Cliff Sims: from nowhere to center of attention

How do some people manage to emerge suddenly and dramatically from the weeds to the center of the political arena?

I refer to a young man named Cliff Sims, who’s written a book called “Team of Vipers,” in which he chronicles the chaos and confusion that has dictated the flow of events inside the Donald Trump operation at the White House.

I had never heard of Cliff Sims prior to this week. I don’t know what he did in the White House. He is making the TV talk circuit promoting his book. He has said he attended meetings with the president in the Oval Office, in his private office, in the Cabinet room. Trump, to no one’s surprise, denies that Sims had that kind of access.

Do I believe the president’s account of their relationship? Uhh, no. I don’t. I mean, the president lies constantly, even when there’s no need. Do I believe Sims’s account of their relationship? Let me think. I don’t yet know.

He is not the first tell-all author to spill what he considers to be the beans on Donald Trump. He likely won’t be the final one.

However, he becomes the latest social media instant celebrity, someone who reveals himself under the glare of media scrutiny.

I’ll just add that the title of his book, “Team of Vipers,” does seem to ring true. At least it does to my eyes and ears.

SOTU speech will produce more drama . . . perhaps

I am willing to admit it: I usually watch presidents of the United States deliver State of the Union speeches.

It’s an annual event and this year I’ll be home the evening of Feb. 5 when Donald Trump will deliver his speech to a joint session of Congress. He will tell them — no doubt about it! — that the “state of the Union is strong!”

He’ll likely get as much laughter as applause, if that’s what he says.

The president was supposed to deliver the SOTU on Tuesday. Then he messed up by shutting down the government. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is empowered to invite the president into the House of Representatives chamber for these speeches, pulled the invitation back. Open the government, Mr. President, before delivering the speech.

Trump at first looked for an alternate venue. Then he announced he was “proud” to reopen the part of the government he had shuttered.

Those of us who look at matters reasonably and somewhat dispassionately can understand the obvious: The state of our Union is in terrible condition. Six weeks ago, the president could have declared that the nation’s economic condition was good; now it’s teetering just a bit.

As for the political state of our Union, it is as divided as it was when Trump took office more than two years ago. He vowed to be a unifying president. He hasn’t made the grade. He has vowed to get Mexico to build The Wall. Now he’s trying to foist the cost of the monstrosity on you and me.

There’s always the back story that plays out at these speeches. Lawmakers from the president’s party will cheer the head of state; those who serve under the other party banner will sit on their hands. It happens no matter who is delivering the speech.

This speech will attract particular attention to that phenomenon simply because the president happens to be Donald John Trump.

I’ll make this clear: I do not expect to smile and nod at much — if anything! — of what comes from the president’s mouth.

However, I’ll be watching with keen interest.

Lieutenant governor plays a heavy hand badly

Those of us who know Texas state Sen. Kel Seliger need to take a look at a clean and crisp political analysis about the growing feud between the Amarillo lawmaker and fellow Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

The Texas Tribune’s Ross Ramsey has concluded that Patrick is likely misplaying his hand in punishing Seliger for an impolite remark the senator made regarding a top Patrick aide, Sherry Sylvester.

Read Ramsey’s analysisĀ here.

By banishing Seliger the chairmanship of the Senate Higher Education Committee and taking him off the Education Committee, Patrick has muted a key Texas Panhandle voice on matters involving public education. Seliger has been a champion of both public and higher ed since he was first elected to the Senate in 2004. In fact, Seliger’s service on the Education panel continued the Panhandle presence, given that he succeeded the late Teel Bivins in the Senate District 31 seat.

Ramsey’s analysis takes note of how Patrick has demonstrated a habit of (a) punishing a senator from his own party and (b) pouring it on.

What might play out as the Senate gets down to legislative business over the course of the next 120-some days is whether Seliger emerges as a “swing vote” that could deny legislation from coming to a vote of the full Senate.

I don’t believe Seliger is a particularly vengeful individual. Then again, he’s been done wrong by the lieutenant governor and, by extension, so have his West Texas constituents been harmed by Patrick’s petulance. Seliger takes his public service seriously, even if he doesn’t always taken himself so seriously . . . which I consider to be a positive trait that I believe all politicians should exhibit.

