VP’s ego might keep him out of race

My desire to see Vice President Joe Biden join the Democratic Party presidential primary race remains intact.

I want him to run and I want him to provide a serious challenge to presumed frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

However, I haven’t been around Washington, D.C., the way the writer of an attached blog — Carl Leubsdorf — has been, so I respect his notion that the vice president has some serious hurdles to clear in deciding whether to run.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20150803-carl-p.-leubsdorf-8-problems-that-await-a-biden-candidacy.ece

Hurdle no. 3 jumps out at me. It’s Biden’s presidential campaign track record.

Does he want to be known as someone who’s tried three times to get his party’s nomination, only to fall flat on his face? I doubt it. His ego won’t allow it.

I mention his ego because of something the late Sen. George McGovern — for whom I cast my first vote for president in 1972 — once wrote. He said the first thing a successful politician needs is a massive ego. That’s where it starts, he said.

I am betting Joe Biden’s ego doesn’t take a back seat to anyone else’s.

He once sought the 1988 Democratic nomination, but got derailed before the primaries began when it was revealed that he had lifted huge portions of his stump speech from a British pol, Neil Kinnock. Americans laughed at the then-senator from Delaware as a copy-cat.

He ran again in 2008, but got swamped by Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama then rewarded his former foe by picking him to run for vice president — and then after the election he turned to the other rival, Clinton, and appointed her secretary of state.

Hillary Clinton has enlisted an enormous political army to assist her. Biden is facing a serious challenge in getting up to speed relatively late in the primary game.

The ego thing well might prevent him taking the leap a third time.

Unless … something happens to Clinton’s presumed invincibility. As Leubsdorf writes:

“But a more realistic path for him to become the Democratic nominee might be to avoid a divisive fight, back Clinton and, if any of several ticking time bombs sinks her candidacy, step in then to save the Democratic day.”

That, indeed, would provide plenty of balm for the vice president’s ego.

City Hall set for a big day

Amarillo City Council is going to have a lot of eyes on it.

Some of those eyes will belong to those who want the council to send a multipurpose event venue to a vote of the residents.

Other sets of eyes will belong to individuals who think the council needs to take a breath and not act rashly.

The MPEV is going to be on the council’s agenda Tuesday. At issue is whether it should be referred to voters in a non-binding referendum. It’s non-binding because the city has no legal obligation to do the voters’ bidding — but it surely has a political obligation.

A number of Amarillo residents dislike the idea of an MPEV. They think the city’s downtown revival strategy should include expansion of the Civic Center. They do not believe the MPEV will bring the kind of activity that will breathe new life into the downtown district.

I am one who believes in the MPEV. I also hope the council decides against sending this matter to the voters.

It’s going to be paid with private investment money. City planners call it part of a “catalyst” project that will spur construction of a downtown convention hotel nearby.

I hope that’s the case. I believe it is doable.

I have it on good authority that Mayor Paul Harpole will oppose any motion to put the issue to a vote. He’s already invested a lot of energy and sweat equity into the MPEV and related projects. My sense is that Councilman Brian Eades will join the mayor in opposing a send-it-to-voters motion. That leaves the three new guys — councilmen Elisha Demerson, Randy Burkett and Mark Nair — to decide how they’ll vote. Will they vote as a bloc? Or will one, maybe two of them, rethink this idea.

If it goes to a vote and residents say “no” to the MPEV, well, the deal is dead. Downtown revival momentum will be ditched.

Is that what we want to happen? I do not.

Yes, Tuesday is going to be a big day at City Hall.

“Wipe that smirk off your face … “

This handout photo provided by Collin County, Texas shows Texas Attorney General Kenneth Paxton, who was booked into the county jail Monday, Aug. 3, 2015, in McKinney, Texas. A grand jury last week indicted Paxton on felony securities fraud charges. (AP Photo/Collin County via AP)

Look at this picture.

It is Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton posing for his jail-booking mug shot.

Does that smirk bother you? It bothers me. It makes me wonder why politicians feel compelled to smirk like that when they’re being booked into a lockup, a place with sturdy iron bars meant to keep prisoners inside.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry smirked like that when he was booked after being indicted more than a year ago.

Paxton’s mug shot illustrates, I guess, a certain smugness that politicians have when the criminal justice system tags them with an allegation that they’ve committed a crime.

