Border shutdown or not? Let’s go with ‘not’

Donald Trump is a malleable man. He says he intends to do one thing, then backpedals . . . sometimes furiously.

Repeal the Affordable Care Act now? Sure, but wait! Let’s do it after the November 2020 election.

Shut down the border with Mexico? Yep! Right now, or else. But, whoa! Let’s wait a year and see what happens, shall we?

The president was adamant that we should close the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Then someone musta got to him, telling him what he should have known already: Closing the border, Mr. President, is going to cost this country tens of billions of dollars in business with one of our largest trading partners.

Then he backed off. He said he doesn’t “play games.” He had vowed that he would close the border, “100 percent.”

Not now.

Actually, the one-year delay likely means the border won’t close at all. I’m OK with that. Shutting down our border with Mexico is going to do far more harm than good.

Trump calls the closure threat a national security matter. He says security is more important than trade. I agree with that. However, is there an actual “national security threat” being presented at this moment? I remain highly dubious of that assertion.

So, for now the president has backed off. Good. I hope he stays backed off for as long as he is in office.

Sen. Graham finds himself in a difficult place

I want to play out a possible political scenario that involves two close friends who happen to be members of competing political parties.

Democrat Joe Biden, the former vice president and U.S. senator, is facing questions about how he has interacted with women over the years. Some of them have complained about feeling “discomfort” because of Biden’s hands-on manner of greeting individuals.

You know the story by now. Some women have complained that Biden got a little too close for comfort. Biden has explained that he made no sexual advances on them. He said that is the way he is, but added that he recognizes that social norms have changed. “I get it,” he said.

The other fellow is his good friend, Republican Lindsey Graham, with whom Biden served in the Senate before becoming VP in 2009. Graham also is a close political ally of Donald Trump, against whom Biden might run in the 2020 presidential election.

Graham’s friendship with Biden appears — to me at least — to be much more genuine than his alliance with Trump. Indeed, just before he left office in 2017, President Obama awarded Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom and quoted Sen. Graham as saying about Biden, “If you can’t admireJoe Biden as a person, you’ve got a problem. He is as fine a human being as God ever created.”

Graham just recently talked about his longtime friendship with Biden while giving him the benefit of the doubt over the “too close” allegations that some women have leveled against him.

What will happen if Biden becomes the Democratic nominee for president and runs against Donald Trump? Will the president lean on his ally to savage the former VP? If he does, would Lindsey Graham take the bait?

Do personal friendships get in the way at times of political reality?

Yeah . . . they certainly do.

Wishing that AG Barr rises to occasion

You may choose to believe this . . . or you might choose to disbelieve it. I don’t care. I’ll offer this anyway.

I really want to believe that Attorney General William Barr takes seriously the oath to which he swore when he vowed to uphold the rule of law and to defend the U.S. Constitution.

My hope is being strained almost to the point of snapping.

The report from The New York Times from part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team that Barr might have shaded the team’s work is most disturbing.

The Times reports that some of Mueller’s team have complained that Barr’s four-page summary of the 22-month investigation into whether Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians doesn’t adequately express the team’s view of what it found. They are saying that Barr is soft-pedaling some of the more troubling aspects the conclusions drawn.

This does force me to join others in wondering whether Barr is more loyal to the president than he is to the law. The oath he took was not to pledge loyalty to Donald Trump. He put his hand on a Bible and swore in the name of God Almighty that he would be faithful to the law. Isn’t that what all our federal officials pledge?

My hope when the president nominated Barr to be AG after he fired Jeff Sessions only because Sessions did what was proper — which was to recuse himself from the Russia probe — was that Barr would emerge as a grownup, as a serious public servant.

I still want to believe that’s the case. He served as AG under a previous Republican president, George H.W. Bush. He is a known quantity. Barr possesses a first-rate legal mind.

Did he, though, “audition” for the AG’s job with that memo declaring that the president couldn’t be prosecuted for any crime because he is the president? 

I do not want to believe that.

The NY Times, though, has cast serious doubt on all of that with the report from members of Mueller’s team that the AG has, um, shaded their findings to protect the president.

Say it ain’t so, Bill. More than that, prove it ain’t so. Release the full report to the public.

Sen. Grassley seeks to school Trump on wind power

Now he’s done it. Donald Trump popped off about wind energy, disparaging it and in the process he pis*** off a key Senate sponsor of wind energy tax credits.

Did I mention that Sen. Chuck Grassley is a Republican, just like the president?