Judging from the way Patrick has erupted over Seliger’s supposedly crude comment, the lieutenant governor is taking himself far too seriously to suit my taste. Then again, I don’t have to serve with this guy. Oh, no, I get to do something even better: I get to complain about his conduct as the Senate’s presiding officer, given that he works for meĀ and the rest of the state’s 27 million residents.

Therefore, I believe he has messed up by attempting to manhandle one of the Senate’s wisest and most experienced individuals.

Ground does shift under politicians’ feet

Texas state Sen. Kel Seliger has been stripped of two committee chairmanships, citing differences in philosophy and policy with the man who took them away.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick says he did it because the veteran Amarillo Republican lawmaker spoke rudely to a key Patrick aide and calls Seliger a “corrosive” influence in the Senate.

Actually, there’s not a damn thing “corrosive” about Seliger, who has staked out a reputation over his 14-year Senate career as a man who works well on both sides of the political divide.

I believe Seliger’s view is the accurate interpretation.

The Texas Republican Party has morphed into something quite different from what it used to represent. It has become more interested in “social issues,” and issues relating to “morality.” I’ve known Seliger for more than two decades and I feel confident in suggesting that he doesn’t dance to the socially conservative tune played by the state’s GOP legislative leadership.

It’s not the rarest of events to see the political ground shifting under politicians’ feet. Texas Democrats begin tilting significantly leftward in the late 1980s leading up to the 1990 gubernatorial election, which seated Ann Richards in the governor’s office. Richards was far more progressive than your standard Texas Democrat. Indeed, there were a number of Democratic lawmakers who turned Republican about that time. One of them was former state Rep. Warren Chisum, the Pampa oil man and rancher who once was a proud Democrat but who turned to the GOP. His stated reason was that the party shifted away from his own world view.

Do I expect Sen. Seliger to wake up tomorrow morning and shift to the Democratic Party? No. He stands by his “conservative Republican” credentials. Seliger’s brand of conservatism, though, deals more with fiscal matters than it does with social issues. Patrick remains a fiscal conservative, but he has been seen by critics — such as Seliger — as being no friend of public education; he likes vouchers, which Seliger opposes.

So, for the moment, Seliger — as well as his West Texas constituents — are paying a steep price for the senator’s dispute with the lieutenant governor.Ā  I am not going to buy into the notion that this stripping of power is based solely on a perceived rudeness by a senator who still enjoys great support among his colleagues.

Study the Bible in church, not public schools

Hold on a second! Donald J. Trump now says he supports the notion of allowing public school students to study the Bible. He endorses the idea of students learning about the history of the Judeo-Christian holy book.

Let’s put the brakes on that one.

The founders created a secular document to govern the United States of America. The very first clause in the very first amendment to the U.S. Constitution establishes a rule that Congress “shall make no law” that creates a state religion.

Legal scholars and courts have interpreted that to mean that government agencies — and that includes public schools — must avoid traveling down the slipperiest of slopes by allowing religious study in tax-supported schools.

So what is the president trying to do? My best guess is that he believes that the U.S. Supreme Court — which includes two justices he has appointed — would rule in favor of Bible study in public schools if the issue ever to reach the highest court on appeal.

Trump wrote this on Twitter: Numerous states introducing Bible Literacy classes, giving students the option of studying the Bible. Starting to make a turn back? Great!

Legislators in six states are proposing Bible study in public schools. I guess it’s some sort of move to return “prayer in school,” which the Supreme Court rule in the early 1960s violates the First Amendment’s implied separation of church and state.

There’s a place for everything in this world of ours. I believe firmly that the place to study the Bible is in a house of worship. We should make our public schools the place where students can learn about math, science, civics, humanities, theater . . . and the whole host of curricula that teach them about their earthly world.

I’ll just offer this notion as well: If we are going to study the Bible in public school, do we then allow the study of works read by our non-Judeo Christian citizens?

That’s what I mean by the “slipperiest of slopes.”

Great! Another zillionaire wants to be POTUS!

This is just great, I tell ya . . . just great!

Americans have been subjected to the chaos associated with a real estate mogul turned politician who was elected president of the United States in 2016.

Now we hear that another business tycoon might decide to make a run for the nation’s highest office in 2020.

Please! No! A million times no!

