Honesty should go far in public life

Must we demand our public officials be perfect in every way?

Of course not. Scripture tells us we’ve had one perfect man walk among us. The rest of us are sinners … pure and simple.

The question is worth asking, though, in the wake of a scandal involving a member of the U.S. Senate running for election to a seat to which he was appointed.

John Walsh, D-Mont., was caught plagiarizing a master’s thesis at the Army War College. He didn’t just copy a sentence of two without attributing their source. Oh no. Walsh lifted huge sections of his thesis from other people’s work and then sought to pass it off as his own.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/213398-montana-senator-backtracks-on-ptsd-comments

He blamed the act initially on post-traumatic stress disorder he suffered from combat duty in Iraq. Now he’s backing off. The criticism has been intense, as it should be. The plagiarism likely will doom his election effort; Walsh had been selected to fill the rest of the term of Max Baucus, who quit to become U.S. ambassador to China.

The point about perfection among public officials is key here.

I don’t expect politicians to be perfect. I do expect them — to paraphrase a common saying — to be better than the average bear.

By that I mean we should expect them to live up to the manner in which they sell themselves to voters. Walsh held his military record up as a reason to vote for him. Now that record has come under attack by virtue of the plagiarism to which Walsh has admitted.

Politicians run on morality all the time, only to have it revealed that they’ve cheated on their spouse, or broken the law along the way, or done something in their past that some would consider to be immoral.

John Walsh’s transgression isn’t the worst improper act ever committed. It does, however, betray a hypocrisy that voters shouldn’t tolerate. No one is perfect. Voters, though, should demand that the people who represent their interests just be better than the rest of us.

That’s not too high a bar to cross.

POTUS never off the clock

Wait for it. The critics are sure to climb all over this one: President Obama is going to raise money for Democratic Senate candidate while he’s vacationing with his family at Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.

They’ll raise a serious ruckus about (a) the president taking a vacation at all and (b) taking part in political fundraisers while the world is exploding all around us.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/obama-fundraiser-marthas-vineyard-109346.html?hp=r14

I’ll make this point until I run out of proverbial breath: Presidents of the United States are never — ever — off the clock. They are entitled some time away from the Oval Office with their family.

Does that mean they’re shutting themselves off from the world? Hardly. They get national security briefings daily. They are told immediately when crises erupt. They are able to talk immediately to any world leader of American politician as events warrant. They aren’t sealed away in a vacuum chamber.

As for the fundraising part, well, I need to remind y’all that Republican politicians will take part in these kinds of activities as well when they take their summer break. Presidents and lawmakers do share a common theme: They’re all politicians, which by definition compels them to raise money for other politicians. It goes with the territory.

And just so we’re clear, I’m not sticking up for this president because I happen to agree with most of his policies. I’ve said many times over many years about many presidents of both political parties that they deserve time away.

And so damn what if they raise money? That’s part of the job as well.

Ted Cruz: Texas-sized embarrassment

Ted Cruz is my senator. I accept that he’s one of two men who serve in the U.S. Senate on behalf of Texas.

I didn’t vote for him in 2012. I likely never will vote for him for anything. Still, he’s my senator.

And that gives me the right to declare that I am ashamed of him. Deeply so, in fact. His latest shameful attack has been leveled at the State Department, the Federal Aviation Administration and the president of the United States over his idiotic suggestion that the FAA ban on U.S. flights to Israel is somehow intended to do actual harm to our strong ally in the Middle East.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/ted-cruz-faa-ban-state-department-109322.html?hp=l21

This guy is a Harvard-educated lawyer, right? He’s supposed to be a bright guy, correct? What on God’s Earth is he suggesting here? It cannot possibly be that President Barack Obama actually wants Israel to be wiped off the map, which is what the Hamas terrorists want to happen.

Hamas launched the conflict in Gaza by firing rockets into Israel. The Israelis have responded with tremendous force to put down the uprising. The terrorists have ratcheted up their own response by landing a rocket near the major international airport outside of Tel Aviv.