In this case, a Collin County grand jury has accused Paxton of securities fraud. It’s a big deal. The man could lose his political career if a jury convicts him of the felony accusations.

This mug shot reminds me of my dear, late mother.

I had this bad habit of smirking like that when Mom scolded me when I was a kid. I took the habit with me into the U.S. Army in 1968; our drill sergeants would get in our faces for this or that during our basic training and my reaction would be to, um, smirk. It drove these combat-tested soldiers crazy … and it damn near got me into some serious trouble.

Mom would get so angry she’d order me to “wipe that smirk off your face or I’ll wipe it off for you.”

Attorney General Paxton’s smirk will disappear if a jury hangs the “felon” label on him.

Texas garners another dubious ‘honor’

First, it was a sitting Texas governor who got indicted by a grand jury.

The governor, Rick Perry, has since left office and is now pursuing the Republican presidential nomination.

Now we have a sitting attorney general who’s been indicted by another grand jury.

Welcome to The Club, Ken Paxton.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/03/paxton-set-surrender-securities-fraud-indictment/

Are they similar? Not by a long shot.

Perry’s indictment occurred in Travis County, where a grand jury has accused him of abuse of power and coercion of a public servant in connection with his veto of funds for the Public Integrity Unit. Perry and his allies have argued that the Travis County indictment was politically motivated; Travis County remains a Democratic bastion, while Perry is a Republican. Get it? Pure politics.

Not so with Paxton. He was indicted by a grand jury in his home county, which is Collin County. Paxton is a Republican attorney general; prior to that he represented Collin County in the Texas House of Representatives. I’m thinking it’s a real good bet that some — perhaps most — of the grand jurors voted for him when he ran for AG in 2014.

Paxton is indicted on two felony counts of securities fraud and another count of failing to register as an investment counselor.

This is serious stuff. Paxton is the state’s top law enforcer. He’s supposed to be clear of this kind of thing. He’s actually admitted to the investment advice matter.

Good grief! Can’t we do better than this in Texas?

OK, should he quit? No. He is still innocent until — or if — a court proves his guilt. Paxton plans to plead not guilty and will seek a trial by jury. Fine. That’s his right.

These indictments, though, of leading Texas politicians is getting worrisome.

Klansman responds to blog

In February of this year, I posted a blog about the Ku Klux Klan and how it continues to promote a message of hate … even though some within the organization profess to have moved past the KKK’s bloody and murderous past.

I referenced a fellow from Mississippi, a Klansman, who said he would fight against efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in next-door Alabama.

Well, overnight, the Klansman — Brent Waller — responded to my blog post.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2015/02/15/kkk-spews-same-old-hate-message/comment-page-1/#comment-4709

It’s at the end of this post. I encourage you to read it.

I’m going to make only one response to the fellow’s view of the state of things in the United States.

He seems to think the country is going straight to hell. He blames all that is wrong today on those who won what he calls the “second war of independence.” He means, of course, the Civil War and he blames the Union’s victory for what has happened in the country.

I prefer to think our nation has had a much more positive trajectory since the end of the Civil War. We went through that period called “Reconstruction,” which meant we had to rebuild the former Confederate States of America; we went through the civil rights movement, which the Klan opposed; we enacted landmark legislation granting all Americans — regardless of race — the rights of full citizenship, which the Klan also opposed.

Waller thinks we’re headed for some abyss.

I beg to differ.

Still, I welcome this man’s comments and I laud him for putting them out there for the public to read.

***

There 14th amendment was added after the war of northern agression. The Southern states Legislative bodys were filled with black puppets, so their Amendment is therefore a Tyrants Amendment.

Almost every thing wrong with this country can be traced to the doorsteps of those who won the 2nd war for independence.

I will not stoop to your childish name calling level, but do suggest a relearning of the true history of the war, and the Tyranny that existed in my state at the hands of Barbarians from 1865 to 1877.

The Ku Klux organized and drove the disgusting international carpetbaggers from our state, and brought an end to the lie called ” Reconstruction”.

The Bible clearly states a man shall not lie with a man as a woman. This nation was built as one nation under god.

It is our duty as Christians and Klansmen to oppose Tyranny, and the crowd that follows in the sin of Satan. Unnatural sex, and unnatural marriage goes against the Word.