The latest novice pol who wants a shot at playing the role of commander in chief and head of state is Howard Schultz, the former owner of Starbucks. He calls himself a “centrist independent” and a “lifelong Democrat.” Schultz told “60 Minutes” he would run as an independent candidate.

Let’s see. How would that work? He could siphon off votes that would go toward an actual political figure running as a Democrat opponent against Donald J. Trump. Is there a chance a Schultz candidacy could improve the president’s re-election chances? Yeah! Do ya think?

Trump campaigned for president touting (falsely it likely turned out) his past as a “self-made billionaire.” He touted his business acumen, forgetting to mention all those bankruptcies, lawsuits and failed business ventures. He had zero political or government or public service experience before deciding to run for POTUS . . . and oh brother, it shows!

Howard Schultz wants a crack at the world’s toughest job?

Give me a break.

I want someone who actually knows how government works to serve as my president. I want someone who isn’t in love with his own success and who is fully and wholly committed to public service.

Schultz is planning a national tour to pitch his notion of running for president. Good grief. Spare me the platitudes and promises.

I want someone sitting behind the big desk in the Oval Office who has an understanding of what’s at stake. Trump isn’t the guy. Neither is Schultz.

Oh, and check out Trump’s response to Schultz’s possible candidacy. He wrote this on Twitter:Ā Howard Schultz doesnā€™t have the ā€œgutsā€ to run for President! Watched him on @60Minutes last night and I agree with him that he is not the ā€œsmartest person.ā€ Besides, America already has that! I only hope that Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower!

Yep. That’s the president of the United States of America.

Isn’t he just so damn dignified?

This judge set the bar quite high for others to clear

I do not believe it is an overstatement to declare that the Texas Panhandle legal community has lost a legendary figure.

Senior U.S. District Judge Mary Lou Robinson was that rare individual whom others aspired to emulate. She died this past weekend at the age of 92. To say she will be “missed” is to say that the Super Bowl is “just another football game.”

During my nearly 18 years as editorial page editor of the Amarillo Globe-News, I was privileged to interview dozens of candidates for state and county judgeships. Most of them were serious about seeking the job and in serving their community and state.Ā Almost to a person they would include a laudatory statement about Judge Robinson. They would say that this veteran jurist set the standard for judicial excellence. They intended to pattern their conduct on the bench after her.

Yes, she was revered by those within the legal community.

Judge Robinson was a pioneering individual. She was the first woman to serve on the Potter County court at law bench; she would serve on the state district court bench and then on the Seventh Court of Appeals. After that she became the first judge appointed to fill a seat in the newly created Northern U.S. Judicial District of Texas. President Carter appointed her in 1980 and she worked full time as a federal judge until only recently, when she took “senior status,” enabling her to preside over trials of her choosing.

And let us not forget her presiding over the widely covered “beef trial” involving Oprah Winfrey, who got sued by some Panhandle cattlemen over a remark she made about mad cow disease during one of her TV shows. The cattlemen wanted the trial to occur in Amarillo, perhaps thinking they could get a favorable ruling from a local judge.

Winfrey prevailed in the lawsuit.

I did not know Judge Robinson well, although we did serve in the same Rotary Club for many years. She was always gracious, even though she knew I was a member of the media. I mention that because Judge Robinson rarely conducted interviews; I always had the sense that she was mildly uncomfortable with those of us who reported on and commented on issues of the day.

I want to share one more quick story. The Globe-News welcomed a young reporter some years ago who I believe was assigned to cover the courts. He wanted to meet Judge Robinson, who he knew only by reputation; he asked me if I could arrange the meeting. I approached the judge at a Rotary Club meeting and asked her if she would be willing to meet this young man. She agreed.

They met in her office in downtown Amarillo and, according to my colleague, she could not have been warmer, more welcoming and gracious. I recall him telling me she wanted to talk mostly “about her grandchildren” and showed off pictures of her family.

The jurists who will continue to seek to emulate this judicial icon could not have chosen a better model.

Shutdown produced no good result; nor will another one

Susan Collins is a Maine Republican U.S. senator who — it’s safe to assume — is no friend of Donald J. Trump.

So she said today that the partial government shutdown that the president said he would be proud to own produced “absolutely nothing.” Collins is as correct as she possibly can be.

The only thing it produced was heartache and hassle among many of the hundreds of thousands of federal employees who were furloughed or forced to work without pay for 35 days.