Grassley, from Iowa, disliked Trump’s comments running down wind power as an alternative energy source. He made some stupid remark about wind turbine noise causing cancer.

Again, Sen. Grassley took umbrage.

Don’t fret it, Sen. Grassley. Many of us take umbrage damn near daily at things that fly out of the president’s mouth.

Keep the faith. If you can.

What? AG Barr hid actual findings from us? Really?

Holy crap!

That’s my initial reaction to  a New York Times report that some members of special counsel Robert Mueller’s team are unhappy with the way Attorney General William Barr characterized the team’s findings on The Russia Thing, on “collusion” and on “obstruction of justice.”

Good ever-lovin’ grief, man!

I maintain a flickering semblance of faith in William Barr. It’s in danger of going out.

Mueller and his team concluded 22 months of investigation into whether Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russians. Mueller handed his findings over to Barr, who then issued a four-page summary of what he said was Mueller’s report.

Well, it turns out that the AG might not have given us the straight scoop on what Mueller concluded. The NY Times is reporting that some of Mueller’s investigative team believes the report is more damaging to Trump than Barr has let on.

Oh, my.

Barr is facing deep trouble

We need to see the report. We need to read it for ourselves. William Barr should keep some of it secret, but not much of it. I concede that national security matters are off limits.

But what in the name of juris prudence did Mueller conclude? How did he reach that conclusion? And is the attorney general running interference for the president of the United States? Is he more loyal to Donald Trump than he is to the rule of law?

Is it any wonder that Donald Trump hates the NY Times? Of course not! The Times and other media around the country are doing their job. They are telling us what we need to know.

I’ll add just this caveat: I would feel even better about the veracity of what the investigators have told the NY Times if we would hear from Robert Mueller himself.

However, this bit of information that has smashed through the current news cycle gives me grave concern about the attorney general and his commitment to telling us the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Happy Trails, Part 152: Sleepy town? Not for long

Our retirement journey has taken us to what we thought was a sleepy little town just northeast of where our granddaughter resides with her parents and her brother.

Today, I learned something about Princeton, Texas. It’s a sleepy town — more or less — at the moment, but it won’t be for very long.

I visited today with City Manager Derek Borg while on an assignment for KETR-FM radio. Borg said something quite astonishing.

He said the city is projecting a top-end population of about 110,000 residents. The 2010 census put Princeton’s population at 6,708. Today, the city is home to 12,000 to 13,000 residents, Borg told me.

OK. There’s a bit more. Borg said the city is adding about 1,000 single-family homes annually, accounting for an annual population growth of around 3,000 people. At that rate, presuming it holds up over time, the city will surpass 100,000 residents in fewer than 30 years.

Let’s see: I am 69 years of age now. I could still be among the walking and talking when this burg hits the 100 grand mark, if my health and my good luck hold up.

I was astounded to hear the city manager make that determination.

My story for KETR-FM is going to discuss the extensive highway construction that is under way along U.S. 380, the main arterial thoroughfare that cuts east-west through this Collin County community.

My hope for Princeton is that it manages its growth wisely, prudently and builds in this planned remarkable transition from a sleepy little town to a burgeoning urban center.

I’m glad to be able to watch all of this from our ringside seat.

Listen up, IRS: Release POTUS’s tax returns!

House Ways and Means Committee Democrats have thrown down on Donald Trump.

The panel has voted to demand the Internal Revenue Service to release six years’ worth of the president’s tax returns. They have laid down an April 10 deadline; hmm, let’s see — that’s next Tuesday!

Some of us have been yammering and yapping about the tax returns from the moment Trump declared his presidential candidacy. This was before Robert Mueller joined the hunt over “collusion” and other matters involving Russia.

Presidential candidates have been releasing those returns since 1976. Donald Trump has refused. He cited an IRS audit. The IRS has no prohibition against releasing returns while it’s conducting an audit. For his part, Trump has never provided a shred of evidence that the IRS is even auditing his returns; he expects us to take his word for it.

He did pledge to release them while he was running for president. Then again, any pledge that comes from this individual is utterly worthless.

My concern about presidential tax returns deals with the role any president plays in setting tax rates the rest of us have to pay. Accordingly, we need to see those returns to assess for ourselves whether any presidential candidate is paying his or her fair share of taxes, that he or she is doing what we are being asked to do.

That’s only fair. And reasonable. And normal.

The Russia connection makes the tax returns even more titillating, presuming there’s anything to titillate us.

All that Russia stuff aside, we deserve to see the president’s tax returns.

Trump trashes Biden . . . over this?