Do you suggest White Christians who sailed the ocean and fought for this country with their blood just simply give it up to Tyrants, International bankers, lunatics and fools?

Being gay is a choice people make. They make these choices as they were constantly told, by the international carpetbaggers media that the sins of Homosexuality are OK.

The carpetbaggers fear Nationalism, so they are in a mode to destroy America from within. They are pouring in the third world masses and promoting Homosexuality. They finance all elections and only support those who prosdtitute their votes for money. These slimy prostitutes deserve a special seat at Satan’s table.

Throughout history when the grip of the Tyrants hand gets to tight upon the God Fearing White mans throat, He rises up and slays the Tyrants. So just to answer your question of how White men fight, start with the French Revolution and read.

If you as a person promote the enemy’s agenda of Homosexuality you need to check your Morals.

This serpent as you called me is not the Grand Dragon, He is the elected Imperial Wizard of the United Dixie White Knights. My Ancestors fought in the American Revolution and every war since they helped build the American Republic.

I’m a husband and father, and a man who has a thorough understanding of how this country was founded and the atrocities of the revolutionaries who won the second war for independence. Most simply have no clue and are trained sheep.

To ignore the word of God is risky business

Have fierry cross will travel

IW Brent Waller
UDWK LLC

Cecil becomes martyr to a worthy cause

cecil

Cecil the Lion might not have died in vain.

Consider this: Outrage over the beast’s killing has spurred renewed calls for severe restrictions, even outright bans, on trophy killings of big-game animals.

This gives me hope that we human beings can become a touch more civilized after all.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/cecil-the-lion-shows-shifting-attitudes-toward-africas-big-game/ar-BBlkQOU

Cecil’s death at the hands of an American dentist has prompted calls for the dentist’s return to Zimbabwe, which wants to prosecute him for poaching. Cecil was a beloved big cat, a favorite of tourists visiting the preserve where Cecil lived with his pride of lionesses and the cubs he sired. Then he was lured out of the restricted zone into a place here Palmer allegedly shot him.

There’s been international anger over the incident.

I now will stipulate a couple of things.

First, I’m not a hunter. Yes, I’ve gone hunting. My most memorable excursion was in Washington state, in 1970. I had returned home from Vietnam and went with some Army pals into the Olympic Mountains to track down a black bear. We didn’t find anything, but we had a wonderful day traipsing through the forest.

I don’t know what I would have done with the beast had I shot one.

Second, I’ve never much liked the idea of hunting animals just to mount their head on a wall and brag about what a brave man I am. I understand that some individuals do like doing these things and in some way I also understand the thrill of tracking down big game and firing a kill shot.

It’s just not my thing, you know?

Plus, being a city slicker my entire life, I’ve never had the need to hunt animals for food. But those who live in rural settings and who cannot get to the grocery store regularly, well, I can understand how hunting fits into someone’s lifestyle.

However, I’ve long preferred to live on a planet populated by plenty of God’s other creatures.

Cecil was one of them. His death seems to energized the feeling among millions of other humans that the world is big enough to share.

We should expect more from our attorney general

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is going to have a big start to his work week.

A grand jury in McKinney, about noon Monday, is reportedly going to indict him on at least two felony counts of securities fraud. One of the counts is a first-degree felony, the other is a third-degree felony.

Paxton has essentially admitted to committing the lesser offense. He did so while campaigning for the office to which voters elected him in 2014.

This all brings to mind an essential question about the wisdom of Texas voters: Shouldn’t we demand the very best from our elected officials?

Paxton was elected in a breeze this past November. That, by itself, really isn’t surprising, as Paxton is a Republican running in a heavily Republican state.

However, the guy took office in January as the state’s top legal eagle. Some AGs have cast themselves as major crime fighters; I keep thinking of the late Democrat Jim Mattox, who used to imply wrongly that he’d bring bad guys to justice, even though the office basically deals with civil matters.

Paxton’s indictments don’t suggest the man is morally unfit to hold the office he occupies. However, it galls me greatly that he could get elected for no other reason than he happened to be a member of the political party that calls all — and I mean all — the shots in Texas.

I don’t think Paxton needs to step down while he defends himself against the criminal complaints brought against him. I believe in the presumption of innocence. Thus, there’s no legal obligation for Paxton to recuse himself from his duties.

