Now it's Ashton Carter at DoD

We’ll get to see just how partisan it’s going to get in Washington, D.C.

CNN reports that President Obama is going to nominate Ashton Carter as the next secretary of defense.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-expected-to-nominate-ashton-carter-to-lead-pentagon-cnn/ar-BBgey1B

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson withdrew from consideration. So did defense expert Michelle Fluornoy. Presumably others have pulled out, too, for all I know.

Carter is a big hitter. He’s been a deputy defense secretary and was the main weapons buyer for the Pentagon. He also worked as a deputy defense boss during the Clinton administration.

He doesn’t seem to be overly political. He doesn’t have a lot of baggage. Carter seems to be a good fit for the Obama administration, which reportedly forced Chuck Hagel to quit as defense secretary after less than two years on the job.

However, in this day and time, politics seems to matter the most. Republicans who’ll take control of the Senate in January are likely to find all kinds of things to throw against Carter. The chief among them just might be that he’s Barack Obama’s choice to lead the Pentagon.

Senators have said they won’t block national security picks, while fighting other presidential nominees in retaliation for the president’s immigration executive order.

Many of us out here intend to hold them to their word.

 

 

NBC journalist faces conflicting interests

Chuck Todd wears an important hat for NBC News as moderator of “Meet the Press.”

He must remain impartial and he must be clear of any association with a partisan political campaign. And by “any association,” that means the woman in his life, his wife.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/12/chuck-todds-wife-aiding-jim-webb-199431.html?hp=l5_4

It turns out that Kristian Denny Todd is assisting former U.S. Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., as he considers whether to run for president in 2016. Kristian Todd is one of those Democratic “strategists” who assists people in public life.

Meanwhile, her husband is going to be covering the still-growing 2016 campaign and all its players. That must include former Sen. Webb, for whom his wife is working in an unpaid basis.

Todd’s role as a major news network’s main political reporters must be free of any association with a partisan campaign.

Let’s be clear about a thing or two. First, Todd isn’t the first network personality to make that crossover. Others include: George Stephanopoulos of ABC, who once worked in the Clinton White House; Pete Williams of NBC, who was spokesman for the Pentagon in the George H.W. Bush administration; Diane Sawyer of ABC, who once wrote speeches for Richard Nixon; the late Tim Russert of NBC, who worked for New York Gov. Mario Cuomo and the late Sen. Pat Moynihan of New York.

This kind of political affiliation involves both parties.

If Mr. and Mrs. Todd are going to allow this kind of association with a potential presidential candidate to continue, it falls on Chuck Todd to ensure that he doesn’t pull his punches with his wife’s boss if and when he gets the chance.

Be very careful, Chuck.

 

This guy is a goner

Scott Panetti is as good as dead, sad to say.

He’s a Texas death row inmate who’s set to be executed Wednesday for the horrific deaths in 1992 of his mother- and father-in-law. His guilt is not in question. His mental state, though, is at the heart of a dispute over whether he deserves to die for his crime.

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/12/01/Paroles-Board-Denies-Panetti-Execution-Halt/

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has ruled against granting him a delay in his date with death. That means it’s now up to outgoing Gov. Rick Perry and the Court of Criminal Appeals to determine Panetti’s fate.

Panetti is diagnosed with acute schizophrenia. He didn’t even get a fair trial, as he represented himself and sought to call as witnesses Charles Manson and Jesus Christ.

Texas law, though, allows loony defendants to engage in such nonsense, even when it appears to impinge on their rights to fair and impartial justice.

Panetti never should walk free. He doesn’t deserve to be put to death for this crime.

Do not expect Gov. Perry or the state’s highest criminal court to spare him. The Texas criminal justice system just isn’t built for compassion.

 

Severance package for Officer Wilson? No

Darren Wilson’s departure from the Ferguson (Mo.) Police Department well could provoke a protest among those who believe he deserves a severance package.

Allow me to argue that he doesn’t deserve it.

Wilson was cleared by a local grand jury of criminal charges in the August shooting death of a young black man, Michael Brown. The incident produced a firestorm of protest and the grand jury no-bill has reignited community — and indeed national — anger over the white officer’s role in Brown’s death.

