A bullet changed history 47 years ago today

RFK's last speech

Forty-seven years ago today, I had gone to bed. It was late on a Tuesday night.

I had just watched the news about the California Democratic Party presidential primary. Sen. Robert Kennedy had just been declared the winner. I turned in and was happy about the outcome.

Right after midnight, my mother knocked on my door. “You need to come down and see this,” she said. “Something terrible has just happened.”

I dragged myself out of the sack and went downstairs and saw for myself. Someone had shot Bobby Kennedy.

The shock was palpable. No. This isn’t happening. Oh, but it did.

I was about two months away from being inducted into the Army, although I didn’t yet know it that evening. My own life was about to change dramatically.

On thatĀ night, the nation’s life changed as well.

RFK died the next day at the age of 42. Would he have been nominated by his party? Would he have been elected president? The debate has raged for 47 years ever since that terrible event in Los Angeles, but I believe the answer is “yes” to both questions.

Maybe it’s my heart overriding my head in believing RFK would have become president. Still, I can make an analytical argument that even though then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey was ahead in convention delegates at the time of the assassination, that RFK could have peeled enough of them away by selling his own candidacy as the only one capable of defeating theĀ Republican nominee, Richard M. Nixon.

I had a fair amount of political interest back then, even though I was just a year out of high school. It was heightened beyond its already high level the week before the shooting.

The previous week the Oregon primary took place. My home state had delivered the Kennedy its first-ever political defeat when Democrats chose Sen. Eugene McCarthy over RFK.

I was working at my job at McDonald’s the night of the Oregon primary. A motorcade pulled into the lot next door in front of a fashionable Chinese restaurant. I shot a look at the figure climbing out of an open convertible. The profile that was back-lit by a lampĀ belonged toĀ Robert Kennedy. I grabbed a piece of paper and a pen and ran across the lot and walked right up to the senator andĀ  his wife, Ethel; this was before Secret Service agents surrounded presidential candidates and, indeed, it was Kennedy’s death that prompted President Johnson to issue an executive order assigning such protection to future candidates.

I told Sen. KennedyĀ how much I wanted him to win the presidency and that I wanted to wish him well as his campaign proceeded.

RFK signed his name to the piece of paper and then he asked me one question: “Are you old enough to vote?” I said no. With that, he turned and walked away. He didn’t say another word.

I’ll be candid. I thought at the time it was a serious insult to a young man. Perhaps if I’d anticipated the question, I would have said “yes,” even though the voting age was still 21 and I was a couple of years younger than that. Hey, what would have done, asked for ID?

I didn’t have enough snap at that moment.

Now that I’m a whole lot older, I understand better that a politician in the middle of a fight — who needs every vote he can get at the last minute — doesn’tĀ have time to waste on someone who couldn’t help him.

Well, it all ended the next week.

Mom was right. Something “terrible” did happen that night.

And I still miss Bobby Kennedy.

 

Turner bids teary farewell to Legislature

rep. turner

This is something you don’t see every day: politicians from both sides of the political paying heartfelt tribute to one of their own as he prepares to depart their ranks.

So it was when state Rep. Sylvester Turner bid farewell to the Texas House of Representatives. He’s leaving the House, where he served for 26 years, to run for mayor of Houston.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/sylvester-turners-tearful-farewell

Is this a huge thing? Not really. It’s simply worth noting in light of the occasional acrimony that flares up in Austin and more often, it seems, in Washington, D.C.

Turner is a Democrat, but the praise he got from Republican colleagues seemed heartfelt and sincere.

They praised Turner’s rhetorical skills. This came from Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo: ā€œHe could turn the House with logic and good argument.ā€

I once heard the late Republican state Sen. Teel Bivins of Amarillo say the same thing about a one-time foe, former Sen. Carl Parker, D-Port Arthur, who used to deride his GOP colleagues as “silk-stocking Republicans.” He included Bivins among that category of Republican. Bivins didn’t take it personally and they men remained friends despite their political differences.