The FAA suspended U.S.-carrier flights for less than two days. The ban has been lifted. Cruz, though, has suggested the FAA, the State Department and the White House are politically motivated, that they want to harm Israel.

Commentators on the left have compared Cruz’s fire-breathing rhetoric to the stuff that came out of Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s mouth in the 1950s, when he accused the State Department of hiring communists.

I’m wondering now if Ted Cruz’s reckless implications today will produce the kind of response that McCarthy drew from his critics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eA5bUzVjA

College finds another home-grown leader

Russell Lowery-Hart appears headed to the office of Amarillo College president.

There goes my advice to the college board of regents, which was to cast a wide net to find a successor to retiring AC President Paul Matney.

Lowery-Hart is the second in command at AC and the board has voted unanimously to declare him as its sole finalist in the search for a new president.

I still favor wide-as-possible searches — if only to strengthen the local candidates, making them compete head to head with qualified individuals with fresh ideas and outlooks.

That won’t happen with Lowery-Hart, just as it didn’t happen when the college picked Matney to succeed the late Steven Jones, who did come from beyond the Panhandle to run the college before he died.

Lowery-Hart will take office with overwhelming support from AC faculty, staff and students. That gives him a huge advantage, just as it did for Matney.

I am not going to criticize this pending appointment. I’ve heard from those close to the situation that Lowery-Hart brings a lot to the office. He’s a West Texas A&M University grad; he got graduate degrees from Texas Tech University. He’s well-educated and knows the college well. He appears to be a solid pick.

I’ve long been amazed about Amarillo College’s community standing. AC seems almost immune to significant criticism, such as what one hears about Potter and Randall county governments, or Amarillo City Hall, or even the Amarillo and Canyon independent school districts. AC has escaped many of the barbs that get tossed at public institutions.

That speaks well for the leadership of the school.

I am optimistic that the new president-in-waiting will maintain that standing.

Vets health reform stalled by … yep, politics

If you’ll recall when the veterans health care scandal rocked the nation, you’ll also recall high-minded statements by politicians proclaiming veterans’ health care to be their top priority.

By golly, they wouldn’t let politics stand in the way of improving the delivery of health care to veterans.

Fast forward to today. Politics is standing in the way. This is outrageous in the extreme.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/213222-talks-on-veterans-bill-in-full-meltdown

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has co-authored a bill along with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that would enable veterans to get non-VA health care if the nearest Veterans Administration health facility is more than 40 miles away.

It’s hit a roadblock. Where? In the House of Representatives, where penny-pinching Republicans control the place. They are bickering with Democrats over how to pay for this bill.

There now seems a realistic chance that Congress is going to adjourn for its lengthy summer recess without approving this needed reform.

The veterans health care scandal rocked the nation to its core. Remember that? Remember when we got all twisted up over news of veterans dying in Phoenix, Ariz., because the agency couldn’t deliver health services in a timely fashion? How about the news that the VA was cooking patient logs to cover the backsides of administrators? Didn’t that news send pols and pundits and orbit?

Those lofty declarations of wanting to improve health delivery to vets have given way to the usual partisan bickering, backstabbing and bloviating.

Sanders wants to negotiate a deal with the House. House leaders are critical of Senate Democrats for boycotting meetings to discuss possible changes.

Congress’s approval ratings are low enough as it is. The politicians who serve in both congressional chambers know the consequence of those poll numbers. They could cost them their jobs this fall. And for what? Because they cannot settle on legislation that four months ago everyone said had to get done … no matter what.

Get it done, ladies and gentlemen of Capitol Hill.

This man would be out of place today

Every now and then when I think about Republicans who wouldn’t make it in today’s political climate — yes, I actually think about these things — the name of Victor Atiyeh pops into my skull.

I didn’t know Atiyeh well, although I knew plenty about him. I met him once while he was campaigning for Oregon governor back in 1978. I was a reporter working for the Oregon City Enterprise-Courier — a small suburban afternoon paper about 15 miles south of Portland. In those days, politicians thought it was important to talk even to small papers in order to get their message out to the voters.

