http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/no-movement-gambling

Texas Monthly’s Paul Burka isn’t exactly crying the blues over the prospect that the current Texas Legislature isn’t going to bring gambling slot machines into the Lone Star State.

I concur with Burka. Gambling is a sucker’s bet if there ever was one.

The man’s major point is that little economic development accrues with gambling. It creates jobs, say, for card dealers, cashiers, cocktail waitresses, security personnel and assorted other staffers. But the lure of casino gambling just doesn’t amount to much.

I used to live near the Sabine River, which borders Texas and Louisiana. And occasionally I would venture to Lake Charles, La., where they’ve had riverboat gambling for years. They have fancy riverboats with casinos on board moored on the Calcesieu River. Folks would flock from Texas and other neighboring states to “Lake Chuck” to gamble. They poured a lot of money into the casinos. But when you looked at the surroundings on shore, you saw little impact of the boats on the community. Downtown Lake Charles still looked pretty deserted as I recall … for years after the riverboats docked on the river.

The point is that casino gambling — even allowing slot machines at racetracks — is far from an instant fix for any state that’s interested in economic development. Burka seems a bit more enamored of full-scale casinos. I’m not a fan of those, either.

My own preference is to foster economic development without preying on people’s desire to win big money in a hurry. When you’re playing against The House, there can be just one winner — and it isn’t you.

A fascinating discussion is beginning to occur in Amarillo regarding whether to name a new bridge after a former county commissioner who, depending on your point of view, was a stalwart champion of his constituents or was a nuisance who didn’t know when to keep his mouth shut.

The late Commissioner Manny Perez died a couple years ago after suffering post-surgery complications. He was, to say the least, an unforgettable guy. He also had a habit of picking some inopportune times to say certain things to certain people.

Some Amarillo residents want the City Commission to name a new bridge at Third and Grand after Perez. They say he was their champion and fought to have the bridge built as way to alleviate traffic congestion near some railroad tracks. The traffic would get clogged beyond all reason when freight trains would creep along. The city decided to act after hearing gripes for many years from residents in the neighborhood.

Perez was one of them.

But here is where the issue gets a bit sticky from the city’s standpoint. First of all, the bridge was built by the city, not by Potter County, which Perez served as commissioner for more than two decades before his death. Amarillo also got some help from federal government stimulus money — yes, the money that so many folks around here said they opposed, but were rather eager to stretch out their hand when it became available.

Yes, Manny Perez raised some ruckus over getting the bridge built. He also raised more than a bit of a ruckus over other city-sponsored projects, such as downtown redevelopment. Perez opposed the strategy the city had employed in moving the downtown effort forward. The disliked the tax increment zone for downtown. He argued that Potter County shouldn’t dedicate a portion of its tax revenue to the downtown taxing district.

But worst of all, he would stand before city commissioners and rail against the downtown project, suggesting that the city was ignoring “my people” who live on the east side of the town.

Let’s face a grim reality here: Manny Perez angered a lot of people at City Hall. My guess is that the anger hasn’t subsided too much even after his death.

So now Manny’s friends and political allies want the city to name a bridge in his honor?

Someone will have to explain in detail what precisely what Perez did to make the bridge a reality and why the city should just forgive the obstructionism Manny displayed when it sought Potter County’s support in rebuilding its downtown district — which, by the way, is located with Potter County’s boundaries.

I continually am amazed at the growing up that has occurred in our nation in its treatment of veterans and those who are serving in the military.

I now will explain.

The closet in the entry way of our home contains quite a few ball caps. A couple of them are quasi-military in nature. One of them is a cap that says Army; I bought it at Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio while visiting our nephew, who’s serving his country there. The other was a gift from Capt. John Payne, the commanding officer of the USS Carl Vinson, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier I visited in 1993 while reporting on a fact finding mission led by U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Texas.

I recently wore the Carl Vinson cap on a brief trip to Allen, Texas, where we welcomed our precious granddaughter into the world. I flew home a few days later, while my wife stayed behind to dote a little more on Emma Nicole.

As I walked through airport security at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport – sporting my Carl Vinson cap – the TSA agent asked me if I had served in the Navy. I said, “No. I served in the Army – a long time ago.”

“Well,” the agent said with a broad smile, “I want to thank you for your service the country.” I thanked the gentleman in return.

Such greetings are fairly common when I wear either of those caps. They remind me of how far we’ve come from the days when military personnel in uniform and veterans were treated much differently, such as during my time in the Army.

I served from 1968 until 1970. The nation was tearing itself apart while debating the Vietnam War. But unlike the debate that has occurred over the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in recent times, opponents of those actions never – not one time – have aimed their rage at the men and women who are carrying out their mission. That wasn’t always the case during the Bad Old Days.