That’s the way it ought to be.

As Turner told his colleagues to their faces, with tears welling up in his eyes: ā€œI love each and every one of you.Ā Whether we have voted together or not is not important to me. Whether you are a D or an R is not important to me. The reality is we are Texans, but proud Texans.ā€

Well said.

 

McConnell pledges more judicial gridlock

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell laid it out there.

Talking to conservative radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, McConnell said the Senate “likely” won’t approve any more high-level circuit court or Supreme Court judges during the Obama administration.

So … if I understand it correctly, if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, say, in the next 24 hours — and it can happen, given the ages of some of the court’s senior justices — the Senate won’t confirm anyone appointed by President Obama, even though Obama has another 18 months to go before he leaves office.

That’s what the Kentucky Republican senator said, right?

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/244107-mcconnell-highly-likely-senate-wont-appoint-new-judges-for

I surely understand the politics of these appointments. The highest court in America comprises a slim conservative majority. Should one of the court’s conservative justices suddenly no longer be on the court, that would send the Republican majority in the Senate into sheer apoplexy. GOP senators would go ballistic at the knowledge that the “socialist/Marxist/terrorist-appeaser” president would be empowered to appoint a justice who would swing the balance of power on the court.

And oh yes, the reverse would be true if we had a conservative president appointing a justice who then might have to face confirmation by a Democratic-majority Senate.

But that’s what we have.

McConnell seemed to offer himself some cover in his radio interview by noting the “bipartisan” votes the Senate has had and the bills it has approved with bipartisan majorities. So, it’s OK then to stall these appointments because, as McConnell said, the Senate is up and running like a well-oiled machine.

What a crock!

It’s fair to remind everyone — the Senate majority leader included — that Barack Obama has been elected twice byĀ clear majorities of American voters. Part of the president’sĀ authority rests with his ability to appointĀ federal judgesĀ with whom he feels comfortable. It’s in the Constitution. He can do that!

Yes,Ā the Constitution also gives the Senate the power to “advise and consent” to the appointments. ButĀ is it truly within the Senate’s purview to obstruct qualified jurists to these posts purely on political grounds, because senatorsĀ can’t stomach the notion ofĀ the high court comprising judges withĀ whom they are uncomfortable?

Before you accuse me of being a partisan hack, I’ve noted this very thing when we’ve had GOP presidents’ high court appointments stymied by Democrats employing the same logic inĀ seeking to block qualified judicial appointees.

I happen to be a strong believer in “presidential prerogative,” and that belief swings in both directions.

Welcome back, gridlock.

‘Don’t vote for me if you’re worn out by war’

Wow!

Lindsey Graham today offered the most compelling campaign argument against his own candidacy I’ve ever heard.

The South Carolina Republican, who’s running for his party’s 2016 presidential nomination, said it flat out. “Don’t vote for me if you’re worn out by war.”

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/244022-graham-dont-vote-for-me-if-youre-anti-war

Well, senator, no worries there.

What he told “Morning Joe” on MSNBC is that he’s going to be the “war candidate.” He plans, if elected to the presidency, to send more troops into Iraq; he also plans to send troops into Syria; he plans to enlist Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey and whichever other regional ally will join, to help American troops defeat the Islamic State and then keep the peace.

Oh, how long will they be there? “A long time,” he said.

There’s no exit strategy. No timetable. No end to the bloodshed.

Get ready for battle, he warned.

Oh, if you’re tired of fighting a war, don’t vote for me, he said.

No-o-o-o-o problem. You’ve got a deal, Sen. Graham.

 

Not defending the Duggars, but what about privacy?

Joe Bob and Michelle Duggar are getting their share of bad press over the interview they did with Fox News’s Megyn Kelly.