The shutdown ended with no money for The Wall that Trump wants to build. It reopened the entire government for three weeks. Both sides have until Feb. 15 to work out a longer-term budget deal that contains money for “border security.” Democrats don’t want The Wall. Trump insists on it. He might declare a national emergency if the deal lacks money to build it along our southern border.

There had better not be another shutdown. The longest such idiocy produced nothing of substance, as Sen. Collins has noted. Neither would the next one.

This is no way in the world to make America great again. It instead has made us an international laughingstock.

Coach kerfuffle serves as a reminder

The recent outrage that occurred in Amarillo’s public school system over the resignation of a highly regarded volleyball coach reminded me of some hideous parental conduct I witnessed long ago in another state.

Kori Clements resigned as head coach of Amarillo High School’s highly regarded volleyball program. The Sandies have won multiple state titles and Clements, a 2006 AHS graduate, was brought back to coach the girls who reportedly revere her. But she quit, citing pressure from a parent who didn’t like the way she was parceling out playing time; the parent’s daughter wasn’t getting enough time.

What’s worse is that the parent allegedly is a member of Amarillo Independent School District board of trustees, who clearly should know better than to interfere with a coach’s policy.

OK, what did I witness in the old days?

I used to cover a high school football program in Clackamas County, Ore. This particular high school (which I won’t identify) had a very good team in the early 1980s. They were led by a quarterback who, upon graduating from high school, went on to compile a highly successful collegiate football record. He was drafted by an NFL team and had a brief — and modest — pro career.

However, the young man’s father was insufferable in his berating of the coaching staff during games. He would prowl the sideline standing directly behind the head coach, yelling at the top of his lungs about the play-calling that was taking place. If the young quarterback didn’t complete a pass for substantial yardage, let alone score a touchdown, dear ol’ Dad would come unglued.

I never discussed the father’s behavior with his son. It wasn’t my place. I would talk about it, though, with the coach. I never reported on Dad’s boorish behavior and, indeed, this is the first time I’ve ever mentioned it in any form or fashion. I cannot recall all these years later whether the coach spoke ill of Dad personally. He surely did detest the way he behaved during the games. The coach professed to blocking out the profanities yelled from behind him, but surely he had to hear it.

I don’t know whether Coach Clements endured that kind of disgraceful behavior from the parent she said harassed her incessantly over her coaching policies. It’s just that what she endured is hardly unique to Amarillo High School.

That doesn’t make it right, any more than it was right for that fanatic father to act as he did in the old days.

It’s shameful, man!

For heaven’s sake, Hillary Clinton, don’t do it!

This blog post is for you, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The media are reporting that you haven’t shut the door on a possible campaign for the presidency in 2020. Oh, my. How can I say this delicately? I won’t.

Don’t run for president! You have had two chances to win the highest office. But you know that already.

Look, Mme. Secretary, I was proud to have supported your 2016 candidacy. You had my vote in Randall County, Texas, one of the most staunchly Republican counties in all of America. My vote was among the damn few you got in the county where I lived. I get that you did better in Texas than Barack Obama did in his two runs for the presidency, but it still wasn’t nearly good enough to win my state’s electoral votes.

I would likely vote for you again in 2020 were you to be nominated by the Democratic Party to run against Donald J. Trump.

My problem isn’t so much with you as a candidate. My problem lies with your chances of defeating Trump were you and he to run against each other a second time.

My goodness, he made mincemeat of you in 2016, even though you collected more votes than he did. You made some egregious tactical errors. You didn’t go to Wisconsin, one of those three states that Trump picked off to win enough Electoral College votes to be elected president. Are you any smarter this time around? I would hope so.

I want Trump out of office as much as you do. I maintain my belief that Democrats’ best chance of defeating this individual is to nominate a fresh face. I’m sure you heard that Sen. Kamala Harris announced she is running for POTUS in 2020. Someone such as Sen. Harris would be much more to my liking than a political re-tread . . . and I mean no personal disrespect to you by referring to you in that manner.

I am going to insist the same thing of other “veteran pols” such as former Vice President Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders. Yes, I would vote for either of them, too, if Republicans are dumb enough to nominate the president. I just don’t want them to be the nominee any more than I want it to be you.

Stay out of it. Leave the fight to a newcomer. Let those with the new names and the fresh faces make their case.