Atiyeh, who died this week at age 91, had served many years in the Oregon Legislature. He was running against Democratic Gov. Bob Straub in 1978. The contrast between the men was striking.

Straub, a nice guy, was a scatter-shot speaker, unfocused, rambling and seemingly nervous to be in the presence of us small-town media types.

Atiyeh was the picture of coolness and calm. I remember that he smoked like a freight train during our interview. The Republican challenger was focused, engaging, looked me in the eye when giving direct answers to direct questions.

Atiyeh won that election and would win re-election four years later.

Here’s a couple of things about Atiyeh that need saying. One is that he was the first politician of Arab descent ever elected to a governor’s office in the United States. The other is that he was a consummate “establishment, mainstream Republican” who made tough choices they needed to be made. An editorial in the Portland Oregonian spells that out:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/07/vic_atiyeh_truth-teller_editor.html

Atiyeh likely couldn’t cut it in today’s Republican Party. He was as staunch a Republican as any politician of his time. Today, though, being faithful to the GOP’s traditional pro-business, low-tax mantra isn’t good enough. You have to be mean-spirited, angry, obstructionist and accusatory — all traits that Vic Atiyeh never exhibited.

He was a gentleman through and through and he turned out to be a very good governor of my home state.

May this good man rest in peace.

Looking peachy for Democrats in Georgia?

So many interesting political races around the country … it’s difficult to focus on just one.

Let’s look briefly at Georgia.

Democrats think they have a chance of recapturing a U.S. Senate seat and the governorship there. How? With two familiar names running in that state.

One of them is Michelle Nunn, candidate for the U.S. Senate, and daughter of the great former Sen. Sam Nunn; the other is Jason Carter, grandson of the 39th president of the United States, Jimmy Carter.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-07-23/democrats-make-their-stand-in-georgia

According to Bloomberg’s Al Hunt, Nunn and Carter are running ahead of their Republican opponents, David Perdue and Nathan Deal, respectively.

Can they turn the tide? Well, time will tell.

Neither Nunn or Carter represents what conservatives are fond of calling the “radical left” of the Democratic Party. If Nunn is anything like Daddy Sam, she would be able to work nicely across the aisle with Senate Republicans, provided they are willing to reciprocate. Indeed, Michelle Nunn was a soldier in President George H.W. Bush’s “Points of Light” program.

As for young Carter, who’s running for governor against a wounded incumbent, he too represents a more centrist core of his party. Grandpa Jimmy, one must remember, was elected in 1976 partly on the strength of his appeal to middle America. He lost re-election, of course, to Ronald Reagan in 1980 after the economy tanked and after suffering through that 444-day hostage siege at the former U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Jason, though, is no flaming liberal that is such a popular target for right-wing Republicans.

The Georgia political landscape might be ripe for a change. Carter vs. Deal is going to feature some discussion about the governor’s business dealings, which have caused him some grief at home.

As for the Senate race, the GOP might rally from its bitter primary runoff between Perdue and U.S. Rep. Jack Kingston. I’ll say this, though, about Nunn: She comes from a conservative pedigree herself. No one ever accused Sam Nunn of being soft on defense — or soft on anything or anybody, for that matter.

Like father, like daughter? Democrats hope so.

Flight ban was no embargo

The Federal Aviation Administration has lifted its brief ban on commercial U.S. jet service to David Ben-Gurion International Airport.

Did the FAA knuckle under to some ridiculous political criticism? I hope not.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/faa-lifts-flight-ban-to-tel-aviv-109319.html?hp=r5

The FAA had banned the flights into Tel Aviv’s air terminal, citing security concerns created by Hamas’s rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. One rocket landed about a mile from Ben-Gurion, causing the FAA to suspend U.S. air carrier service to the massive airport.

Then came the ridiculousness from the likes of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Their complaint? They called the flight-service suspension an “economic embargo on Israel” that punished the Israelis unfairly.

