack.

What a joke!

Whether he was on anyone’s short list is utterly beside the point.

McRaven retired from the Navy after 37 years of service in 2014. Clinton ran for president two years after that. The raid that McRaven coordinated occurred on President Obama’s watch. The date was in May 2011, when McRaven was an active-duty Navy officer.

His colleagues all have testified to a person that McRaven is the consummate military professional who didn’t put politics ahead of his mission. Indeed, he has responded to Trump’s criticism by noting that he served under President George W. Bush as well as under President Obama. Republican or Democrat, it didn’t matter to McRaven.

So, for the president to accuse him of being some sort of cheap partisan disserves not only Admiral McRaven, but also the SEALs as well as other Special Forces troops in the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps . . .  not to mention all the men and women who wear the uniform in defense of the country.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone, I suppose, that the RNC would weigh in with its own cheap political shot.

Despicable.

This tempest just won’t go away

The tumult caused by Donald Trump’s disparagement of a heroic Navy SEAL continues at full boil.

Why is that? Because the president of the United States won’t back down from the hideous criticism he leveled at retired Admiral William McRaven, the fellow who coordinated the May 2011 commando raid that took down Osama bin Laden.

McRaven, who’s now a private citizen, had criticized the president’s war on the media as a grave “threat to democracy.” Trump then responded in an interview with “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace that McRaven should have gotten bin Laden “much sooner.”

Yep, he criticized the architect of the operation. He in effect denigrated the service of a heroic American warrior, who spent 37 years wearing the uniform in service to his country. He was injured training to become a SEAL. He also led the team that captured the late Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussein in 2003.

So, for this president — who actually avoided service during the Vietnam War — to criticize a hero simply is beyond my own ability to comprehend. He called McRaven a political hack, a Hillary Clinton “backer” and a fan of President Obama.

Admiral McRaven is as admirable a man as one could find.

Donald Trump? He, um, isn’t.

Still, this tempest just won’t quit.

Rename the ‘Community Prayer Breakfast’?

When you see a billboard advertising an upcoming “community prayer breakfast,” you might be inclined to think of it as an inclusive event that welcomes people of all faiths.

I certainly would.

With that, I am going to venture briefly into an area that I am certain is going to bring some potentially scathing criticism to this blog.

Amarillo is going to play host Tuesday morning to its annual “Community Prayer Breakfast.” I attended quite a few of them over the years when I lived in Amarillo. They’re lovely affairs with lots of fellowship, a nice breakfast served to crowds exceeding 1,000 individuals who get up early in the morning to attend the event at the Civic Center.

However, it’s not a “community” event that welcomes people of non-Christian faith. If you’re a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist you don’t feel welcome necessarily. These events have the look, sound and feel of a Christian revival meeting. There’s a bit of evangelism going on.

I am acutely aware that the Texas Panhandle is an overwhelmingly Christian community. But it’s not exclusively Christian.

I aim any criticism only at those who continue to call it what it is not. The broadest definition of Amarillo’s “community” has to include those who worship non-Christian deities. Were they to walk into this event, they wouldn’t feel as welcome as those of us who do worship Jesus Christ.

I say all this as one who was baptized as a Christian. I have been a devoted Christian my entire life. I believe in the salvation that comes with a belief that Jesus is the Son of God.

But I speak only for myself. Not for others. Thus, the “Community Prayer Breakfast” needs either a new name — one that reflects its Christian emphasis — or it ought to consider broadening its appeal a more ecumenical audience, which is what the National Prayer Breakfast seeks to do.

Prayers from a rabbi or an imam would be a start.

Wife-and-children killer heads for the slammer

Christopher Watts decided to plead guilty to killing his pregnant wife and two children to avoid the death penalty in Colorado.

He got his “wish” today when the judge sentenced him to life in prison. He’ll never breathe freely again.

This case tests severely my opposition to capital punishment. Watts is a hideous monster who feigned grief when the police began a search for his “missing” family.

But here’s what I suspect might happen to this individual. He well might meet the same fate that befell one Jeffrey Dahmer, who received a life sentence in Wisconsin after he was convicted of killing and cannibalizing his victims.

Wisconsin doesn’t execute capital criminals. It sends them to prison for life. In Dahmer’s case, the state sent him into the general prison population.

Then he got attacked by a fellow inmate, who beat him to death.

From what I have understood about prison convict hierarchy, those who are incarcerated establish a sort of caste system within the population. Cop killers, for example, are held in greater “esteem.” Those who prey on defenseless victims, such as rapists and those who murder their wives and children are considered the scummiest of the scum.

Welcome to prison, Christopher Watts. I would not be surprised in the least to learn that some inmate has delivered the same form of justice to this individual that the guy delivered to Jeffrey Dahmer all those years ago.

If such a fate falls on this individual, I just hope it hurts him. Badly.