Yep. It’s true. Donald Trump probably could “shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes.”

That has to explain how this president, facing the accusations that have been leveled at him by at least a dozen women, could poke fun at a potential 2020 opponent because he’s a bit too touchy-feely.

Trump took dead aim at former Vice President Joe Biden, who’s been accused by four women of getting a bit too close to them. He made them feel “uncomfortable” because he touched them and kissed them on the back of their heads.

Trump? Oh, he’s been accused of sexual molestation, outright sexual assault, sexual harassment — and he’s actually admitted to “grabbing them by their pu***” because he’s a celebrity.

So now he’s poking fun at Joe Biden.

Sheesh! His base loves it. They cheer him on. They think this guy’s the greatest.

Disgusting.

Time of My Life, Part 29: Welcome to the politics of race

Thirty-five years ago this week I began an amazing lesson in life and in the pursuit of my chosen craft. It marked my introduction to the politics of race and how some folks frame their public policy views on that basis.

I moved from a white-bread suburban community to a community that was — and still is — divided sharply along racial lines. Gladstone, Ore., is a nice town of about 15,000 residents. Beaumont, Texas, also is a wonderful community of about 120,000 residents. Gladstone is the white-bread town; Beaumont is divided roughly into equal parts white and black residents.

The week I arrived in Beaumont in early April 1984 to become an editorial writer for the Beaumont Enterprise was the week of a pivotal school board election. The federal courts had ordered the public school system to desegregate. Two school districts merged into one; one of the districts was mostly white, the other was mostly black. Voters had to elect a new school board that would govern the combined district.

That election also featured a referendum on whether to rename a major thoroughfare after the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. While many communities had honored Dr. King in such a manner, Beaumont had not yet taken that leap.

How did the election turn out? Voters elected a new school board that comprised an African-American majority among trustees; voters also narrowly rejected the street-naming referendum.

Talk about sending mixed message! Talk about the widest range of political emotion possible!

White residents were — by and large — filled with anxiety over the school board election results, while generally applauding the result of the street-naming measure. Black residents were thrilled to have elected a school board of mostly black trustees, while generally cursing the result of the MLK Jr. referendum.

I felt it daily. I heard it daily. I had little professional experience dealing with the politics of race. Yes, I had served in the Army with African-American soldiers, so I had grown to understand this basic act: We’re all human beings whose blood is precisely the same color. My introduction to the politics of race, though, told me how differently people of differing racial makeup view the world.

I grew quickly to understand those differences, although quite obviously I could not change my own racial makeup or tell my African-American neighbors that “I know how you feel.” Quite clearly, I did not know.

It all enlightened and educated me greatly. I believe I grew up significantly as I became more comfortable while learning about racial politics in my new community.

Here’s a punchline. Years later, the Beaumont City Council — virtually without warning — decided to rename a spur that runs north-south through the city after Dr. King. It acted while the city’s local black leadership was out of town attending an NAACP conference. The local NAACP president hit the ceiling. He was enraged. The mostly white City Council stuck to its decision.

The newly named Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway, I want to add, has been transformed into a beautiful thoroughfare. Beaumont’s black residents wanted to rename an established thoroughfare after Dr. King. They didn’t get their wish. They got something better.

We had departed Beaumont for the Texas Panhandle, so we didn’t get to witness the completion of the MLK Jr. Parkway. We have returned on occasion over the years. It’s a wonderful tribute to a great American.

Yep, Trump’s lying is ‘pathological’

I think it was one or more of his 2016 Republican Party presidential primary foes who called Donald Trump’s penchant for prevarication a “pathological” condition.

That is, he can’t help himself. He has some sort of liar’s disease that guides him toward the telling of outright falsehoods, even when they serve no purpose — at all!

Such as what transpired this week in an Oval Office meeting the Liar in Chief had with the NATO secretary-general.

Trump went on a brief riff about how he gets along so well with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Then he blurted out something about his late father, Fred Trump, being born in Germany.

Hold on! He wasn’t born in Germany! He was born in 1905 — in New York City, New York, U.S.A.!

We all looked it up. It’s right there, all over every Internet platform you can find. Just Google “Fred Trump” and it pops up. Place of birth: New York, New York. 

OK, this is a little thing. It doesn’t matter all by itself. It’s just one of those examples Trump critics keep noticing, that he cannot tell the truth about anything. Not ever!

So it’s fair to wonder: If he’s going to lie about something as inconsequential as that, what other truths is he keeping from the rest of the world?

Hmm, I’m thinking . . . probably a lot!