Yet it becomes difficult for the attorney general — and the office this one leads — to proceed with any matter relating to the very type of infractions that have produced these indictments.

Some of Paxton’s critics have noted that his record in the Legislature wasn’t all that stellar. He was under-qualified politically to ascend to an important statewide office, they said. I didn’t follow his legislative career all that closely, but this upcoming indictment involving securities fraud is a serious matter that needs to be resolved as quickly as possible.

The attorney general of Texas needs — and deserves — to have this matter adjudicated in short order.

For that matter, rank-and-file Texans need this case settled soon as well. Our state’s attorney general must not operate under this cloud. After all, this man works for us.

Let’s return some decorum to debate forum

Debate

This probably won’t happen, but I’ll ask anyway.

Is there a chance that the Republican Party primary joint appearance set for this week can restore some semblance of decorum?

Fox News Channel is welcoming the Top 10 GOP presidential contenders to a debate stage in Cleveland on Thursday.

I almost can see it now: The announcer will introduce each of them one at a time. They’ll walk out, wave to the cheering throngs they’ve recruited to come cheer their every word. They’ll mug and smile and act like they’ve just done the “red carpet walk” at the Oscars.

That’s more or less what occurred during the 2012 debate season. To be honest, it’s a major turnoff, just as it was in 2008 when Democrats and Republicans had the same show-biz element at their debates.

If I were King of the World, I wouldn’t even allow audiences to be present.

It would be just the journalist panel and the candidates. Ask them tough questions, force them to answer them — in detail. With no one else in the room, there’d be little opportunity for “sound bites,” no “You’re no Jack Kennedy” moment — a la the Sens. Lloyd Bentsen-Dan Quayle VP debate in 1988 — that draws hoots and hollers from the partisans.

I am a realist, though. I know that Fox and CNN — which is sponsoring the second GOP debate — are going to go for the gusto.

They want to gin up interest and I guess the best way to do that is bring as much entertainment value as possible into what should be a most serious event.

Too bad.

But, hey, I’ve made my pitch. So now I feel better.

Oh, boy … Trump heads into minefield

Imagine if you will Barack Obama saying something like this …

“Now that the United States has elected — and re-elected — an African-American as president of the United States, it will be difficult for voters to elect a white citizen to the highest office in the land.”

The reaction would be, um, probably hysterical.

Donald Trump now has introduced race into his campaign for the Republican Party presidential nomination by declaring that Americans will have a tough time elected an African-American because the current president, Obama, has set the bar so low.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-no-black-presidents-obama_55be34c3e4b06363d5a27ec4?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

I am almost speechless.

He spoke this morning on ABC-TV’s “This Week” news-talk program, telling Jonathan Karl that President Obama’s performance in the White House makes it difficult for another African-American to win the presidency.

I believe Trump is suggesting that, based on one man’s performance as president, that others like him — you know, folks of the same race or ethnicity — are doomed to fail as well.

All I’m left to say is: My … goodness.

Why is Obama’s faith an issue?

“… but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

— U.S. Constitution, Article VI

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker got a question the other day about whether he thinks President Obama is a Christian.

His answer? “I presume he is … I’ve never asked him about it.” Then said he takes “the president at his word” that, yep, is he’s a Christian.

Walker wants to succeed Obama as president of the United States. He’s one of 17 Republicans seeking the GOP nomination; four Democrats are running, too.

I keep wondering, though, why this question keeps coming up about the current president’s faith.

Hasn’t he stated time and again that he believes Jesus Christ is his savior? Hasn’t he attended church services with his family? Hasn’t he made the declaration that he is a Christian?

The issue ought to be moot. The Constitution says we shouldn’t set a religious standard for candidates seeking any “office or public trust.”

Why can’t these individuals answer such ridiculous questions in a straight-forward matter? Perhaps something like this:

“Thank you for the question. Let me answer it in two parts.

“First, the president is a Christian. He’s stated his faith repeatedly since taking office and I believe him.

“Second, the question is not relevant to any discussion about those who hold public office or those who seek public office. The Constitution says there shall be ‘no religious test’ for candidates. I happen to support the Constitution of the United States, which is crystal clear on the place of religion in politics.”

I really don’t blame Walker for keeping this issue bubbling. The blame belongs to the media who keep raising it.

Enough already!