No one ever hurled epithets at me when I returned home from Vietnam. Others did hear them. It is to our collective shame that they received that kind of abuse from their countrymen.

It’s a new day now, though. We have grown up since that terrible time. These days we greet returning service personnel with banners, flags and flowers. We pat them on the back and offer a heartfelt “thank you for your service” to them. That’s the way it always should have been.

This veteran is ever so grateful that this nation has come of age.

Dr. Ben Carson is an up-and-comer among political conservatives.

He’s a brilliant neurosurgeon … but he needs an education on political decorum.

Dr. Carson spoke recently at the National Prayer Breakfast and used the occasion to criticize President Obama’s policies while the president was sitting nearby.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288583-ben-carson-controversial-conservative-figure-hints-at-run-for-office

Carson responded to critics of his speech this way: “I don’t believe that expressing your opinion, regardless of who’s there, is being rude.” Actually, doc, it is rude. But it’s not really about the company you keep when you say these things. It’s the location and the setting that deserves attention.

The National Prayer Breakfast is meant to bring people of all faiths together for a time of prayer and ecumenical fellowship. It’s not a place for political posturing. Many other venues exist for such speechmaking. How about, say, a national political convention, a political action conference (such as CPAC), or a street-corner rally?

The doctor is said to be considering a run for office. He will give up his medical practice, reports indicate, and devote his time to public-policy-improvement pursuits. More power to him. I wish him well in that endeavor.

But let’s lay off the politics at the National Prayer Breakfast. As the saying goes: It ain’t the time or the place …

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush might have demonstrated Friday why he could face a rough road to winning his party’s presidential nomination in 2016.

He spoke of the Republican Party’s need to avoid be against everything and everyone.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/other-races/288569-jeb-bush-gop-cant-be-anti-everything

Bush delivered his admonition to the CPAC conference, which has heard from a lengthy list of political clowns. Jeb Bush isn’t one of them. He’s a serious fellow who every political pundit in the country believes is considering a run for the presidency in 2016.

Yes, he is packing some baggage, such as the legacy of big brother George W. Bush’s two terms as president. But his message to the conservative faithful is plain enough. The party needs to stand for something constructive and end the perception among voters that it is composed of obstructionists exclusively.

Bush said this, among other things, to CPAC: “Way too many people believe Republicans are anti-immigrant, anti-woman, anti-science, anti-gay, anti-worker, and the list goes on and on and on. Many voters are simply unwilling to choose our candidates even though they share our core beliefs because those voters feel unwanted, unloved and unwelcome in our party.”

If people believe such things about your party, then you need to (1) change your message if that’s indeed what is being conveyed or (2) develop a whole new marketing strategy to persuade voters that their perception of you is incorrect.

It appears to me, though, that the hardliners are winning the intraparty struggle at the moment within the GOP. They likely don’t want to hear what Jeb Bush is trying to tell them.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s time has run out, as blogger/columnist Paul Burka notes here.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/perry-cpac-candidate-i-am-no-more

But I’m wondering about his assertion at the CPAC meeting that the Republican Party didn’t nominate two “true conservative” candidates in 2008 and 2012. Had John McCain (2008) and Mitt Romney (2012) been “true conservatives,” one of them would have been elected president, Perry suggested.

Didn’t Romney describe himself as a “severely conservative” governor of Massachusetts? And didn’t McCain insist repeatedly four years earlier that he’s always been staunchly pro-life on the issue of abortion and has been consistently conservative on other social issues?

I don’t think their nominees’ conservative credentials were the problem. The quality of their respective campaigns hurt them both badly.

When the financial crisis slammed into the nation’s economic infrastructure in 2008, McCain’s response was to suspend his campaign at a critical moment, return to Washington in search of answers, only to deliver nothing in the way of a solution.

And Romney’s campaign? Oh my. Let me count the stumbles: the ghastly debate performances with his GOP foes, such as when he offered to bet Perry $10,000 on something; his “self-deportation” answer to solving the illegal immigration problem; the infamous 47-percent remarks at a fundraiser in Florida. I’ll stop there.

What the Texas governor and other conservatives are saying at their conference essentially is that they hate compromise. They don’t want to work with moderates within their own party, let alone with those who represent the other party.

They want public policy crafted on their terms, ignoring the nation’s immense racial, moral, social and economic diversity.

I would suggest that John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of who are fine men, were conservative enough. They just didn’t know how to campaign for the presidency of a changing nation.

The late House Speaker Tip O’Neill, D-Mass., was fond of saying that “all politics is local.”

Let’s take that statement a bit further. Sometimes politics can get personal, very personal indeed.

Just ask U.S. Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17323938-gops-rob-portman-announces-support-for-same-sex-marriage?lite

Portman used to oppose same-sex marriage. Now he favors it. Why? Portman’s son has disclosed he is gay. That changes everything, according to the senator, who cannot deny his son the right to marry who he loves simply because he loves someone of the same gender.