I’m not going to join that amen chorus. My own view of the Duggars and their “19 Kids and Counting” so-called “reality” show really doesn’t matter. The fact that they’ve been on TV, seeking publicity for themselves and their kids — only to have it revealed that one of them — molested young girls when he was a teenager speaks volumes about the parents.

However, Kelly raises and interesting point about one significant aspect of this burgeoning controversy.

Why were the names of the victims revealed?

The sisters who were fondled by Josh Duggar — who’s now 27 years of age — have been released for the world to see. A third girl’s name has not been released; she’s not a Duggar.

But the sisters’ names are out there.

I covered my share of police stories over the years and one of the rules of print journalism is that you don’t publish the names of sexual assault victims, let alone the names of children who are victimized in that manner. Kelly said today that someone filed a Freedom of Information Request and that someone felt obligated to provide it, to release the names of the Duggar kids on whom Josh Duggar put his hands.

Mom and Dad Duggar haven’t acquitted themselves well in this matter. That’s their problem. As for the media, I disagree strongly with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s assertion that they’ve been “bloodthirsty.” Huckabee is a Duggar family friend and he’s sticking up for his friends and political allies.

But I’ve always thought the media were honor-bound to protect the privacy of sexual assault victims.

What am I missing?

It’s settled: IOC says Jenner keeps the gold

It didn’t take long for the International Olympic Committee to settle this issue.

The 1976 Olympic gold medal in the decathlon will remain awarded to Bruce Jenner, an American athlete who won the event in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/international-olympic-committee-responds-to-petition-seeking-to-revoke-caitlyn-jenner-s-gold-medal-160628464.html

Responding to an online petition asking that the medal be revoked because Bruce Jenner is now Caitlin Jenner, the IOC said: “Bruce Jenner won his gold medal in the 1976 Olympic Games and there is no issue for the IOC.”

There you have it.

The petitioner is from Fort Worth. Jennifer Bradford said she is standing up for transgender rights.

My own view is that she’s standing up only for her own quest for publicity.

The IOC occasionally has had to deal with athletes whose gender has been questioned. There have been instances where female medal winners have been stripped of their medals because it was determined they possessed male DNA, giving them an advantage over their fellow female competitors.

That’s not even close to the issue here.

Bruce Jenner won the gold medal as a man. He’s now a woman.

Let’s move on to something else, shall we?

 

Perry faces big hurdles

Ross Ramsey is about as smart a Texas political analyst as there is, and he’s laid out three things Rick Perry must do to wage an effective campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Ramsey, writing for the Texas Tribune, listed them in this order: (1) stay the course while the field thins out; (2) get rid of the prosecutor who’s trying to convict him of abuse of power; (3) do well in the debates.

If Ramsey was listing them in order of importance, I’d flip the first and second points.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/04/analysis-three-steps-perrys-comeback-trail/

Those “pesky prosecutors” represent every possible stumbling block for the former Texas governor.

Perry, who today went to Addison to announce his candidacy, appears to the be the first major candidate ever to run for president while facing felony indictment. A Travis County grand jury indicted him for abuse of power and coercion of a public official in 2014.

The history is out there. Ramsey goes through it in the link attached here.

If Perry cannot shake those prosecutors, then it’s game over.

And by “shaking” them, he must get the indictments tossed out.

As Ramsey notes: “Perry and his legal team have argued that the case is a political one brought by liberal prosecutors in a liberal county to a liberal grand jury, that his veto was legal, and that the whole thing was designed to spoil his political future.”

The veto might have been legal, but it also was done with considerable public-relations fanfare, which is why — in my view — the coercion charge might be the one that sticks more stubbornly than the abuse of power allegation.

All the then-governor had to do was veto the money appropriated to the Public Integrity Unit without making such a public case about the district attorney’s arrest for drunken driving and his public threat to veto the money if she didn’t quit her job as Travis County DA.

Was it legal? Sure. Was it a matter of coercion? Yes to that, too … allegedly.

