Such wisdom from a past president

Social media is chock full of instant reference material … such as YouTube videos that ricochet around in cyberspace.

So, I found such a video of President Obama’s press conference as president. He took a question from a reporter he knew from his days as a state senior in Illinois. The question dealt with the lessons the Obamas’ daughters, Malia and Sasha, learned during their eight years living in the White House and the lessons they learned from the 2016 presidential election.

The president’s response was quite stunning. He talked about how he believes his daughters will seek to do good work, to make a difference; he said he doesn’t anticipate they will enter politics.

He then said he believes the world is full of many more good people than bad people. The good-over-bad ratio, said the president, gives him hope for the future that his daughter’s will inherit.

It’s a lesson worth heeding. Barack Obama turned over the presidency to a man, Donald Trump, who has sought to appeal to many Americans’ baser instincts. The national mood, in my mind, clearly has deteriorated during Trump’s tenure in office.

Still, his immediate predecessor — the fellow Trump cannot stop criticizing — expressed hope that Americans’ basic goodness will help shepherd us all through this difficult time.

Here is the video of the president’s final news conference. It’s lengthy. The operative question comes at around the 52-minute mark. Take a look.

This man, Barack Obama, speaks with tremendous wisdom and, yes, I miss hearing this kind of rhetoric coming from the president of the United States.

 

Trump had reason to bask in glory of the moment, but then …

Donald J. Trump had every reason on Earth to soak up the good vibes from the events of the past few hours.

Iran had vowed a deadly response to the killing of Revolutionary Guard chieftain Qassem Solemaini. It then launched a couple dozen ballistic missiles at two air bases in Iraq; they inflicted zero U.S. casualties and minimal damage.

The president had threatened Iran with destruction if it chose to go to war with the United States. It appears to me that Iran heeded the president’s threat, peeling back its response that well might have been meant only for show.

Right there is reason for Donald Trump to declare that his threats worked well for the national interest.

But then came the following.

The president just had to declare, with zero evidence to buttress his contention, that Iran paid for the missiles it launched with cash delivered by the United States as part of the international deal struck to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

There he went, blaming President Barack Obama for consummating a deal that Trump has called one of the worst in human history.

I should note here that international observers have said Iran was complying with the terms of the agreement. Iran has now decided to abandon all the principles laid out in that deal and it now will resume seeking a nuclear weapon.

It’s the president’s incessant, ongoing pre-disposition to attack a policy enacted by his immediate predecessor that I find annoying, distracting and so totally gratuitous.

My goodness! Donald Trump had all the reason in the world to declare a significant diplomatic victory over Iran, a potentially deadly hostile state. Then he stepped all over himself by declaring something that has no evidentiary basis in fact.

I am cautiously hopeful at this moment that we might have averted a serious and deadly conflict against Iran. Let us just count our blessings for the moment.

Trump scores direct hit on a military target, then bungles the aftermath

It is worthwhile to compartmentalize Donald Trump’s two-pronged approach to dealing with Iran.

On the one hand, the president’s decision to kill Iranian Revolutionary Guard commanding general Qassem Solemaini took courage. I applaud the death of this killer, the man responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of U.S. service personnel.

On the other hand, Iran has responded with two strikes against U.S. military targets in Iraq. No one seems to know the extent — if any –of American casualties. The Iranians took immediate responsibility for the missile launches.

The president has said he struck at Solemaini because of “imminent” attacks on U.S. targets. He said he intended to prevent a war. The effect might be the start of one.

We now up to our collective necks in an international crisis that well might evolve into all-out war with Iran. Just think that the president campaigned for the office on a pledge to pull us out of “endless, needless” war in the Middle East.

What now? What is the consequence of this attack on the Iranian military leader? Are we headed toward another war from which we cannot extricate ourselves? Are we engaged in any serious diplomatic initiatives to try to fend off the bloodshed that might be the inevitable result?

I have to ask, too, about Donald Trump’s credibility. I happen to disbelieve practically anything he says about … anything! 

Imminent attack? What in the world is the president talking about?

We are witnessing a fearsome set of events. Iran has done what it said it would do after the killing of Qassem Solemaini. Are we now going to do what Donald Trump has threatened to do, which is hit Iran harder than they’ve ever been hit?

Does the president of the United States have a plan? I am glad the Iranian general is dead. I am worried now — along with the rest of the world — about the consequence that might result.

Amarillo Matters has come clean; good deal!

A political action organization formed in 2016 to promote Amarillo’s economic and political future has made a positive change in the way it presents itself.

Amarillo Matters has developed a new website. It continues to speak to its mission, its goals and its strategy. The site also has the name of the principals who are involved in the decisions that Amarillo Matters makes.

It’s the disclosure of the names that I find worthy of commendation.

I wrote on this blog more than a year ago that Amarillo Matters needed to reveal its individual and collective identities to the public. There had been some reluctance to doing so, according to one source close to the group, because of a fear of backlash by those in the community who opposed the agenda that Amarillo Matters is promoting.