He quit his job. Resigned voluntarily. What he’ll do next is anyone’s guess. I wish him well.

Wilson doesn’t deserve a severance package; the police department has said it won’t offer him one.

I have a bit of personal knowledge about this kind of issue.

I left my last job in daily journalism under duress. The company reorganized its newsroom operation, rolled my once-autonomous department into the newsroom, asked everyone to apply for jobs; I applied for mine, but it went to someone else.

“Well,” I thought, “I think I’ll just quit.”

During my final visit the next day with my soon-to-be former employer, I inquired about a severance. He all but laughed in my face before telling me “No. You resigned.” We talked a few more moments. Then I left, never to return as an employee of that operation.

Wilson’s departure from the Ferguson came totally of his own volition.

Severance package for quitting? Not a chance.

 

Good riddance, Ms. Lauten

In the grand scheme of all the important issues of the day, a crappy Facebook post by a now-former aide to a Republican member of Congress doesn’t add up to much.

It’s still worth one more quick comment.

Elizabeth Lauten quit her job as communications director for Rep. Stephen Fincher of Tennessee. She had posted that snide and snarky Facebook commentary criticizing the two teenage daughters of the president and first lady because they made faces at a turkey-pardoning ceremony at the White House. They also, in Lauten’s mind, not dressed appropriately for the occasion.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/elizabeth-lauten-resigns-criticizes-obama-daughters-113228.html?hp=lc1_4

Well, she’s gone now. Hopefully she won’t find another job as a communications flack for anyone soon — if ever.

This story by itself isn’t all that important. It does, though, seem to illustrate the coarseness of the debate that’s poisoned our nation’s capital. Lauten used the criticism of Sasha and Malia Obama to stick the blade into their parents, who she said aren’t proper role models for their girls.

It was a preposterous assertion to make on its face. It also was ignorant, in that such messages can go “viral” in a heartbeat and Lauten, a young 21st-century woman, should have anticipated the consequences of putting something so cheap and petulant out there for all the world to see.

The debate in Washington often has devolved into this kind of cheap criticism.

And that’s the only way I can describe it.

Hit the road, Ms. Lauten.

 

 

 

First family's kids off limits … period!

Elizabeth Lauten’s dimwitted Facebook post about Sasha and Malia Obama — and a blog I posted on the subject — brought a fascinating response from a dear friend and former colleague.

My friend Sheila noted that “first children” have been unfair targets for decades. She took note going all the way back to Lyndon and Lady Bird Johnson’s daughters, Lynda Bird and Luci Baines.

https://highplainsblogger.com/2014/11/30/this-apology-needed-to-be-made/

Lauten, a staffer for a Republican member of Congress, Stephen Fincher of Tennessee, jabbed at the Obama girls because in her mind they didn’t give the ceremonial pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkeys the respect the event deserved — and you can make that determination for yourself, I reckon.

Anyhow, Lauten’s ridiculous social media post drew fire from all quarters and she apologized.

But my friend’s remark brings to mind another interesting point.

Of all the presidential kids she cited, she mentioned only one male: Ron Reagan. The rest of them are all females.

Why is that?

The twin daughters of George and Laura Bush got battered over some nightclubbing incident; Chelsea Clinton was the on the receiving end of unflattering comments for many years during her dad’s two terms as president; Ronald Reagan’s youngest child, daughter Patti, was criticized because of her near-estrangement — for political reasons — from her parents; Amy Carter received the same kind of unfair media treatment that befell Chelsea Clinton; Tricia and Julie Nixon were scrutinized constantly by the media during their time in the White House.

Who’s missing from this lineup? The children of Gerald and Betty Ford and those of George and Barbara Bush. Except for Susan Ford, the rest of the family all had left the nest; as for the equally sizable Bush brood, they all were grown and gone.

The media and others in public life often don’t distinguish themselves under certain circumstances. The manner in which they treat the children of presidents and their spouses is one of those instances in which everyone ought to take a hard look inward.

Maybe they can ask: Is this how they would want their daughters to be treated?