Portman isn’t the first politician to confront this most sensitive issue. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, described by many liberals as the “prince of darkness” because of his staunch conservatism on so many matters, including some critical social issues, shares Sen. Portman’s dilemma. Cheney has a gay daughter. The former VP has declared that “equality for all” means precisely that and he cannot tell his daughter – who is rearing a child with her partner – who she can love.

Another conservative former vice president, Dan Quayle, once was asked how he would react if his unmarried daughter became pregnant and decided to have an abortion. Quayle, a staunch pro-life politician, said he would support whatever decision his daughter made. That statement, at that very moment, turned him into a pro-choice politician … even though I believe he still considers himself to be pro-life.

These matters, despite how we feel about them as they apply to perfect strangers, take on entirely new meaning when they involve those who are closest to us.

Thus, politics often is more than just “local.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., this week might have delivered my favorite retort to a fresh-faced upstart to date in the 113th Congress.

She did so Wednesday when Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, seemed to lecture her on what he believes is the sanctity of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the one that guarantees people the right to “keep and bear arms.”

http://thehill.com/video/senate/288141-panel-approves-assault-weapons-ban-amid-cruz-feinstein-fireworks

Cruz has been in the Senate all of about two months. Feinstein has served there for a couple of decades. Feinstein favors a law that bans assault weapons. Cruz believes the legislation as written is too restrictive and he wondered whether Feinstein would react the same to restrictions on the First, Fourth or Fifth constitution amendments. Feinstein said she didn’t need a lecture from someone such as Cruz, noting that she’s voted on enough law, studied the Constitution extensively and is “reasonably well-educated” enough to know what she’s talking about.

It is true that Cruz is no dummy, either. He once served as Texas solicitor general. But his constant preening and posturing in front of more experienced and seasoned colleagues seems oddly pretentious — even for a Texas politician.

All these histrionics over President Obama’s Cabinet selections – John Brennan at CIA, Chuck Hagel at Defense and John Kerry at State – got me thinking about something.

If congressional Republicans are so up in arms over these guys, wait’ll an opening comes up on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court right now has a narrow conservative majority. There are four reliably liberal justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer. The court has four equally reliable conservatives: Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and the chief, John Roberts. Then you have Anthony Kennedy, a so-called “swing justice” who tilts mostly to the conservative side.

Sotomayor and Kagan are Obama selections, so they won’t go anywhere. Of the liberals on the court, Ginsberg seems the most likely to depart, given her frail health. Were she to go, Obama would pick another liberal to replace her. The battle would be stout, but not as ferocious as it could get.

I keep thinking about what might happen if one of the right-leaning justices were to leave the court. It’s a decent bet that none of them would leave with a Democrat in the White House, just as left-leaning justices would wait were there a Republican serving as president.

Still, I keep envisioning the apoplexy that would engulf conservatives if, by the strangest circumstance imaginable, one of their political brethren would leave the Supreme Court before Barack Obama leaves the presidency in January 2017.

The world would spin off its axis. The planet would be pummeled by meteors. The sun would rise in the west. Martians would hijack the Rover rolling across their planet and fly it back to Earth.

Any confirmation hearings involving a Democratic president replacing a Republican-appointed Supreme Court justice would make the Kerry-Hagel-Brennan hearings in the Senate look like a Tupperware party.

If only …

You have to say this about the College of Cardinals that elected the newest pope: They know how to play to the strength of their church.

Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio is now Pope Francis I, chosen in the most secretive balloting process anywhere on Planet Earth. This pick is intriguing in at least one important sense: Pope Francis comes from a part of the world where the church is ascending, not plummeting. Francis is the first Jesuit pope and the first from a continent other than Europe.

He is the son of Italian immigrants who moved to Argentina, where young Jorge was born. Indeed, the church is growing throughout Latin America, unlike in Europe, where church numbers have been falling precipitously for decades.

The 266th pontiff is known as a man of extraordinary humility who rode the bus to work in the Vatican and who routinely visited slums to comfort the afflicted. I don’t think he’ll be riding the bus or touring shanty towns very often in his new role as head of one of the world’s pre-eminent Christian denominations.

The 115 men who chose the pope, though, know the political landscape to be sure. Even though the previous two popes were non-Italians – from Poland and Germany – they represented a region of the world where the church is in decline. By reaching across the ocean to the southern reaches of Latin America, the cardinals have picked a man who symbolizes the strength of the worldwide flock he now will lead.

I am not a Catholic. Thus, I don’t have a direct stake in this monumental decision. I cannot comment intelligently on church theology or where I think it should go under Francis’s leadership.

However, I can – and do – applaud the apparent political wisdom shown in the decision rendered by the College of Cardinals.