Well, I guess those fears have been put aside.

Amarillo Matters has an “About Us” page on its site. It states the “focus” of the organization.

Amarillo Matters will primarily focus on elected positions in which the elected official has a direct governance responsibility to the citizens of Amarillo and the surrounding area. We will also focus on issues that have a positive benefit on Amarillo and the surrounding area. We believe the word benefit has many definitions. They include economic development projects, major investments in our local workforce and students, along with quality of life projects.

That all sounds benign. It’s a positive outlook. A positive outreach. There’s nothing nefarious. The board of directors contains the names of several individuals I know personally; I know a couple of them quite well. I know of the rest of them. They are all successful. Those I know are fine individuals who I believe have the community’s best interests at heart.

Check out the group’s mission statement here.

It is important that Amarillo Matters reveal its identity to the community it seeks to lead. Granted, this is not an elected body. It comprises individuals who seek to exert some influence in what the electorate decides. There’s nothing wrong in any group wanting to do what Amarillo Matters has pledged to do.

Amarillo, though, is no different from any community in the midst of change. Some residents endorse the direction where the community is heading; others oppose it. Everyone has a right to know who is seeking to call the shots.

Amarillo Matters now has revealed who is doing so within its board room. To which I say: Well played.

What took so long to build has collapsed in virtually no time at all

It took print journalism, chiefly newspapers, nearly two centuries to attain what used to be a virtually exalted status among their consumers.

And yet, the craft has all but collapsed in virtually no time.

What took years to erect has all but vanished in the blink of an eye.

That observation came from a dear friend of mine with whom I used to have a professional relationship when I worked in Amarillo as editorial page editor of the Globe-News. My friend was a freelance columnist; he had a regular day job, but wrote for us because he was good at it. Our professional relationship ended when I left the newspaper in August 2012. Happily, our personal friendship remains intact.

We were visiting the other evening when he made that stunning observation. His point is that newspapers climbed for a long time up a proverbial mountain to attain an important status in people’s homes. Readers of newspapers depended on them for news of their community, of their state, nation and the world around them. If you wanted to know what was happening in the world, you collected your newspaper off the porch, opened it up and spent a good deal of time reading what it reported to you.

We believed what we read. I mean, if it’s in the daily newspaper then it had to be true. As my friend noted, it took a long time for newspapers to achieve that status.

Then it all changed. Rapidly! Dramatically! Newspapers fell with a loud thud!

The Internet arrived. I can’t remember when it happened, but suffice to say it was the equivalent to the “day before yesterday.” Cable TV exploded. Social media burst forth, too.

All of that media took huge bites out of newspapers’ influence in people’s lives. Has print journalism become less reliable, less believable, less credible than before? I do not believe that is the case. Americans are still reading some first-class reporting from major newspapers that remain important purveyors of vital information.

And yet, we hear the president of the United States refer to the media as “the enemy of the people.” Right-wingers blast what they call the “mainstream media.” They accuse newspapers and other legitimate media organizations of peddling “fake news.” The attacks have exacted a terrible toll on newspapers.

The smaller papers, those that tell us about our communities? They are struggling. Many of them — if not most of them — are losing the struggle. The Amarillo Globe-News, my final stop in a career that I loved pursuing, has been decimated by competing media forces and — in my view — by incompetence at the top of its management chain of command.

My friend’s analysis, though, rings so true. It saddens me beyond measure to realize that it has taken so little time for it all come crashing down.

Listen to this rookie GOP U.S. senator; he’s making sense

Mitt Romney isn’t your average, run-of-the-mill freshman senator from a small state out west. He ran for president as the 2012 Republican nominee; he made a fortune in business; he rescued an Olympic Games effort in Utah; he is a player.

So, when the first-year senator says he wants to hear more from a former national security adviser in the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump, I believe — it is my hope, at least — that other Republican senators will peel off their blinders and endorse the Romney view of evidentiary transparency.

John Bolton says he is ready to testify if the Senate subpoenas him. The former national security adviser has first-hand knowledge of the “perfect” phone call that Trump said he had with Ukrainian President Volodyrmyr Zelenskiy, the one in which Trump asked Zelenskiy for a “favor, though” before he released military aid to Ukraine in its fight against Russian-backed rebels.

Trump doesn’t want his former national security guru to talk, even though he keeps saying the phone call is “perfect.” It makes many of us wonder: Why does a man with nothing to hide seek to prevent someone who could clear him from talking to the Senate?

Romney wants to hear more from Bolton. There might be another GOP moderate senator or three, or maybe more, who could join Romney in the quest for the truth. If they sign on, then the Senate will hear from at least this witness. Maybe more will be summoned.

Then we can have a “fair” trial in the Senate to determine whether Trump committed an abuse of power and obstructed Congress.

Now it’s the ‘Obama-Biden administration’

Did anyone other than me notice something a bit different coming from the Donald Trump administration’s criticism of policies put forward by the Obama administration?

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made the Sunday morning news/talk show circuit to explain Trump’s decision to kill Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Solemaini with an air strike in Baghdad, Iraq.

He kept referring — get ready for it! — the mistakes made by the “Obama-Biden administration.” Do you get it? Pompeo is now trying to link former Vice President Joe Biden to former President Barack Obama. Why is that? Well, it appears to me that the Trump team believes the former VP is going to be the Democratic Party presidential nominee later this year.

It’s a subtle tactic to demonize a political foe. Do I think the demonization is valid? No. I do not. I do not believe Iran’s standing as a terrorist state is the result of mistakes made during the Obama administration.

That won’t preclude Donald Trump’s key administration and campaign aides from employing this little game of rhetorical mumbo-jumbo. It has begun already.

Amarillo PD chief about to come back home?

This must be said about a man whose name otherwise will live in infamy in the annals of Amarillo municipal government.

The one hire that former interim City Manager Terry Childers made that qualifies as a home run was when he brought Ed Drain in to become chief of police in Amarillo, Texas. Childers eventually resigned in disgrace after popping off publicly about a constituent and making an a** of himself over a misplaced briefcase at a local hotel and a run-in he had with a 9-1-1 dispatcher.

As for Drain, he returned the concept of “community policing” to the city. He instituted progressive police policies. Drain became a presence in the community.

Well, now he’s coming back home to Plano, or so it’s being reported. The Plano Police Department announced today that Drain is its sole finalist for the chief’s job; he had served as deputy police chief when Childers lured him to the Panhandle. Drain says his hiring isn’t a done deal. Well, OK, chief. Whatever you say.

Drain said he has to undergo the requisite background check and the Plano City Council must sign off on a hiring decision.

I’ll just offer an opinion that when a city as substantial as Plano names a lone finalist for a key administrative position, then it looks like a done deal to me.

Whoever becomes the next Amarillo police chief, whenever that occurs, must continue the community policing program that Chief Drain brought back after he succeeded former Chief Robert Taylor.

As for Drain’s apparently pending return to the Metroplex, I am certain he will do a stellar job for a department with which he is intimately familiar.

Now it’s John Bolton who might hold the key to Trump’s future

(Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

How about that John Bolton?

The former national security adviser to Donald J. Trump once balked at testifying before Congress over whether the president committed impeachable offenses. Now he says he’s all in — if the U.S. Senate subpoenas him for an upcoming trial on whether Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is a big deal, ladies and gentlemen.

At issue is whether Trump abused his power by soliciting a foreign government for a political favor and whether he obstructed Congress by blocking key aides from testifying. I believe he has done both things.

Now it’s Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser who has said Trump’s supposedly “perfect phone call” to Ukraine’s president was fraught with peril. He now wants to testify to senators what he heard in real time, in the moment, with his own ears.

Trump doesn’t want him to testify. Why is that? Do you suppose that Bolton might offer testimony that damages the president’s case. Were he to offer exculpatory evidence — which would possibly clear Trump of wrongdoing — the president would be all in favor of Bolton speaking out. Isn’t that right? Um, yep. I believe it is!

Now comes the Big Question: If the Senate agrees to allow Bolton’s testimony, might he offer testimony that persuades moderate Senate Republicans to swing from clearing Trump to convicting him? Some observers think it’s possible. I am not so sure of that. The GOP fealty to Trump is so ingrained in its talking points that there might be no way for them to turn away from the president.

Oh, man, I hope I am wrong on that one.

However, it is beyond vital that we get the former national security adviser — the man with first-hand knowledge of what Trump said to Ukrainian officials — to tell the Senate what he knows.

Is this the game changer? Let John Bolton speak for the record and then we’ll know.

Cowboys find a winner to replace Garrett

First, I’ll declare this: I didn’t always hate the Dallas Cowboys.

Those of us of a certain age remember when the then-upstart Cowboys sought to knock off the Vince Lombardi-coached Green Bay Packers while fighting for the NFL championship. The Ice Bowl of 1967? I remember it well. My home boy Mel Renfro, the Hall of Fame Cowboys safety, suffered frostbite in that classic contest at Lambeau Field in Green Bay.

So, then the Cowboys started to win and got too big for their britches.

But they had that history with the Packers … which brings me to my point. The Cowboys have hired a good guy to coach them in the wake of the demise of the Jason Garrett era. Mike McCarthy has won a Super Bowl — which coaching the Packers.

Do I want them to win it all? Am I now going to cheer myself hoarse rooting for the Cowboys? Hah! Not even!

I just want to declare that the Cowboys owner/general manager Jerry Jones has made a good hire.

Now the owner ought to take the next step. He ought to just sit up there in the owner’s box during the games and not get involved in football matters. He should hire a real GM, someone with actual football knowledge and let the GM deal with the nuts and bolts of whether Coach McCarthy is doing a credible job calling plays.

The rest of the scenario isn’t likely to occur, given the owner’s monumental ego, but I believe he has made a good call in hiring Mike McCarthy.