Bloomberg even went so far as to board an Israeli El Al Airlines jet from New York to Tel Aviv, and fly to Israel to make some kind of bombastic statement criticizing the suspension.

Cruz, of course, wasted no time plastering this decision — which was made independently by the FAA — on President Obama. This has become a common theme from Cruz and other loudmouthed Republican lawmakers: Let’s be sure to politicize this any way we can and, oh yes, be sure to put the blame squarely on the president; and in this case, let’s be sure to imply that he is following some kind of “anti-Israel” policy, which of course is standard for someone with “pro-Muslim” leanings.

Their stupidity is mind-boggling.

And to think Republicans still rail at those who — they contend — still want to blame George W. Bush for the nation’s economic mess and all these foreign-policy crises.

Well, the ban on U.S. carriers’ flights to David Ben-Gurion has lifted. That’s a good thing. The FAA assessed the security risk and determined that it’s OK to fly there.

Take it from me, as one who’s flown in and out of that terminal: You haven’t lived until you’ve been interrogated by an Israeli airport security official prior to boarding an outbound flight from David Ben-Gurion International Airport.

They know how to protect themselves against terrorist attacks.

As for the FAA, they were being extra cautious. Given the stakes involved, I’m glad they locked down those flights.

Another thought about 'polls'

Having just weighed in on a CNN poll touting the success of the Affordable Care Act, I cannot resist a brief comment on another so-called “poll” conducted by my local newspaper, the Amarillo Globe-News

http://amarillo.com/opinion

It asks readers on line to rate the “worst president” since 1981, the year Ronald Reagan took office. The presidents following the Gipper are George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

I’ll give you just a single guess on which president is faring the worst in this “poll.”

Yep, it’s Barack Obama. Can you imagine my fake surprise?

This isn’t a “poll,” even though the newspaper calls it such.

The reader pool comprises area residents who voted overwhelmingly against Obama in two presidential elections. He captured only about 20 percent of the vote throughout the entire Texas Panhandle in both the 2008 and 2012 elections. So, of course, if follows that he would be rated so dismally.

Besides, the “poll” is being taken while crises are erupting all over the world — Israel/Gaza, Ukraine, Nigeria, Central America. Have I missed any? Probably, but you get the idea.

What the heck. As I noted in my earlier post: If you agree with the result, you embrace it; if you disagree, you dismiss it.

I’ll dismiss this “poll” with extreme prejudice.

Obamacare is working, poll says

You can say many things about polls. Let’s try this: If you agree with a poll’s findings, you take those findings to heart; if you disagree with them, you dismiss the numbers as being cooked up, fabricated.

I’ll go with the former on the latest CNN poll on the Affordable Care Act.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-obamacare-working-cnn-109272.html?hp=r10

A new poll suggests that most Americans believe the ACA is working, if not for them personally, then for someone else.

Does that end the dispute over President Obama’s signature piece of domestic legislation? Hardly. It’s still going strong because critics want to keep the pot boiling.

House Speaker John Boehner says he’s going to sue the president over changes Obama made in the law that delayed the employer mandate provision in the ACA — which Boehner and other critics actually favor. Still, the speaker is mad because the president acted under his own executive authority.

Whatever.

The new poll, though, does bring to mind another political quandary for opponents of Obamacare. Do they really want to roll back a law that has provided health insurance for an estimated 9 million Americans that previously didn’t have it? Do they really and truly want to take back something the federal government has provided?

This is perhaps the stickiest issue facing ACA critics as they campaign for public office across the land.

We still keep hearing talk of attempting to repeal the act — with nothing to replace it. Congress has voted a bazillion times to repeal the ACA; it keeps coming up short. When will it end?

I’ll stick with my mantra that the Affordable Care Act is working. Yes, the rollout was tough, but it got fixed.

I also will suggest that the latest poll exposes Speaker Boehner’s lawsuit for being the frivolous legal action it is.