Ramsey is correct on this other point: “The betterĀ (Perry) does, the bigger the indictment obstacle becomes. Itā€™s a bother now. Itā€™s a potential deal-breaker if he becomes a real contender.”

 

End the Jenner gold medal idiocy

Can we please stop, cease, terminate this ridiculously idiotic notion launched by a Fort Worth woman to revoke the gold medal awarded to the winner of the 1976 Olympic decathlon?

Jennifer Bradford has launched an online petition that seeks revocation of the gold medal awarded to Bruce Jenner after he won the decathlon at the Montreal Olympic Games.

Why, you ask?

Bradford said she wants to support the “transgender community” because Bruce Jenner is now Caitlyn Jenner. Bruce the man has become Caitlyn the woman. The petition was posted to a website called change.org and Bradford is asking the International Olympic Committee to revoke the gold medal.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/online-petition-wants-ioc-to-revoke-jenners-gold-medal/ar-BBkFJDg

Give me a break. Pardon meĀ while I mince no words.

This is about as stupid a notion as I can imagine.

Bruce Jenner was fully a man when he won the decathlon, becoming the “world’s greatest athlete.”

His transition to womanhood only has occurred with the past year or so — give or take.

The petitioner argues that the only way the petition would be invalid would be if it can be provedĀ ā€œthat Bruce Jenner and Caitlyn Jenner are two entirely different people.ā€

Um, Ms. Bradford? I’ve got news for you. They are.

Now, pleaseĀ return to your anonymity and stop making a spectacle of yourself.

 

Rick Perry 2.0 makes another run for White House

Here we go again.

Rick Perry is going to run for president of the United States of America.

The former longest-serving Texas governor in state history hopes for a much better outcome than his first effort, which ended in January 2012 — before the first Republican primary ever took place. He stumbled, bumbled and fumbled badly that first time out. His debate performances were hideous, highlighted by the infamous “oops” moment which he couldn’t name the third of three federal agencies he’d dismantle if he were elected president.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/rick-perry-announces-presidential-campaign-118627.html?hp=l2_4

He’s back now.

Ready for action.

He’s changed his look, wearing those eyeglasses.

Perry thinks we need a president who’ll tell them the truth, who’ll lead from the front, who’ll do all the things he says the current administration hasn’t done.

This campaign differs from the first one, however, in another key way. He became an instant frontrunner when he announced his intention to seek the 2012 GOP nomination. Perry enters this race as a distant also-ran in a field headed — for now — by the likes of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; there might be another name or three out there at the front of the pack, but Perry’s name ain’t one of them.

And I haven’t even mentioned, until right now, that he’s the first declared presidential candidate in history to run while under indictmentĀ alleging abuse of power. But, hey, that’s another story for another day.

Back when he was running for president in late 2011, I would hear from more than one Texas Panhandle Republican — and believe me, I live in the most GOP-friendly region of this GOP-friendly state — that they hoped he’d become president, but for reasons I didn’t expect to hear.

They wantedĀ Perry to win because they wanted “to get him out of Texas.”

Now that’s a real apology

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz made a seriously ill-timed crack about Vice President Joe Biden.

Cruz, a Texas Republican and a candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, made the quip to a Republican audience.

He then apologized. Immediately and sincerely.

He said this: “It was a mistake to use an old joke about Joe Biden during his time of grief, and I sincerely apologize. The loss of his son is heartbreaking and tragic, and our prayers are very much with the Vice President and his family.”

The Biden family is mourning the death of the vice president’s oldest son, Beau, who died of brain cancer at the age of 46.

It’s a joke Cruz has used before. You can see it here:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-apologizes-biden-joke-days-after-vice-presidents-son-dies?cid=sm_fb_msnbc

Yes, the joke was ill-time and ill-advised.

However, Sen. Cruz’s apology was the real thing, not one of those phony “If anyone was offended” sorts of non-apologies. If only all politicians who make similarly inappropriate comments would be so forthright.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience