AC faces hiring controversy

Amarillo_College_sign

Let’s get the full disclosure out of the way right off the top.

I once worked on a freelance basis for Ellen Robertson Green, the newly former head of communications and marketing at Amarillo College. I wrote a blog for Panhandle PBS, the AC-affiliated public television station. I consider her a friend.

There. That’s out of the way.

The news today that Green has resigned her position at AC — effective immediately — because of hiring violations is disturbing to me in the extreme.

http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2016-05-06/amarillo-college-vp-resigns-daughter-fired-amidst-nepotism-allegations?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_Amarillo_Globe-News

She quit and her daughter was fired from the college. Green’s daughter had worked as a content producer for Panhandle PBS’s website and, thus, reported directly to her mother — in violation of the school’s anti-nepotism policy.

Here’s what troubles me: How did Green actually make that hire without her superiors not knowing about it? She didn’t run the college. She didn’t operate in a vacuum. Moreover, the college hires legal counsel to protect the institution from getting entangled in precisely these kinds of issues.

Here’s the policy. It looks quite clear to me.

https://www.actx.edu/president/pagesmith/80

Green is a high-profile individual in Amarillo and the Texas Panhandle. She served on the Amarillo City Council until this past May, when she was defeated for re-election. I considered her to be a highly effective elected official and I wanted her to keep her council seat.

How this matter got past the individuals who are in charge at Amarillo College escapes me.

 

Political alliances are shifting … rapidly

DonaldAndRick_jpg_800x1000_q100

Rick Perry once called Donald J. Trump a “cancer on conservatism.”

He then backed fellow Texan Ted Cruz, who — before bowing out of the Republican presidential campaign this past week — called Trump a “pathological liar.”

Now the former Texas governor has endorsed Trump.

I guess the “cancer” has been cured.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/05/perry-endorses-trump-president/

According to the Texas Tribune, Perry then offered up the obvious: “‘He is not a perfect man,’ Perry told (CNN). ‘But what I do believe is that he loves this country and he will surround himself with capable, experienced people and he will listen to them.'”

There you go. Yesterday’s cancer becomes today’s panacea.

This is part of what makes politics such a maddening thing to witness.

Opponents are capable of saying the most horrific things about each other. Then, when opportunity knocks, they bury hatchets — and not in each other’s skulls — and make nice as if nothing ever happened.

That’s what Perry seems to have done here. He also told CNN that he “wouldn’t say ‘no'” to Trump if the reality TV celebrity/real estate mogul/presumptive GOP presidential nominee offers a spot on the ticket this fall.

For his part, Trump now says he’s going to stick with a true-blue Republican as his running mate. He wants someone with political experience. He’s also said something about selecting someone with legislative experience.

Former Gov. Perry is a real Republican. He’s got loads of political know-how, although he has been unable to take the success he enjoyed in Texas beyond the state’s borders. The legislative background is a bit sparse, as he didn’t serve all that long in the Texas Legislature before aspiring to statewide office.

It appears, to me at least, that his willingness to endorse Trump after tearing the bark off of him before bowing out of the race himself, that he’s putting party loyalty first.

As the Tribune reports: “Trump, Perry told CNN, ‘is one of the most talented people who has ever run for the president I have ever seen.'”

Trump might have been a “cancer,” but he’s got talent.

Go figure.

 

Hatred won’t end just because we demand it

malia

Leona Allen has written a terrific blog post for the Dallas Morning News.

Sadly, though, it won’t accomplish what she has demanded: an end to the racist epithets aimed at the family of Barack and Michelle Obama.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/05/enough-of-this-racist-and-insensitive-tripe-about-the-obamas-interracial-marriage-from-trump.html/

Allen has taken appropriate note of the hateful reaction from those who commented on Malia Obama — the older of the Obamas’ two daughters — deciding to take a year off before entering Harvard University. She writes: “Instead of celebrating the kid’s hard work, anonymous trolls took it upon themselves to disparage her with racist epithets.”

Fox News took down the comments after its website was filled with comments from the racist haters who took time to disparage Malia’s accomplishment.

The president’s policies are open to criticism, as are the policies of all presidents. It goes with the territory. They all know their public policy record is fair game.

What is not fair game, though, is the hate that is thrown at public officials — and their families.

We’ve seen far more than enough of it for the past nearly eight years. As Allen notes, the Obamas have done an admirable job of maintaining their dignity in public in the face of the comments that have been hurled at them.

If only the blogger’s demand to cease and desist the hatred would be met.

Of course, the Obamas are the only targets of the hatred. The blog notes that others have taken aim at interracial couples. Allen noted that U.S. Sen. John McCain’s son, Jack, is married to an African-American woman and has lashed out at the haters simply by posting pictures of himself and his wife on social media.

We’ve all heard about the “toxic” political atmosphere in Washington.

Many of us salute the progress we’ve made in the realm of race relations.

This latest spasm of hatred aimed at an accomplished young woman who happens to be the daughter of the president of the United States only shows us how far we have to go.

 

Trump to get access to top-secret info

Protection Lock

Since 1952, the custom has been to give major-party presidential nominees access to top-secret security briefing material.

The idea has been to keep these individuals in the loop on pressing issues involving the safety of the nation. The 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, got the information from the Obama administration as he ran against Barack Obama; four years earlier, the Bush administration provided the briefings to Sens. Obama and John McCain while they ran against each other. That’s been the norm dating back to the days of the Truman administration.

Consider, then, that in just a few weeks the next Republican Party presidential nominee is going to receive these briefings and will be privy to some highly sensitive material.

Yes, that means Donald J. Trump is going to peek under the national security tent and know much of what the president and his military and intelligence staffers know about the dangers that threaten us.

I am not sure what is more frightening: the material to which Trump will have access or that he’ll actually be given that information in the first place.

This is the guy who this past year told “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd that he derives his national security “expertise” by watching “the shows” on Sunday morning, meaning the news talk shows presented on several of the broadcast and cable news networks.

Trump most recently said that former GOP rival Ted Cruz’s father might have been complicit in the murder of President Kennedy. His source for that disclosure? The National Enquirer.

The real estate mogul also said he wouldn’t have any problems with South Korea and (gulp!) Japan developing nuclear arsenals to deter the idiot/madman who runs North Korea.

President Obama will make the final call on the classification level of the information to be disseminated to the major-party nominees. There’s no law that mandates any of this. It’s strictly a judgment call. The president cannot let one nominee see more than the other, however, which means that Trump and probable Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton will get the same information.

I mentioned all this briefly last night to my wife, that Trump is going to get these national security briefings the moment he becomes the GOP presidential nominee.

Her response? “Oh … my.”

Exactly, my dear.

 

GOP’s presumed nominee is looking for love

ryan

Donald J. Trump has a problem.

Actually, he has quite a few.

One of them is the lack of love coming his way from the so-called Republican Party “establishment” he must have if he has a chance of becoming the next president of the United States.

Get a load of this: U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan — the nation’s most powerful Republican — has said he cannot support his party’s presumed presidential nominee.

Why? He doesn’t represent the kinds of values Ryan wants him to represent. Trump is showing zero ability to unify the party, which also must happen if he intends to sidle into the Oval Office next January.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump-paul-ryan-jab-at-each-other-deepening-fracture-in-gop/ar-BBsHgXZ?ocid=spartandhp

Trump is at odds with GOP orthodoxy on things such as trade, entitlement spending and foreign policy.

So, how does the nominee-in-waiting earn the speaker’s support? How does he pivot in the correct direction? Does a sudden change in philosophy — as if Trump actually has one — suggest insincerity? What’s more, does the speaker’s about-face look equally phony?

The Republican Party is about to nominate someone with the highest negative ratings in memory. The negative vibe is coming from within the very party Trump wants to represent in the fall campaign against the Democrats.

Here’s the best part: Trump now says he doesn’t support Ryan’s agenda. Someone needs to remind the presumptive nominee that the speaker of the House arguably wields at least as much power as the president of the United States.

Does he need proof of that? He ought to ask the man who occupies the Oval Office at the moment.

As the Chicago Tribune reports: “Whether Ryan’s conditions will be met by Trump remain to be seen. The businessman has shown only modest interest in hewing to party norms, and many observers do not expect him to do so now.”

There, folks, lies the problem that confronts the next GOP presidential nominee.

 

City takes huge step in hunt for baseball franchise

baseball-pic

Terry Childers likely will be retired and resettled somewhere else by the time it all happens.

But Amarillo’s interim city manager seems to be quite excited about the prospect of the city landing an affiliated minor-league baseball franchise.

He spoke today to the Rotary Club of Amarillo about some of the progress that’s occurring in the city. The City Council’s unanimous vote this week to look aggressively for a AA baseball franchise is one of those positive signs.

The multipurpose event venue will be built. City officials hope to break ground later this year on the MPEV/ballpark that will be home to whichever franchise decides to relocate to Amarillo.

The Local Government Corporation has been given the task of developing a design for the ballpark. Childers thinks the time is ripe and the city is ready to play host to a franchise that is tied directly to a big-league organization.

Frankly, his enthusiasm is quite fetching.

I happen to share his outlook for the possibilities that exist for the city if it reels in a franchise. He said today the ballpark — and its multipurpose element — is likely to change the personality of downtown Amarillo. Does anyone really yet know what it will become? I’m not sure that’s known.

As I listened to the city manager’s brief remarks, one of my table mates leaned over and said, “Why not get Nolan Ryan to bring something here?”

Hmmm. Why not?

The baseball Hall of Fame pitcher has baseball organization experience. One of his sons runs a AA franchise in Round Rock. And, hey, Ryan has Amarillo ties, as his daughter is married to a member of a notable Amarillo family: the Bivins clan.

Well, whatever.

The task is at hand. The LGC has its marching orders and I remain hopeful that this city is going to reap the reward of a reconfigured downtown business and entertainment district.

Hey, the day of prayer hasn’t been canceled after all!

prayer-pic-11

Did you notice that we’re having a National Day of Prayer today?

What in the world … ?

Haven’t the right-wing scoundrels and Internet trolls out there been saying something about President Obama “canceling” this annual event? Haven’t they accused the president of being a barely closeted heathen who hates people of faith?

Well, the National Day of Prayer is continuing this year as it has all along.

The president has been just as diligent and faithful in his acknowledgment of this day as all his predecessors have been.

Obama’s immediate predecessor in the White House, George W. Bush, spoke just as clearly as and articulately as the current president about this special day, which was enacted in 1952, during the final full year of President Harry Truman’s term.

Those of us who believe in God’s power and draw strength from it welcome this day. Moreover, those of us who share that belief understand that God takes many forms in the hearts of those who believe in the Almighty.

In this current climate, though, the National Day of Prayer takes on a special significance.

Many of us today fear those who worship God in ways with which we are not familiar. A major-party presidential candidate awaiting his party’s nomination has given voice to those fears by declaring his intention to ban people of a certain faith from entering the United States.

Let’s pray, therefore, for those who share that fear. Let us also pray for those leaders who articulate it aloud.

They need our prayers today. And always.

As for those who keep yammering about the cancelation of the National Day of Prayer … just be quiet, bow your heads — and pray.

 

Here is what Hillary should avoid

bush-dukakis_6

Bill Clinton’s first campaign for the presidency fine-tuned the art of rapid response.

His team formed the War Room, comprising staff members adept at answering critics immediately.

When his enemies struck, Team Clinton was ready to strike back. Hard.

How is this relevant to the current political race that now seems just about set? It’s that the former president’s wife, Hillary Clinton, is about to become the Democratic Party’s next presidential nominee and — sure as the dickens — she’s going to face a torrent of attacks from Republicans led by their nominee, Donald J. Trump.

The only advice I’m going to offer Hillary Clinton is this: Do not let Trump’s team set the tone for this campaign. Re-create the War Room and be sure you’ve get every face in order before you launch your counterattack.

Bill Clinton’s quick-strike strategy in 1992 was born out of what occurred four years earlier. The 1988 campaign between Vice President George H.W. Bush and Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis featured a tremendously negative stream of attacks from Bush against Dukakis.

How did Dukakis respond? He didn’t.

The ’88 Democratic nominee thought he should stay “above the fray.” So, he let the Bush team define him, paint him as squishy; that he was on crime; that he was unprepared to be commander in chief.

Sure, Dukakis suffered a couple of critical self-inflicted wounds: He allowed himself to be video recorded riding around in that tank, which made him look ridiculous as he wore that helmet; he also fluffed CNN newsman Bernard Shaw’s question about his views on capital punishment during that televised debate, sounding cold and clinical when asked whether he’d support the death penalty if his wife, Kitty, were raped and murdered.

Dukakis’ big lead after that summer’s conventions evaporated and he ended up losing the election to Bush in an Electoral College landslide.

Trump now says Hillary Clinton hasn’t been properly “vetted.” Oh, please. She is arguably the most vetted presidential candidate of the past 100 years. Clinton was subjected to intense scrutiny during her years as Arkansas’ first lady, as the nation’s first lady, as a U.S. senator and as secretary of state.

It seems apparent that we’re heading toward one of the nastiest presidential campaigns on record. Trump already has dispatched a vast Republican field in large measure through is own use of insult and innuendo against many of his former opponents.

Don’t think for a second he won’t try the same thing against Hillary Clinton.

She’d better be ready.

 

Trump’s innuendo will live on

cruzandfamily

Donald J. Trump has done many seemingly “impossible” things while getting to the brink of the Republican Party’s presidential nomination.

Heck, just getting to this stage of the campaign — as the presumptive nominee of a once-great political party — ought to stand as the premier impossible accomplishment.

It isn’t, though. Instead, Trump managed to make Sen. Ted Cruz a sympathetic figure.

How did he do that? By tossing out the innuendo that Cruz’s father had some kind of relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald, the man who shot President Kennedy to death in 1963.

Cruz’s campaign for the presidency is now over. But the utterly hideous assertion about the senior Cruz’s supposed “role” in the JFK murder lives on.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/

Dallas Morning News blogger Jim Mitchell calls it a “new low” in a campaign full of new lows.

Trump used a National Enquirer story into a talking point on his campaign. That’s correct. A supermarket tabloid offered grist for Trump to assert something about a member of an opponent’s family.

As Mitchell writes: “What Trump did is what makes him such a loose cannon. He reads or hears something and then repeats it as the truth. Imagine President Trump making policy on hearsay, or an outright lie, or a plotline he picked up from a television show the night before. I can imagine waking up and having a President Trump explaining why he ordered a nuclear strike with this rationale.”

In truth, I cannot even imagine the words “President” and “Trump” next to each other in a written or spoken sentence.

The Cruz/Oswald innuendo is likely to stand out in the endless list of ghastly assertions Trump has made on his way to becoming the Republican Party nominee for president of the United States.

Unbelievable.

 

Bushes 41 and 43 to remain silent

4143bush-2016_jpg_800x1000_q100

At one level this bit of news isn’t much of a surprise.

At another level, though, it’s still a big deal.

Two former Republican presidents — George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush — are going to keep their thoughts to themselves regarding the upcoming presidential campaign.

They have no plans to endorse the presumptive GOP nominee Donald J. Trump.

This is more or less in line with what these two men have pledged to do since leaving office. Bush 41 left the White House in 1993 and took, in effect, a vow of political silence. Bush 43 made his exit in 2009 and more or less did the same thing. Neither of them has spoken much about public policy issues or engaged fully in discussions about them.

Both men stepped back into the arena briefly this election cycle to campaign for Jeb Bush. It didn’t work for the younger Bush, who dropped out several months ago.

Why is this a big deal? Why does it matter?

To my mind, it matters because the name “Bush” exemplifies traditional Republican politics. For both men now to say they won’t publicly state their support for — or endorse — Trump speaks volumes.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/04/bush-41-43-have-no-plans-endorse-trump/

Their silence deprives Trump of a statement of support from two former presidents who between them served 12 years in the nation’s highest office.

The elder Bush, as I’ve said before, entered the White House as arguably the single most qualified man ever to assume the presidency. The younger Bush took office in 2001 and just nine months later was thrust into the role of wartime president when the terrorists flew those planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

What these men think about the state of the current campaign matters.

Indeed, the elder Bush in the past has thrown his support publicly behind GOP nominees. That includes one-time rival Bob Dole in 1996. He, of course, backed George W. in 2000 and 2004, John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

This year? He’s going to remain mum.

The Bush men’s silence in 2016 perhaps means more than either of them is going to acknowledge.

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience